Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Sexual dimorphism in the CF in echolocation pulses of CF-FM bats

From: Sexual dimorphism in echolocation pulse parameters of the CF-FM bat, Hipposideros pratti

Species Male Female Significances
Rhinolophidae
Rhinolophinae euryale
South Bulgaria (Siemers et al. 2005) 105.56 ± 0.43 106.63 ± 0.62 s
North Bulgaria (Siemers et al. 2005) 106.21 ± 0.84 105.83 ± 0.41 s
Italy (Russo et al. 2001) 104.32 ± 0.39 104.35 ± 0.33 n. s.
Rhinolophinae cornutus (Feng et al. 2003) 103.13 ± 1.95 106.71 ± 2.30 s
Rhinolophinae mehelyi (Russo et al. 2001) 108.10 ± 0.88 107.48 ± 0.94 n. s.
Hipposiderinae
Hipposideros rubber (Jones et al. 1993) 134.13 ± 1.84 131.85 ± 0.99 s
Hipposideros caffer (Jones et al. 1993) 138.83 ± 8.25 149.32 ± 4.35 s
Asellia tridens (Jones et al. 1993) 116.37 ± 1.42 118.77 ± 1.59 s
Hipposideros armiger (Feng et al. 2003) 77.52 ± 0.11 76.27 ± 0.78 s
Aselliscus wheeleri (Feng et al. 2003) 125.53 ± 0.22 123.33 ± 1.59 s
Hipposideros pratti (present study) 59.91 ± 0.43 59.28 ± 0.56 s
Mormoopidae
Pteronotus parnellii (Suga et al. 1987) 61.25 ± 0.534 62.29 ± 0.539 s
  1. Data displayed in the table are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. Recording condition of the bat was hand-held (Jones et al. 1993; Russo et al. 2001; Siemers et al. 2005), flying (Feng et al. 2003), or sedentary (Suga et al. 1987; present study)
  2. s significant difference, n. s. not significant difference