Literature DB >> 24980483

Convergent evolution of anti-bat sounds.

Aaron J Corcoran1, Nickolay I Hristov.   

Abstract

Bats and their insect prey rely on acoustic sensing in predator prey encounters--echolocation in bats, tympanic hearing in moths. Some insects also emit sounds for bat defense. Here, we describe a previously unknown sound-producing organ in Geometrid moths--a prothoracic tymbal in the orange beggar moth (Eubaphe unicolor) that generates bursts of ultrasonic clicks in response to tactile stimulation and playback of a bat echolocation attack sequence. Using scanning electron microscopy and high-speed videography, we demonstrate that E. unicolor and phylogenetically distant tiger moths have evolved serially homologous thoracic tymbal organs with fundamentally similar functional morphology, a striking example of convergent evolution. We compared E. unicolor clicks to that of five sympatric tiger moths and found that 9 of 13 E. unicolor clicking parameters were within the range of sympatric tiger moths. Remaining differences may result from the small size of the E. unicolor tymbal. Four of the five sympatric clicking tiger moth species were unpalatable to bats (0-20% eaten), whereas E. unicolor was palatable to bats (86% eaten). Based on these results, we hypothesize that E. unicolor evolved tymbal organs that mimic the sounds produced by toxic tiger moths when attacked by echolocating bats.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24980483     DOI: 10.1007/s00359-014-0924-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol        ISSN: 0340-7594            Impact factor:   1.836


  29 in total

Review 1.  Predator detection and evasion by flying insects.

Authors:  David D Yager
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2012-01-07       Impact factor: 6.627

2.  Naïve bats discriminate arctiid moth warning sounds but generalize their aposematic meaning.

Authors:  Jesse R Barber; Brad A Chadwell; Nick Garrett; Barbara Schmidt-French; William E Conner
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 3.312

3.  Sonar jamming in the field: effectiveness and behavior of a unique prey defense.

Authors:  Aaron J Corcoran; William E Conner
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2012-12-15       Impact factor: 3.312

4.  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

5.  An inordinate fondness for beetles? Variation in seasonal dietary preferences of night-roosting big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus).

Authors:  Elizabeth L Clare; William O C Symondson; Melville Brockett Fenton
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 6.185

Review 6.  Structure, development, and evolution of insect auditory systems.

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

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.  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

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

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

10.  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

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  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

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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Fireflies produce ultrasonic clicks during flight as a potential aposematic anti-bat signal.

Authors:  Ksenia Krivoruchko; Aya Goldshtein; Arjan Boonman; Ofri Eitan; Jonathan Ben-Simon; Vu Dinh Thong; Yossi Yovel
Journal:  iScience       Date:  2021-02-16

7.  Characteristics of tiger moth (Erebidae: Arctiinae) anti-bat sounds can be predicted from tymbal morphology.

Authors:  Nicolas J Dowdy; William E Conner
Journal:  Front Zool       Date:  2019-12-10       Impact factor: 3.172

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.