John M. Ratcliffe

Behavioural flexibility: the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus, and the northern long-eared bat,M. septentrionalis , both glean and hawk prey

We present behavioural data demonstrating that the little brown bat, Myotis lucifugus, and the northern long-eared bat, M. septentrionalis, can glean prey from surfaces and take prey on the wing. Our data were collected in a large outdoor flight room mimicking a cluttered environment. We compared and analysed flight behaviours and echolocation calls used by each species of bat when aerial hawking and gleaning. Our results challenge the traditional labelling of M. lucifugus as an obligate aerial-hawking species and show that M. septentrionalis, which is often cited as a gleaning species, can capture airborne prey. As has been shown in previous studies, prey-generated acoustic cues were necessary and sufficient for the detection and localization of perched prey. We argue that the broadband, high-frequency, downwardsweeping, frequency-modulated calls used by some bats when gleaning prey from complex surfaces resolve targets from background. First, because calls of lower frequency and narrower bandwidth are sufficient for assessing a surface before landing, and second, because there are few, if any, simple surfaces in nature from which substrate-gleaning behaviours in wild bats would be expected.

Multimodal warning signals for a multiple predator world.

Aposematism is an anti-predator defence, dependent on a predator’s ability to associate unprofitable prey with a prey-borne signal. Multimodal signals should vary in efficacy according to the sensory systems of different predators; however, until now, the impact of multiple predator classes on the evolution of these signals had not been investigated. Here, using a community-level molecular phylogeny to generate phylogenetically independent contrasts, we show that warning signals of tiger moths vary according to the seasonal and daily activity patterns of birds and bats—predators with divergent sensory capacities. Many tiger moths advertise chemical defence using conspicuous colouration and/or ultrasonic clicks. During spring, when birds are active and bats less so, we found that tiger moths did not produce ultrasonic clicks. Throughout both spring and summer, tiger moths most active during the day were visually conspicuous. Those species emerging later in the season produced ultrasonic clicks; those that were most nocturnal were visually cryptic. Our results indicate that selective pressures from multiple predator classes have distinct roles in the evolution of multimodal warning displays now effective against a single predator class. We also suggest that the evolution of acoustic warning signals may lack the theoretical difficulties associated with the origination of conspicuous colouration.

Convergent acoustic field of view in echolocating bats

Most echolocating bats exhibit a strong correlation between body size and the frequency of maximum energy in their echolocation calls (peak frequency), with smaller species using signals of higher frequency than larger ones. Size–signal allometry or acoustic detection constraints imposed on wavelength by preferred prey size have been used to explain this relationship. Here we propose the hypothesis that smaller bats emit higher frequencies to achieve directional sonar beams, and that variable beam width is critical for bats. Shorter wavelengths relative to the size of the emitter translate into more directional sound beams. Therefore, bats that emit their calls through their mouths should show a relationship between mouth size and wavelength, driving smaller bats to signals of higher frequency. We found that in a flight room mimicking a closed habitat, six aerial hawking vespertilionid species (ranging in size from 4 to 21 g, ref. 5) produced sonar beams of extraordinarily similar shape and volume. Each species had a directivity index of 11 ± 1 dB (a half-amplitude angle of approximately 37°) and an on-axis sound level of 108 ± 4 dB sound pressure level referenced to 20 μPa root mean square at 10 cm. Thus all bats adapted their calls to achieve similar acoustic fields of view. We propose that the necessity for high directionality has been a key constraint on the evolution of echolocation, which explains the relationship between bat size and echolocation call frequency. Our results suggest that echolocation is a dynamic system that allows different species, regardless of their body size, to converge on optimal fields of view in response to habitat and task.

Superfast Muscles Set Maximum Call Rate in Echolocating Bats

Superfast muscles control the rate of call output in echolocating bats. As an echolocating bat closes in on a flying insect, it increases call emission to rates beyond 160 calls per second. This high call rate phase, dubbed the terminal buzz, has proven enigmatic because it is unknown how bats are able to produce calls so quickly. We found that previously unknown and highly specialized superfast muscles power rapid call rates in the terminal buzz. Additionally, we show that laryngeal motor performance, not overlap between call production and the arrival of echoes at the bat’s ears, limits maximum call rate. Superfast muscles are rare in vertebrates and always associated with extraordinary motor demands on acoustic communication. We propose that the advantages of rapid auditory updates on prey movement selected for superfast laryngeal muscle in echolocating bats.

How the bat got its buzz

Since the discovery of echolocation in bats, the final phase of an attack on a flying insect, the ‘terminal buzz’, has proved enigmatic. During the buzz, bats increase information update rates by producing vocalizations up to 220 times s−1. The buzzs ubiquity in hawking and trawling bats implies its importance for hunting success. Superfast muscles, previously unknown in mammals, are responsible for the extreme vocalization rate. Some bats produce a second phase—buzz II—defined by a large drop in the fundamental frequency (F0) of their calls. By doing so, bats broaden their acoustic field of view and should thereby reduce the likelihood of insect escape. We make the case that the buzz was a critical adaptation for capturing night-flying insects, and suggest that the drop in F0 during buzz II requires novel, unidentified laryngeal mechanisms in order to counteract increasing muscle tension. Furthermore, we propose that buzz II represents a countermeasure against the evasive flight of eared prey in the evolutionary arms-race that saw the independent evolution of bat-detecting ears in various groups of night-flying insects.

Hunting in unfamiliar space: echolocation in the Indian false vampire bat, Megaderma lyra, when gleaning prey

The literature suggests that in familiar laboratory settings, Indian false vampire bats (Megaderma lyra, family Megadermatidae) locate terrestrial prey with and without emitting echolocation calls in the dark and cease echolocating when simulated moonlit conditions presumably allow the use of vision. More recent laboratory-based research suggests that M. lyra uses echolocation throughout attacks but at emission rates much lower than those of other gleaning bats. We present data from wild-caught bats hunting for and capturing prey in unfamiliar conditions mimicking natural situations. By varying light level and substrate complexity we demonstrated that hunting M. lyra always emit echolocation calls and that emission patterns are the same regardless of light/substrate condition and similar to those of other wild-caught gleaning bats. Therefore, echoic information appears necessary for this species when hunting in unfamiliar situations, while, in the context of past research, echolocation may be supplanted by vision, spatial memory or both in familiar spaces.

Bats go head-under-heels: the biomechanics of landing on a ceiling

SUMMARY Bats typically roost head-under-heels but they cannot hover in this position, thus, landing on a ceiling presents a biomechanical challenge. To land, a bat must perform an acrobatic flip that brings the claws of the toes in contact with the ceiling and do so gently enough as to avoid injury to its slender hindlimbs. In the present study, we sought to determine how bats land, to seek a link between landing kinematics and ceiling impact forces, and to determine whether landing strategies vary among bat species. To do this, we measured the kinematics and kinetics of landing behaviour in three species of bats as they landed on a force-measuring platform (Cynopterus brachyotis, N=3; Carollia perspicillata, N=5; Glossophaga soricina, N=5). Kinematics were similar for all bats within a species but differed among species. C. brachyotis performed four-point landings, during which body pitch increased until the ventral surface of the body faced the ceiling and the thumbs and hindlimbs simultaneously grasped the surface. Bats of the other two species performed two-point landings, whereby only the hindlimbs made contact with the ceiling. During these two-point landings, the hindlimbs were drawn up the side of the body to come in contact with the ceiling, causing simultaneous changes in body pitch, roll and yaw over the course of the landing sequence. Right-handed and left-handed forms of the two-point landing were observed, with individuals often switching back and forth between them among landing events. The four-point landing of C. brachyotis resulted in larger peak forces (3.7±2.4 body weights; median ± interquartile range) than the two-point landings of C. perspicillata (0.8±0.6 body weights) or G. soricina (0.8±0.2 body weights). Our results demonstrate that the kinematics and kinetics of landing vary among bat species and that there is a correlation between the way a bat moves its body when it lands and the magnitude of peak impact force it experiences during that landing. We postulate that these interspecific differences in impact force could result because of stronger selective pressure for gentle landing in cave-roosting (C. perspicillata, G. soricina) versus foliage-roosting (C. brachyotis) species.

Extinction of the acoustic startle response in moths endemic to a bat-free habitat

Most moths use ears solely to detect the echolocation calls of hunting, insectivorous bats and evoke evasive flight manoeuvres. This singularity of purpose predicts that this sensoribehavioural network will regress if the selective force that originally maintained it is removed. We tested this with noctuid moths from the islands of Tahiti and Moorea, sites where bats have never existed and where an earlier study demonstrated that the ears of endemic species resemble those of adventives although partially reduced in sensitivity. To determine if these moths still express the anti‐bat defensive behaviour of acoustic startle response (ASR) we compared the nocturnal flight times of six endemic to six adventive species in the presence and absence of artificial bat echolocation sounds. Whereas all of the adventive species reduced their flight times when exposed to ultrasound, only one of the six endemic species did so. These differences were significant when tested using a phylogenetically based pairwise comparison and when comparing effect sizes. We conclude that the absence of bats in this habitat has caused the neural circuitry that normally controls the ASR behaviour in bat‐exposed moths to become decoupled from the functionally vestigial ears of endemic Tahitian moths.

Data, Sample Sizes and Statistics Affect the Recognition of Species of Bats by Their Echolocation Calls

Identification of bat species based on analysis of echolocation calls can be affected by the way data are manipulated, the diversity of species, and call variability. We document the effects of sample sizes and a priori assignment of calls by species on the outcome of discriminant function analysis (DFA) and multinomial logistic regression (MLR) of features of echolocation calls, and determine which features of calls are most useful for identification. We used recorded echolocation calls of eight species readily distinguishable by call features, including molossids, emballonurids and a moormopid recorded at sites in Belize, Brazil, and Mexico. On individual calls, we measured four features: frequency with most energy, highest and lowest frequencies and call durations obtained from sequences consisting of 10 calls. Cluster analysis and multiple analyses of variance indicated significant differences between the calls of different species. Outcomes of DFA and MLR were affected by both sample sizes (numbers of calls, numbers of sequences) and the subjective approach that researchers take to their data (i.e., categorizing calls or sequences of calls by species). Levels of variation in calls of some species in our sample often precluded the use of single calls in making call-based identifications. Accurate documentation of variability in echolocation behavior of sympatric bats is a prerequisite for an effective sound-based bat survey.

Flower bats (Glossophaga soricina) and fruit bats (Carollia perspicillata) rely on spatial cues over shapes and scents when relocating food.

Background Natural selection can shape specific cognitive abilities and the extent to which a given species relies on various cues when learning associations between stimuli and rewards. Because the flower bat Glossophaga soricina feeds primarily on nectar, and the locations of nectar-producing flowers remain constant, G. soricina might be predisposed to learn to associate food with locations. Indeed, G. soricina has been observed to rely far more heavily on spatial cues than on shape cues when relocating food, and to learn poorly when shape alone provides a reliable cue to the presence of food. Methodology/Principal Findings Here we determined whether G. soricina would learn to use scent cues as indicators of the presence of food when such cues were also available. Nectar-producing plants fed upon by G. soricina often produce distinct, intense odors. We therefore expected G. soricina to relocate food sources using scent cues, particularly the flower-produced compound, dimethyl disulfide, which is attractive even to G. soricina with no previous experience of it. We also compared the learning of associations between cues and food sources by G. soricina with that of a related fruit-eating bat, Carollia perspicillata. We found that (1) G. soricina did not learn to associate scent cues, including dimethyl disulfide, with feeding sites when the previously rewarded spatial cues were also available, and (2) both the fruit-eating C. perspicillata and the flower-feeding G. soricina were significantly more reliant on spatial cues than associated sensory cues for relocating food. Conclusions/Significance These findings, taken together with past results, provide evidence of a powerful, experience-independent predilection of both species to rely on spatial cues when attempting to relocate food.