Literature DB >> 15772807

Sound strategy: acoustic aposematism in the bat-tiger moth arms race.

Nickolay I Hristov1, William E Conner.   

Abstract

The night sky is the venue for an ancient arms race. Insectivorous bats with their ultrasonic sonar exert an enormous selective pressure on nocturnal insects. In response insects have evolved the ability to hear bat cries, to evade their hunting maneuvers, and some, the tiger moths (Arctiidae), to utter an ultrasonic reply. We here determine what it is that tiger moths "say" to bats. We chose four species of arctiid moths, Cycnia tenera, Euchaetes egle, Utetheisa ornatrix, and Apantesis nais, that naturally differ in their levels of unpalatability and their ability to produce sound. Moths were tethered and offered to free-flying naive big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus. The ability of the bats to capture each species was compared to their ability to capture noctuid, geometrid, and wax moth controls over a learning period of 7 days. We repeated the experiment using the single arctiid species E. egle that through diet manipulation and simple surgery could be rendered palatable or unpalatable and sound producing or mute. We again compared the capture rates of these categories of E. egle to control moths. Using both novel learning approaches we have found that the bats only respond to the sounds of arctiids when they are paired with defensive chemistry. The sounds are in essence a warning to the bats that the moth is unpalatable-an aposematic signal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15772807     DOI: 10.1007/s00114-005-0611-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Naturwissenschaften        ISSN: 0028-1042


  9 in total

1.  MOTH SOUNDS AND THE INSECT-CATCHING BEHAVIOR OF BATS.

Authors:  D C DUNNING; K D ROEDER
Journal:  Science       Date:  1965-01-08       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Cardenolide sequestration by the dogbane tiger moth (Cycnia tenera; Arctiidae).

Authors:  J A Cohen; L P Brower
Journal:  J Chem Ecol       Date:  1983-04       Impact factor: 2.626

3.  The evolutionary biology of insect hearing.

Authors:  J H Fullard; J E Yack
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 17.712

4.  Arctiid moths and bat echolocation: broad-band clicks interfere with neural responses to auditory stimuli in the nuclei of the lateral lemniscus of the big brown bat.

Authors:  J Tougaard; J H Casseday; E Covey
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 1.836

5.  Protean defence by prey animals.

Authors:  D A Humphries; P M Driver
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  1970-12       Impact factor: 3.225

6.  Warning sounds of moths.

Authors:  D C Dunning
Journal:  Z Tierpsychol       Date:  1968-03

7.  Ecological chemistry.

Authors:  L P Brower
Journal:  Sci Am       Date:  1969-02       Impact factor: 2.142

8.  Arctiid moth clicks can degrade the accuracy of range difference discrimination in echolocating big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus.

Authors:  L A Miller
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 1.836

9.  Jamming bat echolocation: the dogbane tiger moth Cycnia tenera times its clicks to the terminal attack calls of the big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus.

Authors:  J H Fullard; J A Simmons; P A Saillant
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 3.312

  9 in total
  21 in total

1.  Echolocation behavior of the Japanese horseshoe bat in pursuit of fluttering prey.

Authors:  Shigeki Mantani; Shizuko Hiryu; Emyo Fujioka; Naohiro Matsuta; Hiroshi Riquimaroux; Yoshiaki Watanabe
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 1.836

2.  Acoustic mimicry in a predator-prey interaction.

Authors:  Jesse R Barber; William E Conner
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-05-21       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Anatomic and acoustic sexual dimorphism in the sound emission system of Phoenicoprocta capistrata (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae).

Authors:  Laura Rodríguez-Loeches; Alejandro Barro; Martha Pérez; Frank Coro
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2009-01-03

4.  Sequential assessment of prey through the use of multiple sensory cues by an eavesdropping bat.

Authors:  Rachel A Page; Tanja Schnelle; Elisabeth K V Kalko; Thomas Bunge; Ximena E Bernal
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2012-05-17

5.  Hawkmoths produce anti-bat ultrasound.

Authors:  Jesse R Barber; Akito Y Kawahara
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 3.703

6.  Convergent evolution of anti-bat sounds.

Authors:  Aaron J Corcoran; Nickolay I Hristov
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2014-07-01       Impact factor: 1.836

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

Authors:  Akito Y Kawahara; Jesse R Barber
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Private ultrasonic whispering in moths.

Authors:  Ryo Nakano; Yukio Ishikawa; Sadahiro Tatsuki; Niels Skals; Annemarie Surlykke; Takuma Takanashi
Journal:  Commun Integr Biol       Date:  2009-03

9.  Deaf moths employ acoustic Müllerian mimicry against bats using wingbeat-powered tymbals.

Authors:  Liam J O'Reilly; David J L Agassiz; Thomas R Neil; Marc W Holderied
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  What's the buzz? Ultrasonic and sonic warning signals in caterpillars of the great peacock moth (Saturnia pyri).

Authors:  Veronica L Bura; Alan J Fleming; Jayne E Yack
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2009-03-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.