ChiroVox: a public library of bat calls.

Recordings of bat echolocation and social calls are used for many research purposes from ecological studies to taxonomy. Effective use of these relies on identification of species from the recordings, but comparative recordings or detailed call descriptions to support identification are often lacking for areas with high biodiversity. The ChiroVox website (https://www.chirovox.org) was created to facilitate the sharing of bat sound recordings together with their metadata, including biodiversity data and recording circumstances. To date, more than 30 researchers have contributed over 3,900 recordings of nearly 200 species, making ChiroVox the largest open-access bat call library currently available. Each recording has a unique identifier that can be cited in publications; hence the acoustic analyses are repeatable. Most of the recordings available through the website are from bats whose species identities are confirmed, so they can be used to determine species in recordings where the bats were not captured or could not be identified. We hope that with the help of the bat researcher community, the website will grow rapidly and will serve as a solid source for bat acoustic research and monitoring.

High duty cycle to low duty cycle: echolocation behaviour of the hipposiderid bat Coelops frithii.

Laryngeally echolocating bats avoid self-deafening (forward masking) by separating pulse and echo either in time using low duty cycle (LDC) echolocation, or in frequency using high duty cycle (HDC) echolocation. HDC echolocators are specialized to detect fluttering targets in cluttered environments. HDC echolocation is found only in the families Rhinolophidae and Hipposideridae in the Old World and in the New World mormoopid, Pteronotus parnellii. Here we report that the hipposiderid Coelops frithii, ostensibly an HDC bat, consistently uses an LDC echolocation strategy whether roosting, flying, or approaching a fluttering target rotating at 50 to 80 Hz. We recorded the echolocation calls of free-flying C. frithii in the field in various situations, including presenting bats with a mechanical fluttering target. The echolocation calls of C. frithii consisted of an initial narrowband component (0.5±0.3 ms, 90.6±2.0 kHz) followed immediately by a frequency modulated (FM) sweep (194 to 113 kHz). This species emitted echolocation calls at duty cycles averaging 7.7±2.8% (n = 87 sequences). Coelops frithii approached fluttering targets more frequently than did LDC bats (C.frithii, approach frequency  = 40.4%, n = 80; Myotis spp., approach frequency  = 0%, n = 13), and at the same frequency as sympatrically feeding HDC species (Hipposideros armiger, approach rate  = 53.3%, n = 15; Rhinolophus monoceros, approach rate  = 56.7%, n = 97). We propose that the LDC echolocation strategy used by C. frithii is derived from HDC ancestors, that this species adjusts the harmonic contents of its echolocation calls, and that it may use both the narrowband component and the FM sweep of echolocations calls to detect fluttering targets.

Roost selection by Formosan leaf-nosed bats (Hipposideros armiger terasensis).

Patterns of roost use by Formosan leaf-nosed bats (Hipposideros armiger terasensis) were studied from November 1998 to April 2000. Structural characteristics, microclimates, and disturbance levels of 17 roosts used by H. a. terasensis and 15 roosts either used by other bat species (2) or not occupied by any bat species were compared. Roosts used by these bats were significantly larger in size and had greater areas covered by water compared to unused roosts. Entrances of active roosts were more likely to be east-west oriented. Hibernacula had lower entrances and ceilings than did roosts used only in summer. Higher temperatures were recorded in non-breeding roosts than in breeding roosts, but temperature gradients in these two types of roosts did not differ. In winter, hibernacula were warmer, and the temperature fluctuated less than in non-hibernacula. The relative humidities in summer roosts and hibernacula were nearly 100%. Disturbance levels were significantly higher in non-breeding roosts than in breeding roosts, and in non-hibernacula than in hibernacula. These results suggest that the Formosan leaf-nosed bats are selective of their roosts, but the pattern of their roost selection differs from those reported for bats of temperate regions. The reasons for such differences may be related to differences in body size, behavior, and reproductive strategy of the Formosan leaf-nosed bats living in a subtropical climate in Taiwan.