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


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online November 19, 2004
Journal of Experimental Biology 207, 4361-4369 (2004)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2004
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01288
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Holland, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Rayner, J. M. V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Holland, R. A.
Right arrow Articles by Rayner, J. M. V.

Echolocation signal structure in the Megachiropteran bat Rousettus aegyptiacus Geoffroy 1810

Richard A. Holland*, Dean A. Waters and Jeremy M. V. Rayner

School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK



View larger version (11K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Representative waveforms of single clicks. Amplitude is scaled to a maximum of ±1.

 


View larger version (15K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Regression of distance on intensity. The line represents the equation S=–24.27logR+89.92 and is not significantly different to the broken line plotted from the predicted values obtained from the equation S=–20logR+88.05.

 


View larger version (12K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Scatter plot of sound source level as a function of the range between the bat and the microphone. The line represents the equation S=–4.27logR+89.92 and is not significantly different to the broken line plotted from the predicted values obtained from the line S=88.05.

 


View larger version (20K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. (A) Sample waveform and best-fit Gabor function from bat 1. Amplitude has been scaled to a maximum of ±1. (B) Cross correlation between sample waveform and Gabor function. (C) FFT analysis of the Gabor model as compared to the signal with and without a first harmonic for bat 1.

 


View larger version (20K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. Representative clicks and the associated Gabor functions generated. The colour matches the click to the associated Gabor function. (A) Bat 1 click signals; (B) bat 1 Gabor functions.

 




© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2004