Darwin’s Hawkmoth (<i>Xanthopan praedicta</i>) responds to bat ultrasound at sonar‐jamming rates

Rubin, Juliette J.

doi:10.1111/btp.13093

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Tiger beetles produce clicks in time with their wingbeat cycle as their hindwings percuss against the elytra and are necessarily low duty cycle (percentage of time occupied by sound; 1–3%). These simple sounds are therefore unlikely to have a sonar jamming function as has been shown for some moth sounds of higher duty cycle (15+%; [ 8 , 9 , 24 , 40 ]). A highly plausible alternative is that tiger beetles are advertising noxiousness acoustically.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Tiger beetles produce anti-bat ultrasound and are probable Batesian moth mimics

Gough,

Rubin,

Kawahara

et al. 2024

Biol. Lett.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Echolocating bats and their eared insect prey are in an acoustic evolutionary war. Moths produce anti-bat sounds that startle bat predators, signal noxiousness, mimic unpalatable models and jam bat sonar. Tiger beetles (Cicindelidae) also purportedly produce ultrasound in response to bat attacks. Here we tested 19 tiger beetle species from seven genera and showed that they produce anti-bat signals to playback of authentic bat echolocation. The dominant frequency of beetle sounds substantially overlaps the sonar calls of sympatric bats. As tiger beetles are known to produce defensive chemicals such as benzaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide, we hypothesized that tiger beetle sounds are acoustically advertising their unpalatability. We presented captive big brown bats ( Eptesicus fuscus ) with seven different tiger beetle species and found that 90 out of 94 beetles were completely consumed, indicating that these tiger beetle species are not aposematically signalling. Instead, we show that the primary temporal and spectral characteristics of beetle warning sounds overlap with sympatric unpalatable tiger moth (Arctinae) sounds and that tiger beetles are probably Batesian mimics of noxious moth models. We predict that many insect taxa produce anti-bat sounds and that the acoustic mimicry rings of the night sky are hyperdiverse.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Tiger beetles produce anti-bat ultrasound and are probable Batesian moth mimics

Gough,

Rubin,

Kawahara

et al. 2024

Biol. Lett.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Temporal integration limitations also function in the auditory system. Some tiger moths and hawkmoths stimulated by bat sonar playbacks ( Barber & Conner, 2006 ; Barber & Kawahara, 2013 ; Rubin, 2022 ) and real attacks ( Corcoran, Barber & Conner, 2009 ; Kawahara & Barber, 2015 ) respond with ultrasonic clicks of their own at such high duty cycles (sound per unit time) that they can jam bat sonar. These high-repetition click streams contain energy across a broad range of frequencies that can disrupt the bat’s auditory system and introduce range estimation errors ( Miller, 1991 ; Barber & Conner, 2006 ; Corcoran, Barber & Conner, 2009 ).…”

Section: Exploring the Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework for understanding post-detection deception in predator–prey interactions

Rubin

Kawahara

2023

PeerJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predators and prey exist in persistent conflict that often hinges on deception—the transmission of misleading or manipulative signals—as a means for survival. Deceptive traits are widespread across taxa and sensory systems, representing an evolutionarily successful and common strategy. Moreover, the highly conserved nature of the major sensory systems often extends these traits past single species predator–prey interactions toward a broader set of perceivers. As such, deceptive traits can provide a unique window into the capabilities, constraints and commonalities across divergent and phylogenetically-related perceivers. Researchers have studied deceptive traits for centuries, but a unified framework for categorizing different types of post-detection deception in predator–prey conflict still holds potential to inform future research. We suggest that deceptive traits can be distinguished by their effect on object formation processes. Perceptual objects are composed of physical attributes (what) and spatial (where) information. Deceptive traits that operate after object formation can therefore influence the perception and processing of either or both of these axes. We build upon previous work using a perceiver perspective approach to delineate deceptive traits by whether they closely match the sensory information of another object or create a discrepancy between perception and reality by exploiting the sensory shortcuts and perceptual biases of their perceiver. We then further divide this second category, sensory illusions, into traits that distort object characteristics along either the what or where axes, and those that create the perception of whole novel objects, integrating the what/where axes. Using predator–prey examples, we detail each step in this framework and propose future avenues for research. We suggest that this framework will help organize the many forms of deceptive traits and help generate predictions about selective forces that have driven animal form and behavior across evolutionary time.

show abstract

Darwin’s Hawkmoth (Xanthopan praedicta) responds to bat ultrasound at sonar‐jamming rates

Rubin

2022

Biotropica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reveals that Xanthopan praedicta (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae) is part of the bat–moth coevolutionary dynamic. I played recordings of bat echolocation to live X. praedicta and found that males respond with such dense ultrasound they can likely jam bat sonar. Female X. praedicta and two other sphingid species do not produce ultrasonic responses. Abstract in French is available with online material.

show abstract

Darwin’s Hawkmoth (Xanthopan praedicta) responds to bat ultrasound at sonar‐jamming rates

Cited by 4 publications

References 47 publications

Tiger beetles produce anti-bat ultrasound and are probable Batesian moth mimics

Tiger beetles produce anti-bat ultrasound and are probable Batesian moth mimics

A framework for understanding post-detection deception in predator–prey interactions

Darwin’s Hawkmoth (Xanthopan praedicta) responds to bat ultrasound at sonar‐jamming rates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About