Many of the flights conducted without the presence of the harp trap did not cover the entire length of the hallway. Velocities for these abbreviated flights ranged from 2.9-4.3m/s. These results are plotted along with the results of Figure 8 in Figure 9. Long flights (i.e., 14.7m) are shown in blue. Shorter flights (<14.7m) are shown in red. Velocities for shorter flights are only slightly slower than those for the entire 14.7m.

The bats were then reflown down the hallway with the harp trap located at 9.6m down the 14.7m hallway. Velocities for these flights are plotted in Figure 10. Velocities ranged from 2.8-4.6 m/s. Four types of flights are noted by color on the graph – red for bats that were conventionally trapped, green for bats that were accidentally trapped, yellow for bats that flew through the trap and blue for bats that avoided the trap.

Measured wing areas are plotted as a function of bat weight in Figure 11. The graph shows that there is no significant relationship between these two variables.





Velocities in the presence of the trap are plotted as a function of weight, wing area and wing loading in Figures 12, 13 and 14, respectively. Again the data points are color-coded – red for bats that were conventionally trapped, green for bats that were accidentally trapped, yellow for bats that flew through the trap and blue for bats that avoided the trap. None of the graphs show a significant correlation. According to the hypothesis, bats with a lower wing loading should be able to avoid the trap because they can fly at lower velocities and are more maneuverable. Thus, one would expect the captured bats to be concentrated in the upper right-hand corner of Figure 14. However, Figure 14 shows no such correlation.