Translator Disclaimer
1 December 2004 Detection and Avoidance of Harp Traps by Echolocating Bats
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Researchers often use harp traps and mist nets to capture bats, and need to be aware of factors that affect trap capture efficiency. Ultrasound reflects from small targets in a frequency-dependent manner, so we predicted that higher frequency sound pulses would return stronger echoes from the fine wires and net of bat traps than would lower frequency signals. We also predicted that mist nets would return stronger echoes than harp traps because mist nets are made of a higher density (and often diameter) of material. Ensonification experiments with pulses of 20–110 kHz showed that both harp traps and mist nets reflected higher frequency pulses more strongly. Pocketed areas of mist nets returned stronger echoes than harp traps although at some frequencies differences between trap types were small. Our results provide one verified reason why harp traps are more effective than mist nets at capturing bats, and also predict that bats using high frequency echolocation calls may be more difficult to trap than species emitting low frequency signals. Interspecies differences in how traps are detected are therefore likely sources of bias in field surveys. Observations of bats encountering harp traps in the field showed less than 4% of encounters resulted in capture, and only 8.8% of encounters could be interpreted as a failure to detect the trap. A comparison between two species that differ in echolocation call and flight characteristics (Rhinolophus hipposideros and Myotis nattereri) showed no difference in trap detection or avoidance. However, differences in behaviour during trap encounters were apparent.

LITERATURE CITED

1.

D. Attenborough 2003. The life of mammals: programme 2 insect hunters. DVD, British Broadcasting Corporation Worldwide Ltd., London, UK. Google Scholar

2.

Baagøe H. J . 1987. The Scandinavian bat fauna: adaptive wing morphology and free flight in the field. Pp. 57–75, in Recent advances in the study of bats ( M. B. Fenton , P. A. Racey , and J. M. V. Rayner , eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 470 pp. Google Scholar

3.

E. N. Bazley 1976. Sound absorption in air at frequencies up to 100 kHz. NPL Acoustics Report 74. National Physics Laboratory, Teddington, UK, 43 pp. Google Scholar

4.

R. B. Coles , A. Guppy , M. E. Anderson , and P. SchlegeL . 1989. Frequency sensitivity and directional hearing in the gleaning bat, Plecotus auritus. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 165A: 269–280. Google Scholar

5.

D. G. Constantine 1958. An automatic bat-collecting device. Journal of Wildlife Management, 22: 17–22. Google Scholar

6.

K. Dobson , L. Lumsden , and J. Nelson . 2001. To catch a bat with a harp trap. Bat Research News, 42: 53. Google Scholar

7.

A. M. Duffy , L. F. Lumsden , C. R. Caddle , R. R. Chick , and G. R. Newell . 2000. The efficacy of Anabat ultrasonic detectors and harp traps for surveying microchiropterans in south-eastern Australia. Acta Chiropterologica, 2: 127–144. Google Scholar

8.

C. M. Francis 1989. A comparison of mist nets and two designs of harp traps for capturing bats. Journal of Mammalogy, 70: 865–870. Google Scholar

9.

M. W. Holderied 2001. Akustische Flugbahnverfolgung von Fledermäusen: Artvergleich des Verhaltens beim Suchflug und Richtcharakteristik der Schallabstrahlung. PhD Thesis, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 253 pp. Google Scholar

10.

M. W. Holderied , and O. Von Helversen . 2003. Echolocation range and wing beat period match in aerial-hawking bats, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 270B: 2293–2299. Google Scholar

11.

R. D. Houston , A. M. Boonman , and G. Jones . 2004. Do echolocation signal parameters restrict bats' choice of prey? Pp. 339–345, in Echolocation in bats and dolphins ( J. A. Thomas , C. F. Moss , and M. Vater , eds.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 604 pp. Google Scholar

12.

G. Jones 1993. Flight and echolocation in bats: coupling, and constraints on optimal design. Trends in Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 1: 595–606. Google Scholar

13.

S. A. Kick 1982. Target-detection by the echolocating bat, Eptesicus fuscus. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 145A: 431–435. Google Scholar

14.

T. H. Kunz , and E. L. P. Anthony . 1977. On the efficiency of the Turtle bat trap. Journal of Mammalogy, 58: 309–315. Google Scholar

15.

T. H. Kunz , and A. Kurta . 1988. Capture methods and holding devices. Pp. 1–29, in Ecological and behavioural methods for the study of bats ( T. H. Kunz , ed.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 533 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.

D. J. Mills , T. W. Nortojn , H. E. Parnaby , B. Cunningham , and H. A. Nix . 1996. Designing surveys for microchiropteran bats in complex forest landscapes: a pilot study from south-east Australia. Forest Ecology and Management, 85: 149. Google Scholar

18.

G. Neuweiler , S. Singh , and K. Sripathi . 1984. Audiograms of a south Indian bat community. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 154: 133–142. Google Scholar

19.

U. M. Norberg , and J. M. V. Rayner . 1987. Ecological morphology and flight in bats (Mammalia; Chiroptera): wing adaptations, flight performance, foraging strategy and echolocation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 316B: 335–427. Google Scholar

20.

K. N. Parsons , G. Jones , I. Davidson-Watts , and F. Greenaway . 2003. Swarming of bats at underground sites in Britain: implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, 111: 63–70. Google Scholar

21.

S. Parsons , and G. Jones . 2000. Acoustic identification of twelve species of echolocating bat by discriminate function analysis and artificial neural networks. Journal of Experimental Biology, 203: 2641–2656. Google Scholar

22.

J. D. Pye 1993. Is fidelity futile? The ‘true’ signal is illusory, especially with ultrasound. Bioacoustics, 4: 271–286. Google Scholar

23.

J. L. Sedlock 2001. Inventory of insectivorous bats on Mount Makiling, Philippines using echolocation call signatures and a new tunnel trap. Acta Chiropterologica, 3: 163–178. Google Scholar

24.

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

25.

B. M. Siemers , P. Stilz , and H.-U. Schnitzler . 2001. The acoustic advantage of hunting at low heights above water: behavioural experiments on the European ‘trawling’ bats Myotis capaccinii, M. dasycneme and M. daubentonii. Journal of Experimental Biology, 204: 3843–3854. Google Scholar

26.

C. R. Tidemann , and D. P. Woodside . 1978. A collapsible bat trap and a comparison of results obtained with the trap and with mist nets. Australian Wildlife Research, 5: 355–362. Google Scholar

27.

N. Troest , and B. Møhl . 1986. The detection of phantom targets in noise by serotine bats; negative evidence for a coherent receiver. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 159A: 559–567. Google Scholar

28.

M. D. Tuttle 1974. An improved trap for bats. Journal of Mammalogy, 55: 475–477. Google Scholar

29.

D. A. Waters , and G. Jones . 1995. Echolocation call structure and intensity in five species of insectivorous bats. Journal of Experimental Biology, 198: 475–489. Google Scholar
© Museum and Institute of Zoology PAS
Nicholas Berry, Will O'connor, Marc W. Holderied, and Gareth Jones "Detection and Avoidance of Harp Traps by Echolocating Bats," Acta Chiropterologica 6(2), 335-346, (1 December 2004). https://doi.org/10.3161/001.006.0211
Published: 1 December 2004
JOURNAL ARTICLE
12 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top