Choosing the correct bat detector

• Autorzy: Fenton M.B.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Direct field comparisons revealed that in any time period, a bat detecting system using zero-crossing period meter analysis (the Anabat II Bat Detector with Anabat ZCAIM and Anabat 6 software) detected significantly fewer bat echolocation calls than a time-expansion bat detecting system (Pettersson D980 detector with BatSoundPro software). Furthermore, the features of 81 echolocation calls (highest frequency, in kHz; lowest frequency, in kHz; duration, in ms) recorded and analyzed on both systems differed significantly. Regression analyses indicated no consistent, frequently unpredictable differences between Anabat and Pettersson values for the lowest frequencies in echolocation calls, but a significant correlation for their highest frequencies and durations. In a variety of field settings in Israel and in southern Ontario, Canada involving both foraging bats and bats emerging from a cave roost, the Pettersson system recorded echolocation calls not detected by the Anabat system. When many Myotis bats were emerging from a cave roost in Israel, the Anabat system did not detect the calls of a Rhinolophus species or those of another vespertilionid which were detected by the Pettersson system. The differences in performance between the two kinds of systems reflect differences in sensitivity and operation between zero-crossing period meters and time-expansion systems. Data on bat activity or echolocation calls detected and analyzed by a zero-crossing period meter system like Anabat are not as consistent or as reliable as those obtained by a time-expansion system like the Pettersson. Differences in performance of bat detectors coincide with considerable difference in costs, from about US$ 650 for an Anabat system, to over US$ 2,000 for a Pettersson system, which involves digital time-expansion. A time-expansion system involving a high speed tape recorder will cost over US$ 30,000. When it comes to bat detectors and analysis systems, the quality of data that will be obtained is a direct reflection of cost — buyers get what they pay for.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Chiropterologica
• Rocznik: 2000
• Tom: 02
• Numer: 2
• Opis fizyczny: p.215-224,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Fenton M.B.

• CBCB, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen`s Park Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C6, Canada

Bibliografia

• Ahlén, I. 1981. Identification of Scandinavian bats by their sounds. Department of Wildlife Ecology, University of Agicultural Sciences (SLU), Report 6: 1-56.
• Ahlén, I., and H. J. Baagøe. 1999. Use of ultrasound detectors for bat studies in Europe: experiences from field identification, surveys and monitoring. Acta Chiropterologica, 1: 137-150.
• Balcombe, J. P., and M. B. Fenton. 1988. Eavesdropping by bats: the influence of echolocation call design and foraging strategy. Ethology, 79: 158-166.
• Barclay, R. M. R. 1982. Interindividual use of echolocation calls: eavesdropping by bats. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 10: 271-275.
• Barclay, R. M. R. 1999. Bats are not birds — a cautionary note on using echolocation calls to identify bats: a comment. Journal of Mammalogy, 80: 290-296.
• Betts, B. J. 1998. Effects of interindividual variation in echolocation calls on identification of big brown bats and silver-haired bats. Journal of Wildlife Management, 62: 1003-1010.
• Downes, C. M. 1982. A comparison of the sensitivity of three bat detectors. Journal of Mammalogy, 63: 343-345.
• Fenton, M. B. 1995. Natural history and biosonar signals. Pp. 37-86, in Hearing in bats (A. N. Popper and R. R. Fay, eds.). Springer-Verlag, New York, 515 pp.
• Fenton, M. B., and G. P. BELL. 1981. Recognition of species of insectivorous bats by their echolocation calls. Journal of Mammalogy, 62: 233-243.
• Fenton, M. B., S. Bouchard, M. J. Vonhof, and J. Zigouris. In press. Time-expansion and zerocrossing period meter systems present significantly different views of echolocation calls of bats. Journal of Mammalogy.
• Fenton, M. B., J. Rydell, M. J. Vonhof, J. Eklöf, and W. C. Lancaster. 1999. Constant frequency (CF) and frequency modulated (FM) components in the echolocation calls of three small bats (Emballonuridae, Thyropteridae and Vespertilionidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77: 1891-1900.
• Forbes, B., and W. M. Newhook. 1990. A comparison of the performances of three models of bat detectors. Journal of Mammalogy, 71: 108-110.
• Griffin, D. R. 1958. Listening in the dark. Yale University Press, New Haven, 415 pp.
• Griffin, D. R., F. A. Webster, and C. R. Michael. 1960. The echolocation of flying insects by bats. Animal Behaviour, 8: 141-154.
• Hooper, J. 1966. The ultrasonic ‘voices’ of bats. New Scientist, 24 February 1966: 496-197.
• Hooper, J. 1969. Potential use of a portable ultrasonic receiver for the field identification of flying bats. Ultrasonics, July 1969: 177-181.
• Jones, G. 1991. Recording and analysis techniques. Pp. 25-36, in Proceedings of the First European Bat Detector Workshop (K. Kapteyn, ed.), Netherlands Bat Research Foundation, Amsterdam, 128 pp.
• Jung, T. S., I. D. Thompson, R. D. Titman, and A. P. Applejohn. 1999. Habitat selection by forest bats in relation to mixed-wood stand types and structure in central Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management, 63: 1306-1319.
• Kalcounis, M. C., K. A. Hobson, R. M. Brigham, and K. R. Hecker. 1999. Bat activity in the boreal forest: importance of stand type and vertical strata. Journal of Mammalogy, 80: 673-682.
• Lehner, P.N. 1979. Handbook of ethological methods. Garland STPM Press, New York, 403 pp.
• Obrist, M. K. 1995. Flexible bat echolocation: the influence of individual, habitat and conspecifics on sonar signal design. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 36: 207-219.
• Obrist, M. K. In press. Who’s calling? — acoustic bat species identification revised. In Advances 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.
• O’Farrell, M. J., W. L. Gannon, and B. Miller. 1999. Confronting the dogma: a reply. Journal of Mammalogy, 80: 297-302.
• Parsons, S., and M. K. Obrist. In press. Recent methodological advances in the recording and analysis of chiropteran biosonar signals in the field. In Advances 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.
• Parsons, S., A. M. Boonman, and M. K. Obrist. 2000. Advantages and disadvantages of techniques for transforming and analyzing chiropteran echolocation calls. Journal of Mammalogy, 81: 927-938.
• Partridge, G. R. 1967. A high-speed transient analyzer. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 15: 171-175.
• Pearl, D. L., and M. B. Fenton. 1996. Echolocation calls provide information about group identity in the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 74: 2184-2192.
• Pettersson, L. 1991. Ultrasound detectors. Pp. 11-20, in Proceedings of the First European Bat Detector Workshop (K. Kapteyn, ed.). Netherlands Bat Research Foundation, Amsterdam, 128 pp.
• Pye, J. D. 1992. Equipment and techniques for the study of ultrasound in air. Bioacoustics, 4: 77-88.
• Rydell, J. 1990. Behavioral variation in echolocation pulses of the northern bat, Eptesicus nilssoni. Ethology, 85: 103-113.
• Simmons, J. A., M. B. Fenton, W. R. Ferguson, M. Jutting, and J. Palin. 1979. Apparatus for research on animal ultrasonic signals. Life Science Miscellaneous Publications, Royal Ontario Museum, pp. 1-31.
• Thomas, D. W., and S. D. West. 1984. On the use of ultrasonic detectors for bat species identifica- tion and the calibration of QMC mini bat detectors. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 62: 2677-2679.
• Water, D. A., and A. L. Walsh. 1994. The influence of bat detector brand on the quantitative estimation of bat activity. Bioacoustics, 5: 205-221.

Uwagi

rekord w opracowaniu