“…Prior donations to female non-kin, a specific form of network centrality, predicted the ability of a female bat to obtain later donations. Food-sharing bonds are individualized, stable [7,8] and non-interchangeable, such that food from a primary donor cannot be quickly replaced by food from other group members when that donor is absent or unable to help. Consequently, the quantity of these foodsharing bonds can influence sharing success on both short and long timescales even within a group of stable size.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning confidence: 99%
“…1250 regurgitation observations, 355 trial-donations, 442 directed links between dyads, from [7] and afterwards). We measured two basic forms of social network centrality: the number of bats that have fed a subject ('indegree') and the number of bats that a subject has fed ('outdegree').…”
Section: Materials and Methods (A) General Methodsmentioning confidence: 99%
“…Animal care and methods for inducing food regurgitations are described elsewhere [7]. We housed 24 -39 captive-born D. rotundus, sourced from three different zoos, which led to multiple matrilines and unrelated bats, as found in wild colonies [6].…”
Section: Materials and Methods (A) General Methodsmentioning confidence: 99%
“…We paired as many females as possible with their most frequent donor, which resulted in two pairs of non-kin, four mother-adult daughter pairs and one other kin pair (electronic supplementary material, table S3). We focused on testing females because they perform about 80% of food donations [7], and we targeted frequent donors to maximize our ability to detect a decrease in donation rate.…”
Section: Materials and Methods (A) General Methodsmentioning confidence: 99%
“…Frequent roost-mates regurgitate blood to kin and non-kin in dire need due to failed foraging (mean kinship per group: 0.03-0.11) [6]. Past work on predictors of food sharing [6][7][8] suggest that these donations may have originated as maternal care and were co-opted for helping adult kin, and then co-opted again for promoting reciprocal donations. If vampire bat food donations do indeed provide both direct and indirect benefits, then the largest possible inclusive fitness benefits should accrue from reciprocal sharing with close kin.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
Proc. R. Soc. B. Self Cite
View full textAdd to dashboardCite
Regurgitations of blood among vampire bats appear to benefit both direct and indirect fitness. To maximize inclusive fitness, reciprocal food sharing should occur among close kin. Why then do females with kin roost-mates help non-kin? We tested the hypothesis that helping non-kin increases a bat's success at obtaining future donations by expanding its network of potential donors. On six occasions, we individually fasted 14 adult females and measured donations from 28 possible donors. Each female was fasted before, during and after a treatment period, when we prevented donations from past donors (including 10 close relatives) by simultaneously fasting or removing them. This experiment was designed to detect partner switching and yielded three main results. First, females received less food when we prevented donations from a past donor versus a control bat. Donors within a group are therefore not interchangeable. Second, the treatment increased the variance in donors' contributions to food received by subjects, suggesting the possibility of alternative responses to a partner's inability to reciprocate. Finally, bats that fed more non-kin in previous years had more donors and received more food during the treatment. These results indicate that a bat can expand its network of possible donors by helping non-kin.
No abstract
Molesti
1
,
Majolo
2
2017
American J Primatol
View full textAdd to dashboardCite
Reciprocity is one of the mechanisms that have been proposed to explain the exchange of social behaviors, such as grooming, in animals. Reciprocity assumes that individuals act as the donor and recipient of grooming and switch roles over time to balance the benefits and costs of this behavior. Three main patterns of reciprocity may follow a grooming given: (i) direct reciprocity, where the former recipient returns the grooming to the former donor; (ii) indirect reciprocity, where another individual returns the grooming to the former donor; and (iii) generalized reciprocity, where the former recipient returns the grooming to another individual. While there is evidence that direct reciprocity plays an important role in various species of animals, the role of indirect and generalized reciprocity is less clear and has been rarely analyzed. We tested the role of direct, indirect, and generalized reciprocity in explaining grooming exchanges of wild Barbary macaques, by analyzing the temporal contingency between giving and receiving grooming. We collected the occurrence and latency of the three types of grooming reciprocation during 1 hr long focal sessions run simultaneously on two partners who just stopped grooming (post-grooming session) or who were in proximity (i.e., within 1.5 m) without grooming each other (control session). We ran the analyses on 284 post-grooming and 63 control sessions. The results revealed a temporal contingency of grooming interactions exchanged according to direct reciprocity but not according to indirect or generalized reciprocity. Our results indicate that grooming distribution in Barbary macaques is partner-specific. We discuss the possible role of cognition and emotions in explaining direct reciprocity in animals.
![Food sharing in vampire bats: reciprocal help predicts donations more than relatedness or harassment - [scite report] (2024)]()