Unusual echolocation behavior in a small molossid bat, <Emphasis Type="Italic">Molossops temminckii,</Emphasis> that forages near background clutter

When searching for flying insects, Molossops temminckii uses unusual echolocation calls characterized by upward modulation of frequency vs time (UFM). Call frequency increases asymptotically in the relatively long (∼8 ms) pulses from a starting frequency of ∼40 kHz to a long narrowband tail at ∼50 kHz. When approaching a prey, the bat progressively increases the duration of calls and intersperses in the sequence broadband downwardly frequency-modulated signals with a terminal frequency of about 53 kHz, which totally replaces the UFM signals at the end of the approach phase. The sequence progresses to a capture buzz resembling those from other molossid and vespertilionid bats. The M. temminckii wing morphology is characterized by an average aspect ratio and a high wing loading, suggesting that it is more maneuverable than the typical Molossidae but less than typical Vespertilionidae. M. temminckii regularly forages near clutter, where it needs to pay attention to the background and might face forward and backward masking of signals. We hypothesize that the UFM echolocation signals of M. temminckii represent an adaptation to foraging near background clutter in a not very maneuverable bat needing a broad attention window. The broadband component of the signal might serve for the perception of the background and the narrowband tail for detection and perhaps classification of prey. Bats may solve the signal masking problems by separating emission and echoes in the frequency domain. The echolocation behavior of M. temminckii may shed light on the evolution of the narrowband frequency analysis echolocation systems adopted by some bats foraging within clutter.     

Echolocation in the notch-eared bat,Myotis emarginatus

Summary In Myotis emarginatus, the patterns of echolocation sounds vary with different foraging habitats: In commuting flights the echolocation sounds are linearly frequency modulated sweeps that start at about 100 kHz, terminate at 40 kHz, and have a duration of 1–3 ms. They consist of a loud first harmonic. The second and third harmonics are at least 15 dB fainter than the first one and often undetectable. A distinctly different type of sound is emitted when the bats search for flying insects in open spaces. The sounds are reduced in bandwidth and elongated by a constant frequency component that follows the initial frequency modulated part. Typically, sounds start at about 94 kHz and terminate in a constant frequency component at about 40–45 kHz. The average duration of the constant frequency tail is 2.8 ms; this approximately doubles the length of the pulse, with the longest recorded sound lasting 7.2 ms. When bats are foraging near and within foliage, and gleaning prey from foliage, echolocation sounds are brief (average 1 ms) frequency modulated pulses with a broad bandwidth. The pulses start at about 105 kHz and sweep down to 25 kHz. During gleaning within a building, the frequency range of the sounds is shifted to higher frequencies and extends from 124 to 52 kHz. When the bats forage for aireal insects in a confined area that creates echo-clutter, they emit sounds similar to those used during gleaning within buildings except that sound durations are extended to about 1.8 ms. In each foraging area, the echolocation sounds emitted during the search for and approach to prey are similar in structure. Sound and pause durations are reduced in the approach phase. Irrespective of foraging style and habitat, immediately before capture the bat emits a rapid and stereotyped sequence of 2-10 echolocation pulses (final buzz). These pulses are brief (0.2–0.5 ms), frequency modulated sounds with a reduced bandwidth. The sounds start at 45 kHz and sweep down to 35–20 kHz. The repetition rate is increased up to 200 pulses/s. Offprint requests to: G. Neuweiler     

Foraging behaviour and echolocation in the rufous horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus rouxi) of Sri Lanka

Summary In October 1984 foraging areas and foraging behaviour of the rufous horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus rouxi, were studied around a nursery colony on the hill slopes of Sri Lanka. The bats only foraged in dense forest and were not found in open woodlands (Fig. 1). This strongly supports the hypothesis that detection of fluttering prey is by pure tone echolocation within or close to echo-cluttering foliage. During a first activity period after sunset for about 30–60 min, the bats mainly caught insects on the wing. This was followed by a period of inactivity for another 60–120 min. Thereafter the bats resumed foraging throughout the night. They mainly alighted on specific twigs and foraged in flycatcher style. Individual bats maintained individual foraging areas of about 20x20 m. They stayed in this area throughout the night and returned to the same area on subsequent nights. Within this area the bats generally alighted on twigs at the same spots. Foraging areas were not defended against intruders. The bats echolocated throughout the night at an average repetition rate of 9.6±1.4 sounds/s. While hanging on twigs they scanned the surrounding area for flying prey by turning their bodies continuously around their legs. On average they performed one brief catching flight every 2 min and immediately returned to one of their favourite vantage points. Echolocation sounds may consist of up to three parts, a brief initial frequency-modulated (FM) component, a long constant frequency (CF) part lasting for about 40–50 ms, and a final FM part again (Fig. 4b, c). Adult males and females emitted pure tone frequencies in separate bands, the males from 73.5–77 kHz and the females from 76.5–79 kHz (Fig. 5). During scanning for prey from vantage points, the bats mostly emitted pure tones without any FM component (Fig. 4a). The last few pure tones emitted before take-off were prolonged to about 60 ms duration. The final FM part was therefore not an obligatory component of the echolocation signals in horseshoe bats. During flight and especially during emergence from the cave, most sounds consisted of a pure tone and loud initial and final FM sweeps. We therefore suggest that the initial FM part might also be relevant for echolocation. From our observations we conclude that the FM components are especially important during obstacle avoidance. In most sounds emitted in the field a fainter first harmonic was present. It was usually up to 30 dB fainter than the second harmonic, but in some instances it was as loud or even distinctly louder than the second one (Fig. 6a). Even within one sound the intensity relationship between the two harmonics may be reversed. We therefore suggest that the first harmonic is an integral part of the signal and relevant for information analysis in echolocation.     

Fruit detection and discrimination by small fruit-eating bats (Phyllostomidae): echolocation call design and olfaction

We studied the role of echolocation and other sensory cues in two small frugivorous New World leaf-nosed bats (Phyllostomidae: Artibeus watsoni and Vampyressa pusilla) feeding on different types of fig fruit. To test which cues the bats need to find these fruit, we conducted behavioral experiments in a flight cage with ripe and similar-sized figs where we selectively excluded vision, olfaction, and echolocation cues from the bats. In another series of experiments, we tested the discrimination abilities of the bats and presented sets of fruits that differed in ripeness (ripe, unripe), size (small, large), and quality (intact(infested with caterpillars). We monitored the bats' foraging and echolocation behavior simultaneously. In flight, both bat species continuously emitted short (<2 ms), multi-harmonic, and steep frequency-modulated (FM) calls of high frequencies, large bandwidth, and very low amplitude. Foraging behavior of bats was composed of two distinct stages: search or orienting flight followed by approach behavior consisting of exploration flights, multiple approaches of a selected fruit, and final acquisition of ripe figs in flight or in a brief landing. Both bat species continuously emitted echolocation calls. Structure and pattern of signals changed predictably when the bats switched from search or orienting calls to approach calls. We did not record a terminal phase before final acquisition of a fruit, as it is typical for aerial insectivorous bats prior to capture. Both bat species selected ripe over unripe fruit and non-infested over infested fruit. Artibeus watsoni preferred larger over smaller fruit. We conclude from our experiments, that the bats used a combination of odor-guided detection together with echolocation for localization in order to find ripe fruit and to discriminate among them.     

Fishing and echolocation behavior of the greater bulldog bat,Noctilio leporinus,in the field

When hunting for fish Noctilio leporinus uses several strategies. In high search flight it flies within 20–50 cm of the water surface and emits groups of two to four echolocation signals, always containing at least one pure constant frequency (CF) pulse and one mixed CF-FM pulse consisting of a CF component which is followed by a frequency-modulated (FM) component. The pure CF signals are the longest, with an average duration of 13.3 ms and a maximum of 17 ms. The CF component of the CF-FM signals averages 8.9 ms, the FM sweeps 3.9 ms. The CF components have frequencies of 52.8–56.2 kHz and the FM components have an average bandwidth of 25.9 kHz. A bat in high search flight reacts to jumping fish with pointed dips at the spot where a fish has broken the surface. As it descends to the water surface the bat shows the typical approach pattern of all bats with decreasing pulse duration and pulse interval. A jumping fish reveals itself by a typical pattern of temporary echo glints, reflected back to the bat from its body and from the water disturbance. In low search flight N. leporinus drops to a height of only 4–10 cm, with body parallel to the water, legs extended straight back and turned slightly downward, and feet cocked somewhat above the line of the legs and poised within 2–4 cm of the water surface. In this situation N. leporinus emits long series of short CF-FM pulses with an average duration of 5.6 ms (CF 3.1 and FM 2.6) and an average pulse interval of 20 ms, indicating that it is looking for targets within a short range. N. leporinus also makes pointed dips during low search flight by rapidly snapping the feet into the water at the spot where it has localized a jumping fish or disturbance. In the random rake mode, N. leporinus drops to the water surface, lowers its feet and drags its claws through the water in relatively straight lines for up to 10m. The echolocation behavior is similar to that of high search flight. This indicates that in this hunting mode N. leporinus is not pursuing specific targets, and that raking is a random or statistical search for surface fishes. When raking, the bat uses two strategies. In directed random rake it rakes through patches of water where fish jumping activity is high. Our interpretation is that the bat detects this activity by echolocation but prefers not to concentrate on a single jumping fish. In the absence of jumping fish, after flying for several minutes without any dips, N. leporinus starts to make very long rakes in areas where it has hunted successfully before (memory-directed random rake). Hunting bats caught a fish approximately once in every 50–200 passes through the hunting area.     

Echolocation in two very small bats from Thailand Craseonycteris thonglongyai and Myotis siligorensis

Summary The echolocation and hunting behavior of two very small bats, Craseonycteris thonglongyai (Hill) and Myotis siligorensis (Horsfield), from Thailand, were investigated using multiflash photographs, video, and high-speed tape recordings with a microphone array that allowed determination of distance and direction to the bats. C. thonglongyai is the world's smallest mammal and M. siligorensis is only slightly larger. Both bats hunted insects in open areas. The search signals of C. thonglongyai were 3.5 ms long multiharmonic constant frequency (CF) signals with a prominent second harmonic at 73 kHz repeated at around 22 Hz. The band width (BW) of the short terminal frequency modulated (FM) sweep increased during the very short approach phase. In the final buzz the CF component disappeared, the duration decreased to 0.2 ms, and the repetition rate increased to 215 Hz (Figs. 2, 3, 4). There was no drop in frequency in the buzz. The video recordings of C. thonglongyai indicated that it seizes insects directly with the mouth (Fig. 1). M. siligorensis produced 5.4 ms long CF search signals at 66 kHz. The repetition rate was around 13 Hz. In the approach phase an initial broad band FM sweep was added. The buzz consisted of two phases, buzz I and buzz II. Buzz 11 was characterized by short cry durations (around 0.3 ms), a constant high repetition rate (185 Hz), a distinct drop in frequency, and a prominent second harmonic (Figs. 5, 6, 7). The drop in frequency, apparently typical of vespertilionid bats, has been explained by physiological limitations in sound production. However, C. thonglongyai produced very short signals at very high repetition rates without any frequency drop. The drop may be of adaptive value since it enables M. siligorensis to produce very short signals with high sweep rates. The drop moves the pronounced second harmonic into the frequency range of most interest to the bat (Fig. 7D). The sweep rate in this frequency range may now increase to twice the maximum rate that the vocal cords can produce directly. C. thonglongyai and M. siligorensis belong to different superfamilies, Emballonuroidea and Vespertilionoidea, respectively. In spite of their phylogenetic distance they produce strikingly similar search signals of narrow BW around 70 kHz with high source levels (100–115 dB peSPL peak equivalent sound pressure level). We argue that the signal resemblance is due to the similarity in size and hunting behavior of the two bats both hunting insects in open areas. High frequencies are heavily attenuated in air, but because of their small size the bats are restricted to hunting small insects which only reflect echoes at high frequencies. Thus, the emitted frequency is probably the lowest possible given the prey size. Hence, the two bats can only maximize the range of their sonar by decreasing the BW and emitting high intensities. Correspondence to: A. Surlykke     

Prey detection in trawling insectivorous bats: duckweed affects hunting behaviour in Daubenton's bat, Myotis daubentonii

Daubenton's bat, a trawling vespertilionid bat species, hunts for insects that fly close to, or rest on, the water surface. During summer, many ponds at which Daubenton's bats hunt become gradually covered with duckweed. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of duckweed cover on the hunting behaviour of Daubenton's bats and on the ultrasound-reflecting properties of the water surface. Our study revealed the following. (1) Daubenton's bat avoids water surfaces covered with duckweed. (2) Prey abundance was related to the number of foraging Daubenton's bats but was independent of duckweed cover. (3) When mealworms were presented among standardized amounts of duckweed to naturally foraging Daubenton's bats, they caught significantly less mealworms when the duckweed cover was increased. (4) Measurements with ultrasonic signals show that a water surface covered with duckweed returns a much stronger background echo at small angles (i.e. parallel to the water surface) compared to an uncovered water surface. It seems likely that a cover of duckweed on the water surface interferes with prey detection by masking the echoes returning from prey. (5) It was relatively difficult for the bats to discriminate small patches of duckweed from mealworms. The proposed discrimination mechanism for this trawling bat species suggests that single duckweed patches can also be mistaken for natural prey by Daubenton's bats. Received: 4 January 1998 / Accepted after revision: 19 July 1998     

The use of Doppler-shifted echoes as a flutter detection and clutter rejection system: the echolocation and feeding behavior of Hipposideros ruber (Chiroptera: Hipposideridae)

Summary Hipposideros ruber use CF/FM echolocation calls to detect the wing flutter of their insect prey. Fluttering prey were detected whether the insects were flying or sitting on a surface, and prey in either situation were captured with equal success (approximately 40% of capture attempts). Stationary prey were ignored. The bats did not use visual cues or the sounds of wing flutter to locate their prey. Wing flutter detection suggests that H. ruber exploit the Doppler-shifted information in echoes of their echolocation calls. These bats fed primarily upon moths, usually those of between 10 and 25 mm wingchord, although moths of less than 5 mm and greater than 40 mm wingchord were also attacked and captured. They showed no evidence of selecting moths on the basis of species or other taxonomic distinction, and occasionaly captured other insects.     

The echolocation and hunting behavior of Daubenton's bat,Myotis daubentoni

Summary The echolocation and hunting behavior of Daubenton's bat (Myotis daubentoni) were studied in the field under completely natural conditions using a multiflash photographic system synchronized with high-speed tape recordings. The hunting behavior of M. daubentoni is separated into four stages. In the search flight stage Daubenton's bat flies with an average speed of 3.4±0.6 m/s SD usually within 30 cm over water surfaces searching for insects. After the detection of potential prey, the approach flight stage occurs, during which the bat approaches the target in a goal-directed flight. The stage tail down indicates that M. daubentoni is close to the potential prey (approximately 10–22 cm) and is preparing for the catch. The insects are caught with the interfemoral membrane, the feet, and sometimes with the additional aid of a wing. In the stage head down, the bat seizes the prey during flight. Immediately afterwards, Daubenton's bat returns to search flight. M. daubentoni shows the typical echolocation behavior of a vespertilionid bat, emitting frequency-modulated (FM) echolocation signals. The three behavioral stages search, approach, and terminal phase (Griffin et al. 1960) are used to describe the pulse pattern of foraging M. daubentoni in the field. The terminal phase (or buzz) of Daubenton's bat is separated into two parts: buzz I and buzz II. Buzz II is distinguished from buzz I by the following characteristics: a sharp drop in terminal frequency, a distinct reduction in the bandwidth of the first harmonic, a continuous high repetition rate throughout the phase in the range 155–210 Hz, very short pulses (0,25–0.3 ms) and interpulse intervals (4.5–5.0 ms) at the end of the phase, and a distinct decrease in duty cycle. A pause in echolocation separates the end of the terminal phase from the ongoing search phase. The reduction in sound duration after the detection of a target and during pursuits with successfull or attempted catches is discussed in relation to the actual distance of the bat to the target at each stage. It is likely that Daubenton's bat reduces sound duration during approach and terminal phase in order to prevent an overlap of an outgoing pulse with the returning echo from the target. It is argued that the minimum detection distance can be estimated from the sound duration during search flight. Estimates of detection and reaction distances of M. daubentoni based upon synchronized photos and echolocation sequences are given to corroborate this hypothesis. An average detection distance of 128 cm and an average reaction distance of 112 cm were determined. Each behavioral stage of foraging M. daubentoni is characterized by a distinct pattern of echolocation signals and a distinct stage in hunting behavior. The approach flight in hunting behavior coincides with the approach phase and with buzz I in echolocation behavior. The stage tail down corresponds to buzz II. The stage head down is correlated with a pause in echolocation. Immediately afterwards, the bat returns into search flight and into the search phase, emitting search signals.     

Ecological niche and phylogeny: the highly complex echolocation behavior of the trawling long-legged bat, Macrophyllum macrophyllum

Bats produce echolocation signals that reflect the sensory tasks they perform. In open air or over water, bats encounter few or no background echoes (clutter). Echolocation of such bats is the primary cue for prey perception and varies with the stage of approach to prey, typically comprising search, approach, and terminal group calls. In contrast, bats that glean stationary food from rough surfaces emit more uniform calls without a distinct terminal group. They use echolocation primarily for orientation in space and mostly need additional sensory cues for finding food because clutter echoes overlap strongly with food echoes. Macrophyllum macrophyllum is the only Neotropical leaf-nosed bat (Phyllostomidae) that hunts in clutter-poor habitat over water. As such, we hypothesized that, unlike all other members of its family, but similar to other trawling and aerial insectivorous bats, M. macrophyllum can hunt successfully by using only echolocation for prey perception. In controlled behavioral experiments on Barro Colorado Island, Panamá, we confirmed that echolocation alone is sufficient for finding prey in M. macrophyllum. Furthermore, we showed that pattern and structure of echolocation signals in M. macrophyllum are more similar to aerial and other trawling insectivorous bats than to close phylogenetic relatives. Particularly unique among phyllostomid bats, we found distinct search, approach, and terminal group calls in foraging M. macrophyllum. Call structure, however, consisting of short, multiharmonic, and steep frequency-modulated signals, closely resembled those of other phyllostomid bats. Thus, echolocation behavior in M. macrophyllum is shaped by ecological niche as well as by phylogeny.     

Population and seasonal variation in response to prey calls by an eavesdropping bat

The fringe-lipped bat, Trachops cirrhosus, is an eavesdropping predator that hunts frogs and katydids by approaching these preys' sexual advertisement calls. In captivity, bats can rapidly learn to associate novel acoustic stimuli with food rewards. It is unknown how this learning ability is related to foraging behavior in the wild where prey and the calls that identify them vary over space and time. In two bat populations that differ in available prey species (Soberanía, Panama, and La Selva, Costa Rica), we presented wild-caught bats with frog calls, katydid calls, and control stimuli. Bats in Soberanía were significantly more responsive to complex calls and choruses of the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus, than were bats in La Selva. La Selva bats were significantly more responsive to katydid calls (Steirodon sp.) than Soberanía bats. We also examined seasonal variation in bat response to prey cues. Bats were captured in Soberanía in dry and wet seasons and presented with the calls of a dry season breeding frog (Smilisca sila), a wet season breeding frog (P. pustulosus), and four katydid species. Bats captured in the dry season were significantly more responsive to the calls of S. sila than bats captured in the wet season, but there were no seasonal differences in response to the calls of P. pustulosus or the katydid calls. We demonstrate plasticity in the foraging behavior of this eavesdropping predator but also show that response to prey cues is not predicted solely by prey availability.     

Ground gleaning in horseshoe bats: comparative evidence from<Emphasis Type="Italic"> Rhinolophus blasii</Emphasis>,<Emphasis Type="Italic"> R. euryale</Emphasis> and<Emphasis Type="Italic"> R. mehelyi</Emphasis>

The 71 species of horseshoe bat (genus Rhinolophus) use echolocation calls with long constant-frequency (CF) components to detect and localize fluttering insects which they seize in aerial captures or glean from foliage. Here we describe ground-gleaning as an additional prey-capture strategy for horseshoe bats. This study presents the first record and experimental evidence for ground-gleaning in the little-studied Blasius horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus blasii). The gleaning bouts in a flight tent included landing, quadrupedal walking and take-off from the ground. The bats emitted echolocation calls continuously during all phases of prey capture. Both spontaneously and in a choice experiment, all six individuals attacked only fluttering insects and never motionless prey. These data suggest that R. blasii performs ground-gleaning largely by relying on the same prey-detection strategy and echolocation behaviour that it and other horseshoe bats use for aerial hawking.We also studied the Mediterranean horseshoe bat (R. euryale) in the flight tent. All four individuals never gleaned prey from the ground, though they appeared to be well able to detect fluttering moths on the ground. It is not known yet whether ground-gleaning plays a role in Mehelys horseshoe bat (R. mehelyi). In a performance test, we measured the ability of these three European species of middle-sized horseshoe bats (R. euryale, R. mehelyi and R. blasii) to take-off from the ground. All were able to take flight even in a confined space; i.e. the willingness to ground-glean in R. blasii is not related to a superior take-off performance. In contrast to ground-gleaning bats of other phylogenetic lineages, R. blasii appears not to be a specialist, but rather shows a remarkable behavioural flexibility in prey-capture strategies and abilities. We suggest that the key innovation of CF echolocation paired with behavioural flexibility in foraging strategies might explain the evolutionary success of Rhinolophus as the second largest genus of bat.Communicated by T. Czeschlik     

The effectiveness of katydid (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Neoconocephalus ensiger</Emphasis>) song cessation as antipredator defence against the gleaning bat <Emphasis Type="Italic">Myotis septentrionalis</Emphasis>

Many nocturnal katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) produce intense calling songs, and some bat species use these songs to detect and locate prey. One Nearctic katydid species, Neoconocephalus ensiger, ceases or pauses singing in response to bat echolocation calls. We tested the hypothesis that song cessation is an effective defence against gleaning bats (i.e., bats that take prey from surfaces). We observed Myotis septentrionalis, a sympatric bat species that uses prey-generated sounds when gleaning, attack and feed on singing N. ensiger in an outdoor flight room. These bats demonstrated a preference for the calling song of N. ensiger over a novel cricket calling song when they were broadcast from a speaker in the flight room. Bats attacked speakers broadcasting N. ensiger calling song as long as the song was continuous and aborted their attack if the sound stopped as they approached, regardless of whether a katydid was present as a physical target on the speaker. Echolocation calls were recorded during attacks and no significant differences were found between continuous and interrupted song approaches for four call parameters, suggesting that M. septentrionalis may not use echolocation to locate silent prey. Therefore, song cessation by katydids in response to ultrasound is an effective defence against gleaning bats.     

Echolocation beam shape in emballonurid bats, Saccopteryx bilineata and Cormura brevirostris

The shape of the sonar beam plays a crucial role in how echolocating bats perceive their surroundings. Signal design may thus be adapted to optimize beam shape to a given context. Studies suggest that this is indeed true for vespertilionid bats, but little is known from the remaining 16 families of echolocating bats. We investigated the echolocation beam shape of two species of emballonurid bats, Cormura brevirostris and Saccopteryx bilineata, while they navigated a large outdoor flight cage on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. C. brevirostris emitted more directional signals than did S. bilineata. The difference in directionality was due to a markedly different energy distribution in the calls. C. brevirostris emitted two call types, a multiharmonic shallowly frequency-modulated call and a multiharmonic sweep, both with most energy in the fifth harmonic around 68?kHz. S. bilineata emitted only one call type, multiharmonic shallowly frequency-modulated calls with most energy in the second harmonic (~46?kHz). When comparing same harmonic number, the directionality of the calls of the two bat species was nearly identical. However, the difference in energy distribution in the calls made the signals emitted by C. brevirostris more directional overall than those emitted by S. bilineata. We hypothesize that the upward shift in frequency exhibited by C. brevirostris serves to increase directionality, in order to generate a less cluttered auditory scene. The study indicates that emballonurid bats are forced to adjust their relative harmonic energy instead of adjusting the fundamental frequency, as the vespertilionids do, presumably due to a less flexible sound production.     

Natterer’s bat (Myotis nattereri Kuhl, 1818) hawks for prey close to vegetation using echolocation signals of very broad bandwidth

We present a hitherto unknown prey perception strategy in bats: Myotis nattereri (Vespertilionidae, Chiroptera) is able to perceive prey by echolocation within a few centimeters of echo-cluttering vegetation, by using frequency-modulated search signals of very large bandwidth (up to 135 kHz). We describe the species’ search behavior and echolocation repertoire from the field and from experiments in a flight tent. In the field, bats varied signal parameters in relation to their distance from vegetation and usually flew close to vegetation. In the flight tent, M. nattereri detected and localized prey by echolocation alone as close as 5 cm from vegetation. Apparently, the bats were able to tolerate some overlap between prey and clutter echoes. Passive prey cues (vision, olfaction, prey-generated sounds) were not used in prey perception. The bats selected prey by size. The animals performed aerial catches and produced approach sequences typical for aerial hawking bats, but were able to do so within a few centimeters of the substrate. M. nattereri thus has access to silent, suspended prey very close to vegetation (e.g., spiders, and caterpillars on threads). Received: 29 September 1999 / Received in revised form: 12 February 2000 / Accepted: 12 February 2000     

Similar is not the same: Social calls of conspecifics are more effective in attracting wild bats to day roosts than those of other bat species

Many bat species regularly need to find new day roosts as they require numerous shelters each breeding season. It has been shown that bats exchange information about roosts among colony members, and use echolocation and social calls of conspecifics in order to find roosts. However, it is unclear if wild bats discriminate between social calls of conspecifics and other bat species while searching for roosts. Furthermore, the extent that bats are attracted to potential roosts by each of these two call types is unknown. We present a field experiment showing that social calls of conspecifics and other bat species both attract bats to roosts. During two summers, we played back social calls of Bechstein’s bats (Myotis bechsteinii) and Natterer’s bats (Myotis nattereri) from different bat boxes that can serve as roosts for these species. All experimental bat boxes were monitored with infrared video to identify the approaching bat species. Three species (M. bechsteinii, M. nattereri, and Plecotus auritus) approached the boxes significantly more often during nights when bat calls were played compared to nights without playbacks. Bechstein’s bats and Natterer’s bats were both more attracted to social calls of conspecifics than of the other species, whereas P. auritus did not discriminate between calls of either Myotis species. Only Bechstein’s bats entered experimental boxes and only at times when calls from conspecifics were played. Our findings show that wild bats discriminate between social calls of conspecifics and other bat species although they respond to both call types when searching for new roosts.     

Individual specific contact calls of pallid bats (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Antrozous pallidus</Emphasis>) attract conspecifics at roosting sites

Contact calls are utilized by several bird and mammal species to maintain group cohesion and coordinate group movement. From a signal design perspective, contact calls typically exhibit acoustic features that make them easily localizable and encode information about individual or group identity. Pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) are unusual among vespertilionids in that they often emit a loud, partially audible frequency-modulated social call several times in rapid succession while in flight. This call appears to function as a contact call in that it is frequently given when bats return from foraging and perform circular flights before entering a crevice roost. However, the degree to which pallid bats respond to the calls of conspecifics and what information is provided in the call is unknown. Thus, the goal of this study was to investigate pallid bat calling behavior to determine if calls attract roostmates or elicit responses from them and provide sufficient information for individual recognition. In playback studies, we found that contact calls, elicit calls, and approaches and that free-flying bats respond more to familiar than unfamiliar calls. In addition, analysis of frequency and temporal measurements of calls collected from multiple sites and spectral cross correlation analysis of calls recorded from the same radio-tagged bats on multiple evenings revealed that the frequency pattern of contact calls is highly repeatable over time within individuals but exhibits significant differences among individuals. Thus, contact call structure appears to be unique to individuals and stable through time, which makes these calls well-suited for roostmate recognition.     

The role of synchronized calling,ambient light,and ambient noise,in anti-bat-predator behavior of a treefrog

Summary Male treefrogs, Smilisca sila (Hylidae), produce calls of varying complexity and demonstrate a remarkable ability to synchronize their calls with those of neighbors. The bat Trachops cirrhosus eats frogs and uses the frogs' advertisement calls as locational cues. The bats are less likely to respond to synchronous calls than to asynchronous calls, and when given a choice prefer complex calls to simple calls.Experiments with bat models indicate that, like other frogs, S. sila probably uses visual cues to detect hunting bats. In response to bat models the frogs decreased both the number and the complexity of their calls. The calling behavior of the frogs was sampled in the field during periods with and without artificial illumination. The frogs produced fewer and less complex calls, and they tended to call from more concealed sites, during the period without illumination, when presumably it would have been more difficult for the frogs to detect hunting bats. S. sila tended to call from sites with higher ambient noise level, the noise primarily originating from waterfalls. The frequencies of the dominant energies in the waterfall sounds completely overlapped the frequency range of the S. sila call; thus waterfalls might mask the frog calls. When given a choice between calls produced near and away from waterfall sounds, bats preferred the latter.     

Flexible bat echolocation: the influence of individual,habitat and conspecifics on sonar signal design

Acoustic signals which are used in animal communication must carry a variety of information and are therefore highly flexible. Echolocation has probably such functions and could prove as flexible. Measurable variabitlity can indicate flexibility in a behaviour. To quantify variability in bat sonar and relate to behavioural and environmental factors, I recorded echolocation calls of Euderma maculatum, Eptesicus fuscus, Lasiurus borealis and L. cinereus while the bats hunted in their natural habitat. I analysed 3390 search phase calls emitted by 16 known and 16 unknown individuals foraging in different environmental and behvioural situations. All four species used mainly multiharmonic signals that showed considerable intra- and inter-individual variability in the five signal variables I analysed (call duration, call interval, highest and lowest frequency and frequency with maximum energy) and also in the shape of the sonagram. A nested multivariate analysis of variance identified the influences of individual, hunting site, close conspecifics and of each observation on the frequency with maximum energy in the calls, and on other variables measured. Individual bats differed in multiple comparisons, most often in the main call frequency and least often in call interval. In a discriminant function analysis with resubstitution, 56–76% of a species' calls were assigned to the correct individual. Distinct individual call patterns were recorded in special situations in all species and the size of foraging areas in forested areas influenced temporal and spectral call structure. Echolocation behaviour was influenced by the presence of conspecifics. When bats were hunting together, call duration decreased and call interval increased in all species, but spectral effects were less pronounced. The role of morphometric differences as the source of individually distinct vocalizations is discussed. I also examined signal adaptations to long range echolocation and the influence of obstacle distance on echolocation call design. My results allow to discuss the problems of echo recognition and jamming avoidance in vespertilionid bats.     

Dynamic adjustment of biosonar intensity to habitat clutter in the bat Macrophyllum macrophyllum (Phyllostomidae)

Echolocating bats adjust the time–frequency structure such as sweep rate and pulse interval of their sonar calls when they move from open space to vegetation-dense environments. Emitted call intensity is equally important for echolocation, but adjustment of signal intensity to different habitats has never been systematically studied in any bat species. To address this question, we recorded sonar calls of the Neotropical trawling insectivorous bat Macrophyllum macrophyllum (Phyllostomidae) at three sites with different obstacle densities (clutter). We found a clear correlation between emitted intensity and degree of clutter, with intensity proportional to decreasing clutter. In highly cluttered, semicluttered, and open spaces, M. macrophyllum emitted calls with mean source levels (sound pressure level (SPL) 10 cm from the bat’s mouth) of 100, 105, and 111 dB SPL root mean square (rms), respectively. To our knowledge, this is the first documentation of dynamic intensity adjustments in bats. Phyllostomid bats were previously considered silent, but the 111-dB SPL rms emitted by free-ranging M. macrophyllum in open space is comparable to output in aerial insectivorous bats from other families. Our results suggest that the acoustic constraints of habitats are better predictors of call intensity than phylogeny and therefore likely to be major drivers shaping the sonar system of bats in the course of evolution.