The Eye of the Chiropterologist: Phenotypic Versus Genotypic Identification of Bats
ABSTRACT Bats are a diverse and ecologically important group of mammals that play critical roles in ecosystems. Accurate identification is necessary to comprehend bat species' ecology and behavior to further the conservation of bats. Both phenotypic and genotypic methods have been used for bat...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | Ecology and Evolution |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.71561 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849429459112820736 |
|---|---|
| author | F. D. Dami T. E. Adeyanju A. A. Chaskda I. M. Okpanachi A. T. Adeyanju S. M. Ezekiel T. Gwom I. A. Iniunam A. Hitch D. D. Pam P. Luka S. C. Weaver S. Paessler R. W. Cross N. Shehu |
| author_facet | F. D. Dami T. E. Adeyanju A. A. Chaskda I. M. Okpanachi A. T. Adeyanju S. M. Ezekiel T. Gwom I. A. Iniunam A. Hitch D. D. Pam P. Luka S. C. Weaver S. Paessler R. W. Cross N. Shehu |
| author_sort | F. D. Dami |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | ABSTRACT Bats are a diverse and ecologically important group of mammals that play critical roles in ecosystems. Accurate identification is necessary to comprehend bat species' ecology and behavior to further the conservation of bats. Both phenotypic and genotypic methods have been used for bat identification, but their relative effectiveness remains unclear in the Afrotropics. This study compared the advantages and limitations of phenotypic and genotypic identification of bats to improve and ensure effective bat species identification. Bats were captured using mist nets within protected and unprotected areas in different vegetation zones in Nigeria. Morphological identification of all captured bats was done using the guide, Mammals of Africa. Genotypic identification was done by extracting genomic DNA and Sanger sequencing of the generated mtDNA PCR amplicons. We then compared the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the phenotypic to the genotypic outcomes of our identification. We trapped 91 bats, and the phenotypic identification of 90 individual species showed sensitivity ranges between 68% and 100%, except for Glauconycteris spp., whose sensitivity was low (14%). The specificity was generally good for all species > 96%. Phenotypic identification is accurate and reliable for most trapped bat species (Epomorphorus gambianus, Scotophilus spp., Micropteropus pusillus, Rhinolophus spp., Roussettus aegyptiacus, and Chaerephon spp.). However, phenotypic identification reveals its limitations in some bat species such as Banana pipistrellus and Glauconycteris spp., which had more variable results from their genetic characterization. Epomorphorus gambianus and Micropteropus pusillus had no distinct genetic differentiation in their mtDNA. This highlights the importance of using multiple methods for bat identification to ensure the most accurate results. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-e3c1e62cee1140fa91d1d94f71024f34 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2045-7758 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-06-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Ecology and Evolution |
| spelling | doaj-art-e3c1e62cee1140fa91d1d94f71024f342025-08-20T03:28:21ZengWileyEcology and Evolution2045-77582025-06-01156n/an/a10.1002/ece3.71561The Eye of the Chiropterologist: Phenotypic Versus Genotypic Identification of BatsF. D. Dami0T. E. Adeyanju1A. A. Chaskda2I. M. Okpanachi3A. T. Adeyanju4S. M. Ezekiel5T. Gwom6I. A. Iniunam7A. Hitch8D. D. Pam9P. Luka10S. C. Weaver11S. Paessler12R. W. Cross13N. Shehu14Department of Zoology University of Jos Jos NigeriaUniversity of Ibadan Ibadan NigeriaDepartment of Zoology University of Jos Jos NigeriaAP Leventis Ornithological Research Institute (APLORI) University of Jos Biological Conservatory Jos East LGA Plateau State NigeriaUniversity of Ibadan Ibadan NigeriaAP Leventis Ornithological Research Institute (APLORI) University of Jos Biological Conservatory Jos East LGA Plateau State NigeriaAP Leventis Ornithological Research Institute (APLORI) University of Jos Biological Conservatory Jos East LGA Plateau State NigeriaAP Leventis Ornithological Research Institute (APLORI) University of Jos Biological Conservatory Jos East LGA Plateau State NigeriaUniversity of Texas Medical Branch Galveston Texas USADepartment of Zoology University of Jos Jos NigeriaNational Veterinary Research Institute (NVRI) Vom NigeriaUniversity of Texas Medical Branch Galveston Texas USAUniversity of Texas Medical Branch Galveston Texas USAUniversity of Texas Medical Branch Galveston Texas USAJos University Teaching Hospital Jos NigeriaABSTRACT Bats are a diverse and ecologically important group of mammals that play critical roles in ecosystems. Accurate identification is necessary to comprehend bat species' ecology and behavior to further the conservation of bats. Both phenotypic and genotypic methods have been used for bat identification, but their relative effectiveness remains unclear in the Afrotropics. This study compared the advantages and limitations of phenotypic and genotypic identification of bats to improve and ensure effective bat species identification. Bats were captured using mist nets within protected and unprotected areas in different vegetation zones in Nigeria. Morphological identification of all captured bats was done using the guide, Mammals of Africa. Genotypic identification was done by extracting genomic DNA and Sanger sequencing of the generated mtDNA PCR amplicons. We then compared the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of the phenotypic to the genotypic outcomes of our identification. We trapped 91 bats, and the phenotypic identification of 90 individual species showed sensitivity ranges between 68% and 100%, except for Glauconycteris spp., whose sensitivity was low (14%). The specificity was generally good for all species > 96%. Phenotypic identification is accurate and reliable for most trapped bat species (Epomorphorus gambianus, Scotophilus spp., Micropteropus pusillus, Rhinolophus spp., Roussettus aegyptiacus, and Chaerephon spp.). However, phenotypic identification reveals its limitations in some bat species such as Banana pipistrellus and Glauconycteris spp., which had more variable results from their genetic characterization. Epomorphorus gambianus and Micropteropus pusillus had no distinct genetic differentiation in their mtDNA. This highlights the importance of using multiple methods for bat identification to ensure the most accurate results.https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.71561Chiropteragenetic diversitygenotypicidentificationmitochondriaphenotypic |
| spellingShingle | F. D. Dami T. E. Adeyanju A. A. Chaskda I. M. Okpanachi A. T. Adeyanju S. M. Ezekiel T. Gwom I. A. Iniunam A. Hitch D. D. Pam P. Luka S. C. Weaver S. Paessler R. W. Cross N. Shehu The Eye of the Chiropterologist: Phenotypic Versus Genotypic Identification of Bats Ecology and Evolution Chiroptera genetic diversity genotypic identification mitochondria phenotypic |
| title | The Eye of the Chiropterologist: Phenotypic Versus Genotypic Identification of Bats |
| title_full | The Eye of the Chiropterologist: Phenotypic Versus Genotypic Identification of Bats |
| title_fullStr | The Eye of the Chiropterologist: Phenotypic Versus Genotypic Identification of Bats |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Eye of the Chiropterologist: Phenotypic Versus Genotypic Identification of Bats |
| title_short | The Eye of the Chiropterologist: Phenotypic Versus Genotypic Identification of Bats |
| title_sort | eye of the chiropterologist phenotypic versus genotypic identification of bats |
| topic | Chiroptera genetic diversity genotypic identification mitochondria phenotypic |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.71561 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT fddami theeyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT teadeyanju theeyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT aachaskda theeyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT imokpanachi theeyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT atadeyanju theeyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT smezekiel theeyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT tgwom theeyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT iainiunam theeyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT ahitch theeyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT ddpam theeyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT pluka theeyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT scweaver theeyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT spaessler theeyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT rwcross theeyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT nshehu theeyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT fddami eyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT teadeyanju eyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT aachaskda eyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT imokpanachi eyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT atadeyanju eyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT smezekiel eyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT tgwom eyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT iainiunam eyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT ahitch eyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT ddpam eyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT pluka eyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT scweaver eyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT spaessler eyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT rwcross eyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats AT nshehu eyeofthechiropterologistphenotypicversusgenotypicidentificationofbats |