Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 225–238 | Cite as

The echolocation and hunting behavior of Daubenton's bat, Myotis daubentoni

  • Elisabeth K. V. Kalko
  • H.-U. Schnitzler
Article

Summary

The echolocation and hunting behavior of Daubenton's bat (Myotis daubentoni) were studied in the field under completely natural conditions using a multiflash photographic system synchronized with high-speed tape recordings. The hunting behavior of M. daubentoni is separated into four stages. In the search flight stage Daubenton's bat flies with an average speed of 3.4±0.6 m/s SD usually within 30 cm over water surfaces searching for insects. After the detection of potential prey, the approach flight stage occurs, during which the bat approaches the target in a goal-directed flight. The stage tail down indicates that M. daubentoni is close to the potential prey (approximately 10–22 cm) and is preparing for the catch. The insects are caught with the interfemoral membrane, the feet, and sometimes with the additional aid of a wing. In the stage head down, the bat seizes the prey during flight. Immediately afterwards, Daubenton's bat returns to search flight. M. daubentoni shows the typical echolocation behavior of a vespertilionid bat, emitting frequency-modulated (FM) echolocation signals. The three behavioral stages search, approach, and terminal phase (Griffin et al. 1960) are used to describe the pulse pattern of foraging M. daubentoni in the field. The terminal phase (or buzz) of Daubenton's bat is separated into two parts: buzz I and buzz II. Buzz II is distinguished from buzz I by the following characteristics: a sharp drop in terminal frequency, a distinct reduction in the bandwidth of the first harmonic, a continuous high repetition rate throughout the phase in the range 155–210 Hz, very short pulses (0,25–0.3 ms) and interpulse intervals (4.5–5.0 ms) at the end of the phase, and a distinct decrease in duty cycle. A pause in echolocation separates the end of the terminal phase from the ongoing search phase. The reduction in sound duration after the detection of a target and during pursuits with successfull or attempted catches is discussed in relation to the actual distance of the bat to the target at each stage. It is likely that Daubenton's bat reduces sound duration during approach and terminal phase in order to prevent an overlap of an outgoing pulse with the returning echo from the target. It is argued that the minimum detection distance can be estimated from the sound duration during search flight. Estimates of detection and reaction distances of M. daubentoni based upon synchronized photos and echolocation sequences are given to corroborate this hypothesis. An average detection distance of 128 cm and an average reaction distance of 112 cm were determined. Each behavioral stage of foraging M. daubentoni is characterized by a distinct pattern of echolocation signals and a distinct stage in hunting behavior. The approach flight in hunting behavior coincides with the approach phase and with buzz I in echolocation behavior. The stage tail down corresponds to buzz II. The stage head down is correlated with a pause in echolocation. Immediately afterwards, the bat returns into search flight and into the search phase, emitting search signals.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahlen I (1981) Identification of Scandinavian bats by their sounds. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Wildlife Ecology, Report 6Google Scholar
  2. Baagoe 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 57–73Google Scholar
  3. Brosset A, Deboutteville CD (1966) Le regime alimentaire du vespertilion de Daubenton, Myotis daubentoni. Mammalia 30:247–251Google Scholar
  4. Cahlander DA, McCue JJG, Webster FA (1964) The determination of distance by echolocating bats. Nature 201:544–546Google Scholar
  5. Corbet G, Ovenden D (1982) Pareys Buch der Säugetiere. Parey, Hamburg Berlin, pp 30–31, 133–134Google Scholar
  6. Dwyer PD (1970) Foraging behavior of the Australian largefooted Myotis (Chiroptera). Mammalia 34:76–80Google Scholar
  7. Fenton MB (1982) Echolocation, insect hearing, and feeding ecology of insectivorous bats. In: Kunz TH (ed) Ecology of bats. Plenum Press, New York, pp 261–285Google Scholar
  8. Fenton MB, Bell GP (1979) Echolocation and feeding behavior in four species of Myotis (Chiroptera). Can J Zool 57:1271–1277Google Scholar
  9. Fenton MB, Bell GP (1981) Recognition of species of insectivorous bats by their echolocation calls. J Mammal 62:233–243Google Scholar
  10. Findley JS (1972) Phenetic relationship among bats of the genus Myotis. Syst Zool 21:31–52Google Scholar
  11. Görner M, Hackethal H (1988) Säugetiere Europas. DTV, München, pp 102–103Google Scholar
  12. Griffin DR, Webster FA, Michael CR (1960) The echolocation of flying insects by bats. Anim Behav 8:141–154Google Scholar
  13. Jones G, Rayner JMV (1988) Flight performance, foraging tactics and echolocation in free-living Daubenton's bats Myotis daubentoni (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). J Zool (London) 215:113–132Google Scholar
  14. Kalko EKV, Schnitzler HU (1989) Two wavefront interference patterns in frequency modulated echolocation signals of bats flying low over water. J Acoust Soc Am (in press)Google Scholar
  15. Kick SA (1982) Target-detection by the echolocating bat, Eptesicus fuscus. J Comp Physiol 145:431–435Google Scholar
  16. Miller L, Degn HJ (1981) The acoustic behavior of four species of vespertilionid bats studied in the field. J Comp Physiol 142:67–74Google Scholar
  17. Neuweiler G (1983) Echolocation and adaptivity to ecological constraints. In: Huber F, Markl H (eds) Neuroethology and behavioral physiology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 280–302Google Scholar
  18. Novick A (1977) Acoustic orientation. In: Wimsatt WA (ed) Biology of bats, vol III. Academic Press, New York, pp 73–287Google Scholar
  19. Nyholm ES (1965) Zur Ökologie von Myotis mystacinus (Leisl.) und Myotis daubentoni (Leisl.), (Chiroptera). Ann Zool Fenn 2:77–122Google Scholar
  20. Pye D (1980) Adaptiveness of echolocation signals in bats. TINS, pp 232–235Google Scholar
  21. Schnitzler HU (1971) Bats in the wind tunnel. Z Vergl Physiol 73:209–221Google Scholar
  22. Schnitzler HU, Henson OW 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
  23. Schnitzler HU, Kalko E, Miller L, Surlykke A (1987) Hunting and echolocation behavior of the bat, Pipistrellus kuhli. J Comp Physiol A 161:267–274Google Scholar
  24. Simmons JA, Fenton MB, O'Farrell MJ (1979) Echolocation and pursuit of prey by bats. Science 203:16–21Google Scholar
  25. Suthers RA (1965) Acoustic orientation by fishing bats. J Exp Zool 158:319–348Google Scholar
  26. Suthers RA, Thomas SP, Suthers BJ (1972) Respiration, wingbeat and ultrasonic pulse emission in an echolocating bat. J Exp Biol 56:37–48Google Scholar
  27. Suthers RA, Fattu JM (1973) Mechanisms of sound production by echolocating bats. Am Zool 13:1215–1226Google Scholar
  28. Suthers RA, Fattu JM (1982) Selective laryngeal neurotomy and the control of phonation by the echolocating bat, Eptesicus. J Comp Physiol 145:529–537Google Scholar
  29. Swift SM, Racey PA (1983) Resource partitioning in two species of vespertilionid bats (Chiroptera) occupying the same roost. J Zool (London) 200:249–259Google Scholar
  30. Thompson D, Fenton MB (1982) Echolocation and feeding behavior of Myotis adversus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Aust J Zool 3:543–546Google Scholar
  31. Trappe M (1982) Verhalten und Echoortung der großen Hufeisennase beim Insektenfang. Dissertation, Fakultät für Biologie, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  32. Trappe M, Schnitzler HU (1982) Doppler shift compensation in insect-catching horseshoe bats. Naturwissenschaften 69:193–194Google Scholar
  33. Vogler B, Neuweiler G (1983) Echolocation in the noctule (Nyctalus noctula) and the horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). J Comp Physiol 152:421–432Google Scholar
  34. Webster FA (1963) Active energy radiating systems: the bat and ultrasonic principles. II. Acoustical control of airborne interceptions by bats. Proc Int Congr Tech and Blindness. AFB, New York 1:49–135Google Scholar
  35. Webster FA, Griffin RD (1962) The role of flight membranes in insect captures by bats. Anim Behav 10:332–342Google Scholar
  36. Webster FA, Brazier OB (1965) Experimental studies on target detection, evaluation and interception by echolocating bats. Aerospace Medical Res Lab, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, AD 628055Google Scholar
  37. Weid R, Helversen Ov (1987) Ortungsrufe europäischer Fledermäuse beim Jagdflug im Freiland. Myotis 25:5–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth K. V. Kalko
    • 1
  • H.-U. Schnitzler
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl TierphysiologieUniversität TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations