Literature DB >> 21697434

How do tiger moths jam bat sonar?

Aaron J Corcoran1, Jesse R Barber, Nickolay I Hristov, William E Conner.   

Abstract

The tiger moth Bertholdia trigona is the only animal in nature known to defend itself by jamming the sonar of its predators - bats. In this study we analyzed the three-dimensional flight paths and echolocation behavior of big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) attacking B. trigona in a flight room over seven consecutive nights to determine the acoustic mechanism of the sonar-jamming defense. Three mechanisms have been proposed: (1) the phantom echo hypothesis, which states that bats misinterpret moth clicks as echoes; (2) the ranging interference hypothesis, which states that moth clicks degrade the bats' precision in determining target distance; and (3) the masking hypothesis, which states that moth clicks mask the moth echoes entirely, making the moth temporarily invisible. On nights one and two of the experiment, the bats appeared startled by the clicks; however, on nights three through seven, the bats frequently missed their prey by a distance predicted by the ranging interference hypothesis (∼15-20 cm). Three-dimensional simulations show that bats did not avoid phantom targets, and the bats' ability to track clicking prey contradicts the predictions of the masking hypothesis. The moth clicks also forced the bats to reverse their stereotyped pattern of echolocation emissions during attack, even while bats continued pursuit of the moths. This likely further hinders the bats' ability to track prey. These results have implications for the evolution of sonar jamming in tiger moths, and we suggest evolutionary pathways by which sonar jamming may have evolved from other tiger moth defense mechanisms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21697434     DOI: 10.1242/jeb.054783

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


  8 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

Review 4.  Adaptive Echolocation and Flight Behaviors in Bats Can Inspire Technology Innovations for Sonar Tracking and Interception.

Authors:  Clarice Anna Diebold; Angeles Salles; Cynthia F Moss
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-23       Impact factor: 3.576

5.  Comparing acoustic and radar deterrence methods as mitigation measures to reduce human-bat impacts and conservation conflicts.

Authors:  Lia R V Gilmour; Marc W Holderied; Simon P C Pickering; Gareth Jones
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-02-13       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Extreme Duty Cycles in the Acoustic Signals of Tiger Moths: Sexual and Natural Selection Operating in Parallel.

Authors:  Y Fernández; N J Dowdy; W E Conner
Journal:  Integr Org Biol       Date:  2021-01-05

7.  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.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.