Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Morphology, Echolocation and Resource Partitioning in Insectivorous Bats

H. D. J. N. Aldridge and I. L. Rautenbach
Journal of Animal Ecology
Vol. 56, No. 3 (Oct., 1987), pp. 763-778
DOI: 10.2307/4947
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4947
Page Count: 16
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($18.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Morphology, Echolocation and Resource Partitioning in Insectivorous Bats
Preview not available

Abstract

(1) Two hypotheses are tested in this paper: (i) wing morphology and echolocation-call `design' can determine foraging site selection and foraging behaviour in bats, (ii) echolocation-call `design' should be compatible with wing morphology (because some combinations of morphology and echolocation call would be maladaptive). (2) In support of our first hypothesis, significant correlations were established between wing morphology, echolocation call design, manoeuvrability and habitat use. (3) In support of our second hypothesis, significant correlations were established between those morphological parameters that improve manoeuvrability (low wingloading, low aspect ratio and high wingtip shape index) and echolocation calls that are resistant to acoustic clutter in support of our second hypothesis. (4) There was an association between foraging habitat and diet: bats that fed in the same habitats tended to take the same types of prey, while species foraging in different habitats had significantly different diets. (5) There was also a significant correlation between prey and predator size; large bats took insects over a range of sizes while small bats fed only on small prey.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
763
    763
  • Thumbnail: Page 
764
    764
  • Thumbnail: Page 
765
    765
  • Thumbnail: Page 
766
    766
  • Thumbnail: Page 
767
    767
  • Thumbnail: Page 
768
    768
  • Thumbnail: Page 
769
    769
  • Thumbnail: Page 
770
    770
  • Thumbnail: Page 
771
    771
  • Thumbnail: Page 
772
    772
  • Thumbnail: Page 
773
    773
  • Thumbnail: Page 
774
    774
  • Thumbnail: Page 
775
    775
  • Thumbnail: Page 
776
    776
  • Thumbnail: Page 
777
    777
  • Thumbnail: Page 
778
    778