TL;DR: Bat wing morphology is considered in relation to flight performance and flight behaviour to clarify the functional basis for eco-morphological correlations in flying animals, and adaptive trends in wing adaptations are predictably and closely paralleled by echolocation call structure.
Abstract: Bat wing morphology is considered in relation to flight performance and flight behaviour to clarify the functional basis for eco-morphological correlations in flying animals. Bivariate correlations are presented between wing dimensions and body mass for a range of bat families and feeding classes, and principal-components analysis is used to measure overall size, wing size and wing shape. The principal components representing wing size and wing shape (as opposed to overall size) are interpreted as being equivalent to wing loading and to aspect ratio. Relative length and area of the hand-wing or wingtip are determined independently of wing size, and are used to derive a wingtip shape index, which measures the degree of roundedness or pointedness of the wingtip. The optimal wing form for bats adapted for different modes of flight is predicted by means of mechanical and aerodynamic models. We identify and model aspects of performance likely to influence flight adaptation significantly; these include selective pressures for economic forward flight (low energy per unit time or per unit distance (equal to cost of transport)), for flight at high or low speeds, for hovering, and for turning. Turning performance is measured by two quantities: manoeuvrability, referring to the minimum space required for a turn at a given speed; and agility, relating to the rate at which a turn can be initiated. High flight speed correlates with high wing loading, good manoeuvrability is favoured by low wing loading, and turning agility should be associated with fast flight and with high wing loading. Other factors influencing wing adaptations, such as migration, flying with a foetus or young or carrying loads in flight (all of which favour large wing area), flight in cluttered environments (short wings) and modes of landing, are identified. The mechanical predictions are cast into a size-independent principal-components form, and are related to the morphology and the observed flight behaviour of different species and families of bats. In this way we provide a broadly based functional interpretation of the selective forces that influence wing morphology in bats. Measured flight speeds in bats permit testing of these predictions. Comparison of open-field free-flight speeds with morphology confirms that speed correlates with mass, wing loading and wingtip proportions as expected; there is no direct relation between speed and aspect ratio. Some adaptive trends in bat wing morphology are clear from this analysis. Insectivores hunt in a range of different ways, which are reflected in their morphology. Bats hawking high-flying insects have small, pointed wings which give good agility, high flight speeds and low cost of transport. Bats hunting for insects among vegetation, and perhaps gleaning, have very short and rounded wingtips, and often relatively short, broad wings, giving good manoeuvrability at low flight speeds. Many insectivorous species forage by `flycatching' (perching while seeking prey) and have somewhat similar morphology to gleaners. Insectivorous species foraging in more open habitats usually have slightly longer wings, and hence lower cost of transport. Piscivores forage over open stretches of water, and have very long wings giving low flight power and cost of transport, and unusually long, rounded tips for control and stability in flight. Carnivores must carry heavy loads, and thus have relatively large wing areas; their foraging strategies consist of perching, hunting and gleaning, and wing structure is similar to that of insectivorous species with similar behaviour. Perching and hovering nectarivores both have a relatively small wing area: this surprising result may result from environmental pressure for a short wingspan or from the advantage of high speed during commuting flights; the large wingtips of these bats are valuable for lift generation in slow flight. The relation between flight morphology (as an indicator of flight behaviour) and echolocation is considered. It is demonstrated that adaptive trends in wing adaptations are predictably and closely paralleled by echolocation call structure, owing to the joint constraints of flying and locating food in different ways. Pressures on flight morphology depend also on size, with most aspects of performance favouring smaller animals. Power rises rapidly as mass increases; in smaller bats the available energy margin is greater than in larger species, and they may have a more generalized repertoire of flight behaviour. Trophic pressures related to feeding strategy and behaviour are also important, and may restrict the size ranges of different feeding classes: insectivores and primary nectarivores must be relatively small, carnivores and frugivores somewhat larger. The relation of these results to bat community ecology is considered, as our predictions may be tested through comparisons between comparable, sympatric species. Our mechanical predictions apply to all bats and to all kinds of bat communities, but other factors (for example echolocation) may also contribute to specialization in feeding or behaviour, and species separation may not be determined solely by wing morphology or flight behaviour. None the less, we believe that our approach, of identifying functional correlates of bat flight behaviour and identifying these with morphological adaptations, clarifies the eco-morphological relationships of bats.
TL;DR: This article describes the echolocation behavior of insect-eating bats and shows how differing circumstances such as habitat type, foraging mode, and diet favor different signal types, and outlines the perceptual tasks that must be performed by foraging bats.
Abstract: B (order Chiroptera) are ecologically more diverse than any other group of mammals. Numerous morphological, physiological, and behavioral adaptations of sensory and motor systems permit bats access to a wide range of habitats and resources at night. The more than 750 species of the suborder Microchiroptera occupy most terrestrial habitats and climatic zones and exploit a great variety of foods, ranging from insects and other arthropods, small vertebrates, and blood to fruit, leaves, nectar, flowers, and pollen. Echolocation is one of the adaptations that make bats so successful. Echolocating animals emit signals of high frequency (mostly ultrasonic) and analyze the returning echoes to detect, characterize, and localize the reflected objects. Sophisticated echolocation systems have evolved only in the bat suborder Microchiroptera and in dolphins. Less efficient systems have been reported for a few species of the bat suborder Megachiroptera and for some birds (Henson and Schnitzler 1980). Bats use echolocation for orientation in space, that is, for determining their position relative to the echo-producing environment. In addition, many bats, especially those that hunt for flying insects, use echolocation to detect, identify, and localize prey. Bats use a wide variety of species-specific signal types differing in frequency structure, duration, and sound pressure level (SPL). In addition, signal structure varies depending on the echolocation task confronting the bat. Search signals that are emitted when bats search for prey differ from approach signals that are emitted when they approach prey. The echolocation signals and hearing systems of bats are well adapted for gathering behaviorally relevant information (e.g., Schnitzler and Henson 1980, Neuweiler 1989, Fenton 1990, Denzinger et al. forthcoming). In this article we describe the echolocation behavior of insect-eating bats and show how differing circumstances such as habitat type, foraging mode, and diet favor different signal types. To demonstrate relationships between echolocation and ecological conditions, we outline the perceptual tasks that must be performed by foraging bats and discuss the suitability of typical elements of echolocation signals for solving such problems. We then define habitat types according to the problems they impose on bats and relate the observed variability in signal structure to ecological constraints set by habitat type and foraging mode. Perceptual problems for foraging bats Foraging bats confront a multitude of problems when flying to their hunting grounds and searching for prey. These problems differ depending on where bats hunt, what they eat, and how they acquire their food. For example, bats hunting for insects in the open encounter conditions different from those that search for prey near the edges of vegetation, in vegetation gaps, in dense forest, or near the ground. The problems also differ depending upon whether they capture moving prey in flight (aerial mode) or mostly stationary prey from surfaces such as leaves or ground (gleaning mode) or water (trawling mode). Foraging bats must detect, classify, and localize an insect and discriminate between echoes of prey and echoes of unwanted targets such as twigs, foliage, or the ground, referred to as clutter echoes, or simply “clutter.”For many bats echolocation delivers all of the information they need to catch an insect.
TL;DR: This conceptual framework calls for a new view on field data from bats orienting and foraging in different types of habitats according to the ecological constraints in which foraging bats operate, four distinct functional groups or guilds within each group, signal design and echolocation behavior are rather similar.
Abstract: Field research on echolocation behavior in bats has emphasized studies of food acquisition, and the adaptive value of sonar signal design as been considered largely in the context of foraging. However, echolocation tasks related to spatial orientation also differ among bats and are relevant to understanding signal structure. Here, we argue that the evolution of echolocation in bats is characterized by two key innovations: first, the evolution of echolocation for spatial orientation and, second, a later transition for prey acquisition. This conceptual framework calls for a new view on field data from bats orienting and foraging in different types of habitats. According to the ecological constraints in which foraging bats operate, four distinct functional groups or guilds can be defined. Within each group, signal design and echolocation behavior are rather similar.
TL;DR: Although bats sometimes detect insect prey by passive listening to sounds emanating from the insects themselves, these experiments appear to establish conclusively that small and relatively silent insects are often detected by echolocation.
TL;DR: Dolphin echolocation takes advantages of these rules and outperforms many existing optimization methods, while it has few parameters to be set, and this approach leads to excellent results with low computational efforts.