Cited by 404Bat Biology and Ecology StudiesAnimal Behavior and ReproductionPrimate Behavior and Ecology

Food sharing in vampire bats: reciprocal help predicts donations more than relatedness or harassment

Open access
Carter, Gerald G., Wilkinson, Gerald S.·2013·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Common vampire bats often regurgitate food to roost-mates that fail to feed. The original explanation for this costly helping behaviour invoked both direct and indirect fitness benefits. Several authors have since suggested that food sharing is maintained solely by indirect fitness because non-kin food sharing could have resulted from kin recognition errors, indiscriminate altruism within groups, or harassment. To test these alternatives, we examined predictors of food-sharing decisions under controlled conditions of mixed relatedness and equal familiarity. Over a 2 year period, we individually fasted 20 vampire bats ( Desmodus rotundus ) and induced food sharing on 48 days. Surprisingly, donors initiated food sharing more often than recipients, which is inconsistent with harassment. Food received was the best predictor of food given across dyads, and 8.5 times more important than relatedness. Sixty-four per cent of sharing dyads were unrelated, approaching the 67 per cent expected if nepotism was absent. Consistent with social bonding, the food-sharing network was consistent and correlated with mutual allogrooming. Together with past work, these findings support the hypothesis that food sharing in vampire bats provides mutual direct fitness benefits, and is not explained solely by kin selection or harassment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2012.2573

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carter, G. G., & Wilkinson, G. S.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, College Park (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2013-02-22
Volume
280
Issue
1753
Pages
20122573
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2161526268
Cited by
404
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7
FWCI
27.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Bat Biology and Ecology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
Keywords
vampire bats, Desmodus rotundus, food sharing, reciprocal altruism, kin selection, nepotism, relatedness, direct fitness benefits, indirect fitness benefits, allogrooming, social bonding
MeSH terms
Altruism, Animals, Chiroptera, Cooperative Behavior, Feeding Behavior, Female, Genotype, Male, Selection, Genetic, Videotape Recording, Microsatellite Repeats

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