Echolocation while drinking: Pulse-timing strategies by high- and low-frequency FM bats

Autoři: Laura N. Kloepper aff001;  Andrea Megela Simmons aff002;  James A. Simmons aff003
Působiště autorů: Department of Biology, Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame, IN, United States of America aff001;  Department of Cognitive, Linguistic and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI United States of America aff002;  Department of Neuroscience, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States of America aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226114


During nightly foraging activity, echolocating bats drink by flying low over the water surface and dipping the lower jaw while avoiding further bodily contact with the water. This task poses different sensorimotor challenges than flying in the open to forage for insects. Of interest is how bats adjust the timing of their echolocation pulses to accommodate the surrounding scene, from the progressively nearer water surface itself to objects at longer distances. Drinking behavior has been described in only a few of the roughly 1,000 echolocating bat species, and in none of the 110 species in the Indian subcontinent. Here, we describe how bats emitting frequency-modulated (FM) echolocation pulses behaved while drinking from a swimming pool in urban northeast India. At least two different bat species were present, using 1st-harmonic frequencies sweeping down to about 35 Hz ("low frequency") and down to about 50 kHz ("high frequency"), separable at a 40 kHz boundary. Over entire drinking maneuvers, intervals between broadcast pulses accommodate both the proximate task of registering the water surface while drinking and registering echoes from the farther reaches of the scene. During approach to the water, both low and high frequency bats emit longer, more stable interpulse intervals that matched the time interval covering echo arrival-times out to the frequency-dependent maximum operating range. High frequency bats use shorter interpulse intervals than low frequency bats, consistent with the shorter operating range at higher frequencies. Bats then accelerate their pulse rate to guide the dive down to drinking, with low frequency bats continuing to decrease pulse intervals and high frequency bats maintaining a more steady interval during the drinking buzz. The circumstance that both groups were engaged in the same task made this a natural experiment on the behavior during approach.

Klíčová slova:

Acoustics – Animal behavior – Bat flight – Bats – Bioacoustics – Echoes – Echolocation – Insect flight


1. Surlykke A, Nachtigall PE, Fay RR, Popper AN. (editors). Biosonar. New York: Springer; 2014. 304 pp.

2. Stilz WP, Schnitzler HU. Estimation of the acoustic range of bat echolocation for extended targets. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012; 132:1765–1775. doi: 10.1121/1.4733537 22978903

3. Simmons JA, Hiryu S, Shriram U. Biosonar interpulse intervals and pulse-echo ambiguity in four species of echolocating bats. J Exp Biol. 2019; 222. doi: 10.1242/jeb.195446 30877230

4. Kurta A, Bell GP, Nagy KA, Kunz TH. Water balance of free-ranging little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) during pregnancy and lactation. Can J Zool. 1989; 67: 2468–2472.

5. Kurta A, Bell GP, Nagy KA, Kunz TH. Energetics of pregnancy and lactation in free-ranging little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). Physiol Zool. 1989; 62:804–818.

6. Kurta A, Kunz TH, Nagy KA. Energetics and water flux of free-ranging big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) during pregnancy and lactation. J Mammal. 1990; 71:59–65.

7. McLean JA, Speakman JR. Energy budgets of lactating and non-reproductive brown long-eared bats (Plecotus auritus) suggest females use compensation lactation. Funct Ecol. 1990; 13:360–372.

8. Adams RA, Simmons JA. Directionality of drinking passes by bats at water holes: is there cooperation? Acta Chiropt. 2002; 4(2):195–199.

9. Adams RA, Thibault KM. Temporal resource partitioning by bats at water holes. J Zool. 2006; 270:466–472.

10. Tuttle SR, Chambers CL, Theimer TC. Potential effects of livestock water-trough modifications on bats in Northern Arizona. Wildl Soc Bull. 2006; 34(3):602–608.

11. Greif S, Siemers BM. Innate recognition of water bodies in echolocating bats. Nat Commun. 2010; 1:107. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1110 21045825

12. Russo D, Cistrone L, Jones G. Sensory ecology of water detection by bats: A field experiment. PLoS ONE. 2012; 7(10):e48144. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048144 23133558

13. Griffiths SR. Echolocating bats emit terminal phase buzz calls while drinking on the wing. Behav Proc. 2013; 98:58–60.

14. Russo D, Ancillotto L, Cistrone L, Korine C. The buzz of drinking on the wing in echolocating bats. Ethology. 2016; 122:226–235.

15. Simmons JA. A view of the world through the bat’s ear: The formation of acoustic images in echolocation. Cognition. 1989; 33(1–2):155–199. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(89)90009-7 2691182

16. Greif S, Zsebók S, Schmieder D, Siemers BM. Acoustic mirrors as sensory traps for bats. Science. 2017; 357:1045–1047. doi: 10.1126/science.aam7817 28883074

17. Webster FA, Griffin DR. The role of the flight membranes in insect capture by bats. Anim Behav. 1962; 10(3–4):332–340.

18. Griffin DR, Webster FA, Michael CR. The echolocation of flying insects by bats. Anim Behav. 1960; 8:141–154.

19. Simmons JA, Fenton MB, O’Farrell MJ. Echolocation and pursuit of prey by bats. Science. 1979; 203:16–21. doi: 10.1126/science.758674 758674

20. Siemers BM, Schnitzler H-U. Natterer's bat (Myotis nattereri Kuhl, 1818) hawks for prey close to vegetation using echolocation signals of very broad bandwidth. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2000; 47:400–412.

21. Ghose K, Moss CF. The sonar beam pattern of a flying bat as it tracks tethered insects. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003; 114:1120–1131. doi: 10.1121/1.1589754 12942989

22. Ratcliffe JM, Elemans CPH, Jakobsen L, Surlykke A. How the bat got its buzz. Biol Lett. 2013; 9:1–5.

23. Schnitzler H-U, Henson OW. Performance of airborne animal sonar systems: I. Microchiroptera. In: Busnel RG, Fish J, editors. Animal Sonar Systems. New York: Plenum Press; 1980. pp. 109–181.

24. Kounitsky P, Rydell J, Amichai E, Boonman A, Eitan O, Weiss AJ, et al. Bats adjust their mouth gape to zoom their biosonar field of view. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2015; 112:6724–6729. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1422843112 25941395

25. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Royal Stat Soc B. 1995; 57:298–300.

26. Bunkley JP, McClure CJW, Kleist NJ, Francis CD, Barber JR. Anthropogenic noise alters bat activity levels and echolocation calls. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2015; 3: 72–71.

27. Weller TJ, Baldwin JA. Using echolocation monitoring to model bat occupancy and inform mitigations at wind energy facilities. J Wildlife Manage. 2012; 76: 619–631.

28. Ratcliffe JM, Hofstede HM, Avila-Flores R, Fenton MB, McCracken GF, Biscardi S, et al. Conspecifics influence call design in the Brazilian free-tailed bat, Tadarida brasiliensis. Can J Zool. 2004; 82: 966–971.

29. Vanitharani J, Thomas N, Straka T, Ponmalar S, Mercy C, Sheena Basil G. Expedition with bat detection at Mundanthurai Plateau of KMTR, India. JTEB. 2013; 9:151–158.

30. Raghuram H, Jain M, Balakrishnan R. Species and acoustic diversity of bats in a paleotropical wet evergreen forest in southern India. Curr Sci. 2014; 107:631–641.

31. Sheena Basil G, Vanitharani J, Jayapriya K. Bat classification based on perceptual, spectrum and cepstral features in Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve. IJIRAE. 2014; 1:9–16.

32. Wordley CFR, Foui EK, Mudappa D, Sankaran M, Altringham JD. Acoustic identification of bats in the Southern Western Ghats, India. Acta Chiropt. 2014; 16:213–222.

33. Deshpande K, Kelkar N. Acoustic identification of Otomops wroughtoni and other free-tailed bat species (Chiroptera: Molossidae) from India. Acta Chiropt. 2015; 17:419–428.

34. Srinivasulu B, Srinivasulu C. A first record of three hitherto unreported species of bats from Kerala, India with a note on Myotis peytoni (Mammalia: Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). JoTT. 2017; 9:10216–10222.

35. Koopman KF. Order Chiroptera. In: Wilson DE, Reeder DM, editors. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1993. pp. 137–241.

36. Agrawal VC. Faunal diversity in India: Mammalia. In: Alfred JRB, Das AK, Sanyal AK. Faunal Diversity in India. Calcutta IN: Envis Centre, Zoological Survey of India; 1998. pp. 460–469.

37. Jones G. Scaling of echolocation call parameters in bats. J Exp Biol. 1999; 202:3359–3367. 10562518

38. Kick SA. Target detection by the echolocating bat, Eptesicus fuscus. J Comp Physiol A. 1982; 145:431–435.

39. Jakobsen L, Surlykke A. Vespertilionid bats control the width of their biosonar sound beam dynamically during prey pursuit. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010; 107:13930–13935. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006630107 20643943

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 12