PL EN


Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2001 | 03 | 1 |

Tytuł artykułu

Pinnae and echolocation call differences between Myotis californicus and M. ciliolabrum ( Chiroptera: vespertilionidae)

Warianty tytułu

Języki publikacji

EN

Abstrakty

EN
We measured the shape of pinnae from fluid-preserved, museum specimens of 33 Myotis californicus and 39 M. ciliolabrum and cranial characters from 40 skulls of each species. We also measured 40 specimens of Eptesicus fuscus, which were used as an outgroup. Significant differences were found in aural shape and tragus height between the two species of Myotis. Archived echolocation calls from the two species from across the range segregated, further suggesting that morphological and call characters are intercorrelated. We tested this relationship using 17 M. californicus and 12 M. ciliolabrum captured in the field for external measurements and echolocation call recordings (n = 1,124 calls in 52 call files, x = 2.3 call files per released bat), and found significant differences (most P < 0.001) in pinnae and call morphology between M. ciliolabrum and M. californicus similar to those observed in ‘museum’ samples. We found that small interspecific differences in pinna shape and size are correlated with differences in the frequency ranges (larger pinna, lower frequency).

Słowa kluczowe

Wydawca

-

Rocznik

Tom

03

Numer

1

Opis fizyczny

p.77-91,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor
  • Division of Mammals, Museum of Southwestern Biology, and Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA

Bibliografia

  • Aldridge, H. D. J. N., and I. L. Rautenbach. 1987. Morphology, echolocation, and resource partitioning in insectivorous bats. Journal of Animal Ecology, 56: 763-778.
  • Altringham, J. D. 1996. Bats: biology and behavior. Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 365 pp.
  • Arlettaz, R. 1995. Ecology of sibling mouse-eared bats (Myotis myotis and Myotis blythii): zoogeography, niche, competition, and foraging. Ph.D. Thesis, Horus Publishers, Martigny, Switzerland, 208 pp.
  • Barlow, K. E., G. Jones, and E. M. Barratt. 1997. Can skull morphology be used to predict ecological relationships between bat species: a test using two cryptic species of pipistrelle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 264: 1695-1700.
  • Bininda-Edmonds, O. R. R, and A. P. Russell. 1992. Minimization of potential problems associated with the morphometry of spirit-preserved bat wings. Collection Forum, 8: 9-14
  • Black, H. L. 1974. A north temperate bat community: structure and prey populations. Journal of Mammalogy, 55: 138-157.
  • Bogan, M. A. 1974. Identification of Myotis californicus and M. leibii in southwestern North America. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 87: 49-56.
  • Bogan, M. A. 1999. Family Vespertilionidae. Pp. 139-181, in Mamíferos del noroeste de México (S. T. Alvarez-Castaneda and J. L. Patton, eds.). Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, S. C., Baja California Sur, México, 583 pp.
  • Bogdanowicz, W. 1990. Geographic variation and taxonomy of Daubenton’s bat Myotis daubentoni in Europe. Journal of Mammalogy, 71: 205-218.
  • Bogdanowicz, W., M. B. Fenton, and K. Daleszczyk. 1999. The relationships between echolocation calls, morphology and diet in insectivorous bats. Journal of Zoology (London), 247: 381-393.
  • Constantine, D. G. 1998. An overlooked external character to differentiate Myotis californicus and Myotis ciliolabrum (Vespertilionidae). Journal of Mammalogy, 79: 624—630.
  • Fenton, M. B. 1985. The feeding behavior of insectivorous bats: echolocation, foraging strategies, and resource partitioning. Transvaal Museum Bulletin, 21: 5-16.
  • Fenton, M. B., and G. P. Bell. 1981. Recognition of species of insectivorous bats by their echolocation calls. Journal of Mammalogy, 62: 233-243.
  • Findley, J. S. 1993. Bats: a community perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 167 pp.
  • Francis, C. M„ and J. Habersetzer. 1998. Interspecific and intraspecific variation in echolocation call frequency and morphology of horseshoe bats, Rhinolophus and Hipposideros. Pp. 169-179, in Bat biology and conservation (T. H. Kunz and P. A. Racey, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 365 pp.
  • Gannon, W. L. 1997. Influence of proximity to rivers on chipmunk vocalization patterns. Pp. 272-286, in Life among the museums: papers in honor of James S. Findley (T. L. Yates, W. L. Gannon, and D. E. Wilson, eds.). Special Publication, Museum of Southwestern Biology, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 3: 1-290.
  • Gannon, W. L., M. J. O’Farrell, C. Corben, and E. J. Bedrick. In press. Call character lexicon and analysis of field recorded bat echolocation calls. In Adances in the study of echolocation in bats and dolphins (J. A. Thomas, C. F. Moss, and M. M. Vater, eds.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  • Griffin, D. R. 1958. Listening in the dark. Yale University Press, New Haven, 415 pp.
  • Hall, E. R. 1981. The mammals of North America, Volume 1. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 600 + 90 (index) pp.
  • Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 602 pp.
  • Jones, G., and S. M. van Parijs. 1993. Bimodal echolocation in pipistrelle bats: are cryptic species present? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 251: 119-125.
  • Jones, G., N. Vaughan, and S. Parsons. 2000. Acoustic identification of bats from directly sampled and time-expanded recordings of vocalization. In Contributions to the study of bats: field use of acoustic detectors (W. L. Gannon and W. Bogdanowicz, eds.). Acta Chiropterologica, 2: 155-170.
  • Kalko, E. K. V. 1995. Echolocation signal design, foraging habitats and guild structure in six Neotropical sheath-tailed bats (Emballonuridae). Pp. 259-273, in Ecology, evolution, and behaviour of bats (P. A. Racey and S. M. Swift, eds.). Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 67: xxi + 1-421.
  • Kunz, T. H., D. W. Thomas, G. C. Richards, C. R. Tidemann, E. D. Pierson, and P. A. Racey. 1996. Observational techniques for bats. Pp. 105-114, in Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for mammals (D. E. Wilson, F. R. Cole, J. D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M. Foster, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 409 pp.
  • Novick, A. 1977. Acoustic orientation. Pp. 74—289, in Biology of bats, Volume III (W. A. Wimsatt, ed.). Academic Press, New York, xvi + 1-651.
  • Obrist, M. K., M. B. Fenton, J. L. Eger, and P. A. Schlegel. 1993. What ears do for bats: a comparative study of pinna sound pressure transformation in Chiroptera. Journal of Experimental Biology, 180: 119-152.
  • O’Farrell, M. J., and W. L. Gannon. 1999. A comparison of acoustic versus capture techniques for the inventory of bats. Journal of Mammalogy, 80: 24-30.
  • O’Farrell, M. J., B. W. Miller, and W. L. Gannon.1999. Qualitative identification of free-flying bats using the Anabat detector. Journal of Mammalogy, 80: 11-23.
  • SAS. 1985. SAS Users’s Guide: Statistics, version 5. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina, 956 pp.
  • Schnitzler, H.-U., and E. K. Kalko. 1998. How echolocating bats search and find food. Pp. 183-204, in Bat biology and conservation (T. H. Kunz and P. A. Racey, eds.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 365 pp.
  • Simpson, M. R. 1993. Myotis californicus. Mammalian Species, 428: 1-4.
  • Whitaker, J. O., Jr., C. Maser, and S. P. Cross. 1981. Food habits of eastern Oregon bats, based on stomach and scat analysis. Northwest Science, 4: 281-292.
  • Woodsworth, G. C. 1981. Spatial partitioning by two species of sympatric bats, Myotis californicus and M. leibii. M.Sci. Thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, 68 pp.

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikatory

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.agro-9d1e76ef-805c-45fb-bd6e-3a51e8bf348b
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.