Bats can jam each other's sonar, say scientists

Researchers have discovered that a species of bat can emit a call to interfere with the echolocation of its fellow bats.

Nickolay Hristov
A flying Mexican free-tailed bat (shown above) emits specialized signals that jam the echolocation of other bats competing for insect prey.

Just like Navy engineers who jam the sonar of enemy ships, bats can jam the signals of other bats to ward off competition for food, a new study finds.

Bats hunt by echolocation, which means they emit high-pitched sounds and listen to the echoes that bounce off their prey. But competition for food can be fierce, and Mexican free-tailed bats emit a special call that can interfere with the sonar of other bats that are pursuing a meal.

"They get into amazing aerial dogfights," said study leader William Conner, a biologist at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. "One will jam the other, and the other will jam back." [See video of bats emitting jamming signals]

Conner and his colleague Aaron Corcoran, now a post doctoral researcher at the University of Maryland in College Park, studied Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) using high-speed infrared cameras and microphone arrays. Corcoran was examining the interaction between the bats and their prey, moths, when he noticed the bats produced a strange sound, which they only made when another bat was homing in on the moth.

"It sweeps through the frequency range that bats use, and that’s the standard method used to jam sonar and radar," Conner told Live Science. It's called "sweep jamming," he said.

Jamming the enemy

In the new study, Conner and Corcoran set up audio and video systems to watch as wild bats hunted Tiger moths. Using a speaker, the researchers played recordings of the jamming signals or other sounds, such as pure tones or white noise.

When a bat is right about to nab its prey, it emits a "terminal buzz" that is thought to help it lock on to its meal's location. The scientists played the jamming signals both during the terminal buzz and also at other times during the hunt.

Bats that heard the jamming signal right when they were about to reach a moth meal were 86 percent more likely to miss, Conner said. This finding supports the idea that the sounds the bats made were indeed jamming signals.

The researchers ruled out a few other explanations for the sound, such as a way for a bat to defend its food patch, a method for bats to hunt cooperatively or a means of startling another bat. They watched what the first bat did immediately after it made the sweeping sound, and saw that it immediately turned back to the last known position of the moth, which suggests the signal wasn't any of the other possibilities, Conner said.

"They have evolved a signal that is very much like the signal that [engineers] use to jam sonar and radar, but they did it 65 million years earlier," Conner said.

Not just bats?

The next step is to figure out the mechanism by which the jamming signal interferes with the networks of neurons involved with echolocation. To find out, scientists would have to record the signals from the bats' brains while they're listening to the jamming sound.

In a previous study, Conner and his colleagues found that Tiger moths also emit sounds that jam the bats' signals. The moths aren't capable of producing a sweeping sound like the bats do, but they can make a clicking sound that interferes with the bats' hunting attempts.

Other species, such as antbirds, also use signal jamming to interfere with messages from a flirtatious male, according to a study published in 2009 in the journal Current Biology. Perhaps other animals that use echolocation, such as dolphins and toothed whales, also use similar jamming techniques, the researchers said.

"We're just starting to look," Conner said.

Follow Tanya Lewis on Twitter and Google+. Follow us @livescienceFacebook Google+. Original article on Live Science.

Copyright 2014 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.