QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Waters, D. A. Articles by Jones, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Waters, D. A. Articles by Jones, G. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol 198, Issue 2 475-489, Copyright © 1995 by Company of Biologists

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Echolocation call structure and intensity in five species of insectivorous bats

DA Waters and G Jones
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, UK.

Echolocation call intensity was measured in the laboratory for five species of British insectivorous bats in free flight and in the hand. All species showed similar call intensities of between 80 and 90 dB peSPL (peak equivalent SPL) at 1 m during flight except Plecotus auritus, whose call intensity was between 68 and 77 dB peSPL at 1 m. Calls from stationary bats were about 13 dB less intense than calls during flight. A method is proposed to measure the root mean square (rms) amplitude of echolocation calls and, hence, to calculate the energy flux density of the call. The constant-frequency calls of Rhinolophus hipposideros have energy flux densities approximately ten times higher than those of bats using frequency-modulated calls as a result of their longer durations and lower crest factors. It is argued that the low-intensity calls of P. auritus allow it to approach tympanate moths more closely before triggering their escape response.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Boonman and G. Jones Intensity control during target approach in echolocating bats; stereotypical sensori-motor behaviour in Daubenton's bats, Myotis daubentonii J. Exp. Biol., September 15, 2002; 205(18): 2865 - 2874. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Jones, A. Barabas, W. Elliott, and S. Parsons Female greater wax moths reduce sexual display behavior in relation to the potential risk of predation by echolocating bats Behav. Ecol., May 1, 2002; 13(3): 375 - 380. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. C. Lancaster and J. R. Speakman Variations in respiratory muscle activity during echolocation when stationary in three species of bat (Microchiroptera: Vespertilionidae) J. Exp. Biol., March 14, 2002; 204(24): 4185 - 4197. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J Wong and D Waters The synchronisation of signal emission with wingbeat during the approach phase in soprano pipistrelles (Pipistrellus pygmaeus) J. Exp. Biol., January 2, 2001; 204(3): 575 - 583. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S Parsons and G Jones Acoustic identification of twelve species of echolocating bat by discriminant function analysis and artificial neural networks J. Exp. Biol., January 9, 2000; 203(17): 2641 - 2656. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G Jones Scaling of echolocation call parameters in bats J. Exp. Biol., January 12, 1999; 202(23): 3359 - 3367. [Abstract] [PDF]