Summary
-
1.
When catching flying prey under laboratory conditionsRhinolophus ferrumequinum typically emit FM-CF-FM signals (Fig. 2). Except for the last two sounds during approach and final buzz the FM-parts are fainter than the CF-component by a factor of 0.76+-14 (Fig. 1). The final FM-part was undetectable in some signals emitted during approach (Fig. 3).
-
2.
In obstacle avoidance flights both, preceding and final FM-parts are prominent and louder than the CF-part by a factor of 1.14 to 1.63 (Fig. 1 and 3). Bandwidths of the FM-components increased from ca. 3.5 to 12 kHz for the starting and from 12 to 20 kHz on the average for the final FM-sweep (Table 1).
-
3.
In the open field during cruising flightsNyctalus noctula emits pure tones of 22.5 to 25.0 kHz without any frequency modulated components and a duration of 10 to 50 ms (Fig. 4). Brief frequency modulated signals sweeping from ca. 50 to 20 kHz in about 1–2 ms are emitted during pursuit of prey (Fig. 4).
-
4.
Under laboratory conditionsNyctalus noctula does not emit pure tones and is not able to catch flying prey in a flight chamber 10.5×3.5×2.15 m in size. During flights towards a landing platformNyctalus noctula invariably emits brief frequency modulated pulses. During an individual flight the structure is not changed (Fig. 5).
-
5.
InNyctalus noctula specific features of the echolocation pulses, e.g. frequency range swept through, presence of harmonics and double pulses (Fig. 6) are maintained during an individual flight. These specific characteristics of the signal may be used to identify echoes belonging to its own emitted echolocation pulse.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Abbreviations
- CF :
-
constant frequency
- FM :
-
frequency modulated
- SPL :
-
sound pressure level
References
Ahlen I (1981) Identification of Scandinavian bats by their sounds. Swed Univ Agricult Sci Dept Wildlife Ecol Report 6, Uppsala
Griffin DR, Webster FA, Michael CR (1960) The echolocation of flying insects by bats. J Anim Behav 8:141–154
Habersetzer J (1981) Adaptive echolocation sounds in the batRhinopoma hardwickei. J Comp Physiol 144:559–566
Habersetzer J, Vogler B (1983) Discrimination of surface structured targets by the echolocating batMyotis myotis during flight. J Comp Physiol 152:275–282
Harnischfeger G (1980) Brainstem units of echolocating bats code binaural time differences in the microsecond range. Naturwissenschaften 67:314–315
Miller LA, Degn HJ (1981) The acoustic behaviour of four species of vespertilionid bats studied in the field. J Comp Physiol 142:67–74
Neuweiler G, Bruns V, Schuller G (1980) Ears adapted for the detection of motion, or how echolocating bats have exploited the capacities of the mammalian auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am 68:741–753
O'Neill WE, Suga N (1982) Encoding of target range and its representation in the auditory cortex of the mustached bat. J Neurosci 2:17–31
Pye JD (1972) Bimodal distribution of constant frequencies in some hipposiderid bats. J Zool 166:323–335
Pye JD (1978) Some preliminary observations on flexible echolocation systems. In: Olembo RJ, Castelino JB, Mutere FA (eds) Proc Fourth Int Bat Res Conf, Lit. Bureau Nairobi, Kenya, pp 127–136
Schnitzler HU (1968) Die Ultraschallortungslaute der Hufeisenfledermäuse in verschiedenen Ortungssituationen. Z Vergl Physiol 57:376–408
Schnitzler HU, Henson OW (1980) Performance of airborne animal sonar systems: I. Echolocation of microchiropteran bats. In: Busnel RG, Fish J (eds) Animal sonar systems. Plenum Press, New York, pp 109–179
Simmons JA (1973) The resolution of target range by echolocating bats. J Acoust Soc Am 54:157–173
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vogler, B., Neuweiler, G. Echolocation in the noctule (Nyctalus noctula) and horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum). J. Comp. Physiol. 152, 421–432 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00606247
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00606247