Foraging Behavior, Prey Selection, and Echolocation in Phyllostomine Bats (Phyllostomidae)

Abstract

A thorough knowledge of food habits and feeding behavior is essential to appreciate the adaptive significance of different bat echolocation call types (Simmons et al. 1979, Neuweiler 1984. This paper describes prey selection, foraging behavior and echolocation in 12 species of phyllostomine bats (Phyllostomidae) from Barro Colorado Island, Panama (BCI). Little is known about the natural history of these bats, but they are onmivorous, feeding on insects, fruit, pollen, nectar and small vertebrates (Gardner 1977). Most species have long ears and hover, and are thought to glean prey from foliage and other substrates (Hill & Smith 1984). In addition, Trachops cirrhosus and Micronycteris megalotis, M. hirsuta, and Tonatia silvicola (Tuttle et al. 1985, Belwood & Morris, in press) use prey produced sounds (frog and insect calls, respectively) to locate food.All bats were caught in dense forest, not in clearings or in areas without trees. Fecal analysis (Table 1) and captive feedings show that M. megalotis, M. hirsuta, T. silvicola, T. bidens, Mimon crenulatum, Macrophyl~ macrophyllum, and !~ cirrhosus feed heavily on insects (and the latter also on vertebrates). M. nicefori and Phylloderma stenops eat fruit, and Chrotopterus auritus only vertebrates. Phyllostomus discolor and P. hastatUS feed on insects and fruit, and the latter also on small vertebrates. Orthoptera (katydids, roaches, crickets) that usually do not fly, but move along the ground or foliage (pers. obs.), dominated in the diets of wild caught T. bidens, T. silvicola, T. cirrhosus, M. megalotis, and M. hirsuta, indicating that they were probably gleaned from various substrates. This was confirmed in the lab, where !. silvicola, !. cirrhosus, and~. hirsuta gleaned and consumed prey from feeding perches, rather than in the air. These bats responded to and captured only calling (or otherwise sound-producing) prey. Live, uncaged, moving but silent insects were never approached, even when they were only a few cm from hungry bats. Large beetles (>10 mm body length (BL» followed in importance in the diets. Only M. crenulatum and M. macrophyllum fed on non-orthopteroid insects (beetles-«S rom BL», and moths (size unknown), respectively, which mayor may not have been gleaned. Eleven M. hirsuta and 27 M. megalotis roosts, containing the remains of lO,944 and l2,OSS insects, respectively, were found. Usually, day roosts were also used as feeding roosts, for months or years at a time, indicating that the bats foraged regularly in small familiar areas. OVer two years, the major prey eaten by the 6 g M. megalotis, by number, were: roaches (lO-lS mm

Wing mechanics, vibrational and acoustic communication in a new bush-cricket species of the genus Copiphora (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) from Colombia

“…3, see also Morris et al 1994). Similar to C. (Belwood, 1988(Belwood, , 1990Belwood and Morris, 1987;Morris et al, 1994;Römer et al, 2010). Eavesdropping seems to explain why some bush-crickets use such bewilderingly high principal carriers (Belwood and Morris, 1987;Falk et al, 2015;Montealegre-Z et al, 2006;Montealegre-Z et al, 2011b;Morris et al, 1994;Sarria-S et al, 2014).…”

Tiger moth responses to a simulated bat attack: timing and duty cycle

“…This closely matches the dominant frequency in the biosonar cries of ten insectivorous bats known to occur in the area of Ecuador that we sampled (P. Jarrin, personal communication, from survey at Tinalandia, Eucador) (Albuja-V., 1999): -59.6±23.7·kHz [Tadarida brasiliensis (Simmons et al, 1978) Clicks, number of microclicks in the active modulation half-cycle; intensity, peak equivalent sound pressure level in decibels (dB pe SPL); isi, intra-cycle silent interval. (Belwood, 1988); Molossus molossus (Kössl et al, 1999); Rhynchonycteris naso (Fenton et al, 1999); Myotis nigricans (Siemers et al, 2001); Peropteryx macrotis, Mormops megalophylla, Eptesicus furinalis and Myotis keasyi (Rydell et al, 2002)]. However, this close match in frequency should be interpreted with caution as we have no way of knowing if the bat and moth assemblages were sampled randomly or the predator/prey dynamics between these assemblages.…”

Mysterious Mystacina: how the New Zealand short-tailed bat(Mystacina tuberculata) locates insect prey

“…Longer pulses can be produced in open habitats because echoes return later, and avoidance of pulseecho overlap imposes fewer constraints on pulse duration (Kalko and Schnitzler, 1993). Extending pulse interval in the open may increase the time window for processing echoes from more distant targets (Fenton et al, 1998 Belwood, 1988;Thies et al, 1998). Such similarities may reflect the close phylogenetic affinities between bats in the families Mystacinidae and Phyllostomidae (Pierson et al, 1986;Kirsch et al, 1998;Kennedy et al, 1999;Van Den Bussche and Hoofer, 2000).…”