4.5 Article

Social call divergence in bats: a comparative analysis

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 533-540

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arw184

关键词

acoustic communication; bat; evolution; signal divergence; social call

资金

  1. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [14ZZ2234]
  2. China scholarship council [201506620017]
  3. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20120043130002]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31370411]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acoustic signals mediate important life history events in a variety of species, providing new vistas for understanding speciation. It has been proposed that animal acoustic signals undergo complex interactions among morphology, ecology, social pressure, and phylogenetic history. Yet, the relative importance of these factors in shaping acoustic divergence is rarely assessed within a comparative framework. Herein, we aim to investigate the key determinants of social call divergence across 31 bat species from 5 families. We compiled a wide data set on bat aggressive calls, body size, foraging habitats, foraging modes, climatic conditions, colony size, and phylogenetic components. We identified remarkable interspecific divergence versus within-species variation in aggressive vocalizations. Despite weak effects of ecological factors, colony size, body size, and phylogenetic components accounted for the majority of variation in call parameters among species. The colony size and body size played a major role in influencing spectral parameters, whereas phylogenetic relationships determined call duration and minimum frequency. Together, our findings constitute convincing evidence that sociality, morphological constraint, and phylogenetic constraint mold social call divergence in bats. This study expands our limited knowledge of the evolution of bat social calls, and highlights the importance of sociality in driving acoustic phenotype diversity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据