Translator Disclaimer
1 June 2004 Echolocation calls of Myotis lucifugus and M. leibii (Vespertilionidae) Flying Inside a Room and Outside
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

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.

LITERATURE CITED

1.

R. M. R. Barclay 1983. Echolocation calls of emballonurid bats from Panama. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 151: 515–520. Google Scholar

2.

T. L. Best , and J. B. Jennings . 1997. Myotis leibii. Mammalian Species, 547: 1–6. Google Scholar

3.

A. R. C. Britton , 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. Google Scholar

4.

A. Denzinger , B. M. Siemers , A. Schaub , and H.-U. Schnitzler . 2001. Echolocation by the barbastelle bat, Barbastella barbastellus. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 187: 521–528. Google Scholar

5.

W. R. Dillon , and M. Goldstein . 1984. Multivariate analysis: methods and applications. Wiley, New York, 608 pp. Google Scholar

6.

M. B. Fenton 1990. The foraging behaviour and ecology of animal-eating bats. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 68: 411–422. Google Scholar

7.

M. B. Fenton , and R. M. R. Barclay . 1980. Myotis lucifugus. Mammalian Species, 142: 1–8. Google Scholar

8.

D. R. Griffin , F. A. Webster , and C. R. Michael . 1960. The echolocation of flying insects by bats. Animal Behaviour, 8: 141–154. Google Scholar

9.

J. Habersetzer 1981. Adaptive echolocation sounds in the bat Rhinopoma hardwickei. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 144: 559–566. Google Scholar

10.

M. D. Hovorka , C. S. Marks , and E. Muller . 1996. An improved chemiluminescent tag for bats. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 24: 709–712. Google Scholar

11.

G. Jones , N. Vaughan , and S. Parsons . 2000. Acoustic identification of bats from directly sampled and time expanded recordings of vocalizations. Acta Chiropterologica, 2: 155–170. Google Scholar

12.

G. Jones , 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. Google Scholar

13.

E. Kalko 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. Google Scholar

14.

K. A. Kazial , 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. Google Scholar

15.

P. A. Lachenbruch 1975. Discriminant analysis. Hafner Press, New York, 128 pp. Google Scholar

16.

B. D. Lawrence , 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. Google Scholar

17.

G. Neuweiler , 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. Google Scholar

18.

M. K. Obrist 1995. Flexible bat echolocation: the influence of individual habitat and conspecifics on sonar signal design. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 36: 207–219. Google Scholar

19.

M. J. O'farrell , and B. W. Miller . 1997. A new examination of echolocation calls of some neotropical bats (Emballonuridae and Mormoopidae). Journal of Mammalogy, 78: 954–963. Google Scholar

20.

J. D. Olden , and D. A. Jackson . 2002. A comparison of statistical approaches for modelling fish species distributions. Freshwater Biology, 47: 1976–1995. Google Scholar

21.

J. M. Ratcliffe , 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. Google Scholar

22.

D. Russo , 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. Google Scholar

23.

J. Rydell , 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. Google Scholar

24.

H.-U. Schnitzler , and E. K. V. Kalko . 2001. Echolocation by insect-eating bats. Bioscience 51: 557–569. Google Scholar

25.

A. Schumm , D. Krull , and G. Neuweiler . 1991. Echolocation in the notch-eared bat, Myotis emarginatus. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 28: 255–261. Google Scholar

26.

B. M. Siemers , 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. Google Scholar

27.

J. A. Simmons , M. B. Fenton , and M. J. O'farrell . 1979. Echolocation and pursuit of prey by bats. Science, 203: 16–21. Google Scholar

28.

R. A. Suthers 1965. Acoustic orientation by fishcatching bats. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 158: 319–348. Google Scholar

29.

M. D. Tuttle 1974. An improved trap for bats. Journal of Mammalogy, 55: 475–477. Google Scholar
© Museum and Institute of Zoology PAS
Maya Mukhida, Jazmine Orprecio, and M. Brock Fenton "Echolocation calls of Myotis lucifugus and M. leibii (Vespertilionidae) Flying Inside a Room and Outside," Acta Chiropterologica 6(1), 91-97, (1 June 2004). https://doi.org/10.3161/001.006.0107
Received: 12 March 2003; Accepted: 1 December 2003; Published: 1 June 2004
JOURNAL ARTICLE
7 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top