Wingtip folds and ripples on saturniid moths create decoy echoes against bat biosonar

Neil, Thomas R.; Kennedy, Ella E.; Harris, Brogan J.; Holderied, Marc W.

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2021.08.038

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moths have evolved and developed varying acoustic defense mechanisms to counteract echolocating bats that prey upon them. Recent research has shown that certain moth species benefit from active or passive defense strategies to deter bats ( 1 ) including decoy echoes from wingtip ripples ( 2 ), acoustic stealth camouflage ( 3 – 5 ), and the emission of acoustic signals. Antibat sounds produced by moths may serve as warning signals (i.e., acoustic aposematism) ( 6 , 7 ) or jam a bat’s echolocation systems ( 8 , 9 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Buckling-induced sound production in the aeroelastic tymbals of Yponomeuta

Mendoza Nava,

Holderied,

Pirrera

et al. 2024

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

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The loss of elastic stability (buckling) can lead to catastrophic failure in the context of traditional engineering structures. Conversely, in nature, buckling often serves a desirable function, such as in the prey-trapping mechanism of the Venus fly trap ( Dionaea muscipula ). This paper investigates the buckling-enabled sound production in the wingbeat-powered (aeroelastic) tymbals of Yponomeuta moths. The hindwings of Yponomeuta possess a striated band of ridges that snap through sequentially during the up- and downstroke of the wingbeat cycle—a process reminiscent of cellular buckling in compressed slender shells. As a result, bursts of ultrasonic clicks are produced that deter predators (i.e. bats). Using various biological and mechanical characterization techniques, we show that wing camber changes during the wingbeat cycle act as the single actuation mechanism that causes buckling to propagate sequentially through each stria on the tymbal. The snap-through of each stria excites a bald patch of the wing’s membrane, thereby amplifying sound pressure levels and radiating sound at the resonant frequencies of the patch. In addition, the interaction of phased tymbal clicks from the two wings enhances the directivity of the acoustic signal strength, suggesting an improvement in acoustic protection. These findings unveil the acousto-mechanics of Yponomeuta tymbals and uncover their buckling-driven evolutionary origin. We anticipate that through bioinspiration, aeroelastic tymbals will encourage novel developments in the context of multi-stable morphing structures, acoustic structural monitoring, and soft robotics.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Buckling-induced sound production in the aeroelastic tymbals of Yponomeuta

Mendoza Nava,

Holderied,

Pirrera

et al. 2024

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

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous laboratory and field behavioural studies have greatly advanced our understanding of the behavioural outcomes of bat–moth interactions but have generally ignored the dietary composition of wild, free‐foraging bats (e.g. Acharya & Fenton, 1992; Barber & Conner, 2007; Corcoran & Conner, 2012; Corcoran et al, 2009; Dowdy & Conner, 2016, 2019; Dunning, 1968; Dunning et al, 1992; Fenton & Fullard, 1979; Neil et al, 2021). These studies often focus on individual anti‐bat tactics in moths, without simultaneously considering multiple moth anti‐bat tactics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moths have evolved a suite of counter-adaptations, including ultrasound-sensitive tympanate organs (ears) (Kristensen, 2012;ter Hofstede & Ratcliffe, 2016), ultrasonic clicks (Barber & Kawahara, 2013;Corcoran et al, 2009;Fullard et al, 1979), acoustic camouflage (Neil et al, 2020) and decoy echoes (Neil et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moths have evolved a suite of counter‐adaptations, including ultrasound‐sensitive tympanate organs (ears) (Kristensen, 2012; ter Hofstede & Ratcliffe, 2016), ultrasonic clicks (Barber & Kawahara, 2013; Corcoran et al, 2009; Fullard et al, 1979), acoustic camouflage (Neil et al, 2020) and decoy echoes (Neil et al, 2021). Among the anti‐bat tactics, ultrasonic hearing is the most common in that at least 12 families of moths and six orders of insects have bat‐detecting ears (Kristensen, 2012; ter Hofstede & Ratcliffe, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contrasting laboratory and field outcomes of bat–moth interactions

Lin,

Li,

et al. 2023

Molecular Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…We then turned the impulse responses taken from all these directions into a tomographic image of the sample by an inverse Radon transform. To remove background noise, we then manually selected the image area containing the target object and then applied a Radon transform to extract only the aspects of the echo impulse responses originating from the target (for details see [ 22 ]). All spectral analyses, including for normal sound incidence, were based on echo impulse responses processed this way.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moth wings as sound absorber metasurface

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In noise control applications, a perfect metasurface absorber would have the desirable traits of not only mitigating unwanted sound, but also being much thinner than the wavelengths of interest. Such deep-subwavelength performance is difficult to achieve technologically, yet moth wings, as natural metamaterials, offer functionality as efficient sound absorbers through the action of the numerous resonant scales that decorate their wing membrane. Here, we quantify the potential for moth wings to act as a sound-absorbing metasurface coating for acoustically reflective substrates. Moth wings were found to be efficient sound absorbers, reducing reflection from an acoustically hard surface by up to 87% at the lowest frequency tested (20 kHz), despite a thickness to wavelength ratio of up to 1/50. Remarkably, after the removal of the scales from the dorsal surface the wing's orientation on the surface changed its absorptive performance: absorption remains high when the bald wing membrane faces the sound but breaks down almost completely in the reverse orientation. Numerical simulations confirm the strong influence of the air gap below the wing membrane but only when it is adorned with scales. The finding that moth wings act as deep-subwavelength sound-absorbing metasurfaces opens the door to bioinspired, high-performance sound mitigation solutions.

show abstract

Wingtip folds and ripples on saturniid moths create decoy echoes against bat biosonar

Cited by 6 publications

References 33 publications

Buckling-induced sound production in the aeroelastic tymbals of Yponomeuta

Buckling-induced sound production in the aeroelastic tymbals of Yponomeuta

Contrasting laboratory and field outcomes of bat–moth interactions

Moth wings as sound absorber metasurface

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About