evolution of echolocation
DESCRIPTION
Evolution of echolocation. Echolocation basics Evidence for how and when it appeared Continuing evolution of echolocation. Send out a pulse of sound; receive echoes Orientation Navigation Communication Hunting. Sound production. Sound produced by the larynx (laryngeal echolocation) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Evolution of echolocation
Echolocation basics Evidence for how and when it appeared Continuing evolution of echolocation
![Page 2: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Send out a pulse of sound; receive echoes Orientation Navigation Communication Hunting
![Page 3: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Sound production
Sound produced by the larynx (laryngeal echolocation) Emitted either through the nose or through the mouth Correlate calls with wing flaps to increase pressure in larynx Lots of neurological modifications Ultrasonic (to humans): 20 – 100 KHz
Limitations Can’t pulse and breathe Sound attenuates in air—have to be pretty close to your target Don’t want to deafen yourself—up to 120 decibels
![Page 4: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Perceptual problems
Detection—what’s there? Classification—what is it? how big is it? is it edible? Localization—where is it? how far away is it? is it moving?
![Page 6: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Detection Separating prey from background
Classification Size Shape Material Texture
Localization Distance—time delay of echo Horizontal (azimuthal) angle—
binaural cues Vertical angle (elevation)—monaural
spectral cues Motion—Doppler shifts, “glints”
![Page 7: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Additional perceptual problems
Environmental noise “Clutter” echoes
Other prey Stationary objects and non-prey Ground, vegetation
Other bats’ signals
![Page 8: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Narrowband Constant frequency (CF)
Change only a few hundred Hz Quasi-constant frequency (QCF) or shallow modulation
Change a few kilohertz (kHz Broadband
Frequency modulation (FM) or steep modulation Harmonics (multiples of a fundamental frequency)—use more
frequencies to scan more broadly
![Page 9: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Tradeoffs
Narrowband (CF) detect weak echoes but can’t localize well (bad for time), especially with long pulses Doppler compensation and frequency shifts allow detection of motion and fluttering
(“glints”) temporal overlap is OK since echoes are frequency-shifted
Broadband (FM) harder to detect echoes, but better for accurate determination of distance and angles as
well as characterization
![Page 10: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Call structure varies among bats, among habitats, among prey, and within a call sequence
Schnitzler et al., TREE 2003
search approach
open narrow narrow edge
![Page 11: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Bats are not alone…
Swiftlets (Aerodramus) & oilbird (Steatornis) In mammals:
Most bats Toothed whales & dolphins Some shrews Some tenrecs
![Page 12: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
How many times?
“Besides bats, dolphins also use echolocation. According to evolution, similar animals descended from each other, so if evolution is true, bats descended from dolphins or vice versa.”
Not all echolocation is the sameWhales, bats, shrews, and tenrecs are distant relatives (four different
orders)
Echolocation (of some sort) has evolved independently at least four times in mammals.
Laryngeal echolocation in bats is much more sophisticated.
![Page 13: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Microbats echolocate One genus (Rousettus) of megabats echolocates
![Page 14: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
…but (again) not all echolocation is the same
Rousettus uses tongue-clicks (similar to birds)This is (probably) different in evolutionary terms than sophisticated laryngeal echolocation
no tragus
no noseleaf
![Page 15: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Traditional (morphological) view of bat phylogeny:
Monophyletic MicrochiropteraMonophyletic Megachiroptera
![Page 16: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Teeling et al. 2005
![Page 17: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Monophyletic MegachiropteraParaphyletic Microchiroptera!
![Page 18: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
2 changes total
![Page 19: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
2 changes total
![Page 20: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Icaronycteris index (Green River, Wyoming, 50 Mya)
![Page 21: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Hassianycteris--radiograph
![Page 22: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Did the fossils echolocate?
Moderately expanded cochlea Stylohyal (of hyoid) expanded cranially at the tip Large orbicular process on the malleus
These characters are associated with echolocation in extant bats
Electron microscopy shows pollen on wingscales of eaten moths
Yes, the Eocene bats already used echolocation!
![Page 23: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Teeling et al 2005 & Springer et al 2001
![Page 24: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Teeling et al 2005 & Springer et al 2001
![Page 25: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
2 changes!
Teeling et al 2005 & Springer et al 2001
![Page 26: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Eocene bats flew AND echolocated!
Three hypotheses: Flight first—echolocation may have started off as orientation/navigation Echolocation first—flight later to reduce competition with other terrestrial small
mammals Tandem evolution—two major innovations evolved together
No transitional forms (“missing links”) between ancestors and bats Fossils with wings but no echolocation? Fossils that echolocated but couldn’t fly?
![Page 27: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
![Page 28: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
![Page 29: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
![Page 30: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
![Page 31: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
“Forelimb anatomy indicates that the new bat was capable of powered flight like other Eocene bats, but ear morphology suggests that it lacked their echolocation abilities, supporting a 'flight first' hypothesis for chiropteran evolution. The shape of the wings suggests that an undulating gliding–fluttering flight style may be primitive for bats, and the presence of a long calcar indicates that a broad tail membrane evolved early in Chiroptera, probably functioning as an additional airfoil rather than as a prey-capture device. Limb proportions and retention of claws on all digits indicate that the new bat may have been an agile climber that employed quadrupedal locomotion and under-branch hanging behaviour.”
![Page 32: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Eocene — echolocating bat fossils
Paleocene — diversification of flowering plants diversification of insects
(now)
![Page 33: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
“Arms race” between bats and insects
About 70% of bat species are insectivorous butterflies moths ants termites mantids midges mayflies beetles
caddis flies alder flies water striders dragonflies crickets katydids stinkbugs etc…
![Page 34: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Insect defenses
Ears (tympani) 19 separate times—on legs, abdomens, thoraces, wings, facial palps… “Tune” ears to local bat predators (e.g. noctuid Ascalapha odorata) in Hawaii
“Jamming” ultrasound? “Stealth” scales Unpalatable and obvious (aposematic signaling)
Tiger moths Flight behavior—fly close to ground, dive, steer away Sit still and look like background Predator swamping
Midges, other swarmers …many many more that we don’t know about—morphological,
physiological, behavioral…
![Page 35: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Bat responses
“lowball” or “highball” frequency to be inaudible to prey lower volume—whispering bats use prey cues with (or instead of) echolocation exploit insect behavior
eating an insect that is avoiding another bat doubles success rate sneak up via vegetation, or sit still eat something that can’t hear you—birds, frogs vary strategy depending on particular prey trick prey by changing pulse as you get closer to make yourself
sound farther away develop ways to overcome stealth scales and jamming ultrasound
![Page 36: Evolution of echolocation](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022081511/56813bea550346895da516f6/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Evolution by echolocation
“Harmonic-hopping” frequency changes driving divergence (Kingston & Rossiter 2004, Nature)
Harmonics affect bat’s perception of distribution of prey (size, type, etc)