IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v30y2019i6p1775-1781..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does bat response to traffic noise support the misleading cue hypothesis?

Author

Listed:
  • Inga Geipel
  • Bawan Amin
  • Rachel A Page
  • Wouter Halfwerk
  • Ulrika Candolin

Abstract

The world has become a noisier place due to the increase in urbanization. Noise is generally considered an impediment, altering an animal’s behavior through masking or distraction. But noise can also provide useful information about the environment. For animals that rely on natural environmental noise as an indicator of favorable foraging conditions, increasing levels of anthropogenic noise might mislead informed decision-making. Bats use rain noise, a natural environmental cue, to delay their emergence from the roost, presumably to avoid sensory and metabolic costs associated with foraging in heavy rain. Here we tested the “misleading cue hypothesis,” asking whether traffic noise is mistaken for rain noise by bats. Given the acoustic similarity between rain noise and traffic noise, we predicted that bats would confuse the two. We conducted a playback experiment using rain, traffic, and ambient noise at natural roosts of common big-eared bats (Micronycteris microtis, Phyllostomidae) and recorded bat emergence behavior. In contrast to their response to rain noise, the bats did not delay roost emergence in response to traffic noise. Thus, we found that bats were able to discriminate between traffic noise and rain noise and were not misled by similarity in acoustic parameters in the two noise types, when emerging from their roost. Emerging bats did show more exploration flights during traffic noise than during rain noise, but not during ambient noise, suggesting that they perceive traffic noise as a novel acoustic cue. Our data provide new insights into perception of traffic noise by bats.

Suggested Citation

  • Inga Geipel & Bawan Amin & Rachel A Page & Wouter Halfwerk & Ulrika Candolin, 2019. "Does bat response to traffic noise support the misleading cue hypothesis?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(6), pages 1775-1781.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:30:y:2019:i:6:p:1775-1781.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arz148
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:30:y:2019:i:6:p:1775-1781.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.