Researchers link smaller Madagascar fruit bats to selective hunting

Researchers linked the shrinking size of Madagascar’s flying fox fruit bats to selective hunting, with the study reporting a clear decline beginning around 1980. The New York Post reported that the researchers believe hunting became more commercialized around that period. Their findings were published in the Journal of Mammalogy.

The study’s lead author, Emily Ruhs, said she initially considered whether temperature or habitat changes might explain the shift. She also identified deforestation, climate change and changes in the timing of fruit seasons as possible contributors.

The study account does not present hunting as the only possible influence: Ruhs said those environmental factors could also play a role. The research drew on flying fox specimens held in the Field Museum’s collections. Ruhs said the specimens show that museum collections can provide information about past populations, including through bats collected in the 1800s.

The New York Post described a photograph of two museum specimens displaying size differences. The account also identifies Dr. Goodman as the Field Museum’s only full-time field biologist and says he has lived and worked in Madagascar for nearly 40 years.

It does not describe his specific role in the study, so his experience is best understood as context about the museum’s field presence rather than evidence for the study’s findings. The study’s central proposed mechanism is selective hunting: hunters taking larger bats could leave smaller individuals more likely to remain in the population.

The account connects that explanation with the researchers’ view that hunting became more commercialized around 1980, while also naming environmental possibilities. It does not specify how many bats or specimens were assessed, or provide measurements of the size change.

A Phys.org headline also describes the work as finding shrinking flying foxes through museum specimens and says commercial hunting is suspected. That headline supports the broad connection between the study and hunting, but does not add details about the researchers’ evidence or conclusions.

The New York Post’s account leaves the relative contribution of hunting and environmental factors unresolved; it reports the proposed explanations rather than establishing the share attributable to each.