Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 450

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Social organization and foraging in emballonurid bats: I. Field Studies

Bradbury, J. W., Vehrencamp, S. L.·1976·Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

Abstract

Summary1.Five species of emballonurid bats (Rhynchonycteris naso, Saccopteryx leptura, Balantiopteryx plicata, Saccopteryx bilineata, and Peropteryx kappleri), were studied in Costa Rica and Trinidad. Stomach contents suggest that prey size generally increases for bat body size, but within these species there is considerable overlap. R. naso, S. leptura, and P. kappleri each appear to be specialized for foraging in a particular habitat type; B. plicata and S. bilineata are more opportunistic and feed over a variety of habitats during the year. While the other species feed in the proximity of surfaces, B. plicata is further separated from the other species by wing specializations favoring high altitude flight.2.Foraging dispersion is more closely related to body size than it is to social structure at the roost: small bats group-forage while larger bats feed in solitary beats. In all of the species, food is spatially and temporally variable, and the location of foraging sites changes seasonally in accordance with these locally varying patterns of aerial insect abundance. In the case of S. bilineata, the locations of foraging sites were positively correlated with levels of phenological activity in the underlying plant communities.3.Colony sizes ranged from small groups of 2–10 bats (S. leptura, P. kappleri), to intermediate colonies of 5–50 bats (R. naso, S. bilineata), to very large colonies with hundreds of bats (B. plicata).4.R. naso, S. leptura, and S. bilineata colonies have colony-specific annual foraging ranges which are actively defended against conspecifics from other colonies. In most cases, all members of a given colony of one of these species will be found foraging in a common site at any time. In R. naso and S. bilineata, currently used foraging sites are partitioned socially. In the former species, adult breeding females occupy a central area and groupforage while younger non-breeding females and males occupy peripheral foraging areas in the colony territory. In S. bilineata, the colony foraging site is partitioned into individual harem territories defended by harem males and containing the individual beats of all current harem females. For this latter species, details of roost site subdivision are mapped directly onto foraging dispersions. In general, there is a close correlation between dayroost group membership and location of nocturnal foraging sites in all of the study species.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf00299399

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 450

Metadata

Authors
Bradbury, J. W., & Vehrencamp, S. L.
Venue
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Published
1976
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
337-381
ISSN
  • 0340-5443 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0762
OpenAlex
W2322663329
Cited by
450
References
3
FWCI
17.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Social organization and foraging in emballonurid bats: I. Field Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/bf00299399
The paper
Bradbury, J. W., & Vehrencamp, S. L. (1976). Social organization and foraging in emballonurid bats: I. Field Studies. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00299399

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.