An experimental test of the allotonic frequency hypothesis to isolate the effects of light pollution on bat prey selection:
- Authors: Bailey, Lauren A , Brigham, R Mark , Bohn, Shelby J , Boyles, Justin G , Smit, Ben
- Date: 2019
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/158309 , vital:40171 , https://0-doi.org.wam.seals.ac.za/10.1007/s00442-019-04417-w
- Description: 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.
- Full Text:
An oversimplification of physiological principles leads to flawed macroecological analyses
- Authors: Boyles, Justin G , Levesque, Danielle L , Nowack, Julia , Wojciechowski, Michal S , Stawski, Clare , Fuller, Andrea , Smit, Ben , Tattersall, Glenn J
- Date: 2019
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/440505 , vital:73788 , https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5721
- Description: In light of the rapidly changing climate, there is an urgent need to develop a mechanistic understanding of how physiological functioning mediates ecological patterns. Recently, there has been a spate of papers using analyses that scale up from a standard physiological model, the Scholander–Irving model, to make predictions about range constraints on endothermic vertebrates (Buckley, Khaliq, Swanson, and Hof, 2018; Fristoe et al., 2015; Khaliq, Böhning‐Gaese, Prinzinger, Pfenninger, and Hof, 2017; Khaliq, Hof, Prinzinger, Böhning‐Gaese, and Pfenninger, 2014). Here, we argue that oversimplifications of the Scholander–Irving model and the use of questionable datasets lead to questionable macrophysiological analyses. Many of these problems have been addressed elsewhere, directly and indirectly (eg, McKechnie, Coe, Gerson, and Wolf, 2017; Mitchell et al., 2018), although the focus has largely been on the applicability of the Scholander–Irving model to warm environmental temperatures, which are often seen as more relevant to climate change. However, one specific aspect of the Scholander–Irving model, the assumption that energy expenditure of an endotherm below the thermoneutral zone (TNZ) can be described by basic Newtonian physics, has been used incorrectly in several papers. While not the only paper based on this assumption, the recent work by Buckley et al.(2018) reinvigorated discussions among physiologists about improper interpretations of the Scholander–Irving model. Our concerns are not new and have been voiced repeatedly in the past (Calder and Schmidt‐Nielsen, 1967; King, 1964; Tracy, 1972), but many of these ideas seem to have been buried by time.
- Full Text: