Southeastern Naturalist
685
L.E. Dodd, M.J. Lacki, J.S. Johnson, and L.K. Rieske
22001155 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 1V4o(4l.) :1648,5 N–6o9. 64
Prey Size and Dietary Niche of Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat
(Corynorhinus rafinesquii)
Luke E. Dodd1,*, Michael J. Lacki2, Joseph S. Johnson3, and Lynne K. Rieske4
Abstract - Bats in the genus Corynorhinus possess a suite of morphological characters
that permit them to effectively use both gleaning and aerial-hawking foraging strategies to
capture Lepidoptera. Consequently, they occupy a specialized feeding niche within North
American bat assemblages and are of particular interest for dietary studies. We collected fecal
pellets from a colony of C. rafinesquii (Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat) at Mammoth Cave
National Park during August–October 2011 and amplified cytochrome-c oxidase subunit
1 fragments of prey from these pellets. We used the Barcode of Life Database to identify
prey, and evaluated the size of prey species based on published values. The mean wingspan
of prey we recorded from our samples was smaller than average values reported for
Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat using traditional methods (P ≤ 0.01), suggesting that surveys of
culled insect parts beneath roosting sites may lead to biased estimates of the size and breadth
of prey species eaten by gleaning bats. Mean wingspan of lepidopteran prey consumed by
Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat in our study was larger (P ≤ 0.01) than values reported for the
Myotis septentrionalis (Northern Long-Eared Bat ), which is a smaller, sympatric gleaner
in eastern North America. Further, comparisons of our diet data with abundance of prey
suggest macrolepidopteran taxa are consistently consumed by Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat
to greater degree than microlepidotera. Our findings suggest that North American Corynorhinus
consume a wider range of sizes and species of Lepidoptera than previously reported
in studies based solely on identification of culled prey-wings b eneath feeding roosts.
Introduction
Bats in the genus Corynorhinus (Vespertilionidae) are among the best examples
to demonstrate dietary specialization found within diverse assemblages of insectivorous
bats. Members of this genus and other vespertilionid species within the
plecotine tribe possess adaptations that permit them to glean prey from surfaces in
structurally complex environments (Lacki et al. 2007). The diets of these bats are
well studied and, in contrast to many insectivorous bat species, use of traditional
identification methods has permitted high-resolution identification of prey (Lacki
and Dodd 2011). These dietary studies are aided by the bats’ habit of capturing prey
and returning to a roost for feeding. While at feeding roosts, Corynorhinus typically
consume the soft portions of prey and discard the remnant wings. Although these
remnants provide diagnostic characteristics that permit the identification of prey to
the species level, the high-resolution dietary patterns generated from these samples
1Department of Biological Sciences, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY 40475.
2Department of Forestry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546. 3Department of Biology,
Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837. 4Department of Entomology, University
of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546. *Corresponding author - luke.dodd@eku.edu.
Manuscript Editor: John Kilgo
Southeastern Naturalist
L.E. Dodd, M.J. Lacki, J.S. Johnson, and L.K. Rieske
2015 Vol. 14, No. 4
686
are not without limitations or potential bias. For example, although previous studies
indicated that both New and Old World plecotine bats consume larger-sized
Lepidoptera (Alberdi et al. 2012, Lacki and Dodd 2011), it remains unclear whether
historical methods resulted in a complete picture of the dietary breadth of these bats
(i.e., dissection and morphological identification of gut contents or fecal pellets).
Some researchers have postulated that Corynorhinus also capture smaller prey that
are consumed in flight or in their entirety at the feeding roost (Burford and Lacki
1998, Sample and Whitmore 1993). Thus, the application of DNA-based methods
can be used to investigate hypotheses regarding the feeding behavior of these bats
(e.g., gleaning versus aerial hawking, location of prey consumption), and may also
elucidate potential gaps in our knowledge regarding dietary breadth and prey size.
To date there has been no molecular investigation of the diet of any Corynorhinus
species. However, there is an emerging body of data for Old World plecotine
species that provide a foundation for comparison with North American species.
Razgour et al. (2011) investigated overlap in the dietary niches of Plecotus auritus
L. (Brown Long-Eared Bat) and Plecotus austriacus J. Fischer (Gray Long-Eared
Bat) and found that they ate many of the same prey species, leading the authors
to infer little dietary differentiation between these 2 bat species. The authors concluded
that differences in the host-plant affinities of prey might result in variation in
occurrence of prey and, subsequently, in the spatiotemporal separation of foraging
activity between these sympatric species. More recently, Alberdi et al. (2012) documented
the diet of Plecotus macrobullaris Kuzyakin (Mountain Long-Eared Bat)
using molecular techniques. Their findings indicated that this rare bat consumes
lepidopteran prey similar in size to those documented at feeding roosts of Corynorhinus
in eastern North America (Lacki and Dodd 2011). Because of the need
for a refined understanding of the prey consumed by these specialist insectivores,
we sought to molecularly delineate the diet of Corynorhinus rafinesquii (Lesson)
(Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat), the most wide-ranging Corynorhinus in eastern
North America (Bat Conservation International and the Southeastern Bat Diversity
Network 2013).
We investigated whether the size of Lepidoptera identified using a DNA-based
method differed from the size of known records of prey of Rafinesque’s Big-Eared
Bat and its congeners (Lacki and Dodd 2011), and hypothesized that past assessments
for Rafineque’s Big-Eared Bat are likely incomplete and under-represent
the size-range of prey consumed by this predator. Secondly, we compared the size
of Lepidoptera consumed by Rafineque’s Big-Eared Bat in our study to the size of
prey reported for Myotis septentrionalis (Trouessart) (Northern Long-Eared Bat),
which is a co-occurring gleaning species (Caceres and Barclay 2000, Faure et al.
1993, Jones 1977). An established framework for prey selection of insectivorous
bats predicts that larger bats eat larger prey relative to smaller bats, due to ease in
prey handling and inherent differences in detection of prey resulting from echolocation
characteristics (Barclay and Brigham 1991, Bogdanowicz et al. 1998, Freeman
1981). Following this paradigm, we hypothesized that Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat
would consume larger Lepidoptera than reported for the Northern Long-Eared Bat
Southeastern Naturalist
687
L.E. Dodd, M.J. Lacki, J.S. Johnson, and L.K. Rieske
2015 Vol. 14, No. 4
because the Northern Long-Eared Bat is smaller in size than Rafinesque’s Big-
Eared Bat (Barbour and Davis 1969). Lastly, we evaluated the lepidopteran prey
consumed by Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat in the context of lepidopteran prey abundance.
Assuming Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat does not select prey on the basis of
size, we hypothesized that the consumption patterns of this predator would broadly
follow the abundance patterns of Lepidoptera in habitats where these bats forage.
Field-site Description
We conducted our field work at Mammoth Cave National Park (MCNP;
37.2072°N, 86.1319°W). This park encompasses 23,000 ha in Barren, Hart, and
Edmonson counties and is positioned at the edge of the Crawford–Mammoth
Cave Uplands of the Interior Plateau of Kentucky (Woods et al. 2002). The area
is primarily forested and is dissected by numerous small drainages that create a
topographically diverse landscape. Forest cover consists of Quercus (oak)–Carya
(hickory) and western mixed mesophytic forests (Braun 1950). During summer,
Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat roosts in hollow trees, sandstone outcrops, caves, and
abandoned human-made structures (Johnson et al. 2012). Numerous caves occur at
MCNP, and this location possesses one of the largest known winter concentrations
of Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat (Bayless et al. 2011).
Methods
We collected fecal pellets beneath a colony of Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat during
late summer 2011. This roost was in the rafters of an equipment barn. Bats were
found at this location throughout the maternity season of 2011 and were known to
use this location as a maternity roost in past years (R. Toomey, US National Park
Service, Mammoth Cave, KY, pers. comm.). For a single sampling interval, we
entered the roost location at night after nearly all bats had left to forage (~1–1.5 hrs
after sunset). We placed a plastic tarpaulin (2.7 m× 3.7 m) on the wooden floor of
the barn loft to capture fecal pellets throughout the following day while bats were
roosting. We checked the roosting colony during the day to verify that the roosting
individuals were the target species, which we easily distinguished from other bats
in the study area due to its conspicuous ears (Barbour and Davis 1969). We estimate
that colony size varied between 20–100 individuals and observed no species other
than Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat at the roost during our study. We removed the
tarpaulin the following night after bats had left the roost, arbitrarily collected up
to 30 fecal pellets from the tarpaulin, collected fecal pellets individually in 1.5-ml
microcentrifuge tubes filled with 100% ethanol, and placed the pellets in long-term
freezer storage (-80 °C) upon return to the laboratory (within 3 days). At no time
were fecal pellets allowed to contact any surface other than the plastic tarpaulin
or the microcentrifuge tube. We randomly selected 10 fecal pellets from each sampling
interval for subsequent dietary analysis. We sampled at biweekly intervals
from August to October 2011, yielding a total of 60 fecal pellets for analysis. All
methods used for this portion of the study were in accordance with the Institutional
Southeastern Naturalist
L.E. Dodd, M.J. Lacki, J.S. Johnson, and L.K. Rieske
2015 Vol. 14, No. 4
688
Animal Care and Use Committees of the University of Kentucky (IACUC No.
A3336-01) and the US National Park Service (IACUC No. 2011-30), and followed
the guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists (Sikes et al. 2011) and
requirements of state and federal collection permits.
We conducted surveys of nocturnal insects on the same nights as we collected
fecal pellets. Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat is a habitat generalist relative to other
Corynorhinus; this species is known to forage within and along the edges of forest
canopies, as well as in open field habitats (Lacki and Dodd 2011). As such, our
surveys took place across an array of upland and riverine habitats that covered the
range of forest-canopy heights at MCNP. Light traps are widely used to survey
lepidopteran assemblages in forested environments (Burford et al. 1999, Covell
2005, Dodd et al. 2008) and we employed them in our study. We placed 10-W
blacklight traps (Universal Light Trap, Bioquip Products, Gardena, CA) at multiple
sites each survey night (n ≥ 7 traps/night). We always placed blacklight traps in the
immediate vicinity of the roost location (~150 m away) to ensure that sampling occurred
within the home range of bats at the roost location. In addition to this fixed
survey location, we systematically chose survey transects (without replacement)
from land parcels definable as distinct prescribed burn units (Dodd et al. 2013a,
b). We positioned blacklight traps at the micro-scale along these transects by the
random assignment of the transect start-position and bearing. All blacklight traps
were ≥100 m apart and were separated widely enough to ensure no interference
between traps (Muirhead-Thomson, 1991). Based on recommendations in Yela and
Holyoak (1997), we conducted our surveys on nights with temperatures ≥16 °C at
sunset, no precipitation, and low wind-speeds. We suspended blacklight traps 2.5 m
aboveground prior to sunset and operated them throughout the entire night. This deployment
method ensured that traps were visible within forest canopies, as well as
near ground level, where Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat is known to forage (Lacki and
Dodd 2011). We placed a dichlorvos-based pest strip (~2 cm × 6 cm) in each blacklight
trap to subdue specimens. We collected trap contents the following morning
and counted all Lepidoptera. We identified specimens with wingspans ≥20 mm to
family level using Covell (2005) and via comparisons with reference collections
at the University of Kentucky. We classified specimens with wingspans less than 20 mm
as microlepidoptera and did not identify them to family level. We followed Covell
(2005) to separate micro- versus macrolepidopteran families. Our classification of
noctuiods followed revisions of LaFontaine and Schmidt (2010).
We identified prey remains within fecal pellets both morphologically and molecularly.
We dissected pellets microscopically and identified prey remains to the
most specific taxon possible (Whitaker 1988). We placed individual fecal pellets
in a sterile pour-boat (4.1 cm × 3.2 cm × 0.8 cm; Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA),
added 100% ethanol, and used a disposable pestle to tease them apart (Fisher Scientific)
for microscopic dissection. We estimated percent volume of prey items in
each pellet at the ordinal level to the nearest 5%, then preserved individual fecal
pellets in ~1.5 ml of 95% ethanol and placed them in freezer storage (-80 °C) for
subsequent DNA-based analysis. We used the same pellets for both morphological
Southeastern Naturalist
689
L.E. Dodd, M.J. Lacki, J.S. Johnson, and L.K. Rieske
2015 Vol. 14, No. 4
identification and individual DNA extraction. Prior to DNA extraction, we homogenized
each fecal pellet for ~1 min in 2.0-ml mortar-and-pestle microcentrifuge
tubes. We vortexed sample tubes for ~1 min, centrifuged them at 20,000 × g for 3
min, and discarded the resulting supernatant. We added 1 ml of water to the tubes
and vortexed ~1 min, centrifuged at 20,000 × g for 3 min, and the discarded the supernatant
in all sample tubes. We extracted DNA from the samples using a QIAamp
DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen Inc., Chatsworth, CA). We followed the manufacturer’s
instructions for the isolation of DNA from stool for pathogen detection,
carrying out lysis with the manufacturer’s premixed ASL buffer solution at 70 °C,
and conducting all applicable extra centrifugation steps.
We carried out polymerase chain reactions (PCR; total volume = 50 mL) for
nucleotide sequencing of the cytochrome-c oxidase subunit 1 gene using C1-J-
1859 and C1-N-2191 primers, resulting in a 333-base amplicon (Simon et al. 1994).
The PCR cocktail and cycling conditions and our confirmation of reaction success
followed Dodd et al. (2012a). We used BigDye terminator kits (v. 3.1) and the previously
mentioned primer set on an ABI3100 sequencer (Applied Biosystems, Foster
City, CA) to sequence PCR products (University of Kentucky Advanced Genetic
Technologies Center, Lexington, KY) for those reactions that yielded strong PCR
bands of expected size. We sequenced reactions bi-directionally to reduce the possibility
of chimeric sequences consisting of DNA fragments from multiple prey items
(Dodd et al. 2012a); overlapping forward and reverse sequences were edited and
assembled using Geneious (v. 6.0.3, Biomatters Ltd., Auckland, New Zealand). To
further reduce the possibility of chimeric sequences, we inspected all chromatograms
for double peaks and potential sequencing errors. If strong corresponding signals
were not present in forward and reverse chromatographs of sequences, we marked
the problematic portions as unidentifiable, or discarded the sample if the majority of
a sequence was unknown. We generated a single sequence per fecal pellet (Dodd et
al. 2012a). As opposed to the high volume of sequences yielded from next-generation
sequencing approaches (Bohmann et al. 2011), this approach produced a far more
limited assessment of dietary breadth that likely indicated the most abundant prey
DNA within the fecal pellets of our focal species (Dodd et al. 2012a).
In December 2012, we inferred prey identities from the results of web-based
searches to compare our unknown DNA sequences with the Barcode of Life Data
System (BOLD) (Ratnasingham and Hebert 2007). We followed the methods of
Clare et al. (2009) to carry out species-level identification of unknown sequences
using BOLD and considered matches of ≥99% similarity between our unknown
sequence and a single species in the database sufficiently close to warrant species
identification. We also made coarser taxonomic identifications of unknown sequences
in the absence of species-level matches if there was a 100% probability of
placement within the broader phylogeny indexed by BOLD (and ≥98% similarity;
Clare et al. 2011).
We calculated a mean ± SE wingspan for all lepidopteran genera or species identified
in fecal pellets using BOLD. Wingspan values are the standard measurement
for the size of Lepidoptera in eastern North America (Covell 2005). We used the
Southeastern Naturalist
L.E. Dodd, M.J. Lacki, J.S. Johnson, and L.K. Rieske
2015 Vol. 14, No. 4
690
midpoints of the wingspan ranges provided by Covell (2005) and the Bug Guide database
(Iowa State University 2013). We used these midpoint values to generate an
unweighted mean ± SE of the prey wingspan, with each taxon included once in the
calculation. We then compared the mean wingspan of prey identified in this study
with the mean wingspan of lepidopteran prey previously reported in the literature
(Lacki and Dodd 2011) using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (SAS Institute 2002). We
similarly compared the mean wingspan of prey calculated for Rafinesque’s Big-eared
Bat in this study with the mean wingspans for Lepidoptera consumed by the Northern
Long-Eared Bat (Dodd et al. 2012a) using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test (SAS Institute
2002). Lastly, we assessed patterns of lepidopteran consumption at the family level in
relation to the relative occurrence of these prey families, as indexed by our blacklight
surveys. We plotted the frequency values to determine if prey consumption followed
the general pattern of the lepidopteran community’s composition.
Results
We were able to extract and amplify DNA from 54 pellets (90% success). Multiple
identifications (n = 7) came back with a closest-similarity match to the DNA
for the Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat. Beyond these non-target amplifications, nearly
all sequences (98%) for which high-resolution matches (genus/species) could
be made were identified as Lepidoptera, except for a single dipteran outcome
(Chironomidae: Chironomus). Of the 21 lepidopteran species identified (Table 1),
all were new dietary records for the Rafineque’s Big-Eared Bat except Mythimna
unipuncta (Armyworm Moth). We archived on the Dryad Digital Repository (doi:
10.5061/dryad.79p7n) sequences with complete genus/species identities. Morphological
dissections showed Lepidoptera formed 71.2 ± 1.7 % (mean ± SE) of
the volume of pellet.
The size of Lepidoptera eaten by Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat in our study differed
from previous reports for the species, and also differed from the size of prey
previously documented for the Northern Long-Eared Bat. The mean wingspan
of prey detected using DNA-based methods was smaller than our measurements of
culled prey-remnants below feeding roosts (35.9 ± 1.5 mm versus 51.2 ± 2.4 mm,
respectively; χ2 = 21.5, df = 1, P ≤ 0.01). Prey consumed by Rafinesque’s Big-Eared
Bat were larger than prey reported for the Northern Long-Eared Bat (35.9 ± 1.5 mm
versus 27.2 ± 3.6 mm, respectively; χ2 = 11.3, df = 1, P ≤ 0.01).
We captured a total of 6084 Lepidoptera in blacklight traps on the same nights
that we collected fecal pellets (6 nights, n = 48 trap-nights, 127 ± 27 moths per trapnight).
Considering only the macrolepidoptera captured, the most common family
was the Erebidae (43%), followed by the Geometridae (25%), Noctuidae (17%),
Notodontidae (9%), and other families (6%). However, the majority of Lepidoptera
(66%) possessed wingspans less than 20 mm. The most abundant families identified
across all Lepidoptera remained the Erebidae, Geometridae, Noctuidae, and Notodontidae
(Fig. 1); these same macrolepidopteran families were most heavily
consumed by Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat. We documented reduced consumption
of microlepidoptera as well as the largest representatives in the macrolepidoptera
Southeastern Naturalist
691
L.E. Dodd, M.J. Lacki, J.S. Johnson, and L.K. Rieske
2015 Vol. 14, No. 4
Table 1. Prey identified for Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat at Mammoth Cave National Park, KY, using
a molecular technique. * denotes prey species previously documented in the diet of Corynorhinus.
Order Family Genus / Species Comon name
Diptera Chironomidae Chironomus sp. Midge
Lepidoptera Crambidae Herpetogramma thestealis (Walker) Zigzag Herpetogramma Moth
Erebidae Hypena scabra (Fabricius) Green Cloverworm Moth
Palthis angulalis (Hübner) Dark-spotted Palthis Moth
Spilosoma virginica (Fabricius) Virginian Tiger Moth
Zale lunata (Drury)* Lunate Zale
Euteliidae Paectes abrostoloides (Guenée) Large Paectes Moth
Geometridae Antepione thisoaria (Guenée) Variable Antepione
Melanolophia canadaria (Guenée)* Canadian Melanolophia Moth
Nemoria sp. Emerald moth
Noctuidae Agrotis gladiaria Morrison Swordsman Dart Moth
Amphipyra pyramidoides Guenée* Copper Underwing Moth
Anicla infecta (Ochsenheimer) Green Cutworm Moth
Athetis tarda (Guenée) Slowpoke Moth
Feltia subterranea (Fabricius) Subterranean Dart Moth
Graphiphora augur (Fabricius) Double Dart Moth
Mythimna unipuncta (Haworth)* Armyworm Moth
Nephelodes minians Guenée Bronzed Cutworm Moth
Phlogophora periculosa Guenée Brown Angle Shades Moth
Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) Fall Armyworm Moth
Spodoptera ornithogalli (Guenée) Yellow-striped Armyworm
Moth
Notodontidae Lochmaeus manteo Doubleday* Variable Oakleaf Catarpillar
Moth
Figure 1. Relative consumption and abundance patterns of Lepidoptera eaten by Rafinesque’s
Big-Eared Bat at Mammoth Cave National Park, KY.
Southeastern Naturalist
L.E. Dodd, M.J. Lacki, J.S. Johnson, and L.K. Rieske
2015 Vol. 14, No. 4
692
(i.e., Saturniidae and Sphingidae).
Discussion
Our study provides evidence that the Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat consumes, on
average, smaller Lepidoptera than previously documented using traditional methods
(Lacki and Dodd 2011). Further, our study expands the breadth of known prey
species for the Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat by more than 66% (Lacki and Dodd
2011). Given the similarities in size, foraging behaviors, and dietary preferences
across Corynorhinus in North America, it is likely that bats in this genus consume a
number of Lepidoptera previously unrecorded in studies using traditional methods.
These bats presumably consume the smaller prey in their entirety while in flight
(Burford and Lacki 1998).
In an assemblage context, these data illuminate the variation inherent in patterns
of consumption of Lepidoptera across insectivorous bats in North America.
There are 2 primary ensembles of bats in eastern North America that use gleaning
as a foraging strategy—the species of Corynorhinus and Myotis (Lacki et al. 2007).
Consistent with our hypothesis, the Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bats in our study
consumed Lepidoptera on average 33% larger than species documented for the
Northern Long-Eared Bat by Dodd et al. (2012a). Further, 97% of the Lepidoptera
consumed by the Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat in this study were macrolepidoptera,
whereas over half of the prey previously reported for the Northern Long-Eared Bat
using the same primers and PCR conditions were microlepidoptera (Dodd et al.
2012a). The mean ± SE distance between MCNP and sites studied by Dodd et al
(2012a) is only 333 ± 74 km. We suggest the variation in prey size and identity is
likely attributable to differences in morphology and echolocation-call characteristics
of the 2 predator species. Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat can be up to 75% heavier
and more than 15% longer than the Northern Long-Eared Bat (Caceres and Barclay
2000, Jones 1977). The larger size of Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat likely aids in the
capture and handling of larger Lepidoptera, which are thought to be energetically
profitable prey items (Razgour et al. 2011). Further, the propensity for plecotine
species, including Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat, to echolocate at lower amplitudes
and lower frequencies (Bayless et al. 2011, Lacki and Dodd 2011) could contribute
to their ability to detect and handle larger lepidopteran species than the Northern
Long-Eared Bat (Barclay and Brigham 1991).
Despite variation in patterns of prey consumption between the Rafinesque’s Big-
Eared Bat and Northern Long-Eared Bat, the macrolepidopteran prey selected by
the Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat in our study aligned with observed patterns of
abundance for the most common macrolepidopteran families in the study area, as
well as across the region (Dodd et al. 2012b, 2013a, 2013b). Prey abundance in our
study (127 ± 27 moths per trap-night) was similar to values reported by Dodd et al.
(2012b) for Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee (106 ± 13, 165 ± 16, 62 ± 8 moths per
trap-night, respectively). In a previous sampling effort in Central Appalachia (Dodd
et al. 2012a), the noctuoid families Erebidae and Noctuidae accounted for 60% of
the total community (versus 48% in the current study). The next most-common
Southeastern Naturalist
693
L.E. Dodd, M.J. Lacki, J.S. Johnson, and L.K. Rieske
2015 Vol. 14, No. 4
macrolepidopteran families reported in Dodd et al. (2012a) included the Geometridae
(19%) and Notodontidae (11%), mirroring the results in this study (25% and
9%, respectively). These results suggest regional similarity between the prey community
available to the Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat in our study and the prey
available to the Northern Long-Eared Bat reported in Dodd et al. (2012b).
Lepidopteran families frequently consumed by Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat
included Erebidae, Geometridae, Noctuide, and Notodontidae. Additionally, we
noted the absence of larger macrolepidoptera (i.e., Saturniidae and Sphingidae) in
the diet of Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat in our study compared with previous reports
in the literature (Lacki and Dodd 2011). Because the primers and PCR conditions
used in this study have previously demonstrated amplification of these targets both
in bat fecal pellets (Dodd et al. 2012a) and from prey tissue (Dodd 2010), the evidence
indicates that neither Saturniidae nor Sphingidae were consistently eaten by
the colony of Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat in our study. While it is possible the approach
we used to index prey availability (blacklight traps) might have resulted in
a reduced capture of larger-sized Lepidoptera (due to the 3-cm opening to the collection
chamber), this standardized trap design still allows for the capture of a wide
diversity of Saturniidae and Sphingidae (Burford et al. 1999, Dodd et al. 2011, Ober
2006). If this sampling bias did exist, however, it would strengthen our principal
result that Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bats in our study consumed more moderatelysized
macrolepidoptera versus what was available on the landscape. We concede
that the timing of our study (i.e., during post-lactation when young were volant)
does not preclude the possibility of seasonal variance between the prey consumed
in our study versus data previously reported for Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat using
traditional techniques (Lacki and Dodd 2011). Also, we only generated a single
prey-inference per fecal pellet (Dodd et al. 2012a); thus, we concede that it is likely
that some prey species (potentially including Sphingids and Saturniids) were present
but undetected in this study.
Our work builds on previous knowledge of prey-consumption patterns for plecotine
bats. Prey species consumed by the Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat in this study
align with the size of prey reported for the Mountain Long-Eared Bat (37.6 ± 1.5
mm; Alberdi et al. 2012). Additionally, the family-level and broader classifications
of prey taxa that we documented are similar to those reported for Mountain Long-
Eared Bat, Brown Long-Eared Bat, and Gray Long-Eared Bat (Alberdi et al. 2012,
Razgour et al. 2011); patterns in consumption for these bat species demonstrate a
general absence of microlepidopteran prey. Data from this and other DNA-based
investigations of the food habits of predatory bats continue to offer an opportunity
to test hypotheses relevant to behavior, foraging, and phylogeny.
Acknowledgments
We thank T. Culbertson and J. Winters for assistance with this study. We thank M.
Dickinson, N. Skowronski, S. Thomas, and R. Toomey for their help and suggestions. This
investigation is connected with a project of the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station
(KAES No. 13-09-116) and is published with the approval of the director.
Literature Cited
Southeastern Naturalist
L.E. Dodd, M.J. Lacki, J.S. Johnson, and L.K. Rieske
2015 Vol. 14, No. 4
694
Alberdi, A., I. Garing, O. Aizpurua, and J. Aihartza. 2012. The foraging ecology of the
Mountain Long-eared Bat Plecotus macrobullaris revealed with DNA mini-barcodes.
PLoS ONE 7:e35692.
Barbour, R.W., and W.H. Davis. Bats of America. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington,
KY. 286 pp.
Barclay, R.M.R., and R.M. Brigham. 1991. Prey detection, dietary-niche breadth, and
body size in bats: Why are aerial insectivorous bats so small? American Naturalist
137:693–703.
Bat Conservation International and the Southeastern Bat Diversity Network. 2013. A
conservation strategy for Rafinesque’s Big-Eared Bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) and
Southeastern Myotis (Myotis austroriparius). Bat Conservation International, Austin,
TX. 101 pp.
Bayless, M.L., M.K. Clark, R.S. Stark, B.S. Douglas, and S.M. Ginger. 2011. Distribution
and status of eastern big-eared bats (Corynorhinus spp.). Pp. 13–25, In S.C. Loeb, M.J.
Lacki, and D.A. Miller (Eds.). Conservation and Management of Big-eared Bats: A
Symposium. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station,
Asheville, NC. v + 157 pp.
Bogdanowicz, W., M.B. Fenton, and K. Daleszcyk. 1998. The relationships between
echolocation calls, morphology, and diet in insectivorous bats. Journal of Zoology
247:381–393.
Bohmann, K., A. Monadjem, C.L. Noer, M. Rasmussen, M.R.K. Zeale, E. Clare, G. Jones,
E. Willerslev, and M.T.P. Gilbert. 2011. Molecular diet-analysis of two African Freetailed
Bats (Molossidae) using high-throughput sequencing. PLoS ONE 6: e21441.
Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. Blackstone Company,
Philadelphia, PA. 596 pp.
Burford, L.S., and M.J. Lacki. 1998. Moths consumed by Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus
in eastern Kentucky. American Midland Naturalist 139:141–146.
Burford, L.S., M.J. Lacki, and C.V. Covell Jr. 1999. Occurrence of moths among habitats in
a mixed mesophytic forest: Implications for management of forest bats. Forest Science
45:323–332.
Caceres, M.C., and R.M.R. Barclay. 2000. Myotis septentrionalis. Mammalian Species
634:1–4.
Clare, E.L., E.E. Fraser, H.E. Braid, M.B. Fenton, and P.D.N. Hebert. 2009. Species on the
menu of a generalist predator, the Eastern Red Bat (Lasiurus borealis): Using a molecular
approach to detect arthropod prey. Molecular Ecology 18:2532–2542.
Clare, E.L., B.R. Barber, B.W. Sweeney, and P.D.N. Hebert. 2011. Eating local: Influences
of habitat on diet of Little Brown Bats (Myotis lucifugus). Molecular Ecology
20:1772–1780.
Covell, Jr., C.V. 2005. A Field Guide to Moths of Eastern North America: Special Publication
Number 12. Virginia Museum of Natural History, Martinsville, VA. xxii + 496 pp.
Dodd, L.E. 2010. Forest disturbance affects insect prey and the activity of bats in deciduous
forests. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. x + 156 pp.
Dodd, L.E., M.J. Lacki, and L.K. Rieske. 2008. Variation in moth occurrence and the implications
for foraging habitat of the Ozark Big-Eared Bat. Forest Ecology and Management
255:3866–3872.
Dodd, L.E., M.J. Lacki, and L.K. Rieske. 2011. Habitat associations of Lepidoptera in
the Ozark Mountains of Arkansas. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 84:
271–284.
Dodd, L.E., E.G. Chapman, J.D. Harwood, M.J. Lacki, and L.K. Rieske. 2012a. IdentificaSoutheastern
Naturalist
695
L.E. Dodd, M.J. Lacki, J.S. Johnson, and L.K. Rieske
2015 Vol. 14, No. 4
tion of prey of Myotis septentrionalis using DNA-based techniques. Journal of Mammalogy
93:1119–1128.
Dodd, L.E., M.J. Lacki, E.R. Britzke, D.A. Buehler, P.D. Keyser, J.L. Larkin, A.D. Rodewald,
T.B. Wigley, P.B. Wood, and L.K. Rieske. 2012b. Forest structure affects trophic
linkages: How silvicultural disturbance impacts bats and their insect prey. Forest Ecology
and Management 267:262–270.
Dodd, L.E., Z. Cornett, A. Smith, and L.K. Rieske. 2013a. Variation in lepidopteran occurrence
in hemlock-dominated and deciduous-dominated forests of Central Appalachia.
Great Lakes Entomologist 46:1–12.
Dodd, L.E., N.S. Skowronski, M.B. Dickinson, M.J. Lacki, and L.K. Rieske. 2013b. Using
LiDAR to link forest-canopy structure with bat activity and insect occurrence: Preliminary
findings. Pp. 50–57, In S.R. Trimboli (Ed.). Proceedings of Mammoth Cave
National Park’s 10th Research Symposium. US National Park Service, Mammoth Cave
National Park, Mammoth Cave, KY. 207 pp.
Faure, P.A., J.H. Fullard, and J.H. Dawson. 1993. The gleaning attacks of the Northern
Long-Eared Bat, Myotis septentrionalis, are relatively inaudible to moths. Journal of
Experimental Biology 178:173–189.
Freeman, P.W. 1981. Correspondence of food habits and morphology in insectivorous bats.
Journal of Mammalogy 62:166–173.
Iowa State University. 2013. Bug Guide. Available online at www.bugguide.net. Accessed
April 2013.
Johnson, J.S., M.J. Lacki, S.C. Thomas, and J.F. Grider. 2012. Frequent arousals from
winter torpor in Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii). PLoS ONE
7:e49754.
Jones, C. 1977. Plecotus rafinesquii. Mammalian Species 69:1–4.
Lacki, M.J., and L.E. Dodd. 2011. Diet and foraging behavior of Corynorhinus in eastern
North America. Pp. 39–52, In S.C. Loeb, M.J. Lacki, and D.A. Miller (Eds.). Conservation
and management of big-eared bats: A symposium. US Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. v + 157 pp.
Lacki, M.J., S.K. Amelon, and M.D. Baker. 2007. Foraging ecology of forest bats. Pp.
83–128, In M.J. Lacki, J.P. Hayes, and A. Kurta (Eds.). Bats in Forests: Conservation
and Management. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. x vi + 329 pp.
LaFontaine, J.D., and B.C. Schmidt. 2010. Annotated checklist of the Noctuoidea (Insecta,
Lepidoptera) of North America north of Mexico. Zookeys 40:1–239.
Muirhead-Thomson, R.C. 1991. Trap Responses of Flying Insects. Academic Press, London,
UK. 304 pp.
Ober, H.K. 2006. Functional relationships among vegetation, nocturnal insects, and bats in
riparian areas of the Oregon Coast Range. Ph.D. Dissertation. Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR. xiv + 224 pp.
Ratnasingham, S., and P.D.N. Hebert. 2007. BOLD: The Barcode of Life Data System
(http://www.barcodinglife.org). Molecular Ecology Notes 7: 355–364. doi:
10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x
Razgour, O., E.L. Clare, M.R.K. Zeale, J. Hammer, I.B. Schnell, M. Rasmussen, T.P. Gilbert,
and G. Jones. 2011. High-throughput sequencing offers insight into mechanisms of
resource partitioning in cryptic species. Ecology and Evolution . 1:556–570.
Sample, B.E., and R.C. Whitmore. 1993. Food habits of the endangered Virginia Big-Eared
Bat in West Virginia. Journal of Mammalogy 74:428–435.
SAS Institute, Inc. 2002. SAS version 9. Cary, NC.
Sikes, R.S., W.L. Gannon, and the Animal Care and Use Committee of the American SociSoutheastern
Naturalist
L.E. Dodd, M.J. Lacki, J.S. Johnson, and L.K. Rieske
2015 Vol. 14, No. 4
696
ety of Mammalogists. 2011. Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for
the use of wild mammals in research. Journal of Mammalogy 92:235–253.
Simon, C., F. Frati, A. Beckenbach, B. Crespi, L. Hong, and P. Flook. 1994. Evolution,
weighting, and phylogenetic utility of mitochondrial-gene sequences and a compilation
of conserved polymerase chain-reaction primers. Annals of the Entomological Society
of America 87:651–701.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1988. Food-habits analysis of insectivorous bats. Pp. 171–189, In T.H.
Kunz (Ed.). Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the Study of Bats. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington DC. 533 pp.
Woods, A.J., J.M. Omernik, W.H. Martin, G.J. Pond, W.M. Andrews, S.M. Call, J.A. Comstock,
and D.D. Taylor. 2002. Ecoregions of Kentucky (color poster with map, descriptive
text, summary tables, and photographs; map scale 1:1,000,000). WO-1-02. US
Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Yela, J.L., and M. Holyoak. 1997. Effects of moonlight and meteorological factors on light
and bait–trap catches of noctuid moths. Environmental Entomology 2:1283–1290.