» Articles » PMID: 17345101

The Allometry of Echolocation Call Frequencies of Insectivorous Bats: Why Do Some Species Deviate from the Pattern?

Overview
Journal Oecologia
Date 2007 Mar 9
PMID 17345101
Citations 29
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The peak echolocation frequency of insectivorous bats generally declines as body size increases. However, there are notable exceptions to this rule, with some species, such as Rhinolophus clivosus, having a higher than expected peak frequency for their body size. Such deviations from allometry may be associated with partitioning of foraging habitat (the foraging habitat hypothesis) or insect prey (the prey detection hypothesis). Alternatively, the deviations may be associated with the partitioning of sonar frequency bands to allow effective communication in a social context (the acoustic communication hypothesis). We tested the predictions of these hypotheses through comparisons at the family, clade and species level, using species of rhinolophids in general and R. clivosus, a species with a wide distribution, as a specific test case. We compared the wing parameters, echolocation frequency and ecology of R. clivosus to those of the sympatric R. capensis. Rhinolophus clivosus has a much higher echolocation frequency than predicted from its wing loading or body mass. Furthermore, contrary to the predictions of the foraging habitat hypothesis, we found no difference in foraging habitat between R. clivosus and R. capensis. The size range of insect prey taken by the two species also overlapped almost completely, contrary to the prey detection hypothesis. On the other hand, the variation of echolocation frequencies around the allometric relationship for rhinolophids was smaller than that for Myotis spp., supporting the prediction of the acoustic communication hypothesis. We thus propose that the relatively high peak frequency of R. clivosus is the result of partitioning of sonar frequency bands to minimize the ambiguity of echolocation calls during social interactions.

Citing Articles

Correlated evolution between body size and echolocation in bats (order Chiroptera).

Castro M, Amado T, Olalla-Tarraga M BMC Ecol Evol. 2024; 24(1):44.

PMID: 38622513 PMC: 11017568. DOI: 10.1186/s12862-024-02231-4.


Parallel evolution in an island archipelago revealed by genomic sequencing of Hipposideros leaf-nosed bats.

Lavery T, DeRaad D, Holland P, Olson K, DeCicco L, Seddon J Evolution. 2024; 78(6):1183-1192.

PMID: 38457362 PMC: 11135615. DOI: 10.1093/evolut/qpae039.


Guild Vertical Stratification and Drivers of Bat Foraging in a Semi-Arid Tropical Region, Kenya.

Rainho A, Ferreira D, Makori B, Bartonjo M, Repas-Goncalves M, Kirakou S Biology (Basel). 2023; 12(8).

PMID: 37627000 PMC: 10452385. DOI: 10.3390/biology12081116.


Detection distances in desert dwelling, high duty cycle echolocators: A test of the foraging habitat hypothesis.

Finger N, Holderied M, Jacobs D PLoS One. 2022; 17(5):e0268138.

PMID: 35588425 PMC: 9119505. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268138.


Functional differences in echolocation call design in an adaptive radiation of bats.

Leiser-Miller L, Santana S Ecol Evol. 2021; 11(22):16153-16164.

PMID: 34824818 PMC: 8601877. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.8296.


References
1.
Siemers B, Schnitzler H . Echolocation signals reflect niche differentiation in five sympatric congeneric bat species. Nature. 2004; 429(6992):657-61. DOI: 10.1038/nature02547. View

2.
Kingston T, Jones G, Zubaid A, Kunz T . Resource partitioning in rhinolophoid bats revisited. Oecologia. 2017; 124(3):332-342. DOI: 10.1007/PL00008866. View

3.
Faure P, Barclay R . Substrate-gleaning versus aerial-hawking: plasticity in the foraging and echolocation behaviour of the long-eared bat, Myotis evotis. J Comp Physiol A. 1994; 174(5):651-60. DOI: 10.1007/BF00217386. View

4.
Neuweiler G . Auditory adaptations for prey capture in echolocating bats. Physiol Rev. 1990; 70(3):615-41. DOI: 10.1152/physrev.1990.70.3.615. View

5.
Kingston T, Rossiter S . Harmonic-hopping in Wallacea's bats. Nature. 2004; 429(6992):654-7. DOI: 10.1038/nature02487. View