Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Experimental Biology
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

supporting biologistsinspiring biology

Journal of Experimental Biology

  • Log in
Advanced search

RSS  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Interviews
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JEB
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Outstanding paper prize
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JEB
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
Research Article
The sonar beam of Macrophyllum macrophyllum implies ecological adaptation under phylogenetic constraint
Mads Nedergaard Olsen, Annemarie Surlykke, Lasse Jakobsen
Journal of Experimental Biology 2020 223: jeb223909 doi: 10.1242/jeb.223909 Published 26 June 2020
Mads Nedergaard Olsen
Department of Biology, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Annemarie Surlykke
Department of Biology, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lasse Jakobsen
Department of Biology, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Lasse Jakobsen
  • For correspondence: lasse@biology.sdu.dk
  • Article
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

All animals are adapted to their ecology within the bounds of their evolutionary heritage. Echolocating bats clearly show such adaptations and boundaries through their biosonar call design. Adaptations include not only the overall time-frequency structure, but also the shape of the emitted echolocation beam. Macrophyllum macrophyllum is unique within the phyllostomid family, being the only species to predominantly hunt for insects in the open, on or above water, and as such it presents an interesting case for comparing the impact of phylogeny and ecology as it originates from a family of low-intensity, high-directionality gleaning bats, but occupies a niche dominated by very loud and substantially less-directional bats. Here, we examined the sonar beam pattern of M. macrophyllum in the field and in a flight room and compared it to closely related species with very different feeding ecology and to that of the niche-sharing but distantly related Myotis daubentonii. Our results show that M. macrophyllum uses higher source levels and emits less-directional calls than other phyllostomids. In the field, its call directionality is comparable to M. daubentonii, but in the flight room, M. macrophyllum is substantially more directional. Hence our results indicate that ecology influences the emitted call, pushing the bats to emit a louder and broader beam than other phyllostomids, but that phylogeny does limit the emitted intensity and flexibility of the overall beam pattern.

INTRODUCTION

All living organisms explore and expand to new habitats. In doing so, animals evolve morphological, physiological and behavioural traits adapted to these new niches. The evolution of such traits is, however, likely limited by phylogenetic inertia, i.e. an animal's evolutionary pathway is constrained by previous adaptations (Blomberg and Garland, 2002). Bats (Chiroptera) are no exception to this and they have evolved to successfully colonize most of the world with around 1350 species specialized to thrive in many different habitats and niches (Burgin et al., 2018). Bats are the only true flying mammals, and the majority of species use echolocation, which presumably are the major reasons for their great evolutionary success. Echolocation is an active sensing system, and combined with powered flight, it allows bats to hunt and navigate at night in complete darkness, by emitting high frequency sound pulses and localizing and identifying objects from the returning echoes (Griffin, 1986).

Bats will dynamically alter features of their emitted calls in response to the context at hand, such that echolocation calls emitted by bats flying in dense vegetation or in close proximity to prey are often profoundly different from calls emitted by the same bats flying out in the open sky. When resolving target echoes in densely vegetated habitats (cluttered habitats) or identifying and accurately localizing prey, bats usually emit short, relatively low intensity, broad-banded pulses to decrease clutter load and to increase localization accuracy and resolution. On the other hand, when searching for prey in open habitats, bats emit long duration, high intensity, low frequency pulses as these greatly improve detection distance (Jensen and Miller, 1999; Kalko and Schnitzler, 1993; Neuweiler, 1990; Schnitzler and Kalko, 2001; Surlykke and Moss, 2000). In spite of the great intraspecies variability in echolocation calls, there are still clear differences between echolocation calls emitted by bats from different niches, e.g. gleaning bats catching non-airborne prey, emit more broad-band calls than aerial hawkers when flying in the same environment (Siemers and Schnitzler, 2004).

The emitted calls are also directional, that is, most sound is emitted in the forward direction and the sound pressure drops progressively as the off-axis angle increases (Hartley and Suthers, 1987; Hartley and Suthers, 1989; Schnitzler and Grinnell, 1977; Shimozawa et al., 1974; Simmons, 1969). Recent studies suggest that directionality is as important for navigation by echolocation as the temporal and spectral structures of the calls because it contributes greatly to the bats' active space, i.e. the volume in space where they can perceive objects. Directionality is adapted to context on par with other call parameters (Jakobsen et al., 2015; Jakobsen and Surlykke, 2010; Kounitsky et al., 2015; Matsuta et al., 2013; Motoi et al., 2017; Surlykke et al., 2009) and closely related bat species navigating the same closed environment converge on the same beam pattern (Jakobsen et al., 2013). Call directionality is a product of the emitted call frequency and the emitter size/shape. Modifications to either will change directionality such that a smaller emitter or lower frequency will broaden the beam. For mouth emitting bats, the emitter size is presumably defined by the size of the open mouth. While most bats emit sound through the mouth, roughly 30% emit sound through the nostrils (Eick et al., 2005; Pedersen, 1993) and the vast majority of these have elaborate structures (nose-leaves) associated with the nostrils to facilitate a directional sound emission (Hartley and Suthers, 1987; Schnitzler and Grinnell, 1977).

The biggest family of nose emitting bats are the New World leaf-nosed bats or Phyllostomidae. This family consists of more than 200 species of which the vast majority forage in highly cluttered habitats using a gleaning strategy where stationary food is taken from surfaces (Burgin et al., 2018; Denzinger et al., 2017; Simmons, 2005). Phyllostomid echolocation is very conserved across species, and consists of short multi-harmonic calls with most energy in the 2nd to 4th harmonic (Brinkløv et al., 2009). Although recent studies have shown that phyllostomid bats can emit fairly high source levels, they are still relatively quiet compared with other echolocating species (Brinkløv et al., 2009; Brinkløv et al., 2010; Surlykke et al., 2013). Call directionality has been measured for two phyllostomid species, Trachops cirrhosus and Carollia perspicillata, freely navigating a flight room and both show significantly higher directionality than other bats measured to date. The high directionality may be an adaptation to gleaning prey in dense vegetation because the highly directional beam reduces the clutter load significantly when flying in such habitats, and it focuses the beam on a very small area, increasing the likelihood of detecting inconspicuous objects (Brinkløv et al., 2011; Dukas, 2004; Surlykke et al., 2013).

The long-legged bat, Macrophyllum macrophyllum, is a unique exception within the phyllostomids as it is the only trawling member of the family, hunting insects on or directly above water (Meyer et al., 2005). Macrophyllum macrophyllum emits calls with a time-frequency structure like other phyllostomids, but of higher intensities (Brinkløv et al., 2010). It is one of few phyllostomid bats known to use a distinct search, approach and buzz pattern in its echolocation emission during prey capture, as otherwise observed in the majority of aerial hawking and trawling bats (Brinkløv et al., 2009; Gessinger et al., 2019; Weinbeer and Kalko, 2007). These specific adaptations show that M. macrophyllum has adapted its echolocation to the hunting niche, but it is still a nose-emitting bat originating from a family dominated by gleaners. The obvious questions are therefore whether M. macrophyllum has also adapted its call directionality to the hunting niche and if it shows the same flexibility in the emitted beam pattern as other bats foraging in the same niche. To answer these questions, we measured source levels and the sonar beam pattern of M. macrophyllum both in the open habitat in the field and in the confined space of a flight room. We compare our results to measurements from other phyllostomid bats (C. perspicillata and T. cirrhosus) and to data from Myotis daubentonii, a similar-sized trawling vespertilionid bat that shows high flexibility in emitted echolocation beam, emitting a narrower beam in the field compared with the lab (Surlykke et al., 2009).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We recorded echolocation calls from long-legged bats Macrophyllum macrophyllum (Shinz 1821) in the field flying on Lake Gatún in the Panama Canal and in a 2.5 m×4 m flight room at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) on Barro Colorado Island (BCI), using a 12-microphone array. The array consisted of 12 G.R.A.S. ¼ inch 40 BF microphones amplified by 30 dB using Avisoft amplifiers with a 15 kHz high-pass filter and further 27 dB amplified and digitized by an Avisoft USGH 1216. The sampling rate was 300 kHz per channel and the data were stored on a laptop. We recorded 5 s files, with a 3 s pre-trigger and a 2 s post-trigger and calibrated the microphones after each recording session with a G.R.A.S. 42 AB sound calibrator. Temperature and humidity were measured and noted both before and after the recordings.

In the field, the setup was attached to a raft positioned close to the bats' roost in an old shipwreck in the laboratory cove at BCI and the bats were recorded as they left the roost flying out over open water towards the array. The array was arranged with 10 horizontal microphones 0.3 m apart and 1 microphone above (0.5 m) and 1 below (0.3 m) the fourth horizontal microphone. The 10 horizontally placed microphones were 0.5 m above the water surface. In the flight room we used a cross configuration with 6 horizontal microphones approximately 0.3 m apart and 3 microphones above and 3 below the third horizontal microphone 0.2 m apart. We recorded 3 bats (2 females and 1 male) in the flight room, all caught from their roost on the same day as the recordings took place. The bats were released into the flight room individually and were recorded when approaching the array on their own accords. All experiments were licensed and approved by STRI (IACUC permit: 20100816–1012–16).

We localized the bats at each sound emission by triangulation from the difference in arrival time on each of the 12 microphones. We only used call sequences where the bats flew directly towards the array for further analysis and for the field recordings only search calls, defined as a pulse interval (PI) of >30 ms between strobe groups consisting of a maximum of 3 calls, and calls localized to further than 3 m from the array to avoid any approach behaviour (Brinkløv et al., 2010). We compensated each call for transmission loss and microphone directionality and calculated source-levels and call directionality as described in Jakobsen et al. (2012). We further computed the average beam shape by pooling the relative sound-pressures into 1 deg bins and smoothing the resulting curve using a standard running average. From the average beam shape, we calculated the directivity index (DI) which is the increase in sound pressure emitted in the forward direction by a directional source compared to an omnidirectional source radiating the same acoustic power (see Surlykke et al., 2013 for details). We also measured the RMS pressure in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th harmonic by filtering the compensated call using a third-octave band-pass filter centred at the approximate peak frequency of the relevant harmonic and computing the 95% energy content of the filtered signal. Finally, we measured the centroid frequency (between 40 kHz and 110 kHz) using the spectralCentroid command in Matlab.

Acoustic recordings of bats flying over water may be significantly impacted by interference between the directly transmitted signal and reflections from the water surface (see Surlykke et al., 2009). To investigate the impact of these reflections on our measurements of the sonar beam shape, we performed a playback experiment, measuring the directionality of an Avisoft ScanSpeak emitting sound over an artificial pond (3 m×5 m). We played a 5 ms linear FM sweep (50 kHz to 12.5 kHz) at two different elevations above the pond (0.1 and 0.5 m) and nine distances to our recording setup: 1.25–5.25 m at 0.5 m intervals. We measured directionality with the same microphone array used for bat recordings but with 11 microphones on a horizontal line 0.3 m apart and 1 microphone above the 6th horizontal microphone. The 11 microphones were level with the speaker for both elevations and the speaker was oriented directly towards the centre microphone. We also conducted a trial with the speaker 0.1 m above the water surface and the microphones placed 0.5 m above the surface at all nine distances to test the impact of animals flying below the array. As a control comparison, we measured speaker directionality at 0.5 m elevation at the same distances without the pond and with acoustic foam covering the floor to minimize potential reflections on the recordings (melamin 50/50 pyramid panels from IAC Nordik, Hvidovre, Denmark). We recorded 12 sound pulses at each distance for all recording setups. From the test experiment, it is clear that in spite of the reflection from the water surface, the overall beam pattern is conserved (Fig. 1A); there is a slight change in directionality when recording at 0.5 m above water apparent at 45 deg with a resultant lowering of estimated directivity index (DI) value of 1.3 dB (DI without water=18.4 dB, DI at 0.1 m=18.1 dB and DI at 0.5 m=17.1 dB). It is also clear that measuring above the beam aim introduces significant errors to the measurements at close distances, i.e. the measured beam pattern becomes substantially broader than the actual beam pattern at greater off-axis angles, but this has little or no effect at distances greater than 3 m which corresponds with our selection criteria for the field recordings (Fig. 1B). Source level estimates are also affected by reflections from the water surface, but to a lesser extent than the worst-case scenario predicted by Surlykke et al. (2009). When the sound source and microphones are in the same horizontal plane, source level measurements differ by 2 dB or less between the non-reflection and the water reflection scenario (Fig. 1C). When the speaker is placed below the microphones the estimated source levels are underestimated at distances below two meters and overestimated at distances above 4 m with a maximum difference of +3.3 dB at the distances within our selection criteria.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Measured directionality and source level from an Avisoft ScanSpeak emitting a 5 ms sweep (50 kHz to 12.5 kHz). (A) Measurements with the microphone array and speaker without water, at 0.1 m and at 0.5 m above water, data are pooled for distances from 5.25 m to 1.25 m, lines are averages from 1 deg bins smoothed with a standard running average. (B) Measurements with the microphone array at 0.5 m above water and the speaker at 0.1 m above water also at distances from 5.25 m to 1.25 m. (C) Source-level measurements ±s.d. for all four configurations at each distance. Measurement distances are identical for all configurations, but the points are separated slightly for ease of presentation.

RESULTS

In the field we made 75 recordings from a minimum of five different individuals. During our recording sessions we observed up to five different bats at the same time, and most bats flew in the same direction, likely commuting from the roost to their hunting grounds (Weinbeer et al., 2006). Of the 75 recordings, 18 met our criteria, resulting in a total of 42 calls for directionality measurements. In the flight room we obtained 110 recordings from the three individuals, of these, 21 fulfilled our criteria, with 80 useable calls in total for directionality measurements: 61 calls from bat A, 6 from bat B and 13 from bat C.

In the field, M. macrophyllum emitted calls of significantly higher mean source level (116 versus 104 dB RMS re. 20 µPa at 0.1 m), longer duration (2.5 ms versus 1.2 ms) and lower centroid frequency (87 kHz versus 89 kHz) than in the flight room (Fig. 2, Table 1). The bats also emitted slightly more directional calls in the field than in the flight room, DI=16 dB versus 14.5 dB in the flight room (half-amplitude angle, i.e. the angle where pressure has dropped by 6 dB relative to the frontal sound pressure, of 19 deg in the field versus 26 deg in the lab; Table 2 and Fig. 3). Because M. macrophyllum flies so close to the water surface in the field, it is not possible to get microphones low enough to adequately estimate the vertical directionality, and directivity estimates from the field assume that the beam pattern is radially symmetrical. The flight room recordings indicate that this is not true (Fig. 4). Rather, the beam is asymmetrical in the vertical plane, but the difference in computed DI using only the horizontal measurements and using both horizontal and vertical is only 0.5 dB (Table 1).

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Spectrum, spectrograms and oscillograms of typical calls emitted by the long-legged bat Macrophyllum macrophyllum in the field and in the flight room.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Source level, duration and frequency for calls in the field and flight room

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Directivity index (DI) and half-amplitude angle based on entire calls and for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th harmonic, calculated in both the field and flight room

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Horizontal sound beam directionality of all M. macrophyllum calls from the field (black) and the flight room (grey, n=3). The plot shows the beam pattern for both the overall call and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th harmonic alone. Lines are averages from 1 deg bins smoothed with a standard running average.

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

Vertical sound beam directionality of all M. macrophyllum calls in the flight room (n=3). Directionality is plotted for the entire call and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th harmonic alone. Lines are averages from 1 deg bins smoothed with a standard running average.

DISCUSSION

Our results show that M. macrophyllum emits a broader beam than other free-flying phyllostomids measured to date, DI of the overall call is 3 dB lower for M. macrophyllum than for both C. perspicillata and T. cirrhosus flying in a flight room (DI=17 dB; Brinkløv et al., 2011; Surlykke et al., 2013), the corresponding half-amplitude angles were ∼8 deg larger horizontally (26 deg for M. macrophyllum versus 16 deg and 18 deg for C. perspicillata and T. cirrhosis, respectively) and 16 deg larger vertically for M. macrophyllum (∼30 deg for M. macrophyllum versus ∼14 deg for both C. perspicillata and T. cirrhosus in flight). The emitted beam is also narrower in the field compared with the flight room, but not by much. Interestingly, size of the nose-leaf does not appear to dictate directionality in M. macrophyllum when compared with C. perspicillata and T. cirrhosus, all three bats emit calls with similar frequency content (Brinkløv et al., 2011; Surlykke et al., 2013) but M. macrophyllum has a larger nose-leaf (longer lancet and broader base) than both C. perspicillata and T. cirrhosus (Arita, 1990). Intuitively, the larger nose-leaf should yield a narrower beam for M. macrophyllum, but the opposite is true. As shown by Hartley and Suthers (1987), position of the nose-leaf has significant impact on the emitted beam pattern and M. macrophyllum may utilize a different nose-leaf configuration in flight than C. perspicillata and T. cirrhosus to achieve the broader beam (i.e. different bend and curvature of the leaf and different nostril separation).

Similarly to previous studies, we find a slight increase in the frequency content of the calls emitted in the flight room compared with the field (Brinkløv et al., 2010). The rise in frequency by itself should increase call directionality, but interestingly, it is accompanied here by a lower DI (decreased call directionality), indicating a parallel change in the emitter characteristics. The change in emitted beam pattern is, however, minute, and substantially lower than what has previously been measured for M. daubentonii. In the field, both species emit a similar beam pattern with DI=16 dB, but in the flight room, M. macrophyllum emits a much narrower beam than M. daubentonii (DI=14 dB for M. macrophyllum versus 11 dB for M. daubentonii; Jakobsen et al., 2013). For M. daubentonii, the difference in emitted beam pattern between the field and the flight room is likely produced by reducing the mouth gape. While it is likely that phyllostomids can steer and adjust the echolocation beam by modifying the nose-leaf and/or nostril size and separation (Surlykke et al., 2013; Weinbeer and Kalko, 2007), the flexibility in changing emitter size may be substantially less than for mouth-emitting bats. Reduced emitter-size flexibility may explain the relatively small variation in beam pattern between field and flight room for M. macrophyllum. Conversely, it may also represent a difference in echolocation strategy. Trachops cirrhosus and C. perspicillata, both gleaners, emit very narrow echolocation beams whereas the brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus), a vespertilionid gleaner, and Megaderma lyra, a megadermatid gleaner, emit comparably broader beams (DI=∼13 dB; Jakobsen et al., 2018; Möhres and Neuweiler, 1966). Both P. auritus and M. lyra emit sound through the nostrils, which means that the narrow beam is not inherent to gleaning nasal emitters. Gleaning phyllostomid bats in general may utilize a narrow beam in confined spaces whereas vespertilionids and megadermatids utilize a broader beam.

Our study, in agreement with previous studies (Brinkløv et al., 2009, 2010), reports the highest source level measured for any phyllostomid even when considering potential overestimations caused by reflections from the water. The high source level will yield a substantially larger detection volume for prey compared with that of other phyllostomids but still considerably smaller than the ecologically similar M. daubentonii, which emits higher source levels and lower frequency calls. Differences in receiver characteristics may reduce the gap in detection distance between M. macrophyllum and M. daubentonii, e.g. the much larger outer ears of M. macrophyllum should provide substantial acoustic gain, but they also provide a more directional receptive field, such that while frontal detection range increases, peripheral echoes are more strongly attenuated.

High source levels confer a longer detection range, which is presumably advantageous when hunting flying insects. However, there are several vespertilionid bats that emit as low or lower source levels than M. macrophyllum when catching flying insects (Corcoran and Conner, 2017; Goerlitz et al., 2010; Lewanzik and Goerlitz, 2018). These quiet vespertilionid bats presumably avoid detection by eared prey, and the inconspicuousness granted by the lower source levels outweigh the disadvantage of the lower detection distance. Whether a similar adaptive significance is conferred to phyllostomids is unknown, but it could be elucidated by examination of the type of insect prey exploited by M. macrophyllum. Conversely, the relatively low intensities emitted by M. macrophyllum compared with most trawling and aerial-hawking bats could be a product of the sound emission mode, such that the physiology behind phyllostomid nasal sound emission limits the emitted sound pressures and M. macrophyllum is emitting sound pressures as high as its physiology allows. High intensity echolocation is not limited to oral-emitting bats, as is evident from rhinolophids (Schuchmann and Siemers, 2010) but it is also clear that, in addition to the large inherent differences between the high-duty cycle echolocation of rhinolophids and the low-duty cycle echolocation of phyllostomids, nose-leaf morphology and cranial morphology is dramatically different between the two (Pedersen, 1998; Pedersen and Müller, 2013). On the basis of these differences, it has been hypothesized by Pedersen (1998) that rhinolophids have sacrificed olfaction for higher call intensity while phyllostomids have not and it is therefore likely that M. macrophyllum is indeed calling at peak intensity.

As proposed by Weinbeer and Kalko (2007), we believe that the unique combination of phylogeny and ecological niche is what dictates the echolocation behaviour of M. macrophyllum. The time-frequency structure of the calls is typical for phyllostomids, but M. macrophyllum emits higher source levels and less-directional calls than other phyllostomids. Macrophyllum macrophyllum is, however, still substantially quieter than the similar sized trawling vespertilionid, M. daubentonii, and shows less flexibility in the emitted beam pattern. Whether the observed differences between these two species represent a different approach to similar perceptual tasks, or phylogenetic inertia (i.e. M. macrophyllum cannot produce higher source levels in the field and a broader beam in the flight room) remains to be seen, but it is clear that M. macrophyllum is ensonifying its surroundings in a way that facilitates a wider receptive field and greater detection distance than phyllostomid gleaners, but still less so than a niche-sharing vespertilionid bat.

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Rachel Page for help with logistics and to Signe Brinkløv and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments that have greatly improved the manuscript.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests

    The authors declare no competing or financial interests.

  • Author contributions

    Conceptualization: M.N.O., A.S., L.J.; Methodology: A.S., L.J.; Software: L.J.; Formal analysis: M.N.O., L.J.; Investigation: M.N.O., A.S.; Writing - original draft: M.N.O., L.J.; Writing - review & editing: M.N.O., L.J.; Visualization: M.N.O., L.J.; Supervision: A.S.; Project administration: A.S., L.J.

  • Funding

    This research was funded by Villum Fonden (00025380) and the Human Frontier Science Program (RGP0040/2013).

  • Received February 24, 2020.
  • Accepted May 5, 2020.
  • © 2020. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd
http://www.biologists.com/user-licence-1-1/

References

  1. ↵
    1. Arita, H. T.
    (1990). Noseleaf morphology and ecological correlates in phyllostomid bats. J. Mammal. 71, 36-47. doi:10.2307/1381314
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Blomberg, S. P. and
    2. Garland, T.
    (2002). Tempo and mode in evolution: phylogenetic inertia, adaptation and comparative methods. J. Evol. Biol. 15, 899-910. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00472.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Brinkløv, S.,
    2. Kalko, E. K. V. and
    3. Surlykke, A.
    (2009). Intense echolocation calls from two 'whispering' bats, Artibeus jamaicensis and Macrophyllum macrophyllum (Phyllostomidae). J. Exp. Biol. 212, 11-20. doi:10.1242/jeb.023226
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Brinkløv, S.,
    2. Kalko, E. K. V. and
    3. Surlykke, A.
    (2010). Dynamic adjustment of biosonar intensity to habitat clutter in the bat Macrophyllum macrophyllum (Phyllostomidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64, 1867-1874. doi:10.1007/s00265-010-0998-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    1. Brinkløv, S.,
    2. Jakobsen, L.,
    3. Ratcliffe, J. M.,
    4. Kalko, E. K. V. and
    5. Surlykke, A.
    (2011). Echolocation call intensity and directionality in flying short-tailed fruit bats, Carollia perspicillata (Phyllostomidae). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129, 427-435. doi:10.1121/1.3519396
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Burgin, C. J.,
    2. Colella, J. P.,
    3. Kahn, P. L. and
    4. Upham, N. S.
    (2018). How many species of mammals are there? J. Mammal. 99, 1-11. doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyx147
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Corcoran, A. J. and
    2. Conner, W. E.
    (2017). Predator counteradaptations: stealth echolocation overcomes insect sonar-jamming and evasive-manoeuvring defences. Anim. Behav. 132, 291-301. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.08.018
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Denzinger, A.,
    2. Tschapka, M. and
    3. Schnitzler, H.-U.
    (2017). The role of echolocation strategies for niche differentiation in bats. Can. J. Zool. 96, 171-181. doi:10.1139/cjz-2017-0161
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Dukas, R.
    (2004). Causes and consequences of limited attention. Brain Behav. Evol. 63, 197-210. doi:10.1159/000076781
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Eick, G. N.,
    2. Jacobs, D. S. and
    3. Matthee, C. A.
    (2005). A nuclear DNA phylogenetic perspective on the evolution of echolocation and historical biogeography of extant bats (chiroptera). Mol. Biol. Evol. 22, 1869-1886. doi:10.1093/molbev/msi180
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Gessinger, G.,
    2. Gonzalez-Terrazas, T. P.,
    3. Page, R. A.,
    4. Jung, K. and
    5. Tschapka, M.
    (2019). Unusual echolocation behaviour of the common sword-nosed bat Lonchorhina aurita: an adaptation to aerial insectivory in a phyllostomid bat? R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 182165. doi:10.1098/rsos.182165
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    1. Goerlitz, H. R.,
    2. ter Hofstede, H. M.,
    3. Zeale, M. R. K.,
    4. Jones, G. and
    5. Holderied, M. W.
    (2010). An aerial-hawking bat uses stealth echolocation to counter moth hearing. Curr. Biol. 20, 1588. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2010.08.057
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    1. Griffin, D. R.
    (1986). Listening in the dark, 2nd edn. Cornell University Press.
  14. ↵
    1. Hartley, D. J. and
    2. Suthers, R. A.
    (1987). The sound emission pattern and the acoustical role of the noseleaf in the echolocating bat, Carollia perspicillata. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82, 1892-1900. doi:10.1121/1.395684
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    1. Hartley, D. J. and
    2. Suthers, R. A.
    (1989). The sound emission pattern of the echolocating bat, Eptesicus fuscus. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 85, 1348-1351. doi:10.1121/1.397466
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Jakobsen, L. and
    2. Surlykke, A.
    (2010). Vespertilionid bats control the width of their biosonar sound beam dynamically during prey pursuit. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 13930-13935. doi:10.1073/pnas.1006630107
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Jakobsen, L.,
    2. Kalko, E. K. V. and
    3. Surlykke, A.
    (2012). Echolocation beam shape in emballonurid bats, Saccopteryx bilineata and Cormura brevirostris. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 66, 1493-1502. doi:10.1007/s00265-012-1404-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Jakobsen, L.,
    2. Ratcliffe, J. M. and
    3. Surlykke, A.
    (2013). Convergent acoustic field of view in echolocating bats. Nature 493, 93-96. doi:10.1038/nature11664
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    1. Jakobsen, L.,
    2. Olsen, M. N. and
    3. Surlykke, A.
    (2015). Dynamics of the echolocation beam during prey pursuit in aerial hawking bats. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 8118-8123. doi:10.1073/pnas.1419943112
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Jakobsen, L.,
    2. Hallam, J.,
    3. Moss, C. F. and
    4. Hedenström, A.
    (2018). Directionality of nose-emitted echolocation calls from bats without a nose leaf (Plecotus auritus). J. Exp. Biol. 221, jeb171926. doi:10.1242/jeb.171926
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Jensen, M. E. and
    2. Miller, L. A.
    (1999). Echolocation signals of the bat Eptesicus serotinus recorded using a vertical microphone array: effect of flight altitude on searching signals. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 47, 60-69. doi:10.1007/s002650050650
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    1. Kalko, E. K. V. and
    2. Schnitzler, H.-U.
    (1993). Plasticity in echolocation signals of European pipistrelle bats in search flight: implications for habitat use and prey detection. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 33, 415-428. doi:10.1007/BF00170257
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    1. Kounitsky, P.,
    2. Rydell, J.,
    3. Amichai, E.,
    4. Boonman, A.,
    5. Eitan, O.,
    6. Weiss, A. J. and
    7. Yovel, Y.
    (2015). Bats adjust their mouth gape to zoom their biosonar field of view. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6724-6729. doi:10.1073/pnas.1422843112
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Lewanzik, D. and
    2. Goerlitz, H. R.
    (2018). Continued source level reduction during attack in the low-amplitude bat Barbastella barbastellus prevents moth evasive flight. Funct. Ecol. 32, 1251-1261. doi:10.1111/1365-2435.13073
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. ↵
    1. Matsuta, N.,
    2. Hiryu, S.,
    3. Fujioka, E.,
    4. Yamada, Y.,
    5. Riquimaroux, H. and
    6. Watanabe, Y.
    (2013). Adaptive beam-width control of echolocation sounds by CF-FM bats, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum nippon, during prey-capture flight. J. Exp. Biol. 216, 1210-1218. doi:10.1242/jeb.081398
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Meyer, C. F. J.,
    2. Weinbeer, M. and
    3. Kalko, E. K. V.
    (2005). Home-range size and spacing patterns of Macrophyllum macrophyllum (Phyllostomidae) foraging over water. J. Mammal. 86, 587-598. doi:10.1644/1545-1542(2005)86[587:HSASPO]2.0.CO;2
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  27. ↵
    1. Möhres, F. P. and
    2. Neuweiler, G.
    (1966). Die ultraschallorientierung der Grossblatt-Fledermäuse (Chiroptera Megadermatidae). Z. Vergl. Physiol. 53, 195-227. doi:10.1007/BF00298096
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. ↵
    1. Motoi, K.,
    2. Sumiya, M.,
    3. Fujioka, E. and
    4. Hiryu, S.
    (2017). Three-dimensional sonar beam-width expansion by Japanese house bats (Pipistrellus abramus) during natural foraging. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 141, EL439. doi:10.1121/1.4981934
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    1. Neuweiler, G.
    (1990). Auditory adaptations for prey capture in echolocating bats. Physiol. Rev. 70, 615-641. doi:10.1152/physrev.1990.70.3.615
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. ↵
    1. Pedersen, S. C.
    (1993). Cephalometric correlates of echolocation in the chiroptera. J. Morphol. 218, 85-98. doi:10.1002/jmor.1052180107
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. ↵
    1. Pedersen, S. C.
    (1998). Morphometric analysis of the chiropteran skull with regard to mode of echolocation. J. Mamm. 79, 91-103. doi:10.2307/1382844
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Pedersen, S. C. and
    2. Müller, R.
    (2013). Nasal-emission and nose leaves. In Bat Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation (ed. R. A. Adams and S. C. Pedersen), pp. 71-91. New York, NY: Springer New York.
  33. ↵
    1. Schnitzler, H.-U. and
    2. Grinnell, A. D.
    (1977). Directional sensitivity of echolocation in the horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. I Directionality of sound emission. J. Comp. Physiol. A 116, 51-61. doi:10.1007/BF00605516
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. ↵
    1. Schnitzler, H.-U. and
    2. Kalko, E. K. V.
    (2001). Echolocation by insect-eating bats. Bioscience 51, 557-569. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0557:EBIEB]2.0.CO;2
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  35. ↵
    1. Schuchmann, M. and
    2. Siemers, B. M.
    (2010). Variability in echolocation call intensity in a community of horseshoe bats: a role for resource partitioning or communication? PLoS ONE 5, e12842. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012842
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. ↵
    1. Shimozawa, T.,
    2. Suga, N.,
    3. Hendler, P. and
    4. Schuetze, S.
    (1974). Directional sensitivity of echolocation system in bats producing frequency-modulated signals. J. Exp. Biol. 60, 53-69.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    1. Siemers, B. M. and
    2. Schnitzler, H.-U.
    (2004). Echolocation signals reflect niche differentiation in five sympatric congeneric bat species. Nature 429, 657-661. doi:10.1038/nature02547
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. ↵
    1. Simmons, J. A.
    (1969). Acoustic radiation patterns for the echolocating bats Chilonycteris rubiginosa and Eptesicus fuscus. JASA 46, 1054-1056. doi:10.1121/1.1911804
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    1. Simmons, N. B.
    (2005). An Eocene big bang for bats. Science 307, 527-528. doi:10.1126/science.1108871
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Surlykke, A. and
    2. Moss, C. F.
    (2000). Echolocation behavior of big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus, in the field and the laboratory. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108, 2419-2429. doi:10.1121/1.1315295
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. ↵
    1. Surlykke, A.,
    2. Pedersen, S. B. and
    3. Jakobsen, L.
    (2009). Echolocating bats emit a highly directional sonar sound beam in the field. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 853-860. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1505
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. ↵
    1. Surlykke, A.,
    2. Jakobsen, L.,
    3. Kalko, E. K. V. and
    4. Page, R. A.
    (2013). Echolocation intensity and directionality of perching and flying fringe-lipped bats, Trachops cirrhosus (Phyllostomidae). Front. Physiol. 4, 143. doi:10.3389/fphys.2013.00143
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Weinbeer, M. and
    2. Kalko, E. K. V.
    (2007). Ecological niche and phylogeny: the highly complex echolocation behavior of the trawling long-legged bat, Macrophyllum macrophyllum. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61, 1337-1348. doi:10.1007/s00265-007-0364-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  44. ↵
    1. Weinbeer, M.,
    2. Meyer, C. F. J. and
    3. Kalko, E. K. V.
    (2006). Activity pattern of the trawling phyllostomid bat, Macrophyllum macrophyllum, in Panamá. Biotropica 38, 69-76. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00101.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
View Abstract
Previous ArticleNext Article
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

Keywords

  • Echolocation
  • Ecological adaptation
  • Sonar beam
  • Source level

 Download PDF

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Experimental Biology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The sonar beam of Macrophyllum macrophyllum implies ecological adaptation under phylogenetic constraint
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Experimental Biology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Experimental Biology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Research Article
The sonar beam of Macrophyllum macrophyllum implies ecological adaptation under phylogenetic constraint
Mads Nedergaard Olsen, Annemarie Surlykke, Lasse Jakobsen
Journal of Experimental Biology 2020 223: jeb223909 doi: 10.1242/jeb.223909 Published 26 June 2020
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Research Article
The sonar beam of Macrophyllum macrophyllum implies ecological adaptation under phylogenetic constraint
Mads Nedergaard Olsen, Annemarie Surlykke, Lasse Jakobsen
Journal of Experimental Biology 2020 223: jeb223909 doi: 10.1242/jeb.223909 Published 26 June 2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Sign in to email alerts with your email address

Article navigation

  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & tables
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF

Related articles

Cited by...

More in this TOC section

  • Differing thermal sensitivities of physiological processes alter ATP allocation
  • The Murphy number: how pitch moment of inertia dictates quadrupedal walking and running energetics
  • Efficient high-voltage protection in the electric catfish
Show more RESEARCH ARTICLE

Similar articles

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Development

Journal of Cell Science

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Biology Open

Advertisement

Meet the Editors at SICB Virtual 2021

Reserve your place to join some of the journal editors, including Editor-in-Chief Craig Franklin, at our Meet the Editor session on 17 February at 2pm (EST). Don’t forget to view our SICB Subject Collection, featuring relevant JEB papers relating to some of the symposia sessions.


2020 at The Company of Biologists

Despite 2020's challenges, we were able to bring a number of long-term projects and new ventures to fruition. As we enter a new year, join us as we reflect on the triumphs of the last 12 months.


Critical temperature window sends migratory black-headed buntings on their travels

The spring rise in temperature at black-headed bunting overwintering sites is essential for triggering the physical changes that they undergo before embarking on their spring migration – read more.


Developmental and reproductive physiology of small mammals at high altitude

Cayleih Robertson and Kathryn Wilsterman focus on high-altitude populations of the North American deer mouse in their review of the challenges and evolutionary innovations of pregnant and nursing small mammals at high altitude.


Read & Publish participation extends worldwide

“Being able to publish Open Access articles free of charge means that my article gets maximum exposure and has maximum impact, and that all my peers can read it regardless of the agreements that their universities have with publishers.”

Professor Roi Holzman (Tel Aviv University) shares his experience of publishing Open Access as part of our growing Read & Publish initiative. We now have over 60 institutions in 12 countries taking part – find out more and view our full list of participating institutions.

Articles

  • Accepted manuscripts
  • Issue in progress
  • Latest complete issue
  • Issue archive
  • Archive by article type
  • Special issues
  • Subject collections
  • Interviews
  • Sign up for alerts

About us

  • About JEB
  • Editors and Board
  • Editor biographies
  • Travelling Fellowships
  • Grants and funding
  • Journal Meetings
  • Workshops
  • The Company of Biologists
  • Journal news

For Authors

  • Submit a manuscript
  • Aims and scope
  • Presubmission enquiries
  • Article types
  • Manuscript preparation
  • Cover suggestions
  • Editorial process
  • Promoting your paper
  • Open Access
  • Outstanding paper prize
  • Biology Open transfer

Journal Info

  • Journal policies
  • Rights and permissions
  • Media policies
  • Reviewer guide
  • Sign up for alerts

Contact

  • Contact JEB
  • Subscriptions
  • Advertising
  • Feedback

 Twitter   YouTube   LinkedIn

© 2021   The Company of Biologists Ltd   Registered Charity 277992