Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 1–12 | Cite as

Echolocation in two very small bats from Thailand Craseonycteris thonglongyai and Myotis siligorensis

  • Annemarie Surlykke
  • Lee A. Miller
  • Bertel Møhl
  • Bent Bach Andersen
  • Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard
  • Morten Buhl Jørgensen


The echolocation and hunting behavior of two very small bats, Craseonycteris thonglongyai (Hill) and Myotis siligorensis (Horsfield), from Thailand, were investigated using multiflash photographs, video, and high-speed tape recordings with a microphone array that allowed determination of distance and direction to the bats. C. thonglongyai is the world's smallest mammal and M. siligorensis is only slightly larger. Both bats hunted insects in open areas. The search signals of C. thonglongyai were 3.5 ms long multiharmonic constant frequency (CF) signals with a prominent second harmonic at 73 kHz repeated at around 22 Hz. The band width (BW) of the short terminal frequency modulated (FM) sweep increased during the very short approach phase. In the final buzz the CF component disappeared, the duration decreased to 0.2 ms, and the repetition rate increased to 215 Hz (Figs. 2, 3, 4). There was no drop in frequency in the buzz. The video recordings of C. thonglongyai indicated that it seizes insects directly with the mouth (Fig. 1). M. siligorensis produced 5.4 ms long CF search signals at 66 kHz. The repetition rate was around 13 Hz. In the approach phase an initial broad band FM sweep was added. The buzz consisted of two phases, buzz I and buzz II. Buzz 11 was characterized by short cry durations (around 0.3 ms), a constant high repetition rate (185 Hz), a distinct drop in frequency, and a prominent second harmonic (Figs. 5, 6, 7). The drop in frequency, apparently typical of vespertilionid bats, has been explained by physiological limitations in sound production. However, C. thonglongyai produced very short signals at very high repetition rates without any frequency drop. The drop may be of adaptive value since it enables M. siligorensis to produce very short signals with high sweep rates. The drop moves the pronounced second harmonic into the frequency range of most interest to the bat (Fig. 7D). The sweep rate in this frequency range may now increase to twice the maximum rate that the vocal cords can produce directly. C. thonglongyai and M. siligorensis belong to different superfamilies, Emballonuroidea and Vespertilionoidea, respectively. In spite of their phylogenetic distance they produce strikingly similar search signals of narrow BW around 70 kHz with high source levels (100–115 dB peSPL peak equivalent sound pressure level). We argue that the signal resemblance is due to the similarity in size and hunting behavior of the two bats both hunting insects in open areas. High frequencies are heavily attenuated in air, but because of their small size the bats are restricted to hunting small insects which only reflect echoes at high frequencies. Thus, the emitted frequency is probably the lowest possible given the prey size. Hence, the two bats can only maximize the range of their sonar by decreasing the BW and emitting high intensities.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahlén I (1981) Identification of Scandinavian bats by their sounds (Report 6). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Wildlife Ecology, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen BB, Miller LA (1977) A portable ultrasonic detection system for recording bat cries in the field. J Mammal 58:226–229Google Scholar
  3. Aldridge HDJN, Rautenbach IL (1987) Morphology, echolocation and resource partitioning in insectivorous bats. J Anim Ecol 56:763–778Google Scholar
  4. Baagøe H (1987) The Scandinavian bat fauna: adaptive wing morphology and free flight in the field. In: Fenton MB, Racey PA, Rayner JMV (eds) Recent advances in the study of bats. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 57–74Google Scholar
  5. Barclay RMR (1983) Echolocation calls of emballonurid bats from Panama. J Comp Physiol 151: 515–520Google Scholar
  6. Barclay RMR, Brigham RM (1991) Prey detection, dietary niche breadth, and body size in bats: Why are aerial insectivorous bats so small? Am Nat 137:693–703Google Scholar
  7. Brüel and Kjær (1982) Condenser microphones and microphone preamplifiers for acoustic measurements, data handbook. Brüel & Kjær, Nærum, DanmarkGoogle Scholar
  8. Duangkhae S (1990) Ecology and behavior of Kitti's hog-nosed bat (Craseonycteris thonglongyai) in western Thailand. Nat Hist Bull Siam Soc 38:135–161Google Scholar
  9. Fenton MB (1990) The foraging behavior and ecology of animal-eating bats. Can J Zool 68:411–422Google Scholar
  10. Fenton MB, Bell GP (1979) Echolocation and feeding behaviour in four species of Myotis (Chiroptera). Can J Zool 57:1271–1277Google Scholar
  11. Fenton MB, Bell GP (1981) Recognition of species of insectivorous bats by their echolocation calls. J Mammal 62:233–243Google Scholar
  12. Fullard JH, Koehler C, Surlykke A, McKenzie NL (1991) Echolocation ecology and flight morphology of insectivorous bats (Chiroptera) in South-western Australia. Aust J Zool 39:427–438Google Scholar
  13. Griffin DR (1958) Listening in the dark. Yale University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffin DR (1971) The importance of atmospheric attenuation for the echolocation of bats (Chiroptera). Anim Behav 19:55–61Google Scholar
  15. Griffin DR, Webster FA, Michael CR (1960) The echolocation of flying insects by bats. Anim Behav 8:141–154Google Scholar
  16. Habersetzer J (1981) Adaptive echolocation sounds in the bat Rhinopoma hardwickei. A field study. J Comp Physiol 144:559–566Google Scholar
  17. Hill JE (1974) A new family, genus and species of bat (Mammalia: Chiroptera) from Thailand. Bull British Mus Nat Hist Zool Ser 27:301–336Google Scholar
  18. Hill JE, Smith SE (1981) Craseonycteris thonglongyai. Mamm Species 160:1–4Google Scholar
  19. Kalko EKV, Schnitzler H-U (1989) The echolocation and hunting behavior of Daubenton's bat, Myotis daubentoni. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 24:225–238Google Scholar
  20. Kick SA (1982) Target detection by the echolocating bat, Eptesicus fuscus. J Comp Physiol 145:431–435Google Scholar
  21. Lawrence BD, Simmons JA (1982) Measurements of atmospheric attenuation at ultrasonic frequencies and the significance for echolocation by bats. J Acoust Soc Am 71:585–590Google Scholar
  22. Lekagul B, McNeely JA (1977) Mammals of Thailand. Association for the Conservation of Wildlife, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  23. Møhl B (1988) Target detection by echolocating bats. In: Nachtigall PE, Moore PWB (eds) Animal sonar. Processes and performance. Plenum Press, New York London, pp 435–450Google Scholar
  24. Møhl B, Surlykke A, Miller LA (1990) High intensity narwhal clicks. In: Thomas JA, Kastelein RA (eds) Sensory abilities of cetaceans. Plenum Press, New York London, pp 295–303Google Scholar
  25. Neuweiler G (1984) Foraging, echolocation and audition in bats. Naturwissenschaften 71:446–455Google Scholar
  26. Neuweiler G (1990) Auditory adaptations for prey capture in echolocating bats. Physiol Rev 70:615–641Google Scholar
  27. Pettigrew JD (1988) Microbat vision and echolocation in an evolutionary context. In: Nachtigall PE, Moore PWB (eds) Animal sonar. Processes and performance. Plenum Press, New York London, pp 645–650Google Scholar
  28. Pye D (1980) Adaptiveness of echolocation signals in bats. Flexibility in behaviour and in evolution. Trends Neurosci 3:232–235Google Scholar
  29. Pye D (1983) Echolocation and countermeasures. In: Lewis B (ed) Bioacoustics. A comparative approach. Academic Press, London, pp 407–429Google Scholar
  30. Schnitzler H-U, Henson WO Jr (1980) Performance of airborne animal sonar systems: I. Microchiroptera. In: Busnel RG, Fish JF (eds) Animal Sonar Systems. Plenum Press, New York, pp 109–181Google Scholar
  31. Schnitzler H-U, Kalko EKV, Miller LA, Surlykke A (1987) The echolocation and hunting behavior of the bat, Pipistrellus kuhli. J Comp Physiol A 161:267–274Google Scholar
  32. Schumm A, Krull D, Neuweiler G (1991) Echolocation in the notch-eared bat, Myotis emarginatus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:255–261Google Scholar
  33. Simmons JA, Stein RA (1980) Acoustic imaging in bat sonar: Echolocation signals and the evolution of echolocation. J Comp physiol 135:61–84Google Scholar
  34. Simmons JA, Fenton MB, O'Farrell MJ (1979) Echolocation and pursuit of prey by bats. Science 203:16–21Google Scholar
  35. Stapells DR, Picton TW, Smith AD (1982) Normal hearing thresholds for clicks. J Acoust See Am 72:74–79Google Scholar
  36. Surlykke A (1988) Interaction between echolocating bats and their prey. In: Nachtigall PE, Moore PWB (eds) Animal sonar. Processes and performance. Plenum Press, New York London, pp 551–566Google Scholar
  37. Surlykke A (1992) Target ranging and the role of time-frequency structure of synthetic echoes in big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus. J Comp Physiol A 170:83–92Google Scholar
  38. Suthers RA, Thomas SP, Suthers BJ (1972) Respiration, wing-beat and ultrasonic pulse emission in an echo-locating bat. J Exp Biol 56:37–48Google Scholar
  39. Troest N, Møhl B (1986) The detection of phantom targets in noise by serotine bats; negative evidence for the coherent receiver. J Comp Physiol A 159:559–567Google Scholar
  40. Webster FA, Griffin DR (1962) The role of the flight membranes in insect capture by bats. Anim Behav 10: 332–340Google Scholar
  41. Wiersma H (1988) The short-time-duration narrow-bandwidth character of odontocere echolocation signals. In: Nachtigall PE, Moore PWB (eds) Animal sonar systems. Plenum Press, New York London, pp 129–145Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annemarie Surlykke
    • 1
  • Lee A. Miller
    • 1
  • Bertel Møhl
    • 2
  • Bent Bach Andersen
    • 1
  • Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard
    • 1
  • Morten Buhl Jørgensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Biologisk InstitutOdense UniversitetOdense M.Denmark
  2. 2.Biologisk Institut, Zoofysiologisk LaboratoriumÅrhus UniversitetÅrhus C.Denmark

Personalised recommendations