{"title":"马掌蝠与叶鼻蝠回声定位及觅食生态学的比较","authors":"C. Pavey","doi":"10.1071/ZO20047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Horseshoe (Rhinolphidae) and Old World leaf-nosed (Hipposideridae) bats are high duty cycle (HDC) echolocators sharing a suite of adaptations including long duration signals relative to their signal periods, peak energy concentrated in a narrow spectral band dominated by a constant frequency (CF) component, ‘auditory fovea’ (over-representation and sharp tuning of neurons responsible for frequencies at or around the CF) and ability to compensate for Doppler shifts in echoes. HDC bats separate signals from returning echoes in the frequency domain. Rhinolophids are more specialised neurobiologically than hipposiderids, producing longer duration signals at higher duty cycles, and have narrowly tuned auditory fovea and almost full Doppler shift compensation. Here, I examine whether these differences have produced ecological divergence between the families by testing predictions of differences in prey perception, prey capture behaviour, foraging habitat and diet. I found no discernible differences in these variables between the two families. Rhinolophids and hipposiderids both forage close to vegetation, capture prey by aerial hawking and gleaning from surfaces, and consume mostly flying insects with spiders and terrestrial, flightless arthropods taken occasionally. The data presented here show that the two families are similar in foraging ecology despite differences in echolocation and audition.","PeriodicalId":55420,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Zoology","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative echolocation and foraging ecology of horseshoe bats (Rhinolophidae) and Old World leaf-nosed bats (Hipposideridae)1\",\"authors\":\"C. Pavey\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/ZO20047\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Horseshoe (Rhinolphidae) and Old World leaf-nosed (Hipposideridae) bats are high duty cycle (HDC) echolocators sharing a suite of adaptations including long duration signals relative to their signal periods, peak energy concentrated in a narrow spectral band dominated by a constant frequency (CF) component, ‘auditory fovea’ (over-representation and sharp tuning of neurons responsible for frequencies at or around the CF) and ability to compensate for Doppler shifts in echoes. HDC bats separate signals from returning echoes in the frequency domain. Rhinolophids are more specialised neurobiologically than hipposiderids, producing longer duration signals at higher duty cycles, and have narrowly tuned auditory fovea and almost full Doppler shift compensation. Here, I examine whether these differences have produced ecological divergence between the families by testing predictions of differences in prey perception, prey capture behaviour, foraging habitat and diet. I found no discernible differences in these variables between the two families. Rhinolophids and hipposiderids both forage close to vegetation, capture prey by aerial hawking and gleaning from surfaces, and consume mostly flying insects with spiders and terrestrial, flightless arthropods taken occasionally. The data presented here show that the two families are similar in foraging ecology despite differences in echolocation and audition.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Zoology\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Zoology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO20047\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ZOOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Zoology","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO20047","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ZOOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative echolocation and foraging ecology of horseshoe bats (Rhinolophidae) and Old World leaf-nosed bats (Hipposideridae)1
Horseshoe (Rhinolphidae) and Old World leaf-nosed (Hipposideridae) bats are high duty cycle (HDC) echolocators sharing a suite of adaptations including long duration signals relative to their signal periods, peak energy concentrated in a narrow spectral band dominated by a constant frequency (CF) component, ‘auditory fovea’ (over-representation and sharp tuning of neurons responsible for frequencies at or around the CF) and ability to compensate for Doppler shifts in echoes. HDC bats separate signals from returning echoes in the frequency domain. Rhinolophids are more specialised neurobiologically than hipposiderids, producing longer duration signals at higher duty cycles, and have narrowly tuned auditory fovea and almost full Doppler shift compensation. Here, I examine whether these differences have produced ecological divergence between the families by testing predictions of differences in prey perception, prey capture behaviour, foraging habitat and diet. I found no discernible differences in these variables between the two families. Rhinolophids and hipposiderids both forage close to vegetation, capture prey by aerial hawking and gleaning from surfaces, and consume mostly flying insects with spiders and terrestrial, flightless arthropods taken occasionally. The data presented here show that the two families are similar in foraging ecology despite differences in echolocation and audition.
期刊介绍:
Australian Journal of Zoology is an international journal publishing contributions on evolutionary, molecular and comparative zoology. The journal focuses on Australasian fauna but also includes high-quality research from any region that has broader practical or theoretical relevance or that demonstrates a conceptual advance to any aspect of zoology. Subject areas include, but are not limited to: anatomy, physiology, molecular biology, genetics, reproductive biology, developmental biology, parasitology, morphology, behaviour, ecology, zoogeography, systematics and evolution.
Australian Journal of Zoology is a valuable resource for professional zoologists, research scientists, resource managers, environmental consultants, students and amateurs interested in any aspect of the scientific study of animals.
Australian Journal of Zoology is published with the endorsement of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Australian Academy of Science.