Echolocation calls of<i>Myotis lucifugus</i>and<i>M. leibii</i>(Vespertilionidae) Flying Inside a Room and Outside

Mukhida, Maya; Orprecio, Jazmine; Fenton, M. Brock

doi:10.3161/001.006.0107

Cited by 14 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our population is located in the temperate zone where the bats form maternity colonies of mothers and pups in the spring and hibernation colonies in the winter (aggregations of male and female adults and young of year juveniles). Sonar call variation for M. lucifugus has been reported in the context of spe-cies differences (Fenton & Bell 1981;Broders et al 2004;Mukhida et al 2004), age differences (Gould 1971;Buchler 1980;Pearl & Fenton 1996;Moss et al 1997), and colony differences (Pearl & Fenton 1996). Kazial et al (2008) examined sonar call variation associated with caller characteristics and found stateof-lactation, age, and individual differences in sonar calls produced by crawling M. lucifugus from the same population used in the present study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 66%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Little Brown Bats (Myotis lucifugus) Recognize Individual Identity of Conspecifics Using Sonar Calls

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bats use sonar calls to locate prey and orient in their environment but they may also be used by conspecifics to obtain information about a caller. Statistical analysis of sonar calls provides evidence that variation carries social information about a caller, including individual identity. We hypothesized that little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) would be able to recognize individuals given the potential fitness benefits of doing so. We performed playback trials using a habituation‐discrimination design to determine whether little brown bats are able to recognize the individual identity of a caller based on variation in their sonar calls. Each subject bat was played the calls of bat A until they habituated (defined as a 50% decrease from the beginning call rate), then the calls of bat B or a new call sequence of bat A (a control, referred to as bat A’) were played. Each subject received a unique pair of playback recordings (bat A and B) from adult female bats from the same colony (but a different colony from the subject) and the order of trials was randomized. The response measures were habituation time (s) and call rate (calls/s). Within a trial, subjects habituated to calls of bat A and transferred this habituation to the bat A’ sequence. In addition, they increased their call rates when played calls of bat B. Comparing between trials, subjects increased their call rate to the calls of bat B to a greater relative extent than to the calls of bat A’. These results provide the first evidence that bats recognize individual identity of conspecifics (as opposed to discrimination of groups), which has implications for the social interactions of bats.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Sonar call variation for M. lucifugus has been reported in the context of species differences (Fenton & Bell 1981; Broders et al. 2004; Mukhida et al. 2004), age differences (Gould 1971; Buchler 1980; Pearl & Fenton 1996; Moss et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Little Brown Bats (Myotis lucifugus) Recognize Individual Identity of Conspecifics Using Sonar Calls

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Significant differences were found between signals in the field and in the laboratory. Also, Mukhida, Orprecio & Fenton (2004) found significant differences in spectral parameters between Myotis individuals flying inside and in the field. The authors of that study observed that the difference between signals of one species flying inside and outside was higher than the difference of signals between two Myotis species flying anywhere.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 82%

Can pipistrelles, Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Schreber, 1774) and Pipistrellus pygmaeus (Leach, 1825), foraging in a group, change parameters of their signals?

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

KeywordsPipistrellus pipistrellus; P. pygmaeus; echolocation in the field and laboratory; monospecific and mixed-species groups. Correspondence AbstractEcholocation behaviour and the structure of calls of Pipistrellus pygmaeus and Pipistrellus pipistrellus were studied by using a time expansion bat detector. Echolocation signals were recorded in the field in south-eastern Moravia and northern Bohemia (Czech Republic) and in an ad hoc experimental laboratory. For each of the species, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated significant differences in calls produced inside the experimental room and in the open. Paired t-tests and MANOVA were also used to reveal influences of interindividual contacts in each of the cryptic species on the spectral patterns of call variables. Differences were found in the spectral variables of echolocation calls of an individual flying in the room alone and in a group of conspecifics. The possibility that bats use their flexibility to avoid mutual disturbances of echolocation calls was tested. We found that bats flying in a group modify the parameters of their echolocation signals according to the presence of other individuals of the same species. These differences can indicate jamming avoidance and recognition of own echoes. However, they did not change the parameters if individuals of another species were present. Social calls are more numerous when bats fly in a mixedspecies group than in a monospecific group.

show abstract

“…Note: All wing loading and aspect ratios are taken from Norberg and Rayner (1987). References for call parameters are taken from Faure et al (1993), MacDonald et al (1994, Obrist (1995), Betts (1998), Caceres and Barclay (2000), and Mukhida et al (2004).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The depth of edge influence among insectivorous bats at forest–field interfaces

Jantzen

Fenton

2013

Can. J. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Species-specific variations in wing morphology and echolocation call characteristics often define which of three structural habitat types (open, cluttered, and edge) different bat species most frequently and efficiently use for foraging. Although edges are recognized as important habitats for commuting and foraging bats, no study to date has examined the depth of edge influence (DEI), the extent of quantitative changes in activity with distance from an edge, for any bat species. We focused our study on five species: northern long-eared bat, Myotis septentrionalis (Trouessart, 1897); hoary bat, Lasiurus cinereus (Beauvois, 1796); little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus (LeConte, 1831); silver-haired bat, Lasionycteris noctivagans (LeConte, 1831); big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus (Beauvois, 1796). We predicted DEI would vary with species-specific differences in wing morphology and echolocation call characteristics. From June to August in 2010 and 2011, we passively recorded echolocation calls three to four times per month at eight sites in eastern Ontario, Canada. We found that species’ activity was highest at the edge, regardless of wing morphology and echolocation call characteristics. The DEI for all species was approximately 40 m into both forests and fields. Understanding the effects of DEI on bats will enable more effective acoustic monitoring in future studies and may provide crucial information for management decisions.

show abstract

Echolocation calls ofMyotis lucifugusandM. leibii(Vespertilionidae) Flying Inside a Room and Outside

Cited by 14 publications

References 25 publications

Little Brown Bats (Myotis lucifugus) Recognize Individual Identity of Conspecifics Using Sonar Calls

Little Brown Bats (Myotis lucifugus) Recognize Individual Identity of Conspecifics Using Sonar Calls

Can pipistrelles, Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Schreber, 1774) and Pipistrellus pygmaeus (Leach, 1825), foraging in a group, change parameters of their signals?

The depth of edge influence among insectivorous bats at forest–field interfaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About