Literature DB >> 35969288

Mid-flight prey switching in the fringed-lipped bat (Trachops cirrhosus).

Ciara E Kernan1,2, A N Yiambilis3,4, Z E Searcy3, R M Pulica3,5, R A Page2, M S Caldwell6,7.   

Abstract

While foraging, eavesdropping predators home in on the signals of their prey. Many prey signal from aggregations, however, and predators already en route to attack one individual often encounter the signals of other prey. Few studies have examined whether eavesdropping predators update their foraging decisions by switching to target these more recently signaling prey. Switching could result in reduced localization errors and more current estimates of prey location. Conversely, assessing new cues while already in pursuit of another target might confuse or distract a predator. We tested whether fringed-lipped bats (Trachops cirrhosus) switch prey targets when presented with new cues mid-approach and examined how switching and the distance between simulated prey influence attack accuracy, latency, and prey capture success. During nearly 80% of attack flights, bats switched between túngara frog (Engystomops pustulosus) calls spaced 1 m apart, and switching resulted in lower localization errors. The switching rate was reduced, and the localization advantage disappeared for calls separated by 3 m. Regardless of whether bats switched targets, attacks were less accurate, took longer, and were less often successful when calls were spaced at larger distances, indicating a distraction effect. These results reveal that fringed-lipped bats attend to cues from non-targeted prey during attack flights and that the distance between prey alters the effectiveness of attacks, regardless of whether a bat switches targets. Understanding how eavesdropping predators integrate new signals from neighboring prey into their foraging decisions will lead to a fuller picture of the ways unintended receivers shape the evolution of signaling behavior.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Call timing; Distraction; Eavesdropping; Predation; Sensory ecology; Túngara

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35969288     DOI: 10.1007/s00114-022-01813-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Naturwissenschaften        ISSN: 0028-1042


  14 in total

Review 1.  Causes and consequences of limited attention.

Authors:  Reuven Dukas
Journal:  Brain Behav Evol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 1.808

2.  Cues for eavesdroppers: do frog calls indicate prey density and quality?

Authors:  Ximena E Bernal; Rachel A Page; A Stanley Rand; Michael J Ryan
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2007-01-11       Impact factor: 3.926

3.  The cognitive locus of distraction by acoustic novelty in the cross-modal oddball task.

Authors:  Fabrice B R Parmentier; Gregory Elford; Carles Escera; Pilar Andrés; Iria San Miguel
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2007-04-18

4.  Nineteen Years of Consistently Positive and Strong Female Mate Preferences despite Individual Variation.

Authors:  Michael J Ryan; Karin L Akre; Alexander T Baugh; Ximena E Bernal; Amanda M Lea; Caitlin Leslie; Meghan B Still; Dennis C Wylie; A Stanley Rand
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 3.926

5.  Prey Exploits the Auditory Illusions of Eavesdropping Predators.

Authors:  Henry D Legett; Claire T Hemingway; Ximena E Bernal
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2020-03-12       Impact factor: 3.926

6.  Bats perceptually weight prey cues across sensory systems when hunting in noise.

Authors:  D G E Gomes; R A Page; I Geipel; R C Taylor; M J Ryan; W Halfwerk
Journal:  Science       Date:  2016-09-16       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Auditory and visual distraction in hippocampectomized rats.

Authors:  W I Riddell; L A Rothblat; W A Wilson
Journal:  J Comp Physiol Psychol       Date:  1969-02

8.  Risks of multimodal signaling: bat predators attend to dynamic motion in frog sexual displays.

Authors:  Wouter Halfwerk; Marjorie M Dixon; Kristina J Ottens; Ryan C Taylor; Michael J Ryan; Rachel A Page; Patricia L Jones
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2014-09-01       Impact factor: 3.312

9.  Danger comes from all fronts: predator-dependent escape tactics of túngara frogs.

Authors:  Matthew W Bulbert; Rachel A Page; Ximena E Bernal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  What ears do for bats: a comparative study of pinna sound pressure transformation in chiroptera.

Authors:  M K Obrist; M B Fenton; J L Eger; P A Schlegel
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 3.312

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.