Literature DB >> 19324625

Tiger moths and the threat of bats: decision-making based on the activity of a single sensory neuron.

John M Ratcliffe1, James H Fullard, Benjamin J Arthur, Ronald R Hoy.   

Abstract

Echolocating bats and eared moths are a model system of predator-prey interaction within an almost exclusively auditory world. Through selective pressures from aerial-hawking bats, noctuoid moths have evolved simple ears that contain one to two auditory neurons and function to detect bat echolocation calls and initiate defensive flight behaviours. Among these moths, some chemically defended and mimetic tiger moths also produce ultrasonic clicks in response to bat echolocation calls; these defensive signals are effective warning signals and may interfere with bats' ability to process echoic information. Here, we demonstrate that the activity of a single auditory neuron (the A1 cell) provides sufficient information for the toxic dogbane tiger moth, Cycnia tenera, to decide when to initiate defensive sound production in the face of bats. Thus, despite previous suggestions to the contrary, these moths' only other auditory neuron, the less sensitive A2 cell, is not necessary for initiating sound production. However, we found a positive linear relationship between combined A1 and A2 activity and the number of clicks the dogbane tiger moth produces.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19324625      PMCID: PMC2679932          DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0079

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Lett        ISSN: 1744-9561            Impact factor:   3.703


  7 in total

1.  Auditory encoding during the last moment of a moth's life.

Authors:  James H Fullard; Jeff W Dawson; David S Jacobs
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.312

2.  The adaptive function of tiger moth clicks against echolocating bats: an experimental and synthetic approach.

Authors:  John M Ratcliffe; James H Fullard
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.312

3.  Neural evolution in the bat-free habitat of Tahiti: partial regression in an anti-predator auditory system.

Authors:  James H Fullard; John M Ratcliffe; Hannah ter Hofstede
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2007-02-22       Impact factor: 3.703

4.  Nocturnal activity positively correlated with auditory sensitivity in noctuoid moths.

Authors:  Hannah M ter Hofstede; John M Ratcliffe; James H Fullard
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2008-06-23       Impact factor: 3.703

5.  Multimodal warning signals for a multiple predator world.

Authors:  John M Ratcliffe; Marie L Nydam
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-09-04       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Normal hearing thresholds for clicks.

Authors:  D R Stapells; T W Picton; A D Smith
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Intensity responses of the single auditory receptor of notodontid moths: a test of the peripheral interaction hypothesis in moth ears

Authors: 
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 3.312

  7 in total
  8 in total

1.  Editorial 2010.

Authors:  Brian Charlesworth
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 3.703

2.  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

Review 3.  Moth hearing and sound communication.

Authors:  Ryo Nakano; Takuma Takanashi; Annemarie Surlykke
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2014-09-27       Impact factor: 1.836

4.  Phonotactic steering and representation of directional information in the ascending auditory pathway of a cricket.

Authors:  M Lv; X Zhang; B Hedwig
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Early erratic flight response of the lucerne moth to the quiet echolocation calls of distant bats.

Authors:  Ryo Nakano; Andrew C Mason
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-08-20       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.