Visitors   Views   Downloads

Pollination implications of the diverse diet of tropical nectar-feeding bats roosting in an urban cave

View preprint
196 days ago
Pollination implications of the diverse diet of tropical nectar-feeding bats roosting in an urban cave https://t.co/TiKAngBhVf
Pollination implications of the diverse diet of tropical nectar-feeding bats roosting in an urban cave https://t.co/AaP7isKr2v
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Primers used in this study

Illumina adaptors are underlined whereas primer sequence are shown in regular font.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.26470v1/supp-1

Further details on assigning taxonomic names to each OTU

Taxonomic assignation is based on BLAST results.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.26470v1/supp-2

R script

R script used for estimating the species richness and sampling completeness ratio.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.26470v1/supp-3

Complete checklist of plants consumed by Eonycteris spelaea

References: 1= Start & Marshall (1976) reported 31 plant species in diet of E. spealea roosting at Batu Caves and Gua Sanding in Peninsular Malaysia; 2= Hodgkison et al. (2004) reported four plant species in diet of E. spealea at primary forest in Peninsular Malaysia; 3= Bumrungsri et al. (2013) reported eleven plant species in diet of E. spelaea at Khao Kao Cave in Thailand; 4=Thavry et al. (2017) reported thirteen plant species in diet of E. spealea at Bat Khteas Cave in Cambodia; 5=This study detected 55 plant species using DNA metabarcoding.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.26470v1/supp-4

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Voon-Ching Lim conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Rosli Ramli paperworks regarding permit and ethics approval.

Subha Bhassu contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools.

John James Wilson contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Animal Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Faecal collection was conducted using a protocol approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, University of Malaya (Ref: ISB/10/06/2016/LVC (R)).

Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Faecal collection was at Batu Caves with authorization from the Majlis Perbandaran Selayang (Ref: Bil(35)dlm.MPS 3/3-117/153 JL).

Field Study Permissions

The following information was supplied relating to field study approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Faecal collection was conducted with authorization from the Department of Wildlife and National Parks, Peninsular Malaysia (Ref: JPHL&TN(IP)100-34/1.24 Jld. 4(34))

DNA Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding the deposition of DNA sequences:

Raw sequence data related to this study were deposited in Sequence Read Archive (SRA) at Genbank, NCBI under accessions SAMN07956186 to SAMN07956205.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The R script for estimating species richness and sampling completeness ratio has been provided as a Supplemental File.

Funding

This project was supported by grants from the University of Malaya (PG060-2016A), the National Geographic Society (Asia59-16), and the Malaysian Nature Society (Young Environmental Research Grant 2016-12) awarded to Voon-Ching Lim. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies