Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 183–191

Foraging behavior and echolocation of wild horseshoe bats Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and R. hipposideros (Chiroptera, Rhinolophidae)

  • Gareth Jones
  • Jeremy M. V. Rayner


1. Echolocation and foraging behavior of the horseshoe bats Rhinolophus ferrumequinum and R. hipposideros feeding under natural conditions are described. 2. The calls of both species consisted predominantly of a long CF segment, often initiated and terminated by brief FM sweeps of substantial bandwidth. 3. R. hipposideros typically flew close to vegetation, and fed by aerial hawking, gleaning and by pouncing on prey close to the ground. R. hipposideros called with a CF segment close to 112 kHz which is the second harmonic of the vocalization; its calls included low intensity primary harmonics, and had prominent initial and terminal FM sweeps of considerable bandwidth. When searching for prey on the wing it had longer interpulse intervals than R. ferrumequinum, but emitted shorter pulses at a higher repetition rate; overall it had a similar duty cycle to R. ferrumequinum. 4. R. ferrumequinum, calling with a CF segment close to 83 kHz, also used harmonics other than the dominant secondary in its calls, and modified its echolocation according to ecological conditions. This species showed certain parallels with R. rouxi of Asia. It was observed feeding by aerial hawking and by flycatching. When scanning for prey from a perch (perch hunting), calls were of shorter duration, and interpulse intervals were on average longer, than when bats were flying. Mean duty cycle was longer in flight, and the bandwidths and frequency sweep rates of the FM segments in the calls increased in comparison with perched bats. 5. FM information may facilitate determination of target range and the location and nature of obstacles; it may also be involved in the interpretation of echoes and the detection of moving targets among clutter. The rising FM sweep initiating the call in both species when flying (and to a lesser extent perch hunting) in the wild must have a significant adaptive role, and should be considered an essential component of the call; rhinolophids should be termed ‘FM/CF/FM’ bats.



constant frequency


frequency modulated


initial rising frequency sweep


terminal falling frequency sweep


pulse repetition rate


standard deviation


signal-to-noise ratio


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Airapet'yants ES, Konstantinov AI (1973) Echolocation in animals. Israel Program of Scientific Translations, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldridge HDJN (1985) On the relationships between flight performance, morphology and ecology in British bats. PhD thesis, University of BristolGoogle Scholar
  3. Altes RA, Titlebaum EL (1970) Bat signals as optimally Doppler tolerant waveforms. J Acoust Soc Am 48:1014–1020Google Scholar
  4. Blackmore M (1964) Order Chiroptera In: Southern HN (ed) The handbook of British mammals. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 224–249Google Scholar
  5. Griffin DR (1958) Listening in the dark. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  6. Griffin DR, Simmons JA (1974) Echolocation of insects by horseshoe bats. Nature 250:731–732Google Scholar
  7. Heblich K (1986) Flugelschlag und Lautaussendung bei fliegenden und landenden Fledermäusen. In: Nachtigall W (ed) Biona Report 5, Bat flight — Fledermausflug. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, pp 139–156Google Scholar
  8. Jones G, Rayner JMV (1988) Flight performance, foraging tactics and echolocation in free-living Daubenton's bats Myotis daubentoni (Kuhl) (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). J Zool Lond 215:113–132Google Scholar
  9. Kay L, Pickvance TJ (1963) Ultrasonic emissions of the lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros (Bech.) Proc Zool Soc Lond 141:163–171Google Scholar
  10. Konstantinov AI (1973) Development of echolocation in bats in postnatal ontogenesis. Period Biol 75:13–19Google Scholar
  11. Konstantinov AI, Sokolov BV (1969) Characteristics of ultrasonic orientation signals in horseshoe bats. Z Evol Fiz Biokim 5:90–97 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  12. Link A, Marimuthu G, Neuweiler G (1986) Movement as a specific stimulus for prey catching behaviour in rhinolophid and hipposiderid bats. J Comp Physiol 159A:403–413Google Scholar
  13. Miller LA, Degn HJ (1981) The acoustic behaviour of four species of vespertilionid bats studied in the field. J Comp Physiol 142A:67–74Google Scholar
  14. Möhres FP (1953) Über die Ultraschallorientierung der Hufeisennasen (Chiroptera: Rhinolophidae). Z Vergl Physiol 54:547–588Google Scholar
  15. Neuweiler G, Metzner W, Heilmann U, Rübsamen R, Eckrich M, Costa HH (1987) Foraging behaviour and echolocation in the rufous horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus rouxi) of Sri Lanka. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 20:53–67Google Scholar
  16. Norberg UM, Rayner JMV (1987) Ecological morphology and flight in bats (Mammalia; Chiroptera): wing adaptations, flight performance, foraging strategy and echolocation. Phil Trans R Soc Lond 316B:335–427Google Scholar
  17. Roverud RC (1987) The processing of echolocation sound elements in bats: a behavioural approach. In: Fenton MB, Racey PA, Rayner JMV (eds) Recent advances in the study of bats. Cambridge University Press, pp 152–170Google Scholar
  18. Rübsamen R (1987) Ontogenesis of the echolocation system in the rufous horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus rouxi (audition and vocalization in early postnatal development). J Comp Physiol 161A:899–913Google Scholar
  19. Schnitzler HU (1968) Die Ultraschall-Ortungslaute der Hufeisen-Fledermäuse in verschiedenen Ortungssituationen. Z Vergl Physiol 57:376–408Google Scholar
  20. Schnitzler HU (1971) Fledermäuse im Windkanal. Z Vergl Physiol 73:209–221Google Scholar
  21. Schnitzler HU (1973) Control of Doppler shift compensation in the greater horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. J Comp Physiol 82A:79–92Google Scholar
  22. Schnitzler HU (1984) The performance of bat sonar systems. In: Varju D, Schnitzler HU (eds) Localization and orientation in biology and engineering. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 211–224Google Scholar
  23. Schnitzler HU (1987) Echoes of fluttering insects: information for echolocating bats. In: Fenton MB, Racey PA, Rayner JMV (eds) Recent advances in the study of bats. Cambridge University Press, pp 226–243Google Scholar
  24. Schnitzler HU, Flieger E (1983) Detection of oscillating target movements by echolocation in the greater horseshoe bat. J Comp Physiol 153A:385–391Google Scholar
  25. Schnitzler HU, Ostwald J (1983) Adaptations for the detection of fluttering insects by echolocation in horseshoe bats. In: Ewart JP, Capranica RR, Ingle DI (eds) Advances in vertebrate neuroethology. Plenum Press, New York, pp 801–827Google Scholar
  26. Schnitzler HU, Hackbarth H, Heilmann U, Herbert H (1985) Echolocation behavior of rufous horseshoe bats hunting for insects in the flycatcher-style. J Comp Physiol 157A:39–46Google Scholar
  27. Stebbings RE, Griffith F (1986) Distribution and status of bats in Europe. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, HuntingdonGoogle Scholar
  28. Trappe M (1982) Verhalten und Echoortung der großen Hufeisennase (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum) beim Insektfang. Dissertation, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  29. Trappe M, Schnitzler HU (1982) Doppler shift compensation in insect-catching horseshoe bats. Naturwissenschaften 69:193–194Google Scholar
  30. Vater M (1987) Narrow band frequency analysis in bats. In: Fenton MB, Racey PA, Rayner JMV (eds) Recent advances in the study of bats. Cambridge University Press, pp 200–225Google Scholar
  31. Vogler B, Neuweiler G (1983) Echolocation in the noctule (Nyctalus noctula) and horseshoc bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). J Comp Physiol 152A:421–432Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gareth Jones
    • 1
  • Jeremy M. V. Rayner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of BristolBristolUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations