Social networks based on frequency of roost cohabitation do not reflect association rates of Myotis lucifugus within their roosts

• Main Authors: Austin G. Waag, John J. Treanor, Jess N. Kropczynski, Joseph S. Johnson
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2021-06-01
• Series: Ecology and Evolution
• Subjects: association index; high‐frequency RFID; little brown bat; passive integrated transponder; radio‐frequency identification; social network analysis
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7244

Abstract Bats are a group of mammals well known for forming dynamic social groups. Studies of bat social structures are often based upon the frequency at which bats occupy the same roosts because observing bats directly is not always possible. However, it is not always clear how closely bats occupying the same roost associate with each other, obscuring whether associations result from social relationships or factors such as shared preferences for roosts. Our goal was to determine if bats cohabitating buildings were also found together inside roosts by using anti‐collision technology for PIT tags, which enables simultaneous detection of multiple tags. We PIT‐tagged 293 female little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) and installed antennas within two buildings used as maternity roosts in Yellowstone National Park. Antennas were positioned at roost entryways to generate cohabitation networks and along regions of attic ceilings in each building to generate intraroost networks based on proximity of bats to each other. We found that intraroost and cohabitation networks of buildings were significantly correlated, with the same bats tending to be linked in both networks, but that bats cohabitating the same building often roosted apart, leading to differing assessments of social structure. Cohabitation rates implied that bats associate with a greater number of their roost‐mates than was supported by observations within the roost. This caused social networks built upon roost cohabitation rates to be denser, smaller in diameter, and contain nodes with higher average degree centrality. These results show that roost cohabitation does not reflect preference for roost‐mates in little brown myotis, as is often inferred from similar studies, and that social network analyses based on cohabitation may provide misleading results.