Skip to main content
F1000Research logoLink to F1000Research
. 2026 Jan 8;14:899. Originally published 2025 Sep 10. [Version 5] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.169075.5

First photographic evidence of the Egyptian fruit bat, Rousettus aegyptiacus (Pteropodidae) in the King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Nature Reserve, Hail Region, Saudi Arabia

Mohammed Bakri 1,2, Mohammad Abdulhakeem 2, Abdulrahman Alasiri 2, Tariq Aloufi 2, Noorah Al-Sowayan 1,a
PMCID: PMC12759268  PMID: 41488229

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 4

This version includes updates based on Reviewer 3's comments.

  1. The observation time (9 or 10 PM) has been corrected and standardized throughout the manuscript.

  2. A sentence was added to clarify that the listed plants describe the vegetation cover, not the dietary preferences of the bats.

  3. Scientific names of plant species were italicized.

  4. Figure 2b was revised with clearer labels and a more detailed description of each section.

  5. A sentence was added in the discussion to reference the 1966 study and to clarify that the current record represents photographic documentation within the protected area.

  6. In addition, I have implemented all other relevant comments, including language review and removal of previously duplicated content, as these points were already addressed in earlier reviewer feedback.

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to document the occurrence of the Egyptian fruit bat Rousettus aegyptiacus in King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Nature Reserve (KSRNR), Hail region, Saudi Arabia, where its presence had not previously been confirmed.

Methods

Field surveys were conducted in the Hail region, and direct observations were documented using photographic and video evidence. The colony was visually counted in the field during a single daytime visit from an estimated distance of 15 meters.

Results

More than 50 individuals, including adults and juveniles, were observed roosting in a rock crevice. The photographic documentation confirms the presence of a colony of R. aegyptiacus in this area, extending the known distribution of the species into a previously unrecorded region of Saudi Arabia.

Conclusions

These findings provide the first photographic record of R. aegyptiacus in KSRNR and highlight the species’ ecological use of arid rock crevices. The results emphasize the need for targeted surveys and long-term monitoring to better understand the distribution and conservation of this species in desert environments.

Keywords: Chiroptera; Sustainable; Habitat; Distribution; Bats; Hail region; Saudi Arabia

Introduction

The Egyptian fruit bat Rousettus aegyptiacus (Geoffroy, 1810), is a frugivorous bat species widely distributed across the Afro-Palearctic region. 1, 2 In Saudi Arabia, its confirmed presence has been reported primarily in the southwestern and northwestern parts of the country, including records from Bisha, 3 Abha, 4 Taima, Al Disah, and Muleh. 5 Although some recent studies have extended this range, 6, 7 there remains a gap in verified documentation from desert ecosystems in north-central Saudi Arabia.

King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Nature Reserve (KSRNR) spans semi-arid and mountainous landscapes that provide potential roosting and feeding sites for chiropteran species. 8, 9 The Aja Mountains in the Hail region, characterized by rocky outcrops and sparse vegetation, may represent suitable bat habitats that are yet to be explored. Bats, particularly those in the family Pteropodidae, play crucial ecological roles and are highly sensitive to environmental changes. 10

Based on a comprehensive literature search and available faunal records (e.g., Refs. 6, 7, 11, 12), no previous photographic documentation of this species has been reported within the boundaries of KSRNR.

This study presents the first photographic record of R. aegyptiacus in the KSRNR, confirming its presence in Hail and filling a notable gap in the known range. We discuss the potential ecological relevance of this finding and its implications for conservation and biodiversity monitoring in arid zones of Saudi Arabia.

Methods and materials

Study area

The Hail region is situated on an extensive plateau overlying the Precambrian Arabian Shield, a complex geological formation comprising igneous and metamorphic rock units that exhibit diverse topographic and geomorphic characteristics. 13 The study was conducted in the Qa’a Tiltel Valley (27°25′28.5″ N, 40°51′17.8″ E) ( Figure 1), on the western side of Al-Khabbah. The area is characterized by mountainous terrain and semi-desert isolation, and stands out in the landscape as gravelly and sparsely vegetated, dominated by Haloxylon salicornicom and Malva parviflora, making it an ideal niche for many animal species ( Figure 1).

Figure 1. Map of the King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Nature Reserve, Hail Region, showing the study site.


Figure 1.

Techniques employed

A single daytime field survey was conducted on March 31, 2024, at approximately 9:00 AM by two biodiversity monitors from the KSRNR team. The bat roost was observed from a distance of roughly 15 meters to avoid direct disturbance.

Photographic and video documentation was captured using a Nikon Z5II camera equipped with a 200–600 mm telephoto lens, without using flash.

Individual bats were counted visually during the live observation only, no video footage or still images were used to aid in the count. The count was conducted once and represents an approximate minimum estimate. Age classification into adults and juveniles was based solely on visible features such as body size and fur density, without handling or close-up inspection.

Results

On March 31, 2024, at 9:00 AM, a roosting colony of over 50 Rousettus aegyptiacus was observed in a mountain crevice in the Qa’a Titel area (27°25’28.5”N, 40°51’17.8”E), within the southern part of Hail Region. This site, located in a semi-desert habitat within the boundaries of the King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Nature Reserve, was documented through both photographic and video evidence (see Table 1 for full summary).

Table 1. Summary of Rousettus aegyptiacus observation in Hail Region.

Observation Date 31 March 2024
Time 9:00 AM
Location Qa’a Tiltel, Hail Region
Coordinates 27°25′28.5″N, 40°51′17.8″E
Habitat Type Mountain crevice in semi-desert landscape
Number of Individuals >50 individuals
Number of Juveniles ±10
Evidence Photographic and Video

The bats roost in a fissure at the base of a rocky hill within a semi-desert landscape sparsely vegetated with Haloxylon salicornicum and Malva parviflora. This microhabitat provides shelter and minimal disturbance, which supports bat colonization. These plant species are not considered a food source for the bats but represent part of the natural landscape surrounding the roost.

Photographic and video documentation confirmed identification based on morphology: large body size, strong limbs, short fur with greyish-brown dorsal and ventral coloring, and yellowish markings in some individuals. Juveniles are distinguishable by their lighter color and sparse hair. 14 The colony generally exhibited calm behavior with occasional flights in response to disturbances.

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the roost site, including location, environmental features, and observed behaviors. The colony included both adults and juveniles. Due to the limitations on physical handling within the protected area, we could not determine the exact number or proportion of each age class. However, based on visible traits-such as smaller body size and lighter fur-we observed that juveniles were present. Most bats were roosting closely together on the cave ceiling, showing minimal activity during the day.

In addition to the new Hail record, six confirmed occurrences of Rousettus aegyptiacus have been documented in Saudi Arabia, as shown in Table 2 and Figure 2. These include records from the northern and southern parts of the country based on photographic evidence and published reports. The distribution of R. aegyptiacus records across Saudi Arabia is shown in Figure 2.

Table 2. Confirmed records of Rousettus aegyptiacus in Saudi Arabia with coordinates and references.

Location Latitude (N) Longitude (E) Reference
Taima 27.6 38.6 6
Al Disah 28.7 36.3 6
Muleh 28.2 35.9 6
Hail (New) 27.42 40.85 This study
Bisha 19.98 42.59 6 , 7
Abha 18.23 42.51 6

Figure 2. (a) IUCN global distribution range of Rousettus aegyptiacus. (b) Distribution map showing the location of the Egyptian fruit bat ( Rousettus aegyptiacus) colony recorded in the King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Nature Reserve (KSRNR), Hail Region, Saudi Arabia. The colony was observed roosting in a rocky hill fissure within a known distributional gap. According to IUCN data, there is no prior record of this species in Saudi Arabia, suggesting this finding fills a distribution gap rather than expanding the known range.


Figure 2.

To provide geographic context for the new record, we added Table 3 to present the estimated distances between the study site in the King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Nature Reserve (Hail Region) and the nearest previously confirmed records of Rousettus aegyptiacus in Saudi Arabia. The nearest previous record is from Tayma, approximately 226 km from the study site. This confirms a spatial gap between earlier known locations and the newly observed colony in Hail. This comparison strengthens our statement that this is the first photographic documentation of the species in the Hail Region.

Table 3. Distance (in km) between current study site and nearest previously confirmed locations of Rousettus aegyptiacus. 6 .

Region Distance
Taima 226 km
Al Qassim 290 Km
Al Ula 298 km
Tabouk 330 km
Al Madinah Al Munawwarah 338 km

The bat colony was observed in a mountain crevice at 9:00 on March 31, 2024, southern Qa’a Tiltel in the Hail region, containing over 50 bat individuals, which were identified as R. aegyptiacus the roost was active inside the cave.

The roost was located in a fissure near the bottom of the hill ( Figure 3a and b). The bat colony, consisting of over 50 individuals, was active inside the cave. The presence of this colony in the Hail region, confirmed by photographic documentation, represents a notable faunal record. 14 The video recordings and photographs clearly showed large, robust bats with well-developed feet and a strong thumb. The fur was short, and the dorsal and ventral sides appeared uniformly gray or brownish. The belly and throat in some individuals were yellowish. Juveniles were generally gray and more sparsely haired than adults. Photographic evidence of R. aegyptiacus in the Hail region is shown in Figure 4a f and Video 1. R. aegyptiacus was active in the cave. This observation confirms the species’ presence in this area.

Figure 3. (a) Entrance of the cave (image extracted from Video S2). (b) Detailed view of the cave entrance showing the roosting site and colony of R. aegyptiacus recorded in the Hail region (captured by Mohammed Bakri).


Figure 3.

Figure 4. (a–f ) Different individuals of Egyptian fruit bat ( R. aegyptiacus) observed on 31 March 2024 (captured by Mohammed Bakri).


Figure 4.

Supplementary material

A short video clip (Video S1) showing active individuals of Rousettus aegyptiacus within the cave in Qa’a Tiltel is provided as a supplementary material. The footage supports photographic documentation and confirms the roost activity in the area. And Short video (Video S2) of the roost entrance (still image used for Figure 3a).

Verification of novelty

To confirm that our finding represents the first photographic record of Rousettus aegyptiacus in the Hail region, we conducted an extensive review of available biodiversity documentation. This included:

  • Searching the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)

  • Reviewing national wildlife records from the Saudi Wildlife Authority

  • Examining peer-reviewed publications and regional biodiversity surveys

No prior photographic documentation of the species in this region was identified. Therefore, our image constitutes the first visual confirmation of its presence in the King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Nature Reserve.

Discussion

The confirmed presence of Rousettus aegyptiacus in the Hail region particularly within the boundaries of the King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Nature Reserve represents a novel observation. Previous records of this species in Saudi Arabia were largely restricted to the western and southwestern regions (e.g., Makkah and Asir). Its documentation in Hail extends the known distribution range of this frugivorous bat species into the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula, suggesting potential ecological corridors or suitable habitat patches beyond the traditionally recognized range. This finding holds relevance for future conservation planning and highlights the need for broader bat surveys in central and northern Saudi Arabia.

The observed distance between the study site and previously documented locations of Rousettus aegyptiacus ranging from 226 to 338 km suggests a broader distribution range than previously recognized. This finding underscores the importance of continued surveys in northern Saudi Arabia, particularly in underexplored regions where ecological data remain scarce.

This report presents the first confirmed photographic evidence of the Egyptian fruit bat Rousettus aegyptiacus within the King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Nature Reserve (KSRNR) in the Hail region. Although earlier surveys documented this species in neighboring areas, including Taima, Al Disah, and Muleh, 5 and more recently in other parts of Hail, 7 these records were either anecdotal or lacked detailed visual verification. This record fills a critical gap by visually confirming the presence of a stable roosting colony within the boundaries of a major conservation area.

This study presents the first photographic evidence of Rousettus aegyptiacus within the boundaries of King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Nature Reserve. Although an earlier non-photographic record was reported from Hail in 1966, 17 the current finding confirms the species’ sustained presence and breeding activity inside the protected area, establishing its ecological relevance and conservation priority.

R. aegyptiacus is known for its adaptability to diverse environments, from humid forests to arid and semiarid zones. 1, 5, 11, 15 Its ability to exploit rocky crevices and caves in dry mountainous areas reflects broader ecological flexibility than previously assumed. Although Harrison and Bates 12 and Bergmans 16 provided a foundational understanding of the species’ range, recent findings, including those by Benda et al. 7 and Al Obaid et al., 6 suggested a significant extension of its known habitat, particularly in less-explored northern regions.

The photographic and video documentation in this study adds empirical support to Abu Yaman’s early report by Hail, 17 validating historical data and establishing a visual benchmark for future surveys. This visual confirmation strengthens the case when considering the region as a part of the active range of R. aegyptiacus.

Further studies are needed to explore other potential roosting sites within the KSRNR, including the unexplored caves and valleys. Regular ecological surveys combined with acoustic monitoring and roost counts are crucial for assessing seasonal movement patterns, reproductive status, and interspecies interactions among local bat communities. Such data are essential to understand the conservation value of desert-protected areas for volant mammals.

Conclusion

Photographic documentation of Rousettus aegyptiacus in the King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Nature Reserve (KSRNR) represents a significant record of the biodiversity of arid zones in Saudi Arabia. This confirmation of a stable colony in the Hail region expands the known geographic range of the species and emphasizes the ecological value of the KSRNR.

This finding supports earlier undocumented sightings in the region and underscores the importance of incorporating visual and photographic verification into biodiversity monitoring. As arid environments face increasing pressure from habitat loss and climate change, conservation of species such as R. aegyptiacus requires continuous ecological research and adaptive management strategies.

We recommend initiating systematic surveys across the reserve to identify additional roosting sites and monitor the population health. Integrating local communities and relevant stakeholders into awareness and conservation programmes is critical. Protecting keystone species such as R. aegyptiacus contributes to broader ecosystem sustainability goals in Saudi Arabia.

The recommendations are to conduct more thorough surveys to determine the distribution of R. aegyyeptiacus throughout various areas of Saudi Arabia in order to obtain higher data rates for this species for better understanding and conservation at the country level and in the entire Arabian Peninsula region. Furthermore, long-term monitoring programs for the population trends and habitat selection of this species have been conducted. Working with local communities and key stakeholders is critical for creating awareness, which helps them to engage in conservation initiatives. Finally, initiatives geared toward the conservation of the Egyptian fruit bat also serve broader purposes in supporting biodiversity and maintaining desert ecosystem sustainability within Saudi territory.

Ethics statement

This study was purely observational and did not involve capture, handling, disturbance, or experimental manipulation of animals. Permission to conduct observations within the King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Nature Reserve was obtained from the Reserve authorities. Therefore, separate ethical approval was not required. The bats were observed and photographed from a distance in their natural habitat without any interference.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank the Chief Executive Officer of King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Natural Reserve and the reserve team for their valuable inputs, guidance, insightful feedback, and discussions.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

[version 5; peer review: 2 approved

Data availability

Underlying data

Zenodo: First photographic evidence of the Egyptian fruit bat in Saudi Arabia. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17037131 18

This project contains the following underlying data:

  • Figure files (JPEG): Original images of Figures 1–4.

  • Video files (MP4): Video S1 (colony activity), Video S2 (crevice entrance, still image used as Figure 3a).

  • Table files (DOCX): Observation records (Tables 1 and 2).

Extended data

Zenodo: Supplementary materials. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17037131 18

This project contains the following extended data:

  • Supplementary Table S1. Details of R. aegyptiacus observations in the King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Nature Reserve, Hail Region, Saudi Arabia.

  • Supplementary Table S2. Confirmed records across Saudi Arabia with coordinates and references.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

References

  • 1. IUCN: Rousettus aegyptiacus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020: e.T29730A22043105. 2020. Retrieved November 11, 2024. Reference Source
  • 2. Benda P, Abi-Said M, Bartonička T, et al. : Rousettus aegyptiacus (Pteropodidae) in the Palaearctic: list of records and revision of the distribution range. Vespertilio. 2011;15(1):3–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Memish ZA, Mishra N, Olival KJ, et al. : Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus in bats, Saudi Arabia. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2013;19(11):1819–1823. 10.3201/eid1911.131172 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. El-Mansi AA, Al-Kahtani MA, Abumandour MM: Comparative phenotypic and structural adaptations of tongue and gastrointestinal tract in two bats having different feeding habits captured from Saudi Arabia: Egyptian fruit bat (Rousettus aegyptiacus) and Egyptian tomb bat (Taphozous perforatus). Zool. Anz. 2019;281:24–38. 10.1016/j.jcz.2019.05.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Aloufi A, Amr Z, Nassarat H: Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from Tabuk Province, Saudi Arabia. Vertebr. Zool. 2016;66:207–215. 10.3897/vz.66.e31554 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Al Obaid A, Shuraim F, Al Boug A, et al. : Diversity and conservation of bats in Saudi Arabia. Diversity. 2023;15(6):700. 10.3390/d15060700 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Benda P, Reiter A, Uhrin M: On the distribution of the Egyptian Fruit Bat Rousettus aegyptiacus in Saudi Arabia (Mammalia: Chiroptera). Zool. Middle East. 2023;69(4):299–308. 10.1080/09397140.2023.2266911 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Alshammari AM, Ibnrahim AA: Amphibians of the Ha’il region, Saudi Arabia, with special reference to their habitat and distribution. Adv. Biores. 2018;9(1):165–172. [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Shabana HA, Khafaga T, Al-Hassan H, et al. : Medicinal plants diversity at King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Natural Reserve in Saudi Arabia and their conservation management. J. Med. Plant Res. 2023;17(11):292–304. 10.5897/JMPR2023.7317 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Norberg UM, Rayner JM: Ecological morphology and flight in bats (Mammalia; Chiroptera): wing adaptations, flight performance, foraging strategy and echolocation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, Biol. Sci. 1987;316(1179):335–427. [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Nader IA: On the bats (Chiroptera) of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J. Zool. (Lond.). 1975;176:331–340. 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1975.tb03205.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Harrison DL, Bates PJJ: The Mammals of Arabia. 2nd ed. Sevenoaks: Harrison Zoological Museum;1991. [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Hereher ME, Al-Shammari AM, Abd Allah SE: Land cover classification of Hail—Saudi Arabia using remote sensing. Int. J. Geosci. 2012;03(02):349–356. 10.4236/ijg.2012.32038 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Dietz C, Kiefer A: Bats of Britain and Europe. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing;2016;206. [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Kock D, Nader IA: Two bat flies from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, their nomenclature, host specifity and zoogeography (Insecta: Diptera: Nycteribiidae). Senckenberg. Biol. 1979;60:65–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Bergmans W: Taxonomy and biogeography of African fruit bats (Mammalia, Megachiroptera). 4. The genus Rousettus Gray, 1821. Beaufortia. 1994;44(4):79–126. [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Abu Yaman IK: Insect pests of Saudi Arabia. Z. Angew. Entomol. 1966;58:266–278. 10.1111/j.1439-0418.1966.tb04344.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Al-Sowayan N, Bakri M, Abdulhakeem M, et al. : Figures, tables, and videos for “First photographic evidence of the Egyptian fruit bat in Saudi Arabia”.[dataset]. Zenodo. 2025 Aug 21. 10.5281/zenodo.17037131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
F1000Res. 2026 Jan 2. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.194581.r446488

Reviewer response for version 4

Maya M Juman 1

I find the article much improved from the original submission and have no further comments to make.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

bat ecology, disease ecology, pteropodid bats, zoonotic viruses

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2025 Dec 30. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.192355.r439194

Reviewer response for version 3

Wanda Markotter 1

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. The paper needs some proofreading to improve the Grammar and syntax. In addition, is there information missing as indicated below, and improvements needed. 

Specifically

  • Methods state 9am (page 3), results state 10am (page 10, table 1)

  • Vegetation scientific names not in italics (page 5)

  • Page 5: “The bats roost in a fissure at the base of a rocky hill within a semi-desert landscape sparsely vegetated with Haloxylon salicornicum and Malva parviflora. This microhabitat provides shelter and minimal disturbance, which is suitable for bat colonization.” These plants cant be used as a food source for the bats, so not sure how they will contribute to a habitat suitable for bat colonization?

  • They authors repeat a lot of information from the methods section in the results section.

  • The map (Figure 2b) seems to be missing records from close by as mapped by IUCN.  According to the mapping from IUCN, it seems as though there is already a record for the Hail region.

  • Figure 2 legend does not describe the a and b parts of the image.

  • Page 5: “The bat colony was observed in a mountain crevice at 10:00 on March 31, 2024, southern Qa’a Tiltel in the Hail region, containing over 50 bat individuals, which were identified as R. aegyptiacus the roost was active inside the cave.” This is the third time the authors repeat this information.

  • Page 5: “was active inside the cave” repeated twice in the same paragraph

  • Page 5: Two paragraphs following each other both start with the same sentence “The roost was located in a fissure near the bottom of the hill (Figure 3a and b).” Turns out both paragraphs say exactly the same thing, text slightly changed.

  • This paper -  https://doi.org/10.3390/d15060700 - lists the records of Rousettus in Saudi Arabia and referenced this paper: Abu Yaman, I.K. Insect pests of Saudi Arabia. J. Appl. Entomol. 1966, 58, 266–278. – as evidence for reports of Rousettus in Hail. So there is previous evidence of Rousettus in the region. Perhaps not that exact location, but this information is missing from their paper. I'm not sure if this is still within the King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Nature Reserve (KSRNR) border, which they are using as the novel angle for their report, citing it as the first photographic evidence.

  • In the discussion, the authors mention recent findings in Hail, but miss the older records. 

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Bat disease ecology with a focus on Rousettus aegyptiacus

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

F1000Res. 2025 Dec 29. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.192355.r438576

Reviewer response for version 3

Maya M Juman 1

The authors have made most of the changes previously requested. However, I would recommend a thorough proofread of the entire manuscript:

In the introduction, the authors have replaced "order Chiroptera" with "order Pteropodidae"—this must be corrected to "family Pteropodidae."

In the results: "The video recordings and photographs clearly showed large, robust bats with well-developed feet and a strong thump"—do the authors mean "thumb"?

Further, the last paragraph of the results remains duplicated, though the authors state that they reviewed these paragraphs for redundancy.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

bat ecology, disease ecology, pteropodid bats, zoonotic viruses

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2025 Nov 25. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.190779.r433709

Reviewer response for version 2

Barry W Brook 1

My critiques have been adequately addressed. No further changes required.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Ecological modelling, conservation biology, threatened species, camera-trapping, monitoring.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2025 Nov 25. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.190779.r433710

Reviewer response for version 2

Maya M Juman 1

I appreciate the authors’ efforts to revise the manuscript; however, it appears that some of these changes have not been made, though the authors state that they have been. For example, information about juveniles is still missing from Table 1, and the distance to the nearest known record has not been added. The authors still refer to “bats, particularly those in the order Chiroptera” in the introduction—all bats are in the order Chiroptera.

While some changes have been made, they have also introduced further errors. For example, the last paragraph of the introduction is now duplicated. There is also redundancy/duplicated sentences in the final two paragraphs of the results. Additionally, the IUCN range in Figure 2 is incomplete (missing distribution in Yemen, Oman, Iran, etc).

I suspect that the authors have mistakenly submitted an incomplete version of the manuscript for review. Please review the original comments as well as the new ones above and ensure that they are incorporated into the next submission.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

bat ecology, disease ecology, pteropodid bats, zoonotic viruses

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

F1000Res. 2025 Oct 14. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.186359.r418035

Reviewer response for version 1

Barry W Brook 1

This note provides useful, multimedia confirmation of Rousettus aegyptiacus in KSRNR and does add value. Strengths include the clear statement of place and date, the visual evidence, and the intent to make data open. Where I had issues was the precision of the novelty claim (not well supported), rigour of the count protocol, explanation of identification details, and some other minor quibbles.

Major points.

1. "First photographic evidence" claim in KSRNR/Hail should be explicitly supported (not just asserted), e.g., list the record systems and literature searched (named sources, date accessed, search terms), and state the outcome. If there are earlier reports for Hail that lack imagery, then say so. If there are photographic records elsewhere in the Kingdom, then acknowledge them. This might require some adjustment of the title, abstract, discussion, and conclusion.

2. In methods, replace vague terms like "comprehensive" with an actual effort description, e.g., report observers (n), observation windows, approximate distances to the roost, vantage points, and equipment (camera body, lens, flash use). Describe the counting protocol: whether still frames or video were used, how duplicate counts were reconciled (e.g., two independent tallies with discrepancy threshold), and whether you report a minimum count. Also provide criteria for any age-class assignment or leave out that split. The present inference of colony stability can't be asserted from a single visit: either remove that claim or add evidence (repeat visits, local knowledge, follow-up confirmations, etc.). 

3. Regarding identification evidence, as the only pteropodid in Saudi Arabia, misidentification seems unlikely but colour alone is a bit weak. Suggest an annotation the Fig. 4 plates to indicate diagnostic characters (e.g., pale/orange neck collar, claw on second digit?), and include ~size estimates from images (with a scale proxy if this is possible). State clearly which traits you used and cite a regional key or authoritative description.

4. The ecological interpretation in the discussion over-reads a single roost as evidence of unusual ecological flexibility. That's drawing a long bow. From what I understand, R. aegyptiacus is already documented from arid and semi-arid zones where caves and fruit trees occur. So recast to local context, such as water points, fruit farming, and crevice/cave availability, and add specific, testable implications (e.g., survey nearby wadis and farms, and seasonal checks for reproduction). 

5. For maps, you need to add more info: the projection, basemap/data attributions, software used, etc. For photos, be clearer that the full-resolution images are available in the SI (I initially didn't realise this). As per my above comment, add arrows/labels to the traits used for ID and clarify which panels derive from the supplementary video. Also, the resolution of Fig 2 in the main paper is terrible, but it's okay in the SI. Fix this.

Minor points.

- Replace generalities ('ideal niche', 'random flights', 'comprehensive survey') with specific descriptions.

- Use consistent coordinate formats (DMS or decimal, not both) and ensure internal consistency across text, figure, and tables.

- In the abstract, briefly note the evidence and the count method. 

- Replace vague keywords (e.g., 'sustainable') with targeted terms (e.g., KSRNR, Hail, roost, fruit bat, range).

- In the site table, specify the micro-site (e.g., 'rock crevice in semi-desert dominated by xy plant species').

- Avoid overly rhetorical verbiage: keep interpretations anchored on the presented evidence. 

Overall, I think this is a valuable, verifiable observation. With a more evidence-based claim (on first status), reproducible methods, and some other clean-ups, it will be a reliable regional record and, I'd hope, a prompt for systematic follow-up by future research.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Ecological modelling, conservation biology, threatened species, camera-trapping, monitoring.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2025 Nov 2.
Noorah Al-Sowayan 1

Dear Barry Nicholls,

Thank you very much for your thorough and insightful review of our manuscript.

We carefully revised the manuscript to address all your points.

The main updates include:

    •    Supporting the novelty claim with literature references and adjusted title/abstract.

    •    Clarifying our observational methods, equipment, and limitations.

    •    Removing assumptions about colony stability and clarifying age-class criteria.

    •    Improving the quality and annotation of Figure 2 and providing size estimates.

    •    Revising the ecological interpretation to reflect a more localized, evidence-based discussion.

    •    Enhancing map metadata (projection, attribution, software) and unifying coordinate formats.

    •    Replacing vague terms and ensuring precision across abstract, keywords, and tables.

Your comments were critical in strengthening the methodology and interpretation.

We greatly appreciate your time and effort.

Sincerely,

Prof. Noorah Al-Sowayan

On behalf of all authors

F1000Res. 2025 Sep 24. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.186359.r414359

Reviewer response for version 1

Maya M Juman 1

This paper describes the presence of an Egyptian fruit bat colony in a nature reserve in the Hail region of Saudi Arabia. This study constitutes the first evidence of Rousettus aegyptiacus in this region. The authors provide extensive supportive evidence including photos, videos, coordinates, and maps. This finding is a worthy contribution to the literature. However, below I list several major and minor suggestions for improvement:

Major:

  • I would consider adding some more context in the introduction surrounding R. aegyptiacus occurrence in desert environments across its range (not just in Saudi Arabia). Is the described habitat similar to other parts of its range?

  • Consider overlaying the IUCN range map on Figure 2 to illustrate whether the new observation constitutes a range expansion or a filled gap.

  • The authors mention distinguishing between juveniles and adults. Can the number or proportion of juvenile bats be determined or at least estimated? This would be a useful addition to Table 1, as the demographic breakdown of the colony could be important for assessing colony health and informing future ecological studies. 

  • In the Discussion, consider addressing whether there are any anthropogenic impacts that may threaten the specific habitat (and colony) reported here.

Minor:

  • Italicize Latin binomials in Abstract and Results.

  • In the introduction, the authors refer to “bats, particularly those in the order Chiroptera” - all bats are in this order, so this must be corrected to “bats, which constitute the order Chiroptera” or some such.

  • I would consider reporting the distance in km between this site and the nearest previously reported site of R. aegyptiacus, which will help contextualize the finding.

  • There is some redundancy in the Results (paragraphs 3 and 6) about morphological identification of this species and of juveniles. This can be abbreviated.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Reviewer Expertise:

bat ecology, disease ecology, pteropodid bats, zoonotic viruses

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

F1000Res. 2025 Nov 2.
Noorah Al-Sowayan 1

Dear Maya M. Juman,

On behalf of all authors, I would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable and constructive feedback on our manuscript.

We have addressed all your comments carefully and revised the manuscript accordingly.

In particular:

    •    We added ecological context on Rousettus aegyptiacus in desert environments in the Introduction.

    •    We overlaid the IUCN range map in Figure 2.

    •    Juvenile bat estimates were included in Table 1.

    •    Anthropogenic threats were discussed in the Discussion.

    •    Taxonomic names were italicized, and Chiroptera terminology corrected.

    •    The distance to the nearest known record was added.

    •    Redundancy in morphological description was removed.

Your suggestions helped improve the clarity and scientific depth of our work.

Thank you again for your thoughtful review.

Sincerely,

Prof. Noorah Al-Sowayan

On behalf of all authors

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Citations

    1. Al-Sowayan N, Bakri M, Abdulhakeem M, et al. : Figures, tables, and videos for “First photographic evidence of the Egyptian fruit bat in Saudi Arabia”.[dataset]. Zenodo. 2025 Aug 21. 10.5281/zenodo.17037131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

    Data Availability Statement

    Underlying data

    Zenodo: First photographic evidence of the Egyptian fruit bat in Saudi Arabia. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17037131 18

    This project contains the following underlying data:

    • Figure files (JPEG): Original images of Figures 1–4.

    • Video files (MP4): Video S1 (colony activity), Video S2 (crevice entrance, still image used as Figure 3a).

    • Table files (DOCX): Observation records (Tables 1 and 2).

    Extended data

    Zenodo: Supplementary materials. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17037131 18

    This project contains the following extended data:

    • Supplementary Table S1. Details of R. aegyptiacus observations in the King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Royal Nature Reserve, Hail Region, Saudi Arabia.

    • Supplementary Table S2. Confirmed records across Saudi Arabia with coordinates and references.

    Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).


    Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd

    RESOURCES