Tiger moth responses to a simulated bat attack: timing and duty cycle

Barber, Jesse R.; Conner, William E.

doi:10.1242/jeb.02295

Cited by 41 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, Cycnia tenera, a tiger moth that may possess limited jamming ability, has a duty cycle of ∼8% (8,12), and the sound-producing tiger moth Euchaetes egle, which appears to be unable to jam sonar, has a duty cycle of only ∼3% (12). Duty cycle, or sound per unit time, is likely related to jamming efficacy (35,36). X. tersa and X. falco have respective duty cycles of ∼18% and ∼27%.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To calculate duty cycle of the moth sounds, we counted the number of clicks that occurred in 100 ms, multiplied this by the average click duration of the modulation cycle (both measured using the Pulse Train Analysis tool in SASLab Pro), and divided this value by 100. We used this approach to allow for a direct comparison with tiger moth acoustic analyses (14,35). Duty cycles, peak frequencies, and bandwidths (defined as the difference between the upper and lower frequency that is ±15 dB from the peak frequency) are presented in Table S2.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tempo and mode of antibat ultrasound production and sonar jamming in the diverse hawkmoth radiation

Kawahara

Barber

2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The bat-moth arms race has existed for over 60 million y, with moths evolving ultrasonically sensitive ears and ultrasound-producing organs to combat bat predation. The evolution of these defenses has never been thoroughly examined because of limitations in simultaneously conducting behavioral and phylogenetic analyses across an entire group. Hawkmoths include >1,500 species worldwide, some of which produce ultrasound using genital stridulatory structures. However, the function and evolution of this behavior remain largely unknown. We built a comprehensive behavioral dataset of hawkmoth hearing and ultrasonic reply to sonar attack using high-throughput field assays. Nearly half of the species tested (57 of 124 species) produced ultrasound to tactile stimulation or playback of bat echolocation attack. To test the function of ultrasound, we pitted big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) against hawkmoths over multiple nights and show that hawkmoths jam bat sonar. Ultrasound production was immediately and consistently effective at thwarting attack and bats regularly performed catching behavior without capturing moths. We also constructed a fossil-calibrated, multigene phylogeny to study the evolutionary history and divergence times of these antibat strategies across the entire family. We show that ultrasound production arose in multiple groups, starting in the late Oligocene (∼26 Ma) after the emergence of insectivorous bats. Sonar jamming and bat-detecting ears arose twice, independently, in the Miocene (18-14 Ma) either from earless hawkmoths that produced ultrasound in response to physical contact only, or from species that did not respond to touch or bat echolocation attack.acoustic | antipredator defense | bat-moth interactions | evolution | Sphingidae

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tempo and mode of antibat ultrasound production and sonar jamming in the diverse hawkmoth radiation

Kawahara

Barber

2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: (B) Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sound intensities of 68-64 dB (peSPL; table 2) indicate that these signals could operate at greater distances but, as in tiger moths, anti-bat sound production is used as a secondary defence deployed late in the attack [17]. The peak frequency of these moth sounds was 53-57 kHz with a +15 dB bandwidth ranging from 26-29 kHz up to 86-105 kHz.…”

Section: Rsblroyalsocietypublishingorg Biol Lett 9: 20130161mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hawkmoths produce anti-bat ultrasound

Barber

Kawahara

2013

Biol. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bats and moths have been engaged in aerial warfare for nearly 65 Myr. This arms race has produced a suite of counter-adaptations in moths, including bat-detecting ears. One set of defensive strategies involves the active production of sound; tiger moths' ultrasonic replies to bat attack have been shown to startle bats, warn the predators of bad taste and jam their biosonar. Here, we report that hawkmoths in the Choerocampina produce entirely ultrasonic sounds in response to tactile stimulation and the playback of biosonar attack sequences. Males do so by grating modified scraper scales on the outer surface of the genital valves against the inner margin of the last abdominal tergum. Preliminary data indicate that females also produce ultrasound to touch and playback of echolocation attack, but they do so with an entirely different mechanism. The anti-bat function of these sounds is unknown but might include startling, cross-family acoustic mimicry, warning of unprofitability or physical defence and/or jamming of echolocation. Hawkmoths present a novel and tractable system to study both the function and evolution of anti-bat defences.

show abstract

“…In more general terms, the remarkable diversity in insect ears suggests that predator-prey interactions between bats and insects have played a key role in the evolution of insect auditory systems (Hoy and Robert 1996). Further studies incorporating bat acoustics and moth palatability and acoustics in a phylogenetic framework would be useful for refining evolutionary hypotheses in the moth-insect system (Barber and Conner 2006).…”

Section: Future Challenges Taking the Lab To The Fieldmentioning

confidence: 99%