Skip to main content
Log in

Fluttering target detection in Hipposiderid bats

  • Published:
Journal of Comparative Physiology A Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Two species of Hipposiderid bats,Hiposideros speoris andH. lankadiva, which both emit short CF-FM echolocation calls, were trained in a two-alternative forced-choice procedure to discriminate between an oscillating target and a motionless one. Two different targets were used: (1) the membrane of a low-frequency loudspeaker, producing sinusoidal frequency- and amplitude modulations and (2) a small rotating propeller, which produced short acoustical ‘glints’. In both casesH. lankadiva learned to discriminate between the oscillating and the motionless target. When the loudspeaker was used, thresholds for minimal modulation depths at different oscillation frequencies were determined. At loudspeaker membrane oscillation frequencies of 10 to 100 Hz the 75% correct thresholds lay between 90 and 300 Hz (Fig. 3).H. speoris could not be trained to react to the moving membrane, even at very high oscillation amplitudes. When the rotating propeller was the positive target, however,H. speoris learned very quickly to discriminate it from a motionless one. By decreasing the rotation speed it was possible to measure the minimal detectable glint-frequency for each bat. It lay at 67, 44, and just under 15 glints/s for the three specimens (Fig. 4). During the discrimination task both bat species increased their duty-cycle just prior to a decision by emitting long sequences of echolocation calls with short inter-pulse intervals. The duration of individual pulses remained relatively constant (Figs. 6 and 7). Possible mechanisms for discrimination of the oscillating targets are discussed and the importance of ‘glints’ in the echoes for fluttering target detection is emphasized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

A0 :

amplitude of loudspeaker membrane oscillation

AM :

amplitude modulation

CF :

constant frequency

DC :

duty-cycle

FM :

frequency modulation

Δf max :

maximal frequency modulation depth in echo

PD :

pulse duration

PI :

pulse interval

f osc :

oscillation frequency

References

  • Airapetianz ES, Konstantinov AI (1974) Echolocation in nature. Leningrad. English translation: Joint Publication Research Service, Arlington

  • Bell GP, Fenton MB (1984) The use of Doppler-shifted echoes as a clutter rejection system: the echolocation and feeding behavior ofHipposideros ruber (Chiroptera: Hipposideridae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 15:109–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Gellermann LW (1933) Chance disorders of alternating stimuli in visual discrimination experiments. J Genet Psychol 42:205–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman LJ, Henson OW Jr (1977) Prey recognition and selection by the constant frequency bat,Pteronotus parnellii. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2:411–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin DR (1958) Listening in the dark. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilmann U (1984) Das Frequenzunterscheidungsvermögen bei der großen Hufeisennase,Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. Dissertation, Universität Tübingen

  • Kober R (1982) Analyse des Ultraschallechos von einheimischen Insekten. Staatsexamensarbeit, Fakultät Biologie, Universität Tübingen

  • 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 251–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick A, Vaisnys JR (1964) Echolocation of flying insects by the batChilonycteris parnellii. Biol Bull 127:478–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Pye JD (1967) Theories of sonar systems and their application to biological organisms (discussion). In: Busnel RG (ed) Animal sonar systems. Lab Physiol Acoust, CNRS Jouy-en-Josas, France, pp 1121–1136

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeder KD (1963) Echos of ultrasonic pulses from flying moths. Biol Bull 124:100–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnitzler HU (1970a) Echoortung bei der FledermausChilonycteris rubinosa. Z Vergl Physiol 68:25–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnitzler HU (1970b) Comparison of the echolocation behavior inRhinolophus ferrumequinum andChilonycteris rubinosa. Bijdr Dierk 40:77–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnitzler HU (1973) Control of Doppler shift compensation in the greater horseshoe bat,Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. J Comp Physiol 82:79–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnitzler HU (1978) Die Detektion von Bewegungen durch Echoortung bei Fledermäusen. Verh Dtsch Zool Ges 1978, S 16–33

  • Schnitzler HU, Flieger E (1983) Detection of oscillating target movements by echolocation in the greater horseshoe bat. J Comp Physiol 135:385–392

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Nato advanced study institute series (A) 28:109–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnitzler HU, Menne D, Kober R, Heblich K (1983) The acoustical image of fluttering insects in echolocating bats. In: Huber F, Markl H (eds) Neuroethology and behavioral physiology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 235–250

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 A 157:38–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnitzler HU, Menne D, Hackbarth H (1985) Range determination by measuring time delays in echolocating bats. In: Michelsen A (ed) Time resolution in auditory systems. (Proceedings of the 11th Danavox Symposium on Hearing, Garnie Avernaes, Denmark, August 28–31, 1984) Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 180–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuller G (1972) Echoortung beiRhinolophus ferumequinum mit frequenzmodulierten Lauten. J Comp Physiol 77:306–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuller G, Beuter K, Schnitzler HU (1974) Response to frequency shifted artificial echoes in the batRhinolophus ferrumequinum. J Comp Physiol 89:275–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons JA (1973) The resolution of target range by echolocating bats. J Acoust Soc Am 54:157–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons JA (1979) Perception of echo phase information in bat sonar. Science 204:1336–1338

    Google Scholar 

  • Trappe M (1982) Verhalten und Echoortung der Großen Hufeisennase beim Insektenfang. Dissertation, Universität Tübingen

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

von der Emde, G., Schnitzler, H.U. Fluttering target detection in Hipposiderid bats. J. Comp. Physiol. 159, 765–772 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00603730

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00603730

Keywords

Navigation