Literature DB >> 22279156

The furrows of Rhinolophidae revisited.

Dieter Vanderelst1, Reijniers Jonas, Peremans Herbert.   

Abstract

Rhinolophidae, a family of echolocating bats, feature very baroque noseleaves that are assumed to shape their emission beam. Zhuang & Muller (Zhuang & Muller 2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 218701 (doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.218701); Zhuang & Muller 2007 Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 76(Pt. 1), 051902 (doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.76.051902)) have proposed, based on finite element simulations, that the furrows present in the noseleaves of these bats act as resonance cavities. Using Rhinolophus rouxi as a model species, they reported that a resonance phenomenon causes the main beam to be elongated at a particular narrow frequency range. Virtually filling the furrows reduced the extent of the main lobe. However, the results of Zhuang & Muller are difficult to reconcile with the ecological background of R. rouxi. In this report, we replicate the study of Zhuang & Muller, and extend it in important ways: (i) we take the filtering of the moving pinnae into account, (ii) we use a model of the echolocation task faced by Rhinolophidae to estimate the effect of any alterations to the emission beam on the echolocation performance of the bat, and (iii) we validate our simulations using a physical mock-up of the morphology of R. rouxi. In contrast to Zhuang & Muller, we find the furrows to focus the emitted energy across the whole range of frequencies contained in the calls of R. rouxi (both in simulations and in measurements). Depending on the frequency, the focusing effect of the furrows has different consequences for the estimated echolocation performance. We argue that the furrows act to focus the beam in order to reduce the influence of clutter echoes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22279156      PMCID: PMC3306658          DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2011.0812

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J R Soc Interface        ISSN: 1742-5662            Impact factor:   4.118


  7 in total

1.  Morphology suggests noseleaf and pinnae cooperate to enhance bat echolocation.

Authors:  Roman Kuc
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Noseleaf furrows in a horseshoe bat act as resonance cavities shaping the biosonar beam.

Authors:  Qiao Zhuang; Rolf Müller
Journal:  Phys Rev Lett       Date:  2006-11-22       Impact factor: 9.161

3.  Numerical study of the effect of the noseleaf on biosonar beamforming in a horseshoe bat.

Authors:  Qiao Zhuang; Rolf Müller
Journal:  Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys       Date:  2007-11-05

4.  Morphology-induced information transfer in bat sonar.

Authors:  Jonas Reijniers; Dieter Vanderelst; Herbert Peremans
Journal:  Phys Rev Lett       Date:  2010-09-30       Impact factor: 9.161

5.  What noseleaves do for FM bats depends on their degree of sensorial specialization.

Authors:  Dieter Vanderelst; Fons De Mey; Herbert Peremans; Inga Geipel; Elisabeth Kalko; Uwe Firzlaff
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-08-16       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Flying big brown bats emit a beam with two lobes in the vertical plane.

Authors:  Kaushik Ghose; Cynthia F Moss; Timothy K Horiuchi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Information generated by the moving pinnae of Rhinolophus rouxi: tuning of the morphology at different harmonics.

Authors:  Dieter Vanderelst; Jonas Reijniers; Jan Steckel; Herbert Peremans
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-06-17       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total
  4 in total

1.  The noseleaf of Rhinolophus formosae focuses the Frequency Modulated (FM) component of the calls.

Authors:  Dieter Vanderelst; Ya-Fu Lee; Inga Geipel; Elisabeth K V Kalko; Yen-Min Kuo; Herbert Peremans
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2013-07-19       Impact factor: 4.566

2.  The aerodynamic cost of head morphology in bats: maybe not as bad as it seems.

Authors:  Dieter Vanderelst; Herbert Peremans; Norizham Abdul Razak; Edouard Verstraelen; Grigorios Dimitriadis; Greg Dimitriadis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Intensity and directionality of bat echolocation signals.

Authors:  Lasse Jakobsen; Signe Brinkløv; Annemarie Surlykke
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2013-04-25       Impact factor: 4.566

4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.