Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An experimental test of the allotonic frequency hypothesis to isolate the effects of light pollution on bat prey selection

  • Behavioral ecology – original research
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Artificial lights may be altering interactions between bats and moth prey. According to the allotonic frequency hypothesis (AFH), eared moths are generally unavailable as prey for syntonic bats (i.e., bats that use echolocation frequencies between 20 and 50 kHz within the hearing range of eared moths) due to the moths’ ability to detect syntonic bat echolocation. Syntonic bats therefore feed mainly on beetles, flies, true bugs, and non-eared moths. The AFH is expected to be violated around lights where eared moths are susceptible to exploitation by syntonic bats because moths’ evasive strategies become less effective. The hypothesis has been tested to date almost exclusively in areas with permanent lighting, where the effects of lights on bat diets are confounded with other aspects of human habitat alteration. We undertook diet analysis in areas with short-term, localized artificial lighting to isolate the effects of artificial lighting and determine if syntonic and allotonic bats (i.e., bats that use echolocation frequencies outside the hearing range of eared moths) consumed more moths under conditions of artificial lights than in natural darkness. We found that syntonic bats increased their consumption of moth prey under experimentally lit conditions, likely owing to a reduction in the ability of eared moths to evade the bats. Eared moths may increase in diets of generalist syntonic bats foraging around artificial light sources, as opposed to allotonic species and syntonic species with a more specialized diet.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acharya L, Fenton MB (1999) Bat attacks and moth defensive behaviour around streetlights. Can J Zool 77:27–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchler ER (1975) Food transit time in Myotis lucifugus Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae. J Mammal 56:252–255

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burles DW, Brigham RM, Ring RA, Reimchen TE (2008) Diet of two insectivorous bats, Myotis lucifugus and Myotis keenii, in relation to arthropod abundance in a temperate Pacific Northwest rainforest environment. Can J Zool 86:1367–1375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clare EL, Symondson WOC, Fenton B (2014) An inordinate fondness for beetles? Variation in seasonal dietary preferences of night-roosting big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus). Mol Ecol 23:3633–3647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Conner WE, Corcoran AJ (2012) Sound strategies: the 65-million-year-old battle between bats and insects. Annu Rev Entomol 57:21–39

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cravens ZM, Brown VA, Divoll TJ, Boyles JG (2018) Illuminating prey selection in an insectivorous bat community, exposed to artificial light at night. J Appl Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning DC, Kruger M (1995) Aposematic sounds in African moths. Biotropica 27:227–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis WN, Thomas RTS (1994) Insect phenology and diversity in Malaise traps at the Veluwe. Entomologische Berichten 54:171–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Emlen JM (1966) The role of time and energy in food preference. Am Nat 100:611–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estabrook GF, Dunham AE (1976) Optimal diet as a function of absolute abundance, relative abundance, and relative value of available prey. Am Nat 110:401–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenton MB, Boyle NGH, Harrison TM, Oxley DJ (1977) Activity patterns, habitat use and prey selection by South African insectivorous bats. Biotropica 9:73–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox R (2013) The decline of moths in Great Britain: a review of possible causes. Insect Conserv Divers 6:5–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghanem SJ, Voight CC (2012) Increasing awareness of ecosystem services provided by bats. Adv Study Behav 44:279–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goerlitz HR, Ter Hofstede HM, Zeale MRK, Jones G, Holderied MW (2010) An aerial-hawking bat uses stealth echolocation to counter moth hearing. Curr Biol 20:1568–1572

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hope GM, Bhatnagar KP (1979) Effect of light adaptation on electrical responses of the retinas of four species of bats. Experientia 35:1191–1193

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kunz TH, Whitaker JO (1983) An evaluation of fecal analysis for determining food habits of insectivorous bats. Can J Zool 61:1317–1321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longcore T, Rich C (2004) Ecological light pollution. Front Ecol Environ 2:191–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macarthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller LA, Surlykke A (2001) How some insects detect and avoid being Eaten by bats: tactics and countertactics of prey and predator. Bioscience 51:570–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minnaar C, Boyles JG, Minnaar IA, Sole CL, McKechnie AE (2015) Stacking the odds: light pollution may shift the balance in an ancient predator–prey arms race. J Appl Ecol 52:522–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyake T, Yahara T (1998) Why does the flower of Lonicera japonica open at dusk? Can J Bot 76:1806–1811

    Google Scholar 

  • Monadjem A, Taylor PJ, Cotterill W, Schoeman MC (2010) Bats of southern and central Africa: a biogeographic and taxonomic synthesis. Wits University Press, Johannesburg, p 596

    Google Scholar 

  • Mucina L, Rutherford MC (eds) (2006) The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. In: Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen JA (1993) Use of a flight-interception trap in studying the beetle fauna of a surrey wood over a three year period. Entomologist 112:141–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Pokhrel S, Budha PB (2015) Key to identify insects from droppings of some insectivorous bats of Nepal. J Inst Sci Technol 19:129–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo D, Jones G, Arlettaz R (2007) Echolocation and passive listening by foraging mouse-eared bats Myotis myotis and M. blythii. J Exp Biol 210:166–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rydell J (1992) Exploitation of insects around streetlamps by bats in Sweden. Funct Ecol 6:744–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rydell J, Jones G, Waters D (1995) Echolocating bats and hearing moths: who are the winners? Oikos 264:419–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safi K, Siemers BM (2010) Implications of sensory ecology for species coexistence: biased perception links predator diversity to prey size distribution. Evol Ecol 24:703–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer HM, Spitzer K, Bairlein F (2008) Long- term effects of previous experience determine nutrient discrimination abilities in birds. Front Zool 5:4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schoeman MC (2016) Light pollution at stadiums favors urban exploiter bats. Anim Conserv 19:120–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoeman MC, Jacobs DS (2003) Support for the allotonic frequency hypothesis in an insectivorous bat community. Oecologia 134:154–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schoeman MC, Jacobs DS (2011) The relative influence of competition and prey defenses on the trophic structure of animalivorous bat ensembles. Oecologia 166:493–506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scholtz CH, Holm E (1996) Insects of Southern Africa, 2nd edn. Protea Book House, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Scoble MJ (1992) The lepidoptera. Form, function and diversity. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon CE, Wiener W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, p 177p

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiel C, Mcaney C, Sullivan C (1997) Identification of arthropod fragments in bat droppings. Mammal Society, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sih A, Christensen B (2001) Optimal diet theory: when does it work, and when and why does it fail? Anim Behav 61:379–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Studier EH, Sevick SH (1992) Live mass, water content, nitrogen and mineral levels in some insects from south-central lower Michigan. Comp Biochem Physiol A Physiol 103:579–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Langevelde F, Ettema JA, Donners M, Wallis Devries MF, Groenedijk D (2011) Effect of spectral composition of artificial light on the attraction of moths. Biol Conserv 144:2274–2281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vesterinen EJ, Ruokolainen L, Wahlberg N, Peña C, Roslin T, Laine VN, Vasko V, Sääksjärvi IE, Norrdahl K, Lilley TM (2016) What you need is what you eat? Prey selection by the bat Myotis daubentonii. Mol Ecol 25:1581–1594

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker JO (1972) Food habits of bats from Indiana. Can J Zool 50:877–883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahiri R, Kitching IJ, Lafontaine D, Mutanen M, Kaila L, Holloway JD, Wahlberg N (2011) A new molecular phylogeny offers hope for a stable family-level classification of the Noctuoidea (Lepidoptera). Zool Scr 40:158–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Brad Sharp and Robert White kindly allowed the use of Kleinrivier and Table Farm as respective study sites. Dion Marais kindly set up the equipment at Kleinrivier. Alyssa Stulberg assisted in equipment collection and initial setup. Anne Brigham and Emma Sydie photographed the experimental area. Additionally, Anne Brigham, Emma Sydie, Devin DeWet, Malcolm Bailey and Nita Pallet assisted with netting efforts and data collection. Eero Vesterinen and two anonymous reviewers provided comments on improving the manuscript.

Funding

Research funding was provided by the National Research Foundation Thuthuka Grant (Grant no. 106958 [BS]) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada (RMB).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology and Entomology, Rhodes University, P.O. Box 94, Grahamstown, 6140, South Africa

    Lauren A. Bailey, R. Mark Brigham, Shelby J. Bohn & Ben Smit

  2. Department of Biology, University of Regina, 3737 Wascana Parkway, Regina, SK, S4S 0A2, Canada

    R. Mark Brigham & Shelby J. Bohn

  3. Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada

    Shelby J. Bohn

  4. Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory and Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, USA

    Justin G. Boyles

Authors
  1. Lauren A. Bailey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Mark Brigham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shelby J. Bohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Justin G. Boyles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ben Smit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SJB, RMB, JGB and BS conceived and designed experiments. LAB performed experiments. LAB and BS analysed data. LAB wrote manuscript; all other authors provided editorial advice.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben Smit.

Additional information

Communicated by Thomas Lilley.

Our study is of the first to compare allotonic and syntonic bat diet shifts under a priori field manipulative light experiments, in comparison to previous observation studies.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1133 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bailey, L.A., Brigham, R.M., Bohn, S.J. et al. An experimental test of the allotonic frequency hypothesis to isolate the effects of light pollution on bat prey selection. Oecologia 190, 367–374 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-019-04417-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-019-04417-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation