Echolocation calls of Myotis lucifugus and M. leibii (Vespertilionidae) flying inside a room and outside

• Autorzy: Mukhida M. , Orprecio J. , Fenton M. B.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The purpose of this study was to compare the echolocation calls of the same four individual Myotis lucifugus and Myotis leibii flying inside a closed room and when released outside. Echolocation calls were recorded using a Pettersson D980 bat detector, the high frequency output fed into a personal computer via an F2000 Control Filter and an Ines High speed card. Recorded as .wav files, recordings were analyzed with BatSoundPro. We measured call duration (DUR in ms), frequency with maximum energy (FMAX in kHz), highest frequency (HF in kHz), lowest frequency (LF in kHz), and inter-pulse interval (IPI in ms). Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVA) indicated significant differences in call features between species, between settings, between species in each setting, and finally between settings for each individual. Discriminant Function Analyses (DFA) revealed that inside DUR was the most important parameter distinguishing M. lucifugus from M. leibii, with 66.3% correct classification, while outside, the two species were distinguished 78.8% of the time by LF. The data demonstrate that the same individuals flying in confined spaces change the details of their echolocation calls compared to when flying in the open. Calls produced inside are shorter in DUR and are produced at shorter IPIs than calls produced outside. FMAX differed most between the calls of M. lucifugus and M. leibii whether flying inside or outside. Differences between echolocation calls were more pronounced between setting (inside versus outside) than between species.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Chiropterologica
• Rocznik: 2004
• Tom: 06
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.91-97,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Mukhida M.

• Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6

autor

Orprecio J.

autor

Fenton M. B.

Bibliografia

• Barclay, R. M. R. 1983. Echolocation calls of emballonurid bats from Panama. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 151: 515-520.
• Best, T. L., and J. B. Jennings. 1997. Myotis leibii. Mammalian Species, 547: 1-6.
• Britton, A. R. C., and G. Jones. 1999. Echolocation behaviour and prey-capture success in foraging bats: laboratory and field experiments on Myotis daubentonii. Journal of Experimental Biology, 202: 1793-1801.
• Denzinger, A., B. M. Siemers, A. Schaub, and H.-U. Schnitzler. 2001. Echolocation by the barbastelle bat, Barbastella barbastellus. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 187: 521-528.
• Dillon, W. R., and M. Goldstein. 1984. Multivariate analysis: methods and applications. Wiley, New York, 608 pp.
• Fenton, M. B. 1990. The foraging behaviour and ecology of animal-eating bats. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 68: 411-422.
• Fenton, M. B., and R. M. R. Barclay. 1980. Myotis lucifugus. Mammalian Species, 142: 1-8.
• Griffin, D. R., F. A. Webster, and C. R. Michael. 1960. The echolocation of flying insects by bats. Animal Behaviour, 8: 141-154.
• Habersetzer, J. 1981. Adaptive echolocation sounds in the bat Rhinopoma hardwickei. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 144: 559-566.
• Hovorka, M. D., C. S. Marks, and E. Muller. 1996. An improved chemiluminescent tag for bats. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24: 709-712.
• Jones, G., N. Vaughan, and S. Parsons. 2000. Acoustic identification of bats from directly sampled and time expanded recordings of vocalizations. Acta Chiropterologica, 2: 155-170.
• Jones, G., M. Morton, P. M. Hughes, and R. M. Budden. 1993. Echolocation, flight morphology and foraging strategies of some West African hipposiderid bats. Journal of Zoology (London) 230: 385-400.
• Kalko, E. 1995. Echolocation signal design, foraging habitats and guild structure in six Neotropical sheath-tailed bats (Emballonuridae). Pp. 259-273, in Ecology, evolution and behaviour of bats (P. A. Racey and S. M. Swift, eds.). Symposia of The Zoological Society of London, 67: xxi + 421 pp.
• Kazial, K. A., S. C. Burnett, and W. M. Masters. 2001. Individual and group variation in echolocation calls of big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Journal of Mammalogy, 8: 339-351.
• Lachenbruch, P. A. 1975. Discriminant analysis. Hafner Press, New York, 128 pp.
• Lawrence, B. D., and J. A. Simmons. 1982. Measurements of atmospheric attenuation at ultrasonic frequencies and the significance for echolocation by bats. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 71: 585-590.
• Neuweiler, G., W. Metzner, U. Heilmann, R. Rubersamen, M. Eckrich, and H. H. Costa. 1987. Foraging behaviour and echolocation in the rufous horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus rouxi) of Sri Lanka. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 20: 53-67.
• Obrist, M. K. 1995. Flexible bat echolocation: the influence of individual habitat and conspecifics on sonar signal design. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 36: 207-219.
• O’Farrell, M. J., and B. W. Miller. 1997. A new examination of echolocation calls of some neotropical bats (Emballonuridae and Mormoopidae). Journal of Mammalogy, 78: 954-963.
• Olden, J. D., and D. A. Jackson. 2002. A comparison of statistical approaches for modelling fish species distributions. Freshwater Biology, 47: 1976-1995.
• Ratcliffe, J. M., and J. Dawson. 2003. Behavioural flexibility: the little brown bat and the northern long-eared bat both glean and hawk prey. Animal Behaviour, 66: 847-856.
• Russo, D., and G. Jones. 2002. Identification of twenty-two bat species (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from Italy by analysis of time-expanded recordings of echolocation calls. Journal of Zoology (London), 258: 91-103.
• Rydell, J., H. T., A. Arita, M. Santos, and J. Granados. 2002. Acoustic identification of insectivorous bats (order Chiroptera) of Yucatan, Mexico. Journal of Zoology (London), 257: 27-36.
• Schnitzler, H.-U., and E. K. V. Kalko. 2001. Echolocation by insect-eating bats. Bioscience 51: 557-569.
• Schumm, A., D. Krull, and G. Neuweiler. 1991. Echolocation in the notch-eared bat, Myotis emarginatus. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 28: 255-261.
• Siemers, B. M., and H.-U. Schnitzler. 2000. Natterer’s bat (Myotis nattereri Kuhl, 1818) hawks for prey close to vegetation using echolocation signals of very broad bandwidth. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 47: 400-412.
• Simmons, J. A., M. B. Fenton, and M. J. O’Farrell. 1979. Echolocation and pursuit of prey by bats. Science, 203: 16-21.
• Suthers, R. A. 1965. Acoustic orientation by fish- catching bats. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 158: 319-348.
• Tuttle, M. D. 1974. An improved trap for bats. Journal of Mammalogy, 55: 475-477.