↓ Skip to main content

Do you hear what I see? Vocalization relative to visual detection rates of Hawaiian hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus semotus)

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology and Evolution, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Do you hear what I see? Vocalization relative to visual detection rates of Hawaiian hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus semotus)
Published in
Ecology and Evolution, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/ece3.3196
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paulo. Marcos Gorresen, Paul M. Cryan, Kristina Montoya‐Aiona, Frank J. Bonaccorso

Abstract

Bats vocalize during flight as part of the sensory modality called echolocation, but very little is known about whether flying bats consistently call. Occasional vocal silence during flight when bats approach prey or conspecifics has been documented for relatively few species and situations. Bats flying alone in clutter-free airspace are not known to forgo vocalization, yet prior observations suggested possible silent behavior in certain, unexpected situations. Determining when, why, and where silent behavior occurs in bats will help evaluate major assumptions of a primary monitoring method for bats used in ecological research, management, and conservation. In this study, we recorded flight activity of Hawaiian hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) under seminatural conditions using both thermal video cameras and acoustic detectors. Simultaneous video and audio recordings from 20 nights of observation at 10 sites were analyzed for correspondence between detection methods, with a focus on video observations in three distance categories for which accompanying vocalizations were detected. Comparison of video and audio detections revealed that a high proportion of Hawaiian hoary bats "seen" on video were not simultaneously "heard." On average, only about one in three visual detections within a night had an accompanying call detection, but this varied greatly among nights. Bats flying on curved flight paths and individuals nearer the cameras were more likely to be detected by both methods. Feeding and social calls were detected, but no clear pattern emerged from the small number of observations involving closely interacting bats. These results may indicate that flying Hawaiian hoary bats often forgo echolocation, or do not always vocalize in a way that is detectable with common sampling and monitoring methods. Possible reasons for the low correspondence between visual and acoustic detections range from methodological to biological and include a number of biases associated with the propagation and detection of sound, cryptic foraging strategies, or conspecific presence. Silent flight behavior may be more prevalent in echolocating bats than previously appreciated, has profound implications for ecological research, and deserves further characterization and study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 24%
Researcher 13 22%
Other 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 53%
Environmental Science 13 22%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Mathematics 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 8 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 September 2017.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Ecology and Evolution
#6,307
of 8,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,114
of 324,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology and Evolution
#163
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,478 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,967 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.