Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35588425›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Detection distances in desert dwelling, high duty cycle echolocators: A test of the foraging habitat hypothesis.

Nikita M Finger, Marc Holderied, David S Jacobs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nikita M FingerDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-5161-3646
Marc HolderiedSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
David S JacobsDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-3243-8571

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High Duty Cycle (HDC) echolocating bats use high frequency echolocation pulses that are clutter resistant, but their high frequencies give them limited range. Despite their unique ability to reject background clutter while simultaneously detecting fluttering prey, the frequency of their echolocation pulses has a strong correlation with level of environmental clutter, lower frequency pulses of HDC bats being associated with more open environments. The Foraging Habitat Hypothesis (FHH) proposes that the ecological significance of these lower frequency pulses in HDC bats in open environments is that they allow longer prey detection distances. To test the FHH, we compared the frequencies, Source Levels (SLs) and detection distances of Rhinolophus capensis, a HDC bat that has been shown to vary its call frequency in relation to habitat structure. As a further test of the FHH we investigated the SLs and detection distances of Rhinolophus damarensis (a heterospecific species that occurs in the same open desert environment as R. capensis but echolocates at a higher dominant pulse frequency). In the open desert, R. capensis emitted both lower frequency and higher SL pulses giving them longer detection distances than R. capensis in the cluttered fynbos. SL contributed more to differences in detection distances in both R. capensis and R. damarensis than frequency. In a few instances, R. damarensis achieved similar detection distances to desert-inhabiting R. capensis by emitting much higher SLs despite their average SLs being lower. These results suggest that lower frequency echolocation pulses are not a prerequisite for open desert living but may increase detection distance while avoiding energetic costs required for high SLs.

Indexed as

ChiropteraEcholocationAnimalsEcosystem

Identifiers

PMID35588425
PMCPMC9119505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.