Do you hear what I see? Vocalization relative to visual detection rates of Hawaiian hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus semotus)

Bats vocalize during flight as part of the sensory modality called echolocation, but very little is known about whether flying bats consistently call. Occasional vocal silence during flight when bats approach prey or conspecifics has been documented for relatively few species and situations. Bats fl...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecology and evolution 2017-09, Vol.7 (17), p.6669-6679
Hauptverfasser: Gorresen, Paulo. Marcos, Cryan, Paul M., Montoya‐Aiona, Kristina, Bonaccorso, Frank J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 6679
container_issue 17
container_start_page 6669
container_title Ecology and evolution
container_volume 7
creator Gorresen, Paulo. Marcos
Cryan, Paul M.
Montoya‐Aiona, Kristina
Bonaccorso, Frank J.
description Bats vocalize during flight as part of the sensory modality called echolocation, but very little is known about whether flying bats consistently call. Occasional vocal silence during flight when bats approach prey or conspecifics has been documented for relatively few species and situations. Bats flying alone in clutter‐free airspace are not known to forgo vocalization, yet prior observations suggested possible silent behavior in certain, unexpected situations. Determining when, why, and where silent behavior occurs in bats will help evaluate major assumptions of a primary monitoring method for bats used in ecological research, management, and conservation. In this study, we recorded flight activity of Hawaiian hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) under seminatural conditions using both thermal video cameras and acoustic detectors. Simultaneous video and audio recordings from 20 nights of observation at 10 sites were analyzed for correspondence between detection methods, with a focus on video observations in three distance categories for which accompanying vocalizations were detected. Comparison of video and audio detections revealed that a high proportion of Hawaiian hoary bats “seen” on video were not simultaneously “heard.” On average, only about one in three visual detections within a night had an accompanying call detection, but this varied greatly among nights. Bats flying on curved flight paths and individuals nearer the cameras were more likely to be detected by both methods. Feeding and social calls were detected, but no clear pattern emerged from the small number of observations involving closely interacting bats. These results may indicate that flying Hawaiian hoary bats often forgo echolocation, or do not always vocalize in a way that is detectable with common sampling and monitoring methods. Possible reasons for the low correspondence between visual and acoustic detections range from methodological to biological and include a number of biases associated with the propagation and detection of sound, cryptic foraging strategies, or conspecific presence. Silent flight behavior may be more prevalent in echolocating bats than previously appreciated, has profound implications for ecological research, and deserves further characterization and study. Our study indicates that flying Hawaiian hoary bats may often forego echolocation, or do not always vocalize in a way that is detectable with common sampling and monitoring methods. Possible reasons for
doi_str_mv 10.1002/ece3.3196
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5587485</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1936036064</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4436-ffb6bb195eb6210396f37c4f4ea3bd90195be6818dbb3717d2995898630daafb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kV1rFDEYhQdRbKm98A9IwJv2YttkksnHjSLr2hYWvFFvw5uZd9yU2UlNJrtsf71Zty1VMARy4DwcTjhV9ZbRC0ZpfYkt8gvOjHxRHddUNDOlGv3ymT6qTlO6peVIWguqXldHtTZUKGGOq_vPgexCJiuESLYrmMgNSYgfyY_QwuDvYfJhJBGHIjZIpkA2PmUYSIcTtgcTJkwk9OQatuA9jGQVIO6IgymRsyUkn2NOpPUjRiwi4TpMOZ2_qV71MCQ8fXhPqu9fFt_m17Pl16ub-aflrBWCy1nfO-kcMw06WTPKjey5akUvELjrDC2OQ6mZ7pzjiqmuNqbRRktOO4De8ZPqwyH3Lrs1di2OU4TB3kW_LjVtAG__dka_sj_DxjaNVkI3JeDsISCGXxnTZNc-tTgMMGLIyTLDtRZGUVXQ9_-gtyHHsXxvT0larhSFOj9QbQwpReyfyjBq96Pa_ah2P2ph3z1v_0Q-TliAywOw9QPu_p9kF_MF_xP5GyHerME</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1936036064</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Do you hear what I see? Vocalization relative to visual detection rates of Hawaiian hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus semotus)</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Gorresen, Paulo. Marcos ; Cryan, Paul M. ; Montoya‐Aiona, Kristina ; Bonaccorso, Frank J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Gorresen, Paulo. Marcos ; Cryan, Paul M. ; Montoya‐Aiona, Kristina ; Bonaccorso, Frank J.</creatorcontrib><description>Bats vocalize during flight as part of the sensory modality called echolocation, but very little is known about whether flying bats consistently call. Occasional vocal silence during flight when bats approach prey or conspecifics has been documented for relatively few species and situations. Bats flying alone in clutter‐free airspace are not known to forgo vocalization, yet prior observations suggested possible silent behavior in certain, unexpected situations. Determining when, why, and where silent behavior occurs in bats will help evaluate major assumptions of a primary monitoring method for bats used in ecological research, management, and conservation. In this study, we recorded flight activity of Hawaiian hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) under seminatural conditions using both thermal video cameras and acoustic detectors. Simultaneous video and audio recordings from 20 nights of observation at 10 sites were analyzed for correspondence between detection methods, with a focus on video observations in three distance categories for which accompanying vocalizations were detected. Comparison of video and audio detections revealed that a high proportion of Hawaiian hoary bats “seen” on video were not simultaneously “heard.” On average, only about one in three visual detections within a night had an accompanying call detection, but this varied greatly among nights. Bats flying on curved flight paths and individuals nearer the cameras were more likely to be detected by both methods. Feeding and social calls were detected, but no clear pattern emerged from the small number of observations involving closely interacting bats. These results may indicate that flying Hawaiian hoary bats often forgo echolocation, or do not always vocalize in a way that is detectable with common sampling and monitoring methods. Possible reasons for the low correspondence between visual and acoustic detections range from methodological to biological and include a number of biases associated with the propagation and detection of sound, cryptic foraging strategies, or conspecific presence. Silent flight behavior may be more prevalent in echolocating bats than previously appreciated, has profound implications for ecological research, and deserves further characterization and study. Our study indicates that flying Hawaiian hoary bats may often forego echolocation, or do not always vocalize in a way that is detectable with common sampling and monitoring methods. Possible reasons for the low correspondence between visual and acoustic detections range from methodological to biological and may include factors associated with the propagation and detection of sound, cryptic foraging strategies, or conspecific presence. Silent flight behavior may be more prevalent in echolocating bats than previously appreciated and deserves further characterization and study.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2045-7758</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2045-7758</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3196</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28904749</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>acoustic detection ; Airspace ; Animal behavior ; Bats ; behavior ; Cameras ; Chiroptera ; Clutter ; Conspecifics ; Detectors ; Echolocation ; Ecological monitoring ; Ecological research ; Flight activity ; Flight behavior ; Flight paths ; Forage ; Foraging behavior ; Lasiurus cinereus semotus ; Monitoring methods ; non‐vocalization ; Original Research ; Prey ; Silence ; Sound propagation ; thermal infrared video ; vocalization ; Vocalization behavior</subject><ispartof>Ecology and evolution, 2017-09, Vol.7 (17), p.6669-6679</ispartof><rights>2017 The Authors. published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2017. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4436-ffb6bb195eb6210396f37c4f4ea3bd90195be6818dbb3717d2995898630daafb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4436-ffb6bb195eb6210396f37c4f4ea3bd90195be6818dbb3717d2995898630daafb3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-2915-8894 ; 0000-0002-0707-9212</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5587485/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5587485/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,1411,11542,27903,27904,45553,45554,46031,46455,53770,53772</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28904749$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gorresen, Paulo. Marcos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cryan, Paul M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montoya‐Aiona, Kristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bonaccorso, Frank J.</creatorcontrib><title>Do you hear what I see? Vocalization relative to visual detection rates of Hawaiian hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus semotus)</title><title>Ecology and evolution</title><addtitle>Ecol Evol</addtitle><description>Bats vocalize during flight as part of the sensory modality called echolocation, but very little is known about whether flying bats consistently call. Occasional vocal silence during flight when bats approach prey or conspecifics has been documented for relatively few species and situations. Bats flying alone in clutter‐free airspace are not known to forgo vocalization, yet prior observations suggested possible silent behavior in certain, unexpected situations. Determining when, why, and where silent behavior occurs in bats will help evaluate major assumptions of a primary monitoring method for bats used in ecological research, management, and conservation. In this study, we recorded flight activity of Hawaiian hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) under seminatural conditions using both thermal video cameras and acoustic detectors. Simultaneous video and audio recordings from 20 nights of observation at 10 sites were analyzed for correspondence between detection methods, with a focus on video observations in three distance categories for which accompanying vocalizations were detected. Comparison of video and audio detections revealed that a high proportion of Hawaiian hoary bats “seen” on video were not simultaneously “heard.” On average, only about one in three visual detections within a night had an accompanying call detection, but this varied greatly among nights. Bats flying on curved flight paths and individuals nearer the cameras were more likely to be detected by both methods. Feeding and social calls were detected, but no clear pattern emerged from the small number of observations involving closely interacting bats. These results may indicate that flying Hawaiian hoary bats often forgo echolocation, or do not always vocalize in a way that is detectable with common sampling and monitoring methods. Possible reasons for the low correspondence between visual and acoustic detections range from methodological to biological and include a number of biases associated with the propagation and detection of sound, cryptic foraging strategies, or conspecific presence. Silent flight behavior may be more prevalent in echolocating bats than previously appreciated, has profound implications for ecological research, and deserves further characterization and study. Our study indicates that flying Hawaiian hoary bats may often forego echolocation, or do not always vocalize in a way that is detectable with common sampling and monitoring methods. Possible reasons for the low correspondence between visual and acoustic detections range from methodological to biological and may include factors associated with the propagation and detection of sound, cryptic foraging strategies, or conspecific presence. Silent flight behavior may be more prevalent in echolocating bats than previously appreciated and deserves further characterization and study.</description><subject>acoustic detection</subject><subject>Airspace</subject><subject>Animal behavior</subject><subject>Bats</subject><subject>behavior</subject><subject>Cameras</subject><subject>Chiroptera</subject><subject>Clutter</subject><subject>Conspecifics</subject><subject>Detectors</subject><subject>Echolocation</subject><subject>Ecological monitoring</subject><subject>Ecological research</subject><subject>Flight activity</subject><subject>Flight behavior</subject><subject>Flight paths</subject><subject>Forage</subject><subject>Foraging behavior</subject><subject>Lasiurus cinereus semotus</subject><subject>Monitoring methods</subject><subject>non‐vocalization</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Prey</subject><subject>Silence</subject><subject>Sound propagation</subject><subject>thermal infrared video</subject><subject>vocalization</subject><subject>Vocalization behavior</subject><issn>2045-7758</issn><issn>2045-7758</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kV1rFDEYhQdRbKm98A9IwJv2YttkksnHjSLr2hYWvFFvw5uZd9yU2UlNJrtsf71Zty1VMARy4DwcTjhV9ZbRC0ZpfYkt8gvOjHxRHddUNDOlGv3ymT6qTlO6peVIWguqXldHtTZUKGGOq_vPgexCJiuESLYrmMgNSYgfyY_QwuDvYfJhJBGHIjZIpkA2PmUYSIcTtgcTJkwk9OQatuA9jGQVIO6IgymRsyUkn2NOpPUjRiwi4TpMOZ2_qV71MCQ8fXhPqu9fFt_m17Pl16ub-aflrBWCy1nfO-kcMw06WTPKjey5akUvELjrDC2OQ6mZ7pzjiqmuNqbRRktOO4De8ZPqwyH3Lrs1di2OU4TB3kW_LjVtAG__dka_sj_DxjaNVkI3JeDsISCGXxnTZNc-tTgMMGLIyTLDtRZGUVXQ9_-gtyHHsXxvT0larhSFOj9QbQwpReyfyjBq96Pa_ah2P2ph3z1v_0Q-TliAywOw9QPu_p9kF_MF_xP5GyHerME</recordid><startdate>201709</startdate><enddate>201709</enddate><creator>Gorresen, Paulo. Marcos</creator><creator>Cryan, Paul M.</creator><creator>Montoya‐Aiona, Kristina</creator><creator>Bonaccorso, Frank J.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2915-8894</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0707-9212</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201709</creationdate><title>Do you hear what I see? Vocalization relative to visual detection rates of Hawaiian hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus semotus)</title><author>Gorresen, Paulo. Marcos ; Cryan, Paul M. ; Montoya‐Aiona, Kristina ; Bonaccorso, Frank J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4436-ffb6bb195eb6210396f37c4f4ea3bd90195be6818dbb3717d2995898630daafb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>acoustic detection</topic><topic>Airspace</topic><topic>Animal behavior</topic><topic>Bats</topic><topic>behavior</topic><topic>Cameras</topic><topic>Chiroptera</topic><topic>Clutter</topic><topic>Conspecifics</topic><topic>Detectors</topic><topic>Echolocation</topic><topic>Ecological monitoring</topic><topic>Ecological research</topic><topic>Flight activity</topic><topic>Flight behavior</topic><topic>Flight paths</topic><topic>Forage</topic><topic>Foraging behavior</topic><topic>Lasiurus cinereus semotus</topic><topic>Monitoring methods</topic><topic>non‐vocalization</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Prey</topic><topic>Silence</topic><topic>Sound propagation</topic><topic>thermal infrared video</topic><topic>vocalization</topic><topic>Vocalization behavior</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gorresen, Paulo. Marcos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cryan, Paul M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montoya‐Aiona, Kristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bonaccorso, Frank J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library Free Content</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Ecology and evolution</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gorresen, Paulo. Marcos</au><au>Cryan, Paul M.</au><au>Montoya‐Aiona, Kristina</au><au>Bonaccorso, Frank J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Do you hear what I see? Vocalization relative to visual detection rates of Hawaiian hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus semotus)</atitle><jtitle>Ecology and evolution</jtitle><addtitle>Ecol Evol</addtitle><date>2017-09</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>17</issue><spage>6669</spage><epage>6679</epage><pages>6669-6679</pages><issn>2045-7758</issn><eissn>2045-7758</eissn><abstract>Bats vocalize during flight as part of the sensory modality called echolocation, but very little is known about whether flying bats consistently call. Occasional vocal silence during flight when bats approach prey or conspecifics has been documented for relatively few species and situations. Bats flying alone in clutter‐free airspace are not known to forgo vocalization, yet prior observations suggested possible silent behavior in certain, unexpected situations. Determining when, why, and where silent behavior occurs in bats will help evaluate major assumptions of a primary monitoring method for bats used in ecological research, management, and conservation. In this study, we recorded flight activity of Hawaiian hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) under seminatural conditions using both thermal video cameras and acoustic detectors. Simultaneous video and audio recordings from 20 nights of observation at 10 sites were analyzed for correspondence between detection methods, with a focus on video observations in three distance categories for which accompanying vocalizations were detected. Comparison of video and audio detections revealed that a high proportion of Hawaiian hoary bats “seen” on video were not simultaneously “heard.” On average, only about one in three visual detections within a night had an accompanying call detection, but this varied greatly among nights. Bats flying on curved flight paths and individuals nearer the cameras were more likely to be detected by both methods. Feeding and social calls were detected, but no clear pattern emerged from the small number of observations involving closely interacting bats. These results may indicate that flying Hawaiian hoary bats often forgo echolocation, or do not always vocalize in a way that is detectable with common sampling and monitoring methods. Possible reasons for the low correspondence between visual and acoustic detections range from methodological to biological and include a number of biases associated with the propagation and detection of sound, cryptic foraging strategies, or conspecific presence. Silent flight behavior may be more prevalent in echolocating bats than previously appreciated, has profound implications for ecological research, and deserves further characterization and study. Our study indicates that flying Hawaiian hoary bats may often forego echolocation, or do not always vocalize in a way that is detectable with common sampling and monitoring methods. Possible reasons for the low correspondence between visual and acoustic detections range from methodological to biological and may include factors associated with the propagation and detection of sound, cryptic foraging strategies, or conspecific presence. Silent flight behavior may be more prevalent in echolocating bats than previously appreciated and deserves further characterization and study.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>28904749</pmid><doi>10.1002/ece3.3196</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2915-8894</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0707-9212</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2045-7758
ispartof Ecology and evolution, 2017-09, Vol.7 (17), p.6669-6679
issn 2045-7758
2045-7758
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5587485
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Wiley Online Library Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects acoustic detection
Airspace
Animal behavior
Bats
behavior
Cameras
Chiroptera
Clutter
Conspecifics
Detectors
Echolocation
Ecological monitoring
Ecological research
Flight activity
Flight behavior
Flight paths
Forage
Foraging behavior
Lasiurus cinereus semotus
Monitoring methods
non‐vocalization
Original Research
Prey
Silence
Sound propagation
thermal infrared video
vocalization
Vocalization behavior
title Do you hear what I see? Vocalization relative to visual detection rates of Hawaiian hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus semotus)
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T22%3A58%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do%20you%20hear%20what%20I%20see?%20Vocalization%20relative%20to%20visual%20detection%20rates%20of%20Hawaiian%20hoary%20bats%20(Lasiurus%20cinereus%20semotus)&rft.jtitle=Ecology%20and%20evolution&rft.au=Gorresen,%20Paulo.%20Marcos&rft.date=2017-09&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=17&rft.spage=6669&rft.epage=6679&rft.pages=6669-6679&rft.issn=2045-7758&rft.eissn=2045-7758&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ece3.3196&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1936036064%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1936036064&rft_id=info:pmid/28904749&rfr_iscdi=true