Roosting, Vocalizations, and Foraging by the African Bat, Nycteris thebaica

Aldridge, H. D. J. N.; Obrist, Martin К.; Merriam, H. Gray; Fenton, M. Brock

doi:10.2307/1382175

Cited by 27 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some social calls are given by foraging bats and appear to affect spacing of individuals (e.g. Cardioderma cor -Vaughan, 1976; Nycteris thebaica - Aldridge et al ., 1990). Others are agonistic and given at lower prey densities (e.g.…”

Section: The Social To Echolocation Continuummentioning

confidence: 99%

Eavesdropping on the echolocation and social calls of bats

Fenton¹

2003

Mammal Review

Self Cite

153

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Comparisons of original calls and their echoes allow echolocating microchiropteran bats to collect information about their surroundings. Echolocation calls are also a source of information for other animals. A spectacular example is the hearing‐based defence of many species of insects that use echolocation calls to detect marauding bats. The role of echolocation calls remains unknown for bats that eat other bats. 2. Other eavesdroppers, biologists, regularly monitor echolocation calls to collect information about the distribution and patterns of habitat use of echolocating bats. People monitoring echolocation calls have discovered cryptic species of bats. 3. Vocal communication in bats involves social calls that serve only in communication, as well as echolocation calls that influence the behaviour of conspecifics and others. There is evidence of individual‐ and colony‐specific social and echolocation calls. 4. The long age‐spans of bats and the propensity of some species to roost in groups combine with conspicuousness of echolocation calls to set the stage for the discovery of more behavioural interactions mediated by individual‐specific echolocation calls. In the echolocation of microchiropteran bats, signals can serve multiple functions, both for producers and listeners.

show abstract

Section: The Social To Echolocation Continuummentioning

confidence: 99%

Eavesdropping on the echolocation and social calls of bats

Fenton¹

2003

Mammal Review

Self Cite

153

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ihebaica, on the other hand, alternates between continuous flight and short flight from perches, and typically takes prey from surfaces (Aldridge, Obrist, Merriam & Fenton 1990).…”

Section: Resource Use By Two Morphologicaljy Similar Insectivorous Bamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…H. caffer usually uses continuous flight to capture airborne prey but will occasionally take prey from surfaces . N thebaica, on the other hand, alternates between continuous flight and short flight from perches, and typically takes prey from surfaces (Aldridge, Obrist, Merriam & Fenton 1990).…”

Section: Resource Use By Two Morphologicaljy Similar Insectivorous Bamentioning

confidence: 99%

Resource use by two morphologically similar insectivorous bats (Nycteris thebaicaandHipposideros caffer)

Bowie¹,

Jacobs²,

Taylor³

1999

South African Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of morphologically dissimilar insectivorous bats have lead to the conclusion that morphology is the prime correlate of habitat use, and consequently of diet. This has lead to the prediction that morphologically similar bats should have similar diets. We examined the diet and morphology of two morphologically similar species, the slit-faced bat, Nycteris thebaica, and Sundevall's leaf-nosed bat, Hipposideros caffer, in the context of this prediction. Although both species foraged in the same habitat, they had distinctly different diets. The diet of N. thebaica consisted mainly of non-volant prey. primarily orthopterans and arachnids, and the diet of H. caffer, mainly of moths. Differences in wing design between the two taxa were small. The only significant difference was in aspect ratio. There were no differences in wing loading and wingtip shape ratio between the two speCies. The flying abilities reported for these two species are very similar, suggesting that these small differences in wing deSign do not translate into differences in flying ability, and cannot explain the dietary differences between these two species. On the other hand, there are marked differences in their prey detection systems which correspond to differences in their diets. H. caffer uses echolocation to detect the flapping wings of insect prey. whereas N. thebaica depends on prey-generated sounds (fluttering or scuffling) to locate its targets.

show abstract

“…While in most other mammals, such as non-human primates, rodents or cats, such auditory feedback appears to play a somewhat minor role (reviewed in [2], [3]), it is quintessential in echolocating bats: they continuously adjust the spectrotemporal features of their sonar pulses in order to optimize the detection of the corresponding echo signals. In addition to producing echolocation pulses, bats generate a large repertoire of social calls to communicate with one another [4]–[14]. It appears that at least some of these communication signals are also dependent on auditory feedback, as for example effects of vocal learning suggest [2], [15]–[17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Different Auditory Feedback Control for Echolocation and Communication in Horseshoe Bats

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auditory feedback from the animal's own voice is essential during bat echolocation: to optimize signal detection, bats continuously adjust various call parameters in response to changing echo signals. Auditory feedback seems also necessary for controlling many bat communication calls, although it remains unclear how auditory feedback control differs in echolocation and communication. We tackled this question by analyzing echolocation and communication in greater horseshoe bats, whose echolocation pulses are dominated by a constant frequency component that matches the frequency range they hear best. To maintain echoes within this “auditory fovea”, horseshoe bats constantly adjust their echolocation call frequency depending on the frequency of the returning echo signal. This Doppler-shift compensation (DSC) behavior represents one of the most precise forms of sensory-motor feedback known. We examined the variability of echolocation pulses emitted at rest (resting frequencies, RFs) and one type of communication signal which resembles an echolocation pulse but is much shorter (short constant frequency communication calls, SCFs) and produced only during social interactions. We found that while RFs varied from day to day, corroborating earlier studies in other constant frequency bats, SCF-frequencies remained unchanged. In addition, RFs overlapped for some bats whereas SCF-frequencies were always distinctly different. This indicates that auditory feedback during echolocation changed with varying RFs but remained constant or may have been absent during emission of SCF calls for communication. This fundamentally different feedback mechanism for echolocation and communication may have enabled these bats to use SCF calls for individual recognition whereas they adjusted RF calls to accommodate the daily shifts of their auditory fovea.

show abstract

Roosting, Vocalizations, and Foraging by the African Bat, Nycteris thebaica

Cited by 27 publications

References 15 publications

Eavesdropping on the echolocation and social calls of bats

Eavesdropping on the echolocation and social calls of bats

Resource use by two morphologically similar insectivorous bats (Nycteris thebaicaandHipposideros caffer)

Different Auditory Feedback Control for Echolocation and Communication in Horseshoe Bats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About