↓ Skip to main content

Does similarity in call structure or foraging ecology explain interspecific information transfer in wild Myotis bats?

Overview of attention for article published in Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
Title
Does similarity in call structure or foraging ecology explain interspecific information transfer in wild Myotis bats?
Published in
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00265-017-2398-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theresa Hügel, Vincent van Meir, Amanda Muñoz-Meneses, B.-Markus Clarin, Björn M. Siemers, Holger R. Goerlitz

Abstract

Animals can gain important information by attending to the signals and cues of other animals in their environment, with acoustic information playing a major role in many taxa. Echolocation call sequences of bats contain information about the identity and behaviour of the sender which is perceptible to close-by receivers. Increasing evidence supports the communicative function of echolocation within species, yet data about its role for interspecific information transfer is scarce. Here, we asked which information bats extract from heterospecific echolocation calls during foraging. In three linked playback experiments, we tested in the flight room and field if foraging Myotis bats approached the foraging call sequences of conspecifics and four heterospecifics that were similar in acoustic call structure only (acoustic similarity hypothesis), in foraging ecology only (foraging similarity hypothesis), both, or none. Compared to the natural prey capture rate of 1.3 buzzes per minute of bat activity, our playbacks of foraging sequences with 23-40 buzzes/min simulated foraging patches with significantly higher profitability. In the flight room, M. capaccinii only approached call sequences of conspecifics and of the heterospecific M. daubentonii with similar acoustics and foraging ecology. In the field, M. capaccinii and M. daubentonii only showed a weak positive response to those two species. Our results confirm information transfer across species boundaries and highlight the importance of context on the studied behaviour, but cannot resolve whether information transfer in trawling Myotis is based on acoustic similarity only or on a combination of similarity in acoustics and foraging ecology. Animals transfer information, both voluntarily and inadvertently, and within and across species boundaries. In echolocating bats, acoustic call structure and foraging ecology are linked, making echolocation calls a rich source of information about species identity, ecology and activity of the sender, which receivers might exploit to find profitable foraging grounds. We tested in three lab and field experiments if information transfer occurs between bat species and if bats obtain information about ecology from echolocation calls. Myotis capaccinii/daubentonii bats approached call playbacks, but only those from con- and heterospecifics with similar call structure and foraging ecology, confirming interspecific information transfer. Reactions differed between lab and field, emphasising situation-dependent differences in animal behaviour, the importance of field research, and the need for further studies on the underlying mechanism of information transfer and the relative contributions of acoustic and ecological similarity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 20%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Master 8 12%
Other 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 54%
Environmental Science 7 10%
Engineering 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 11 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,988,405
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
#364
of 3,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,911
of 330,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
#9
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
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 330,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.