Literature DB >> 17517637

Acoustic mimicry in a predator-prey interaction.

Jesse R Barber1, William E Conner.   

Abstract

Mimicry of visual warning signals is one of the keystone concepts in evolutionary biology and has received substantial research attention. By comparison, acoustic mimicry has never been rigorously tested. Visualizing bat-moth interactions with high-speed, infrared videography, we provide empirical evidence for acoustic mimicry in the ultrasonic warning sounds that tiger moths produce in response to echolocating bats. Two species of sound-producing tiger moths were offered successively to naïve, free-flying red and big brown bats. Noctuid and pyralid moth controls were also offered each night. All bats quickly learned to avoid the noxious tiger moths first offered to them, associating the warning sounds with bad taste. They then avoided the second sound-producing species regardless of whether it was chemically protected or not, verifying both Müllerian and Batesian mimicry in the acoustic modality. A subset of the red bats subsequently discovered the palatability of the Batesian mimic, demonstrating the powerful selective force these predators exert on mimetic resemblance. Given these results and the widespread presence of tiger moth species and other sound-producing insects that respond with ultrasonic clicks to bat attack, acoustic mimicry complexes are likely common components of the acoustic landscape.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17517637      PMCID: PMC1890494          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0703627104

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  11 in total

Review 1.  Snake bioacoustics: toward a richer understanding of the behavioral ecology of snakes.

Authors:  Bruce A Young
Journal:  Q Rev Biol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.875

2.  The evolution of müllerian mimicry in multispecies communities.

Authors:  Christopher D Beatty; Kirsten Beirinckx; Thomas N Sherratt
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-09-02       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Predator learning favours mimicry of a less-toxic model in poison frogs.

Authors:  Catherine R Darst; Molly E Cummings
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2006-03-09       Impact factor: 49.962

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

Authors:  J R Barber; W E Conner
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.312

6.  Warning sounds of moths.

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

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

Authors:  Nickolay I Hristov; William E Conner
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2005-03-17

8.  Cardiac glycosides (heart poisons) in the polka-dot moth Syntomeida epilais Walk. (Ctenuchidae: Lep.) with some observations on the toxic qualities of Amata (=Syntomis) phegea (L.).

Authors:  M Rothschild; J von Euw; T Reichstein
Journal:  Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  1973-05-15

9.  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

10.  'Un chant d'appel amoureux': acoustic communication in moths

Authors: 
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 3.312

View more
  22 in total

1.  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

2.  Hawkmoths produce anti-bat ultrasound.

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

Review 3.  The evolutionary conundrum of pathogen mimicry.

Authors:  Nels C Elde; Harmit S Malik
Journal:  Nat Rev Microbiol       Date:  2009-10-06       Impact factor: 60.633

4.  Crying wolf to a predator: deceptive vocal mimicry by a bird protecting young.

Authors:  Branislav Igic; Jessica McLachlan; Inkeri Lehtinen; Robert D Magrath
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-06-22       Impact factor: 5.349

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.  Hearing diversity in moths confronting a neotropical bat assemblage.

Authors:  Ariadna Cobo-Cuan; Manfred Kössl; Emanuel C Mora
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2017-04-18       Impact factor: 1.836

7.  Increased speed of movement reduced identification of Batesian ant-mimicking spiders by surrogate predators.

Authors:  Stano Pekár
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 3.084

8.  A phylogenomic analysis of lichen-feeding tiger moths uncovers evolutionary origins of host chemical sequestration.

Authors:  Clare H Scott Chialvo; Pablo Chialvo; Jeffrey D Holland; Timothy J Anderson; Jesse W Breinholt; Akito Y Kawahara; Xin Zhou; Shanlin Liu; Jennifer M Zaspel
Journal:  Mol Phylogenet Evol       Date:  2017-12-20       Impact factor: 4.286

9.  Biomechanics of a moth scale at ultrasonic frequencies.

Authors:  Zhiyuan Shen; Thomas R Neil; Daniel Robert; Bruce W Drinkwater; Marc W Holderied
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.