Guide for Acoustic Identification of Florida bats


Family

Vespertilionidae

Database species code

Corraf or Cora

See glossary for explanation of codes

Scientific name

Corynorhinus rafinesquii (Lesson, 1827)

 

Taxonomy follows Simmons and Cirranello (2021)

Call shape

To view call graphics click on the camera icon on the right. You can then move through all images by using the left or right arrow keys. A left mouse click returns to the fact sheet.

Broad band FM reversed "J" with pulses appearing nearly vertical. As a large eared vespertilionid this species vocalizations are fairly quiet, i.e., low intensity. See notes.  Call images are from hand released bats therefore call pulses would not likely be typical of free flying search phase calls. Generally, vespertilionids emit “clutter” calls on hand release that are broader in bandwidth, higher in frequency and shorter TBC than free flying search phase calls. Two zero-crossing displays of the calls (AnalookW 4.5.w).

Vocal signature parameters

Call parameters are not robust/reliable at this time for definitive free flying identification. This large eared bat emits low intensity calls and may not be adequately recorded in the field as free flying bats. Parameters provided here have been extracted from files provided by Corben (top) and Finn (below) from hand released bats.  These are primarily "clutter" calls and may not accurately reflect diagnostic free flying search phase calls.

From Corben data

Parameters N Min Max Mean St.Dev 10% 25% 75% 90%
Dur 214 0.45 9.97 3.32 2.33 1.24 1.93 3.79 7.64
Fmin 214 20.2 54.4 28.4 4.8 22.6 24.6 32.2 34.4
Fmax 214 34.63 80.81 58.77 10.11 43.72 51.04 65.57 69.57
BW 214 5.26 53.85 30.33 10.36 14.33 24.56 36.45 42.29
Fmean 214 28.00 59.70 41.91 5.19 35.90 38.17 44.94 47.77
Fk 214 23.53 79.21 42.29 8.58 34.38 38.28 43.48 54.95
FcH1 214 12.78 36.37 20.18 4.24 16.40 17.55 21.17 26.79
Fc 214 25.56 72.73 40.36 8.48 32.79 35.09 42.33 53.58
FcH3 214 38.34 109.10 60.54 12.71 49.19 52.64 63.50 80.37
Sc 214 -6850.2 3154.1 34.9 1088.3 -66.0 37.2 288.9 517.5
Pmc 214 0.00 149.50 49.69 32.83 5.60 19.90 76.78 88.76

 

From Finn data

Parameters N Min Max Mean St.Dev 10% 25% 75% 90%
Dur 22 0.28 5.34 1.56 1.40 0.57 0.63 1.95 3.80
TBC 16 71.03 7229.5 942.1 1838.6 82.51 101.8 876.4 2090.7
Fmin 22 20.2 28.78 23.55 2.55 21.40 21.70 25.66 27.4
Fmax 22 22.5 52.63 31.08 10.02 23.32 23.53 36.26 47.8
BW 22 0.43 31.15 7.53 9.10 1.06 1.58 9.59 21.3
Fmean 22 20.2 38.83 25.07 4.22 21.73 22.32 27.58 28.8
Fk 22 21.48 49.54 29.22 9.00 23.17 23.43 33.15 45.9
FcH1 22 10.1 16.84 12.46 1.9175 10.9 11.06 14.09 15.2
Fc 22 20.2 33.68 24.92 3.83 21.71 22.12 28.19 30.5
FcH3 22 30.3 50.52 37.37 5.7524 32.6 33.17 42.28 45.7
Sc 22 -1367 2645 345 788 25 32 342 1381
Pmc 22 0 93.60 23.87 31.66 1.82 5.80 19.08 84.05

 

Parameters reported by Szewczak (2018).

Corraf Fc Fmax Fmin FmaxE dur uppr slp lwr slp slp @ Fc total slp
Mean 22.8 39.8 22.5 33.2 2.6 6.2 7.4 6.7 6.7
Max 25.0 42.0 25.0 37.0 5.1 8.6 8.9 8.9 8.1
Min 20.0 37.0 20.0 30.0 0.1 3.7 5.9 4.4 5.2

Source of acoustic data

Laura Finn

Chris Corben

Known counties of distribution
  • Alachua
  • Baker
  • Bay
  • Bradford
  • Brevard
  • Broward
  • Calhoun
  • Charlotte
  • Citrus
  • Clay
  • Collier
  • Columbia
  • De Soto
  • Dixie
  • Duval
  • Escambia
  • Flagler
  • Franklin
  • Gadsden
  • Gilchrist
  • Glades
  • Gulf
  • Hamilton
  • Hardee
  • Hendry
  • Hernando
  • Highlands
  • Hillsborough
  • Holmes
  • Indian River
  • Jackson
  • Jefferson
  • Lafayette
  • Lake
  • Lee
  • Leon
  • Levy
  • Liberty
  • Madison
  • Manatee
  • Marion
  • Martin
  • Miami-Dade
  • Monroe
  • Nassau
  • Okaloosa
  • Okeechobee
  • Orange
  • Osceola
  • Palm Beach
  • Pasco
  • Pinellas
  • Polk
  • Putnam
  • Santa Rosa
  • Sarasota
  • Seminole
  • St. Johns
  • St. Lucie
  • Sumter
  • Suwannee
  • Taylor
  • Union
  • Volusia
  • Wakulla
  • Walton
  • Washington
    Conservation status

    Least concern; Ver.3.1 ; Population trend - increasing; evaluated 2008. (I.U.C.N. 2017.)

    Notes

    Britzke (2001) excluded calls of this species when evaluating the efficacy of acoustic detectors in a study of the ecology of bats in the eastern U.S due to the difficulty of detecting low intensity calls. In addition to low intensity calls that may be difficult to detect harmonics are often present. Call–shape simple linear FM sweep. Sometimes calls include an upsweep or flat tone at onset before sweeping downward (Szewczak, 2018).

     

    The large frequency range reflects this species’ characteristic of sometimes applying more amplitude in the second harmonic than in the first. Lo F (and Fc) of the first harmonic typically ranges from ~19–27 kHz Szewczak (2018).

    Citations

    Britzke, E. R. 2003.Use of ultrasonic detectors for acoustic identification and study of bat ecology in the eastern United States Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN.

     

    Marks, C. S., and G. E. Marks. 2006. Bats of Florida. Pp. 176. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

     

    The IUCN 2017. Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-1.www.iucnredlist.org;. Downloaded on August 6, 2017.

     

    Simmons, N. B., and A. L. Cirranello. 2020. Bat Species of the World: A taxonomic and geographic database. http://batnames.org

     

    Szewczak, J. M. 2018. Echolocation Call Characteristics of Eastern U.S. Bats. Echolocation call characteristics of Eastern U.S. Bats. Unpublished report.

    Guide for Acoustic Identification of Florida bats 2021, all rights reserved.