ArticleEcology and evolution2021
Functional differences in echolocation call design in an adaptive radiation of bats.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decoding the functional adaptation of animal echolocation: a global macroevolutionary analysis.Science China. Life sciences · 2026Article
- Trait-Associated Gaps in IUCN Assessment and Conservation Prioritization for Echolocating Mammals.Integrative zoology · 2026Article
- Functional differences in echolocation call design in an adaptive radiation of bats.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
All organisms have specialized systems to sense their environment. Most bat species use echolocation for navigation and foraging, but which and how ecological factors shaped echolocation call diversity remains unclear for the most diverse clades, including the adaptive radiation of neotropical leaf-nosed bats (Phyllostomidae). This is because phyllostomids emit low-intensity echolocation calls and many inhabit dense forests, leading to low representation in acoustic surveys. We present a field-collected, echolocation call dataset spanning 35 species and all phyllostomid dietary guilds. We analyze these data under a phylogenetic framework to test the hypothesis that echolocation call design and parameters are specialized for the acoustic demands of different diets, and investigate the contributions of phylogeny and body size to echolocation call diversity. We further link call parameters to dietary ecology by contrasting minimum detectable prey size estimates (MDPSE) across species. We find phylogeny and body size explain a substantial proportion of echolocation call parameter diversity, but most species can be correctly assigned to taxonomic (61%) or functional (77%) dietary guilds based on call parameters. This suggests a degree of acoustic ecological specialization, albeit with interspecific similarities in call structure. Theoretical MDPSE are greatest for omnivores and smallest for insectivores. Omnivores significantly differ from other dietary guilds in MDPSE when phylogeny is not considered, but there are no differences among taxonomic dietary guilds within a phylogenetic context. Similarly, predators of non-mobile/non-evasive prey and predators of mobile/evasive prey differ in estimated MDPSE when phylogeny is not considered. Phyllostomid echolocation call structure may be primarily specialized for overcoming acoustic challenges of foraging in dense habitats, and then secondarily specialized for the detection of food items according to functional dietary guilds. Our results give insight into the possible ecological mechanisms shaping the diversity of sensory systems, and their reciprocal influence on resource use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.