Literature DB >> 16809455

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

J R Barber1, W E Conner.   

Abstract

Many night-flying insects perform complex, aerobatic escape maneuvers when echolocating bats initiate attack. Tiger moths couple this kinematic defense with an acoustic reply to a bat's biosonar-guided assault. The jamming hypothesis for the function of these moth sounds assumes that tiger moth clicks presented at high densities, temporally locked to the terminal phase of the bat attack will produce the greatest jamming efficacy. Concomitantly, this hypothesis argues that moths warning bats of bad tasting chemicals sequestered in their tissues should call early to give the bat time to process the meaning of the warning signal and that moths calling at low duty cycles are more likely to employ such an aposematic strategy. We report here the first investigation of a tiger moth assemblage's response to playback of a bat echolocation attack sequence. This assemblage of arctiid moths first answered the echolocation attack sequence 960+/-547 ms (mean +/- s.d.) from the end of the bat attack. The assemblage reached a half-maximum response shortly after the first response, at 763+/-479 ms from the end of the terminal buzz. Tiger moth response reached a maximum at 475+/-344 ms from the end of the sequence; during the approach phase, well before the onset of the terminal buzz. In short, much of tiger moth response to bat attack occurs outside of the jamming hypotheses' predictions. Furthermore, no relationship exists between the duty cycle of a tiger moth's call (and thus the call's probability of jamming the bat) and its temporal response to bat attack. These data call into doubt the assumptions behind the jamming hypothesis as currently stated but do not directly test the functionality of arctiid sounds in disrupting echolocation in bat-moth aerial battles.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16809455     DOI: 10.1242/jeb.02295

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Biol        ISSN: 0022-0949            Impact factor:   3.312


  12 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Non-visual crypsis: a review of the empirical evidence for camouflage to senses other than vision.

Authors:  Graeme D Ruxton
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2009-02-27       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Hawkmoths produce anti-bat ultrasound.

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

4.  To females of a noctuid moth, male courtship songs are nothing more than bat echolocation calls.

Authors:  Ryo Nakano; Takuma Takanashi; Niels Skals; Annemarie Surlykke; Yukio Ishikawa
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2010-03-10       Impact factor: 3.703

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Anti-bat ultrasound production in moths is globally and phylogenetically widespread.

Authors:  Jesse R Barber; David Plotkin; Juliette J Rubin; Nicholas T Homziak; Brian C Leavell; Peter R Houlihan; Krystie A Miner; Jesse W Breinholt; Brandt Quirk-Royal; Pablo Sebastián Padrón; Matias Nunez; Akito Y Kawahara
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 12.779

8.  Adaptive auditory risk assessment in the dogbane tiger moth when pursued by bats.

Authors:  John M Ratcliffe; James H Fullard; Benjamin J Arthur; Ronald R Hoy
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Optimal predator risk assessment by the sonar-jamming arctiine moth Bertholdia trigona.

Authors:  Aaron J Corcoran; Ryan D Wagner; William E Conner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-06       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Acoustic Aposematism and Evasive Action in Select Chemically Defended Arctiine (Lepidoptera: Erebidae) Species: Nonchalant or Not?

Authors:  Nicolas J Dowdy; William E Conner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.