Social foraging is a very common yet extremely complex behavior. Numerous studies attempted to model it with little supporting evidence. Studying it in the wild is difficult because it requires monitoring the animal's movement, its foraging success, and its interactions with conspecifics. We present a novel system that enables full night ultrasonic recording of freely foraging bats, in addition to GPS tracking. As they rely on echolocation, audio recordings of bats allow tapping into their sensory acquisition of the world. Rapid changes in echolocation allowed us to reveal the bats' dynamic reactions in response to prey or conspecifics—two key behaviors that are extremely difficult to assess in most animals. We found that bats actively aggregate and forage as a group. However, we also found that when the group became too dense, bats were forced to devote sensory attention to conspecifics that frequently entered their biosonar "field of view," impairing the bats' prey detection performance. Why then did bats fly in such high densities? By emitting echolocation calls, bats constantly provide public information about their detection of prey. Bats could therefore benefit from intentionally flying at a distance that enables eavesdropping on conspecifics. Group foraging, therefore, probably allowed bats to effectively operate as an array of sensors, increasing their searching efficiency. We suggest that two opposing forces are at play in determining the efficient foraging density: on the one hand, higher densities improve prey detection, but on the other hand, they increase conspecific interference.

Around 1000 species of bats in the world use echolocation to navigate, orient, and detect insect prey. Many of these bats emerge from their roost at dusk and start foraging when there is still light available. It is however unclear in what way and to which extent navigation, or even prey detection in these bats is aided by vision. Here we compare the echolocation and visual detection ranges of two such species of bats which rely on different foraging strategies (Rhinopoma microphyllum and Pipistrellus kuhlii). We find that echolocation is better than vision for detecting small insects even in intermediate light levels (1–10 lux), while vision is advantageous for monitoring far-away landscape elements in both species. We thus hypothesize that, bats constantly integrate information acquired by the two sensory modalities. We suggest that during evolution, echolocation was refined to detect increasingly small targets in conjunction with using vision. To do so, the ability to hear ultrasonic sound is a prerequisite which was readily available in small mammals, but absent in many other animal groups. The ability to exploit ultrasound to detect very small targets, such as insects, has opened up a large nocturnal niche to bats and may have spurred diversification in both echolocation and foraging tactics.

Animals often deal with situations in which vast sensory input is received simultaneously. They therefore must possess sophisticated mechanisms to select important input and ignore the rest. In bat echolocation, this problem is at its extreme. Echolocating bats emit sound signals and analyse the returning echoes to sense their environment. Bats from the same species use signals with similar frequencies. Nearby bats therefore face the difficulty of distinguishing their own echoes from the signals of other bats, a problem often referred to as jamming. Because bats commonly fly in large groups, jamming might simultaneously occur from numerous directions and at many frequencies. Jamming is a special case of the general phenomenon of sensory segregation. Another well-known example is the human problem of following conversation within a crowd. In both situations, a flood of auditory incoming signals must be parsed into important versus irrelevant information. Here, we present a novel method, fitting wild bats with a miniature microphone, which allows studying jamming from the bat's ‘point of view’. Previous studies suggested that bats deal with jamming by shifting their echolocation frequency. On-board recordings suggest otherwise. Bats shifted their frequencies, but they did so because they were responding to the conspecifics as though they were nearby objects rather than avoiding being jammed by them. We show how bats could use alternative measures to deal with jamming instead of shifting their frequency. Despite its intuitive appeal, a spectral jamming avoidance response might not be the prime mechanism to avoid sensory interference from conspecifics.

The size range of insects encountered by bats that use narrowband echolocation signals (FM-CF or quasi-CF) extends to sizes much smaller than the wavelengths used by these bat species. It was hypothesized that the expected Rayleigh scattering sets a lower limit on the size of prey which can be detected. To test the Rayleigh scattering theory empirically, insects were ensonified with pure-tone pulses ranging from 20 to 85 kHz and their target strengths were measured. The target strength of the smaller insects was frequency-dependent within the frequency range used by aerial-hawking bats. The target strength diminished sharply as the wing length to wavelength ratio decreased below unity. A model was developed to predict maximum detection distances, which lead to an estimate of the optimum frequency to be used for detecting each insect size. In a dietary analysis, it was found that the bat species using the shortest wavelengths took the smallest insects. The minimum prey size detectable by each bat species was predicted. The longest wavelength bats (Vespertilio murinus, Nyctalus noctula) took smaller prey than were estimated. The diets of the shorter wavelength bats agreed with predictions of the model. [Work supported by BBSRC.]

Can plants sense natural airborne sounds and respond to them rapidly? We show that Oenothera drummondii flowers, exposed to playback sound of a flying bee or to synthetic sound signals at similar frequencies, produce sweeter nectar within 3 min, potentially increasing the chances of cross pollination. We found that the flowers vibrated mechanically in response to these sounds, suggesting a plausible mechanism where the flower serves as an auditory sensory organ. Both the vibration and the nectar response were frequency‐specific: the flowers responded and vibrated to pollinator sounds, but not to higher frequency sound. Our results document for the first time that plants can rapidly respond to pollinator sounds in an ecologically relevant way. Potential implications include plant resource allocation, the evolution of flower shape and the evolution of pollinators sound. Finally, our results suggest that plants may be affected by other sounds as well, including anthropogenic ones.