Echolocation Call Frequency Differences between Geographic Isolates ofRhinonicteris aurantia(Chiroptera: Hipposideridae): Implications of Nasal Chamber Size

Variation in the resting frequency of Rhinolophus pusillus in Mainland China: Effect of climate and implications for conservation

“…4͒. Similar to our results, several reports suggested that geographical distance cannot, however, always and completely explain the variation in call structure of bats ͑Guillén et al, 2000; Murray et al, 2001;Law et al, 2002;Aspetsberger et al, 2003;Armstrong and Coles, 2007;Gillam and McCracken, 2007͒. Acoustic divergence in RF by more than 5 kHz between populations of CF rhinolophoid and hipposiderid bats separated by geographical barriers may be common ͑Heller and von Helversen, 1989;Francis and Habersetzer, 1998;Guillén et al, 2000͒. Some populations that are geographically separated by large distances also show large differences in RF ͑e.…”

“…In geographically separated populations, variability in bat echolocation calls has been observed in response to a variety of conditions, including geographical barriers ͑O'Farrell et al, 2000;Davidson and Wilkinson, 2002͒, morphological differences between populations ͑Heller and von Helversen, 1989;Parsons, 1997;Francis and Habersetzer, 1998;Barclay et al, 1999;Guillén et al, 2000;Law et al, 2002;Aspetsberger et al, 2003;Yoshino et al, 2006;Armstrong and Coles, 2007͒, sex dimorphism in call structure ͑Jones et al, 1992;Francis and Habersetzer, 1998;Guillén et al, 2000͒, character displacement or release ͑Guillén et al, 2000Russo et al, 2007͒, humidity ͑Guillén et al, 2000͒, vegetation types ͑Barclay et al, 1999Denzinger et al, 2001͒, habitat acoustics ͑Gillam and McCracken, 2007͒, and genetic and cultural drift ͑Guillén et al, 2000Jones and Holderied, 2007;Yoshino et al, 2008;Chen et al, 2009͒. Although some factors have been shown to explain variations in the ultrasonic frequency of bat echolocation calls within species across geographically dispersed populations, both the cause and the meaning of such differences remain little understood, especially with in bats of the families Hipposideridae and Rhinolophidae. These bats produce calls dominated by an extremely stable constant frequency ͑CF͒ tone that is matched to their acoustic fovea ͑Schnitzler et al, 1976;Schuller and Pollak, 1979;Suga et al, 1987;Kingston et al, 2001͒.…”

Geographic Variation in the Acoustic Traits of Greater Horseshoe Bats: Testing the Importance of Drift and Ecological Selection in Evolutionary Processes

“…Within-individual variation was very small, the SD averaging 0.13 kHz, ranging from 0 to 0.30 kHz. Similar observations have been made in related species (e.g., [6], [30]). …”

“…Currently, few studies have reported patterns of intraspecific geographic variation in echolocation calls. Although there have been investigations of echolocation calls in R. monoceros [2], R. cornutus [6], R. pusillus [13], R. clivosus [29], Hipposideros ruber [12], H. larvatus [22], Craseonycteris thonglongyai [11], and Rhinonicteris aurantia [30], [31], not all of these have incorporated genetic data. Thus the evolutionary forces and the meaning of intraspecific acoustic divergence are largely unexplored compared with the rich biodiversity of bats.…”

Echolocation Calls of Bats from Madeira Island: Acoustic Characterization and Implications for Surveys

“…Islands may play an important role in differentiation phenomena both in invertebrate and vertebrate populations, including vocal features. Acoustic studies on insects, birds and bats showed that insular forms can exhibit marked differences from mainland populations (Pinto-Juma et al, 2005;Baker, 2006;Armstrong and Coles, 2007;Russo et al, 2007), emphasising that data from mainland studies should not be passively applied to island populations.…”