Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-j5sqr Total loading time: 1.133 Render date: 2022-09-28T22:12:24.487Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Do fruit bats deserve to be listed as vermin in the Indian Wildlife (Protection) & Amended Acts? A critical review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2009

Natarajan Singaravelan
Department of Animal Behaviour & Physiology, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai, India.
Ganapathy Marimuthu
Department of Animal Behaviour & Physiology, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai, India.
Paul A. Racey*
School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen, AB24 2TZ, UK.
School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen, AB24 2TZ, UK. E-mail
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]


Of the 13 species of fruit bats occurring in India, the Indian flying fox Pteropus giganteus, the dog-faced fruit bat Rousettus leschenaultii and the greater short-nosed fruit bat Cynopterus sphinx are distributed throughout the country. They usually live in trees (P. giganteus), temples and caves (R. leschenaultii) and foliage (C. sphinx) and feed on fruits such as fig Ficus spp., Singapore cherry Muntingia calabura, Indian almond Terminalia catappa, mango Mangifera indica, guava Psidium guajava as well as leaves, nectar and pollen. The other 10 species live at sea level and at altitudes of > 2,000 m and their distribution and foraging activities may be restricted mainly to forests. Two of them, the Nicobar flying fox Pteropus faunulus and Salim Ali's fruit bat Latidens salimalii are endemic. Although details of their foraging activity are poorly known, there is no evidence that they visit commercial fruit orchards. They feed on wild fruits and disperse seeds widely, contributing to forest regeneration. Although P. giganteus, R. leschenaultii and C. sphinx feed on commercial fruits, their role in pollination and seed dispersal of economically important plants such as kapok Ceiba pentandra, mahua Bassia latifolia and petai Parkia spp. is important. Sacrificial crops such as M. calabura can be used at orchards to reduce the damage bats cause to commercial fruit. Because the ecological services provided by bats are not appreciated by the public and conservation planners, all fruit bat species with one exception are still categorized as vermin and included as such in Schedule V of the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and amended Acts. It is now appropriate for the Government of India to revisit this issue and consider removing these pollinators and seed dispersers from the list of vermin in the Wildlife (Protection) Act.

Oryx , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 608 - 613
Copyright © Fauna & Flora International 2009


Bats (Chiroptera) are the second largest order of mammals, with > 1,116 species (Simmons, Reference Simmons, Wilson and Reeder2005). Among them c. 183 belong to the family Pteropodidae and are essentially vegetarian, eating fruit, pollen, nectar and leaves, and the remainder have more varied diets that include frugivory, although most are insectivores. But within the Old World, including India, only pteropodids eat fruit, consuming a wide variety of commercial and non-commercial species (Marshall, Reference Marshall1985). They play a pivotal role as pollinators and seed dispersers of many plants and in tropical forest succession (Start & Marshall, Reference Start, Marshall, Burley and Styles1976; Fleming & Estrada, Reference Fleming and Sosa1993; Fleming & Sosa, Reference Fleming and Estrada1994; Banack, Reference Banack1998; Muscarella & Fleming, Reference Muscarella and Fleming2007). At least 300 plant species of nearly 200 genera rely mainly on Old World fruit bats for their propagation (Marshall, Reference Marshall1983, Reference Marshall1985; Fujita & Tuttle, Reference Fujita and Tuttle1991). Furthermore, these plants produce c. 500 economically valuable products including fruits, dyes, tannins, timber, medicines, fibres and fuelwood (Fujita & Tuttle, Reference Fujita and Tuttle1991). The importance of bats for the future availability of these products is substantial and has been seriously underestimated.

Bats as pollinators and seed-dispersers

Fruit bats are mobile foragers (Fleming & Sosa, Reference Fleming and Sosa1994), moving genetic material in the form of pollen between isolated fragments of vegetation and depositing seeds over large areas (Young et al., Reference Young, Boyle and Brown1996; Law & Lean, Reference Law and Lean1999). They are the sole or prime pollinators of several nectariferous plants that flower only at night (e.g. kapok Ceiba, petai Parkia, durian Durio, Oroxylum, stinking passion Passiflora and banana Musa), many of which are economically important. For example, Ceiba pentandra yields a commercially valuable fibre, which is used for stuffing cushions and mattresses (Fujita & Tuttle, Reference Fujita and Tuttle1991). Durio and Parkia fruits are commercially important foods in some parts of South-East Asia (Fujita, Reference Fujita1988).

Zoochory (seed dispersal by animals) is particularly widespread among pioneer plants and nearly half of the most abundant species are bat-dispersed (Charles-Dominique, Reference Charles-Dominique, Estrada and Fleming1986). Fruit bats disperse seeds in two ways. Fruits may be carried away from the parent tree and the seeds subsequently dropped under a feeding roost. Alternatively, smaller seeds are ingested along with the fruit pulp and pass through the gut to be voided in the faeces, often away from parent trees. The success of self-regeneration for many tropical trees improves if their propagules are moved away from the parents (Janzen, Reference Janzen and Golley1983). Smaller pteropodid bats can fly up to 35 km nightly in search of food, and the larger ones (Pteropus spp.) can fly for longer distances (Nelson, Reference Nelson1965). Because they defecate or drop large numbers of seeds in flight, these bats are able to move seeds over longer distances and wider areas than any other rainforest animals. In addition, it has been suggested that passage through the bat gut improves the levels of seed germination (Izhaki et al., Reference Izhaki, Korine and Arad1995).

Plants that have relatively large-seeded fruits are consumed by fewer dispersers, and depend on fewer species of mammals (Corlett, Reference Corlett1998). The carriage of such fruits is considered to be the primary dispersal role of Pteropus (Richards, Reference Richards1995). These pteropodid bats are thus important vehicles of plant dispersal and are able to bridge the gaps between widely separated forest fragments (Corlett, Reference Corlett1998). Several of the world's most important domesticated food staples, including bananas, plantain, breadfruit and mangoes, continue to rely on flying foxes for their propagation in the wild (Fujita & Tuttle, Reference Fujita and Tuttle1991). However, bananas are spread vegetatively and mangoes are planted by humans in rural villages in India. Wide-ranging seed dispersal encourages genetic exchange between fragments of forests or isolated populations of certain species and decreases the chances of inbreeding (Loveless & Hamrick, Reference Loveless and Hamrick1984). Through pollination of bat-dependent flowers and dispersal of seeds into forest gaps and clearings, tropical bats play an essential role in forest ecology (Cox et al., Reference Cox, Elmqvist, Pierson and Rainey1991; Fujita & Tuttle, Reference Fujita and Tuttle1991). Thus, they play an important role in secondary succession as well as in maintaining the compositional heterogeneity of tropical forests (Wang & Smith, Reference Wang and Smith2002).

Fruit bats of India

Thirteen of the 120 bat species in India are pteropodids (Table 1; Bates & Harrison, Reference Bates and Harrison1997). Pteropus giganteus, Rousettus leschenaultii and Cynopterus sphinx are distributed throughout most of India, generally in lowland areas. The remaining 10 species are restricted mainly to forested and island areas (Bates & Harrison, Reference Bates and Harrison1997). For example, the lesser short-nosed fruit bat Cynopterus brachyotis (Balasingh et al., Reference Balasingh, Ronald, Thiruchenthil and Suthakar1999) and Salim Ali's fruit bat Latidens salimalii (Singaravelan & Marimuthu, Reference Singaravelan and Marimuthu2003) are confined to the south, especially to the Western Ghats of Tamil Nadu (and possibly also in Kerala). The island flying fox Pteropus hypomelanus lives only on the Andaman islands, the Nicobar flying fox Pteropus faunulus is endemic to the Nicobar islands, and the large or Malayan flying fox Pteropus vampyrus and black-eared flying fox Pteropus melanotus are present on both island archipelagos (Aul, Reference Aul2006). Similarly Ratanaworabhan's fruit bat Megaerops niphanae and the greater long-tongued fruit bat Macroglossus sobrinus are restricted to north-east India.

Table 1 Name, size and distribution of the 13 species of fruit bats in various states of India (Bates & Harrison, Reference Bates and Harrison1997).

Detailed studies on the foraging activity of the three ubiquitous bats P. giganteus, R. leschenaultii and C. sphinx reveal their role as pollinators of several plant species (Table 2). There is no evidence of individuals of the remaining 10 species, including Pteropus species on the Nicobar and Andaman islands, either being caught in lowland areas or causing damage to commercial fruit orchards. This suggests that these species rely on wild fruits that are available in their forest and island habitats. For example, remnants of wild fruits (the bead tree Eleocarpus oblongus, the Ceylon plum Prunus ceylanicus and the Indian laurel fig Ficus macrocarpa) were collected at the night roosts of L. salimalii (Singaravelan & Marimuthu, Reference Singaravelan and Marimuthu2003). Eonycteris spelaea feeds mainly on nectar and pollen and pollinates flowers (Bumrungsri et al., Reference Bumrungsri, Harbit, Benzie, Carmouche, Sridith and Racey2008) that yield commercial fruits (Bates & Harrison, Reference Bates and Harrison1997).

Table 2 List of plants that are pollinated by the three ubiquitous fruit bats C. sphinx, R. leschenaultii and P. giganteus, and pollination of these plants by other bat species.

Fruit bats and the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act

Despite their beneficial role, fruit bats have long been hunted as a source of protein and for medicinal use and persecuted as fruit-eating pests. The Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, categorizes fruit bats as vermin (which can be captured or killed) under Schedule V. However, killing of bats with such a low reproductive rate (often only 1–2 young per year) results in a reduction in their numbers with consequent effects on pollination and seed dispersal. A breakdown of plant–pollinator and plant–seed-disperser relationships and subsequent loss of genetic diversity (heterozygosity and allelic diversity) could be one of the most threatening consequences of forest fragmentation (Bawa, Reference Bawa1990; Young et al., Reference Young, Boyle and Brown1996). Although categorizing plant-visiting bats as vermin is no longer acceptable, when the Act was formulated (1972) there was a lack of adequate scientific evidence about the ecological roles of fruit bats, with ecological research, particularly on plant-visiting bats, in its infancy. However, three amendments have been made to the Act. Although the efforts of bat conservationists, particularly the Chiroptera Conservation and Information Network of South Asia (CCINSA), to shift India's fruit bats to Schedule I (i.e. to be protected) met with little early success, the Wildlife (Protection) Amended Act, 2002 placed the endemic fruit bat L. salimalii as well as Wroughton's free-tailed bat Otomops wroughtoni in Schedule I. This fell short of removing all fruit bat species from the list of vermin, which is the aim of CCINSA (Molur et al., Reference Molur, Marimuthu, Srinivasulu, Mistry, Hutson and Bates2002) and other organizations, including Bat Conservation International (Mistry, Reference Mistry2003) and IUCN's Species Survival Commission (Mickleburgh et al., Reference Mickleburgh, Hutson and Racey1992, Reference Mickleburgh, Hutson and Racey2002).

Mitigating bat damage to commercial fruits

Bat researchers have documented the incidence of bats visiting orchards. Large-scale commercial growing of fruits has led to conflicts between fruit growers and bats in Australia (Loebel & Sanewski, Reference Loebel and Sanewski1987; Tidemann et al., Reference Tidemann, Kelson and Jamieson1997), Israel (Moran & Keidar, Reference Moran and Keidar1993), South Africa (Jacobsen & DuPlessis, Reference Jacobsen and DuPlessis1976), Malaysia and Indonesia (Fujita, Reference Fujita1988) and India (Vergheese, Reference Vergheese1998; Srinivasulu & Srinivasulu, Reference Srinivasulu and Srinivasulu2001). The most serious conflicts may occur where the supply of native fruits has been reduced through habitat loss (Tidemann & Nelson, Reference Tidemann and Nelson1987).

Although fruit bats are considered to be pests in commercial orchards, a recent study (Singaravelan, Reference Singaravelan2002) argues that the menace of bats is mainly restricted to those guava and mango orchards where harvesting is delayed and that c. 60% of fruits that were damaged by bats were ripe or overripe. The latter are not marketable even if the bats did not damage them. Fruit growers usually sell the ripe fruits to local markets where they often fetch half the price of less ripe fruit, which is sold further afield.

Recently C. sphinx has been blamed for damage to grapes (Vergheese, Reference Vergheese1998; Srinivasulu & Srinivasulu, Reference Srinivasulu and Srinivasulu2001, Reference Srinivasulu and Srinivasulu2002). However, the bats inflicted only 4% of the observed damage and birds (purple sunbird Nectaria asiatica, red-vented bulbul Pycnonotus cafer, white-eye or spectacle bird Zosterops palpebrosa) ate or damaged c. 30% of the grape crops (Singaravelan, Reference Singaravelan2002).

To reduce the damage caused by fruit bats in orchards, several non-destructive control measures have been suggested (Hall & Richards, Reference Hall and Richards1987; Vergheese, Reference Vergheese1998). There are two feasible and effective measures that yield considerable success: crop protection at the orchard and farm management. The former includes the use of scare guns, light grids over orchards, chemical repellents and netting. The latter involves removal of early ripening fruits and the establishment of suitable sacrificial crops. However, crop protection at orchards is suggested for large-scale commercial fruit growers where Pteropus damage is substantial, as in Australia. Bat attacks on those orchards that incorporate harvesting were minimal (Singaravelan, Reference Singaravelan2002). Thus, changes in farm management practice may be the most feasible and successful means of reducing bat damage to commercial fruit.

Although early picking of fruit and early removal of overripe fruit may be effective, planting alternative forage trees with a high sugar content in the proximity of the orchards could alleviate the problem of bat-attacks. The Singapore cherry Muntingia calabura produces a fruit on which several species of bats feed (Bonaccorso & Gush, Reference Bonaccorso and Gush1987). For example, C. sphinx gathers in swarms of 10–30 individuals while feeding on Muntingia fruits. The number of nightly visits of C. sphinx to M. calabura was much higher than to any other commercial fruits (Singaravelan & Marimuthu, Reference Singaravelan and Marimuthu2006). Thus, it appears that M. calabura serves as an effective alternative forage source when planted adjacent to orchards (Singaravelan & Marimuthu, Reference Singaravelan and Marimuthu2006).

Is it still justifiable to categorize plant-visiting bats as vermin?

Although there has been much debate about fruit bat damage to commercial orchards, the beneficial role of such bats and the ecological services they provide has not been fully appreciated. Publications in peer-reviewed journals, which detail the ecological roles of those bats (Cox et al., Reference Cox, Elmqvist, Pierson and Rainey1991; Fujita & Tuttle, Reference Fujita and Tuttle1991; Fleming & Sosa, Reference Fleming and Sosa1994) may not yet have reached policy makers and conservation planners. In spite of the damage to orchards by the three ubiquitous species (P. giganteus, R. leschenaultii and C. sphinx), their beneficial roles cannot be ignored. Unlike other small mammals, fruit bats usually give birth to a single young (occasionally two, such as Eonycteris), either once (e.g. P. giganteus) or twice (e.g. R. leschenaultii and C. sphinx) per year. If the fruit bats of India are not protected their populations will be drastically reduced because of this low reproductive rate. Such a situation may have a cascading effect on ecosystems, with potentially serious ecological consequences and economic disadvantages (Fujita & Tuttle, Reference Fujita and Tuttle1991; Elmqvist et al., Reference Elmqvist, Cox, Rainey and Pierson1992).

With respect to the other 10 species of pteropodids, in a long-term study with a total of 1,858 mist net hours from April 2000 to August 2003 we never captured individuals of L. salimalii, C. brachyotis and E. spelaea in lowland areas (Singaravelan, Reference Singaravelan2002; Singaravelan & Marimuthu, Reference Singaravelan and Marimuthu2006, Reference Singaravelan, Raja and Marimuthu2007), and there is no report of the other seven species visiting lowland areas or complaints of damage to orchards. We thus rule out the possibility that these 10 species visit commercial orchards.

We recommend that the remaining 12 species of fruit bats should all be removed from the list of vermin in the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act and placed in Schedule I along with L. salimalii. Detailed long-term studies on the distribution, breeding and foraging behaviour of all 10 species of pteropodids that live in the forests of India should be a priority.


The MoEF, Government of India, supported the work through a grant to GM. NS acknowledges the support of a scholarship from Bat Conservation International. We are grateful to Richard Jenkins for comments on the draft manuscript and two anonymous referees for their critical comments.

Biographical sketches

Natarajan Singaravelan has studied behavioural and conservation ecology of plant-visiting bats. He is a member of the Chiroptera Conservation Information Network of South Asia (CCINSA) and is popularizing the conservation needs of bats in general and the vital role they play in restoration ecology. Ganapathy Marimuthu has worked on bats throughout his career. He is a member of the Bat Specialist Group of IUCN's Species Survival Commission and was founding Chairman of CCINSA. Paul Racey works on the ecology and conservation biology of bats in temperate and tropical latitudes, particularly Madagascar. He is Co-Chair of IUCN's Bat Specialist Group and is Vice Chairman of Fauna & Flora International.


Aul, B. (2006) Status, distribution and ecological studies of the bats in the Andaman and Nicobar islands with special reference to the Nicobar flying fox (Pteropus faunulus). PhD thesis, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai, India.Google Scholar
Baker, H.G. & Harris, B.J. (1957) The pollination of Parkia by bats and its attendant evolutionary problems. Evolution, 11, 449460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balasingh, J., Ronald, J., Thiruchenthil, N.P. & Suthakar, I.S. (1999) Occurrence of Cynopterus brachyotis (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) in Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, southern India. Current Science, 76, 1542.Google Scholar
Banack, S.A. (1998) Diet selection and resource use by flying foxes (genus Pteropus). Ecology, 79, 19491967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, P.J.J. & Harrison, D.L. (1997) Bats of the Indian Subcontinent. Harrison Zoological Museum, Sevenoaks, UK.Google Scholar
Bawa, K.S. (1990) Plant-pollinator interactions in tropical rainforests. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 21, 399422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonaccorso, F.J. & Gush, T.J. (1987) An experimental study of the feeding behaviour and foraging strategies of phyllostomid fruit bats. Journal of Animal Ecology, 56, 907920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brosset, A. (1962) The bats of central and western India Part I. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 59, 157.Google Scholar
Bumrungsri, S., Harbit, A., Benzie, C., Carmouche, K., Sridith, K. & Racey, P.A. (2008) The pollination ecology of two species of Parkia (Mimosaceae) in Southern Thailand. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 24, 467475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles-Dominique, P. (1986) Inter-relation between frugivorous vertebrates and pioneer plants: Cecropia, birds and bats in French Guyana. In Frugivores and Seed Dispersal (eds Estrada, A. & Fleming, T.H.), pp. 91110. Dr. W. Junk, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Corlett, R.T. (1998) Frugivory and seed dispersal by vertebrates in the Oriental (Indomalayan) region. Biological Reviews, 73, 413448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corlett, R.T. (2004) Flower visitors and pollination in the Oriental (Indomalayan) region. Biological Reviews, 79, 497532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, P.A., Elmqvist, T., Pierson, E.D. & Rainey, W.E. (1991) Flying foxes as strong interactors in South Pacific Island ecosystems: a conservation hypothesis. Conservation Biology, 5, 448454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devy, M.S. & Davidar, P. (2003) Pollination systems of trees in Kakachi, a mid-elevation wet evergreen forest in Western Ghats, India. American Journal of Botany, 90, 650657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elmqvist, T., Cox, P.A., Rainey, W.A. & Pierson, E.D. (1992) Restricted pollination on oceanic islands: pollination of Ceiba pentandra by flying foxes in Samoa. Biotropica, 24, 1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, T.H. & Estrada, A. (1993) Frugivory and Seed Dispersal: Ecological and Evolutionary Aspects. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, T.H. & Sosa, V.J. (1994) Effects of nectarivorous and frugivorous mammals on reproductive success of plants. Journal of Mammalogy, 75, 845851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujita, M.S. (1988) Flying foxes and economics. Bats, 6, 49.Google Scholar
Fujita, M.S. & Tuttle, M.D. (1991) Flying foxes (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae): threatened animals of key ecological and economic importance. Conservation Biology, 5, 455463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, E. (1978) Foraging behaviour of Malaysian nectar-feeding bats. Biotropica, 10, 184193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, L.S. & Richards, G.C. (1987) Crop protection and management of flying-foxes (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae). Australian Mammalogist, 10, 137139.Google Scholar
Izhaki, I., Korine, C. & Arad, Z. (1995) The effect of bat dispersal (Rousettus aegyptiacus) on seed germination in eastern Mediterranean habitats. Oecologia, 101, 335342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobsen, N.H.G. & DuPlessis, E. (1976) Observations on the ecology and biology of the cape fruit bat Rousettus aegyptiacus leachi in the Eastern Transvaal. South African Journal of Science, 72, 270273.Google Scholar
Janzen, D.H. (1983) Food webs: who eats what, why, how and with what effects in a tropical forest? In Ecosystems of the World. 14A. Tropical Forest Ecosystems, Structure and Function (ed. Golley, F.B.), pp. 167182. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Law, B.S. & Lean, M. (1999) Common blossom bats (Syconycteris australis) as pollinators in fragmented Australian tropical rainforest. Biological Conservation, 91, 201212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loebel, R. & Sanewski, G. (1987) Flying-foxes (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) as orchard pests. Australian Mammalogist, 10, 147150.Google Scholar
Loveless, M.D. & Hamrick, J.L. (1984) Ecological determinants of genetic structure in plant populations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 15, 6596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, A.G. (1983) Bats, flowers and fruit: evolutionary relationships in the Old World. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 20, 115135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, A.G. (1985) Old World phytophagous bats (Megachiroptera) and their food plants: a survey. Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 83, 351369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, C. (1931) On the fertilization of flowers of the sausage tree Kigelia pinnata by bats. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 35, 467471.Google Scholar
McCann, C. (1933) The flying fox (Pteropus giganteus) and the palm squirrel (Funambulus tristriatus) as agents of pollination in the silky oak (Grevillea robusta A. Cunn). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 36, 761764.Google Scholar
Mickleburgh, S.P., Hutson, A.M. & Racey, P.A. (1992) Old World Fruit Bats: An Action Plan for their Conservation. IUCN/Species Survival Commission Chiroptera Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mickleburgh, S.P., Hutson, A.M. & Racey, P.A. (2002) A review of the global conservation status of bats. Oryx, 36, 1834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mistry, S. (2003) Protecting the bats of India. Bats, 21, 811.Google Scholar
Molur, S., Marimuthu, G., Srinivasulu, C., Mistry, S., Hutson, A.M., Bates, P.J.J. et al. . (eds) (2002) Status of South Asian Chiroptera: Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (C.A.M.P.) Workshop Report, 2002. Zoo Outreach Organization, CBSG South Asia and WILD, Coimbatore, India.Google Scholar
Moran, S. & Keidar, H. (1993) Checklist of vertebrate damage to agriculture in Israel. Crop Protection, 12, 171182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muscarella, R. & Fleming, T.H. (2007) The role of frugivorous bats in tropical forest succession. Biological Reviews, 82, 573590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nathan, P.T., Raghuram, H., Elangovan, V., Karuppudurai, T. & Marimuthu, G. (2005) Bat pollination of kapok tree, Ceiba pentandra. Current Science, 88, 16791681.Google Scholar
Nelson, J.E. (1965) Behaviour of Australian Pteropodidae (Megachiroptera). Animal Behaviour, 13, 544575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, G.C. (1995) A review of ecological interactions of fruit bats in Australian ecosystems. Symposium of Zoological Society of London, 67, 7996.Google Scholar
Simmons, N. (2005) Chiroptera. In Walker's Mammals of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 3rd edition (eds Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.-A.), pp. 312529. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA.Google Scholar
Singaravelan, N. (2002) Foraging behaviour of fruit bats in orchards. PhD thesis, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai, India.Google Scholar
Singaravelan, N. & Marimuthu, G. (2003) Mist-net captures of the rarest fruit bat Latidens salimalii. Current Science, 84, 2426.Google Scholar
Singaravelan, N. & Marimuthu, G. (2004) Nectar feeding and pollen carrying from Ceiba pentandra by pteropodid bats. Journal of Mammalogy, 85, 17.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singaravelan, N. & Marimuthu, G. (2006) Muntingia calabura—an attractive food plant of Cynopterus sphinx—deserves planting to lessen orchard damage. Acta Chiropterologica, 8, 239245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singaravelan, N., Raja, R. & Marimuthu, G. (2007) Nectar feeding strategies of Pteropodid bats on Parkia biglandulosa: the influence of angular variations in nectar rings. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy, 73, 127135.Google Scholar
Srinivasulu, B. & Srinivasulu, C. (2001) Magnitude of depredation on grapes by short-nosed fruit bats Cynopterus sphinx Vahl, 1797 in Secunderabad, India. Current Science, 80, 1415.Google Scholar
Srinivasulu, C. & Srinivasulu, B. (2002) Greater short-nosed fruit bat (Cynopterus sphinx) foraging in vineyards in India. Acta Chiropterologica, 4, 167172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Start, A.N. & Marshall, A.G. (1976) Nectarivorous bats as pollinators of trees in West Malaysia. In Variation, Breeding and Conservation of Tropical Forest Trees (eds Burley, J. & Styles, B.T.), pp. 141150. Academic Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
Subramanya, S. & Radhamani, T.R. (1993) Pollination by birds and bats. Current Science, 65, 201209.Google Scholar
Tidemann, C.R., Kelson, S. & Jamieson, G. (1997) Flying-fox damage to orchard fruit in Australia—incidence, extent and economic impact. Australian Biologist, 10, 177184.Google Scholar
Tidemann, C.R. & Nelson, J.E. (1987) Flying foxes (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) and bananas: some interactions. Australian Mammalogy, 10, 133136.Google Scholar
van der Pijl, L. (1956) Remarks on pollination by bats in the genera Ferycinetia, Duabanga and Haplophragma and on the chiropterophily in general. Acta Botanica Neerdelandica, 5, 135144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Pijl, L. (1961) Ecological aspects of flower evolution. II. Zoophilous flower classes. Evolution, 15, 4459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergheese, A. (1998) Non-destructive control of the bat, Cynopterus sphinx Vahl (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) in grapes (Vitis vinifera Linnaeus) in India. International Journal of Pest Management, 44, 8185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, B.C. & Smith, T.B. (2002) Closing the seed dispersal loop. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17, 379386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, A., Boyle, T. & Brown, T. (1996) The population genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation for plants. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11, 413418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1 Name, size and distribution of the 13 species of fruit bats in various states of India (Bates & Harrison, 1997).

Figure 1

Table 2 List of plants that are pollinated by the three ubiquitous fruit bats C. sphinx, R. leschenaultii and P. giganteus, and pollination of these plants by other bat species.

You have Access
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Do fruit bats deserve to be listed as vermin in the Indian Wildlife (Protection) & Amended Acts? A critical review
Available formats

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Do fruit bats deserve to be listed as vermin in the Indian Wildlife (Protection) & Amended Acts? A critical review
Available formats

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Do fruit bats deserve to be listed as vermin in the Indian Wildlife (Protection) & Amended Acts? A critical review
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *