Literature DB >> 21389198

High duty cycle echolocation and prey detection by bats.

Louis Lazure1, M Brock Fenton.   

Abstract

There are two very different approaches to laryngeal echolocation in bats. Although most bats separate pulse and echo in time by signalling at low duty cycles (LDCs), almost 20% of species produce calls at high duty cycles (HDCs) and separate pulse and echo in frequency. HDC echolocators are sensitive to Doppler shifts. HDC echolocation is well suited to detecting fluttering targets such as flying insects against a cluttered background. We used two complementary experiments to evaluate the relative effectiveness of LDC and HDC echolocation for detecting fluttering prey. We measured echoes from fluttering targets by broadcasting artificial bat calls, and found that echo amplitude was greatest for sounds similar to those used in HDC echolocation. We also collected field recordings of syntopic LDC and HDC bats approaching an insect-like fluttering target and found that HDC bats approached the target more often (18.6% of passes) than LDC bats (1.2% of passes). Our results suggest that some echolocation call characteristics, particularly duty cycle and pulse duration, translate into improved ability to detect fluttering targets in clutter, and that HDC echolocation confers a superior ability to detect fluttering prey in the forest understory compared with LDC echolocation. The prevalence of moths in the diets of HDC bats, which is often used as support for the allotonic frequency hypothesis, can therefore be partly explained by the better flutter detection ability of HDC bats.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21389198     DOI: 10.1242/jeb.048967

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Biol        ISSN: 0022-0949            Impact factor:   3.312


  7 in total

Review 1.  What is comparable in comparative cognition?

Authors:  Lars Chittka; Stephen J Rossiter; Peter Skorupski; Chrisantha Fernando
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Sexual dimorphism in echolocation pulse parameters of the CF-FM bat, Hipposideros pratti.

Authors:  Zi-Ying Fu; Xing-Yue Dai; Na Xu; Qing Shi; Gao-Jing Li; Bin Li; Juan Li; Jie Li; Jia Tang; Philip Hung-Sun Jen; Qi-Cai Chen
Journal:  Zool Stud       Date:  2015-05-24       Impact factor: 2.058

3.  Phantom rivers filter birds and bats by acoustic niche.

Authors:  D G E Gomes; C A Toth; H J Cole; C D Francis; J R Barber
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 14.919

4.  Dominant glint based prey localization in horseshoe bats: a possible strategy for noise rejection.

Authors:  Dieter Vanderelst; Jonas Reijniers; Uwe Firzlaff; Herbert Peremans
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 4.475

5.  Individual differences show that only some bats can cope with noise-induced masking and distraction.

Authors:  Dylan G E Gomes; Holger R Goerlitz
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-12-18       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  High duty cycle to low duty cycle: echolocation behaviour of the hipposiderid bat Coelops frithii.

Authors:  Ying-Yi Ho; Yin-Ping Fang; Cheng-Han Chou; Hsi-Chi Cheng; Hsueh-Wen Chang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-24       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Sensorimotor Model of Obstacle Avoidance in Echolocating Bats.

Authors:  Dieter Vanderelst; Marc W Holderied; Herbert Peremans
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 4.475

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.