spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jensen, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Rydell, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jensen, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Rydell, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol 204, Issue 2 199-208, Copyright © 2001 by Company of Biologists

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Detection of prey in a cluttered environment by the northern bat Eptesicus nilssonii

ME Jensen, LA Miller and J Rydell
Center for Sound Communication, Biological Institute, Odense University, SDU, DK-5230 Odense, Denmark. lee@dou.dk

We studied the acoustic behaviour of bats (Eptesicus nilssonii) hunting for large (wing span 5 cm) non-hearing hepialid moths (Hepialus humuli). Groups of silvery-white male H. humuli perform a short (30 min) hovering display flight over grassland at dusk. They typically hover at, or below, the tops of grass panicles and are therefore situated in a highly acoustically cluttered habitat. Occasionally, they move to a new position by making short (1-5 s) flights at higher levels. E. nilssonii is not a clutter specialist, and yet we found that they attacked H. humuli within the 'clutter overlap zone'. The bats did not change their signal design in any marked manner for this specific task. Measurements of echoes from a moth 10 cm above or below the grass tops showed that information for detecting the moths was available to the bats. Nevertheless, the bats did not attack moths in stationary hovering display flight, only when they moved above the grass panicles. The duration of the up/down flights (movements) were almost always longer than an entire capture sequence by the bats. Apparently, the bats rely on the movement of the moth in space, monitored over successive echoes, to discriminate moth echoes from overlapping clutter echoes.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Exp. Biol.Home page
A. Surlykke, V. Futtrup, and J. Tougaard
Prey-capture success revealed by echolocation signals in pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus pygmaeus)
J. Exp. Biol., January 1, 2003; 206(1): 93 - 104.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2001