![]() ![]() Group size is often correlated with call complexity, as more complex calls can encode more information about individual identity ( Medvin et al., 1993 Wilkinson, 2003 Freeberg, 2006 Pollard, 2011).īats exhibit an extensive range in social group size ( Davis et al., 1962 Constantine, 1966), social group organization ( Wilkinson, 1984 Barclay et al., 1988 Willis and Brigham, 2004 Garroway and Broders, 2007 Patriquin et al., 2010), and mating systems ( Bradbury, 1977 Barclay et al., 1979 Thomas et al., 1979 Vaughan and Vaughan, 1986 Heckel and von Helversen, 2002 Keeley and Keeley, 2004). Across species, repertoire size has been positively correlated with social group complexity ( Blumstein and Armitage, 1997 McComb and Semple, 2005). ![]() The social complexity hypothesis posits that species-specific differences in communication systems can arise due to differences in social systems ( Freeberg et al., 2012). Species can differ in social communication behavior due to different call types used ( Blumstein and Armitage, 1997 McComb and Semple, 2005), different rates of call production ( Kalcounis-Rueppell et al., 2018), species specific differences in call characteristics ( Insley, 1992 Rendell et al., 1999 Musolf et al., 2015), and differences in information encoded ( Medvin et al., 1993 Pollard, 2011). Species differed in which call types were most commonly emitted, and these calls are associated with different contexts, suggesting that bats exhibit species-specific differences in in-flight social behavior. humeralis downsweep, downsweep-upsweep, and upsweep bouts varied by season and site, but not according to bat activity, foraging, or time of night. fuscus were associated with foraging, and the likelihood of complex bouts was negatively correlated with heterospecific activity. Social calls were often temporally clustered into independent social calling bouts. Social call production was positively correlated with bat activity. Shared called types exhibited species-specific signatures, indicating the potential for bats to discern signaler identity. brasiliensis differed in total social call production, and the proportional use of call types. We used passive acoustic monitoring in Greensboro, North Carolina, to identify seven types of in-flight social calls from Eptesicus fuscus, Lasiurus borealis, Lasiurus cinereus, Nycticeius humeralis, Perimyotis subflavus, and Tadarida brasiliensis. The information from surrounding echolocation calls can provide information on species identity, activity level, and foraging behavior. Passive acoustic monitoring studies occasionally capture bat in-flight social calls. However, the study of bat social calls has been limited, as they are nocturnal, volant animals that produce predominately ultrasonic vocalizations. 3Kalcounis-Rueppell Lab, The University of Alberta, Biological Sciences Department, Edmonton, AB, Canadaīats could be a useful study system for studying the evolution of social communication, as they exhibit a high diversity of social group size and complexity.2Gillam Lab, North Dakota State University, Biological Sciences Department, Fargo, ND, United States.1Kalcounis-Rueppell Lab, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Biology Department, Greensboro, NC, United States. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |