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 September 19, 2008
Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 3174-3180 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
doi: 10.1242/jeb.022863
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow An erratum has been published
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 Related articles in JEB
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
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 Schaub, A.
Right arrow Articles by Siemers, B. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Schaub, A.
Right arrow Articles by Siemers, B. M.
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?

Foraging bats avoid noise

Andrea Schaub1, Joachim Ostwald1 and Björn M. Siemers2,*

1 Zoological Institute, Department of Animal Physiology, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 28, 72076 Tübingen, Germany
2 Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Sensory Ecology Group, Eberhard-Gwinner-Strasse, 82319 Seewiesen, Germany


Figure 1
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the flight room and the experimental setup (not to scale). Each of the two foraging compartments was equipped with a loudspeaker and six landing platforms, two of which contained live mealworms. The room and the division between the compartments were lined with sound-absorbing acoustic foam. A video camera and infrared illumination served to document the bats' behaviour.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. Mean power spectral densities (PSDs) for 50 cars and 50 trucks recorded at a highway in 7.5 m, 15 m and 25 m distance from the middle of the right lane. Microphone height was 1.5 m. Error bars display the standard deviation.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (48K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. Examples of the sound files used for playback. (A) Oszillogram, (B) sonagram representation and mean power spectrum.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4. Influence of noise treatments on foraging behaviour of the mouse eared bats. (A) Percentage of the flight time in the stimulus compartment. (B) Percentage of flights into the stimulus compartment. (C) Percentage of total capture events that occurred in the stimulus compartment. (D) Percentage of the first 25 capture events per session that occurred in the stimulus compartment. Results from repeated-measures ANOVAs for the factors noise treatment and stimulus compartment position are given in the text. As the latter did not have a significant effect on any of the behavioural measures, we combined the behavioural data from both compartments for this graphic representation (averaged within each individual; error bars give the standard error, N=7 bats). Asterisks show significant differences revealed in post hoc paired t-tests for these combined data sets (sequential Bonferroni correction to account for multiple testing). ***P<0.001, **P<0.01, *P<0.05.

 

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?



© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2008