Abstract
Rhinolophidae, a family of echolocating bats, feature very baroque noseleaves that are assumed to shape their emission beam. Zhuang & Muller (Zhuang & Muller 2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 218701 (doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.218701); Zhuang & Muller 2007 Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 76(Pt. 1), 051902 (doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.76.051902)) have proposed, based on finite element simulations, that the furrows present in the noseleaves of these bats act as resonance cavities. Using Rhinolophus rouxi as a model species, they reported that a resonance phenomenon causes the main beam to be elongated at a particular narrow frequency range. Virtually filling the furrows reduced the extent of the main lobe. However, the results of Zhuang & Muller are difficult to reconcile with the ecological background of R. rouxi. In this report, we replicate the study of Zhuang & Muller, and extend it in important ways: (i) we take the filtering of the moving pinnae into account, (ii) we use a model of the echolocation task faced by Rhinolophidae to estimate the effect of any alterations to the emission beam on the echolocation performance of the bat, and (iii) we validate our simulations using a physical mock-up of the morphology of R. rouxi. In contrast to Zhuang & Muller, we find the furrows to focus the emitted energy across the whole range of frequencies contained in the calls of R. rouxi (both in simulations and in measurements). Depending on the frequency, the focusing effect of the furrows has different consequences for the estimated echolocation performance. We argue that the furrows act to focus the beam in order to reduce the influence of clutter echoes.
References
- 1
Nowak R. M.& Walker E. P. . 1994 Walker's bats of the world. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Google Scholar - 2
Schnitzler H. U.& Grinnell A. . 1977 Directional sensitivity of echolocation in the horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum I. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 116, 51–61.doi:10.1007/BF00605516 (doi:10.1007/BF00605516). Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 3
Zhuang Q.& Muller R. . 2006 Noseleaf furrows in a horseshoe bat act as resonance cavities shaping the biosonar beam. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 218701.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.218701 (doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.218701). Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 4
Zhuang Q.& Muller R. . 2007 Numerical study of the effect of the noseleaf on biosonar beamforming in a horseshoe bat. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 76 (Pt. 1), 051902.doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.76.051902 (doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.76.051902). Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 5
Vanderelst D., De Mey F., Peremans H., Geipel I., Kalko E.& Firzlaff U. . 2010 What noseleaves do for FM bats depends on their degree of sensorial specialization. PLoS ONE 08, e11893.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011893 (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011893). Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 6
Vanderelst D., Reijniers J., Steckel J.& Peremans H. . 2011 Information generated by the moving pinnae of Rhinolophus rouxi: tuning of morphology at different harmonics. PLoS ONE 1, e20627.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020627 (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020627). Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 7
Reijniers J., Vanderelst D.& Peremans H. . 2010 Morphology-induced information transfer in bat sonar. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 148701.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.148701 (doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.148701). Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 8
Neuweiler G., Metzner W., Heilmann U., Rubsamen R., Eckrich M.& Costa H. . 1987 Foraging behaviour and echolocation in the rufous horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus rouxi) of Sri Lanka. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 20, 53–67.doi:10.1007/BF00292166 (doi:10.1007/BF00292166). Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar - 9
Ghose K., Moss C.F.& Horiuchi T.K. . 2007 Flying big brown bats emit a beam with two lobes in the vertical plane. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122, 3717–3724.doi:10.1121/1.2799491 (doi:10.1121/1.2799491). Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar - 10
Kuc R. . 2010 Morphology suggests noseleaf and pinnae cooperate to enhance bat echolocation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128, 3190–3199.doi:10.1121/1.3488304 (doi:10.1121/1.3488304). Crossref, PubMed, ISI, Google Scholar