EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

What Noseleaves Do for FM Bats Depends on Their Degree of Sensorial Specialization

Dieter Vanderelst, Fons De Mey, Herbert Peremans, Inga Geipel, Elisabeth Kalko and Uwe Firzlaff

PLOS ONE, 2010, vol. 5, issue 8, 1-13

Abstract: Background: Many bats vocalizing through their nose carry a prominent noseleaf that is involved in shaping the emission beam of these animals. To our knowledge, the exact role of these appendages has not been thoroughly investigated as for no single species both the hearing and the emission spatial sensitivities have been obtained. In this paper, we set out to evaluate the complete spatial sensitivity of two species of New World leaf-nosed bats: Micronycteris microtis and Phyllostomus discolor. From an ecological point of view, these species are interesting as they belong to the same family (Phyllostomidae) and their noseleaves are morphologically similar. They differ vastly in the niche they occupy. Comparing these species allows us to relate differences in function of the noseleaf to the ecological background of bat species. Methodology/Principal Findings: We simulate the spatial sensitivity of both the hearing and the emission subsystems of two species, M. microtis and P. discolor. This technique allows us to evaluate the respective roles played by the noseleaf in the echolocation system of these species. We find that the noseleaf of M. microtis focuses the radiated energy better and yields better control over the emission beam. Conclusions: From the evidence presented we conclude that the noseleaves serve quantitatively different functions for different bats. The main function of the noseleaf is to serve as an energy focusing mechanism that increases the difference between the reflected energy from objects in the focal area and objects in the periphery. However, despite the gross morphological similarities between the noseleaves of the two Phyllostomid species they focus the energy to a different extent, a capability that can be linked to the different ecological niches occupied by the two species.

Date: 2010
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011893 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 11893&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0011893

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011893

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-22
Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0011893