Literature DB >> 23825084

Hawkmoths produce anti-bat ultrasound.

Jesse R Barber1, Akito Y Kawahara.   

Abstract

Bats and moths have been engaged in aerial warfare for nearly 65 Myr. This arms race has produced a suite of counter-adaptations in moths, including bat-detecting ears. One set of defensive strategies involves the active production of sound; tiger moths' ultrasonic replies to bat attack have been shown to startle bats, warn the predators of bad taste and jam their biosonar. Here, we report that hawkmoths in the Choerocampina produce entirely ultrasonic sounds in response to tactile stimulation and the playback of biosonar attack sequences. Males do so by grating modified scraper scales on the outer surface of the genital valves against the inner margin of the last abdominal tergum. Preliminary data indicate that females also produce ultrasound to touch and playback of echolocation attack, but they do so with an entirely different mechanism. The anti-bat function of these sounds is unknown but might include startling, cross-family acoustic mimicry, warning of unprofitability or physical defence and/or jamming of echolocation. Hawkmoths present a novel and tractable system to study both the function and evolution of anti-bat defences.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Sphingidae; arms race; bat; echolocation; sphinx moth

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23825084      PMCID: PMC3730625          DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0161

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


  16 in total

1.  Explaining high-frequency hearing.

Authors:  Rickye Heffner; Henry Heffner
Journal:  Anat Rec (Hoboken)       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.064

2.  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

3.  Toxic lepidoptera.

Authors:  M Rothschild; T Reichstein; J von Euw; R Aplin; R R Harman
Journal:  Toxicon       Date:  1970-11       Impact factor: 3.033

4.  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

Review 5.  Structure, development, and evolution of insect auditory systems.

Authors:  D D Yager
Journal:  Microsc Res Tech       Date:  1999-12-15       Impact factor: 2.769

6.  The mechanics of flight in the hawkmoth Manduca sexta. I. Kinematics of hovering and forward flight.

Authors:  A P Willmott; C P Ellington
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 3.312

7.  Tiger moth jams bat sonar.

Authors:  Aaron J Corcoran; Jesse R Barber; William E Conner
Journal:  Science       Date:  2009-07-17       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Behavioral response to ultrasound by the tiger beetle Cicindela marutha dow combines aerodynamic changes and sound production.

Authors:  D D Yager; H G Spangler
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.312

9.  Phylogeny and biogeography of hawkmoths (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae): evidence from five nuclear genes.

Authors:  Akito Y Kawahara; Andre A Mignault; Jerome C Regier; Ian J Kitching; Charles Mitter
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-05-28       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  A large-scale, higher-level, molecular phylogenetic study of the insect order Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies).

Authors:  Jerome C Regier; Charles Mitter; Andreas Zwick; Adam L Bazinet; Michael P Cummings; Akito Y Kawahara; Jae-Cheon Sohn; Derrick J Zwickl; Soowon Cho; Donald R Davis; Joaquin Baixeras; John Brown; Cynthia Parr; Susan Weller; David C Lees; Kim T Mitter
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  14 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.  Stay out (almost) all night: contrasting responses in flight activity among tropical moth assemblages.

Authors:  G P A Lamarre; I Mendoza; R Rougerie; T Decaëns; B Hérault; F Bénéluz
Journal:  Neotrop Entomol       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 1.434

3.  The unique sound production of the Death's-head hawkmoth (Acherontia atropos (Linnaeus, 1758)) revisited.

Authors:  Gunnar Brehm; Martin Fischer; Stanislav Gorb; Thomas Kleinteich; Bernhard Kühn; David Neubert; Hans Pohl; Benjamin Wipfler; Susanne Wurdinger
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2015-07-17

4.  Phylogenomics provides strong evidence for relationships of butterflies and moths.

Authors:  Akito Y Kawahara; Jesse W Breinholt
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Antennal scales improve signal detection efficiency in moths.

Authors:  Qike Wang; Yidan Shang; Douglas S Hilton; Kiao Inthavong; Dong Zhang; Mark A Elgar
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-03-14       Impact factor: 5.349

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.  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

8.  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

9.  A global checklist of the Bombycoidea (Insecta: Lepidoptera).

Authors:  Ian J Kitching; Rodolphe Rougerie; Andreas Zwick; Chris A Hamilton; Ryan A St Laurent; Stefan Naumann; Liliana Ballesteros Mejia; Akito Y Kawahara
Journal:  Biodivers Data J       Date:  2018-02-12

10.  Artificial nighttime lighting impacts visual ecology links between flowers, pollinators and predators.

Authors:  Emmanuelle S Briolat; Kevin J Gaston; Jonathan Bennie; Emma J Rosenfeld; Jolyon Troscianko
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 14.919

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.