Group-specific signatures in the echolocation calls of female little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) are not an artefact of clutter at the roost entrance

• Autorzy: Jameson J.W. , Hare J. F.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In species where conspecifics form discrete social groups, the production of signals advertising group membership may promote cohesion among group members. Female little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) show high fidelity to maternity roost sites where they aggregate in large numbers every spring to rear young. While the presence of group-specific signatures has been demonstrated in the echolocation calls of this species, differential clutter at recording sites may account for the observed differences. Bats optimize their ability to maneuver and detect prey within a given environment by tailoring their echolocation calls to physical attributes of that environment. Therefore, if clutter is responsible for the apparent group specificity in the calls of little brown bats, groups of bats experiencing similar levels of clutter at roost entrances should emit similar calls. We examined the effect of differential clutter on the emergence calls of M. lucifugus by comparing recorded echolocation calls of bats emerging from three maternity roosts in Georgian Bay, Ontario. The roosts varied in distance from each other and in their proximity to surrounding clutter. The more distant group emerged in an environment with clutter deemed intermediate to the two more proximate roost entrances and yet was the most acoustically distinct. The finding that similarity among emergence calls correlated better with spatial proximity than with the level of clutter around roost entrances is consistent with the development of true group-specific signatures in the emergence calls of M. lucifugus.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Chiropterologica
• Rocznik: 2009
• Tom: 11
• Numer: 1
• Opis fizyczny: p.163-172,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Jameson J.W.

• Department of Biology, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB R3B 2E9, Canada

autor

Hare J. F.

• Department of Biological Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada

Bibliografia

• Arlettaz, R., G. Jones, and P. A. Racey. 2001. Effect of acoustic clutter on prey detection by bats. Nature, 414: 742-745.
• Barclay, R. M. R. 1982a. Interindividual use of echolocation calls: eavesdropping by bats. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 10: 271-275.
• Barclay, R. M. R. 1982b. Night roosting behavior of the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus. Journal of Mammalogy, 63: 464-474.
• Barclay, R. M. R., and K. J. Cash. 1985. A non-commensal maternity roost of the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus). Journal of Mammalogy, 66: 782-783.
• Barclay, R. M. R., M. B. Fenton, and D. W. Thomas. 1979. Social behaviour of the little brown bat: vocal communication. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 6: 137-146.
• Boughman, J. W. 1997. Greater spear-nosed bats give groupdistinctive calls. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 40: 61-70.
• Boughman, J. W., and G. S. Wilkinson. 1998. Greater spear-nosed bats discriminate group mates by vocalizations. Animal Behaviour, 55: 1717-1732.
• Boye, P. 2004. European agency perspectives: expectations from bat detector studies. Pp. 140-144, in Bat echolocation research: tools, techniques and analysis (R. M. Brigham, E. K. V. Kalko, G. Jones, S. Parsons, and H. J. G. A. Limpens, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, vii + 167 pp.
• Broders, H. G., C. S. Findlay, and L. Zheng. 2004. Effects of clutter on echolocation call structure of Myotis septentrionalis and M. lucifugus. Journal of Mammalogy, 85: 273-281.
• Buchler, E. R. 1980. Evidence for the use of a scent post by Myotis lucifugus. Journal of Mammalogy, 61: 525-528.
• Bull, C. M., C. L. Griffin, E. J. Lanham, and G. R. Johnston. 2000. Recognition of pheromones from group members in a gregarious lizard, Egernia stokesii. Journal of Herpetology, 34: 92-99.
• Crockford, C., I. Herbinger, L. Vigilant, and C. Boesh. 2004. Wild chimpanzees produce group-specific calls: a case for vocal learning? Ethology, 110: 221-243.
• Crozier, R. H., and M. W. Dix. 1979. Analysis of two genetic models for the innate components of colony odor in social Hymenoptera. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 4: 217-224.
• Dapporto, L., L. Fondelli, and S. Turillazzi. 2006. Nestmate recognition and identification of cuticular hydrocarbons composition in the swarm founding paper wasp Ropalidia opifex. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, 34: 617-625.
• Evans, W. R., and D. K. Mellinger. 1999. Monitoring grassland birds in nocturnal migration studies in avian biology. Studies in Avian Biology, 19: 219-229.
• Fenton M. B. 2004. Reporting: Essential information and analysis. Pp. 133-140, in Bat echolocation research: tools, techniques and analysis (R. M. Brigham, E. K. V. Kalko, G. Jones, S. Parsons, and H. J. G. A. Limpens, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, vii + 167 pp.
• Fenton, M. B., and R. M. R. Barclay. 1980. Myotis lucifugus. Mammalian Species, 142: 1-8.
• Fenton, M. B., P. J. Taylor, D. S. Jacobs, E. J. Richardson, E. Bernard, S. Bouchard, K. R. Debaeremaeker, H. Ter Hofstede, L. Hollis, C. L. Lausen, J. S. Lister, D. Rambaldini, J. M. Ratcliffe, and E. Reddy. 2002. Researching little-known species: the African bat Otomops martiensseni (Chiroptera: Molossidae). Biodiversity and Conservation, 11:1583-1606.
• Gamboa, J. G. 2004. Kin recognition in eusocial wasps. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 41: 789-808.
• Griffin, D. R. 1958. Diversity of acoustic orientation in bats which feed on insects and fish. Pp. 203-228, in Listening in the dark. Yale University Press, New Haven, xxii + 415 pp.
• Grossmann, G. D., D. M. Nickerson, and M. C. Freeman. 1991. Principal component analyses of assemblage structure data: utility of tests based on eigenvalues. Ecology, 72: 341-347.
• Hare, J. F. 1994. Group member discrimination by Columbian ground squirrels via familiarity with substrate-borne chemical cues. Animal Behaviour, 47: 803-813.
• Holderied, M. W., and O. Helversen. 2003. Echolocation range and wing beat period match in aerial-hawking bats. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 270B: 2293-2299.
• Hopp, S. L., P. Jablonski, and J. L. Brown. 2001. Recognition of group membership by voice in Mexican jays, Aphelocoma ultramarina. Animal Behavior, 62: 297-303.
• Jones, G. 1999. Scaling of echolocation call parameters in bats. Journal of Experimental Biology, 202: 3359-3367.
• Kazial, K. A., S. Pacheco, and K. N. Zielinski. 2008. Information content of sonar calls of little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus): potential for communication. Journal of Mammalogy, 89: 25-33.
• Mammen, D. L., and S. Nowicki. 1981. Individual differences and within-flock convergence in chickadee calls. Behavioural Evolution and Sociobiology, 9: 179-186.
• Marler, P., C. S. Evans, and M. D. Hauser. 1992. Animal signals: motivational, referential, or both? Pp. 66-86, in Nonverbal vocal communication: comparative and developmental approaches (H. Papoušek, U. Jürgens, and M. Papoušek, eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, xv + 319 pp.
• Masters, W. M., K. A. S. Raver, and K. A. Kazial. 1995. Sonar signals of big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus, contain information about individual identity, age and family affiliation. Animal Behaviour, 50: 1243-1260.
• Moss, C. F., D. Reddish, C. Gounden, and T. H. Kunz. 1997. Ontogeny of vocal signals in the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus. Animal Behaviour, 54: 131-141.
• Pearl, D. L., and M. B. Fenton. 1996. Can echolocation calls provide information about group identity in the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus)? Canadian Journal of Zoology, 74: 2184-2192.
• Perlmeter, S. I. 1996. Bats and bridges: patterns of night roost activity in the Willamette National Forest. Pp. 132-150, in Bats and forest symposium (R. M. R. Barclay and R. M. Brigham, eds.). British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch, Victoria, xiv + 292 pp.
• Petrželková, K. J., and J. Zukal. 2003. Does a live barn owl (Tyto alba) affect emergence behaviour of serotine bats (Eptesicus serotinus)? Acta Chiropterologica, 5: 177-184.
• Pinheiro, A. D., M. Wu, and P. H. S. Jen. 1991. Encoding repetition rate and duration in the inderior colliculus of the big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus. Journal of Comparative Physiology, 169A: 69-85.
• Podani, J. 2001. SYN-TAX 2000: Computer programs for data analysis in ecology and systematics. Users manual. Scientia Publishing, Budapest.
• Price, J. J. 1999. Recognition of family-specific calls in stripebacked wrens. Animal Behaviour, 57: 483-492.
• Safi, K., and G. Kerth. 2003. Secretions of the interaural gland contain information about individuality and colony membership in the Bechstein’s bat. Animal Behaviour, 65: 363-369.
• Schul, J., F. Matt, and O. von Helversen. 2000. Listening for bats: the hearing range of the bushcricket Phaneroptera falcate for bat echolocation calls measured in the field. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 267B: 1711-1715.
• Siemers, M. M. 2004. Bats in the field and in a flight cage: Recording and analysis of their echolocation calls and behavior. Pp. 107-113, in Bat echolocation research: tools, techniques and analysis (R. M. Brigham, E. K. V. Kalko, G. Jones, S. Parsons, and H. J. G. A. Limpens, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas, vii + 167 pp.
• Simmons, J. A. 1973. The resolution of target range by echolocating bats. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54: 157-173.
• Smolker, R., and J. W. Pepper. 1999. Whistle convergence among allied male bottlenose dolphins (Delphinidae, Tursiops sp.). Ethology, 105: 595-617.
• Studier, E. H., V. L. Lysengen, and M. J. O’Farrell. 1973. Biology of Myotis thysanodes and M. lucifugus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) II. Bioenergetics of pregnancy and lactation. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 44: 467-471.
• Sweeney, B. W., and R. L. Vannote. 1982. Population synchrony in mayflies: a predator satiation hypothesis. Evolution, 36: 810-821.
• van Wilgenburg, E., D. Ryan, P. Morrison, and M. Elgar. 2006. Nest- and colony-mate recognition in polydomous colonies of meat ants (Iridomyrmex purpureus). Naturwissenschaften, 93: 309-314.
• Wanker, R., Y. Sugama, and S. Prinage. 2005. Vocal labeling of family members in spectacled parrotlets, Forpus conspicillatus. Animal Behavior, 70: 111-118.
• Ward, P., and A. Zahavi. 1973. The importance of certain assemblages of birds as ‘information-centres’ for food finding. Ibis, 115: 517-534.
• Wilkinson, G. S. 1984. Reciprocal food sharing in the vampire bat. Nature, 308: 181-184.
• Zar, J. H. 1974. Multisample hypotheses. Pp. 135, in Biostatistical analysis (W. D. McElroy and C. P. Swanson, eds.). Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 620 pp.