Contrasting laboratory and field outcomes of bat–moth interactions

Abstract

Predator–prey interactions are important but difficult to study in the field. Therefore, laboratory studies are often used to examine the outcomes of predator–prey interactions. Previous laboratory studies have shown that moth hearing and ultrasound production can help prey avoid being eaten by bats. We report here that laboratory behavioural outcomes may not accurately reflect the outcomes of field bat–moth interactions. We tested the success rates of two bat species capturing moths with distinct anti‐bat tactics using behavioural experiments. We compared the results with the dietary composition of field bats using next‐generation DNA sequencing. Rhinolophus episcopus and Rhinolophus osgoodi had a lower rate of capture success when hunting for moths that produce anti‐bat clicks than for silent eared moths and earless moths. Unexpectedly, the success rates of the bats capturing silent eared moths and earless moths did not differ significantly from each other. However, the field bats had a higher proportion of silent eared moths than that of earless moths and that of clicking moths in their diets. The difference between the proportions of silent eared moths and earless moths in the bat diets can be explained by the difference between their abundance in bat foraging habitats. These findings suggest that moth defensive tactics, bat countertactics and moth availability collectively shape the diets of insectivorous bats. This study illustrates the importance of using a combination of behavioural experiments and molecular genetic techniques to reveal the complex interactions between predators and prey in nature.