Tequila bats (Phyllostomidae: <i>Leptonycteris yerbabuenae</i> ) and their associated bat flies: disentangling the effects of physical proximity and organism source as predictors of microbiota dissimilarities

Abstract The biosphere is dominated by bacteria, and cohabiting taxa are to each other either a viable substrate or a competitor for space and other resources. Animal bodies are no exception to this rule. For the vertebrate microbiota, it is a crucial question where all these bacteria came from and how they got there, including the relative contributions of the surrounding environment and of ecological interactions with other organisms such as parasites. In this article, we explore the relations between the microbiota compositions of the inner (gastrointestinal) and the outer (fur) body of the flower-visiting Tequila Bat (Leptonycteris yerbabuenae), of their ectoparasites (bat flies: Streblidae; Trichobius sphaeronotus and Nycterophilia coxata), and of the immediate roosting environment (cave wall). We established 4 different predictions on how these compositions might be related to each other. Similarity could come from: (i) provenance (each sample type harbors a dissimilar microbiota); (ii) phylogenetic association (bat microbiotas vs. bat fly microbiotas); or (iii) physical proximity (outer microbiotas, i.e., bat fly, bat fur, cave walls, vs inner microbiotas such as the bat gastrointestinal tract). From each individual bat, we collected a fecal sample, a fur swab, all ectoparasites—we also collected 5 swabs of the cave wall from the place where the bats were commonly roosting. Using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, we characterized the bacterial microbiomes of these samples. Our results show that although the type of sample was the strongest predictor of group clustering, the dissimilarity between different bacterial communities closely matched our “physical proximity association” prediction, i.e., the fur and gastrointestinal tract of bats supported distinct bacterial communities, but the microbiota of the bat fur was more similar to the microbiota of the bat flies and the cave wall in terms of dissimilarity.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Mammalogy
Published
2025-10-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyaf080
Primary Topic
Bat Biology and Ecology Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Tequila bats (Phyllostomidae: Leptonycteris yerbabuenae ) and their associated bat flies: disentangling the effects of physical proximity and organism source as predictors of microbiota dissimilarities

S. Sommer, Rodrigo A. Medellín, Susan L. Perkins, Kelly A. Speer et al.
Journal of Mammalogy
Bat Biology and Ecology Studies
article

Tequila bats (Phyllostomidae: Leptonycteris yerbabuenae ) and their associated bat flies: disentangling the effects of physical proximity and organism source as predictors of microbiota dissimilarities

S. Sommer, Rodrigo A. Medellín, Susan L. Perkins, Kelly A. Speer, Kerstin Wilhelm, Marco Tschapka, Nancy B Simmons, Luis Víquez-R
article en

Abstract

Abstract The biosphere is dominated by bacteria, and cohabiting taxa are to each other either a viable substrate or a competitor for space and other resources. Animal bodies are no exception to this rule. For the vertebrate microbiota, it is a crucial question where all these bacteria came from and how they got there, including the relative contributions of the surrounding environment and of ecological interactions with other organisms such as parasites. In this article, we explore the relations between the microbiota compositions of the inner (gastrointestinal) and the outer (fur) body of the flower-visiting Tequila Bat (Leptonycteris yerbabuenae), of their ectoparasites (bat flies: Streblidae; Trichobius sphaeronotus and Nycterophilia coxata), and of the immediate roosting environment (cave wall). We established 4 different predictions on how these compositions might be related to each other. Similarity could come from: (i) provenance (each sample type harbors a dissimilar microbiota); (ii) phylogenetic association (bat microbiotas vs. bat fly microbiotas); or (iii) physical proximity (outer microbiotas, i.e., bat fly, bat fur, cave walls, vs inner microbiotas such as the bat gastrointestinal tract). From each individual bat, we collected a fecal sample, a fur swab, all ectoparasites—we also collected 5 swabs of the cave wall from the place where the bats were commonly roosting. Using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, we characterized the bacterial microbiomes of these samples. Our results show that although the type of sample was the strongest predictor of group clustering, the dissimilarity between different bacterial communities closely matched our “physical proximity association” prediction, i.e., the fur and gastrointestinal tract of bats supported distinct bacterial communities, but the microbiota of the bat fur was more similar to the microbiota of the bat flies and the cave wall in terms of dissimilarity.

Journal of MammalogyVol. 107(1)
City College of New York (US), Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (PA), Bucknell University (US), American Museum of Natural History (US), Universität Ulm (DE), Northern Arizona University (US), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (MX)
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 21%
Bat Biology and Ecology Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.