Literature DB >> 9317482

The echolocation calls of the spotted bat Euderma maculatum are relatively inaudible to moths

.   

Abstract

Previous studies of the spotted bat Euderma maculatum have demonstrated that this bat emits echolocation calls that are lower in frequency, shorter in duration and fainter in intensity compared with those of most other insectivorous bats, acoustic characteristics which should render it less conspicuous to eared moths. We tested this prediction by monitoring electrophysiologically the ears of sympatric noctuoid (noctuid, arctiid and notodontid) moths in a site in western Canada. Auditory threshold curves demonstrate that most of the moths tested are less responsive to the calls of Eu. maculatum than to those of another sympatric bat, Eptesicus fuscus. Playbacks to moth ears of pre-recorded search- and approach-phase echolocation calls of Eu. maculatum and Ep. fuscus further demonstrate that the calls of Eu. maculatum are poorly detectable to moths and, in some cases, completely inaudible. We estimate that, in the wild, an average noctuoid moth would detect the calls of Eu. maculatum at distances of less than 1 m as opposed to the calls of Ep. fuscus which should be first heard at distances of 20­25 m. Although most moths are unable to adequately hear Eu. maculatum, the observation that two individuals possessed ears sensitive to this bat's calls suggests the existence of auditory pre-adaptation to this type of echolocation.

Entities:  

Year:  1997        PMID: 9317482     DOI: 10.1242/jeb.200.1.129

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


  8 in total

Review 1.  Bat echolocation calls: adaptation and convergent evolution.

Authors:  Gareth Jones; Marc W Holderied
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2007-04-07       Impact factor: 5.349

2.  Transposable elements and small RNAs: Genomic fuel for species diversity.

Authors:  Federico G Hoffmann; Liam P McGuire; Brian A Counterman; David A Ray
Journal:  Mob Genet Elements       Date:  2015-07-24

3.  Moth hearing in response to bat echolocation calls manipulated independently in time and frequency.

Authors:  G Jones; D A Waters
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2000-08-22       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Thoracic scales of moths as a stealth coating against bat biosonar.

Authors:  Thomas R Neil; Zhiyuan Shen; Daniel Robert; Bruce W Drinkwater; Marc W Holderied
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 4.118

5.  Sensory ecology of predator-prey interactions: responses of the AN2 interneuron in the field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus to the echolocation calls of sympatric bats.

Authors:  James H Fullard; John M Ratcliffe; Cassandra Guignion
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2005-05-11       Impact factor: 1.836

6.  Dynamics of the echolocation beam during prey pursuit in aerial hawking bats.

Authors:  Lasse Jakobsen; Mads Nedergaard Olsen; Annemarie Surlykke
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-06-15       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Body Size Predicts Echolocation Call Peak Frequency Better than Gape Height in Vespertilionid Bats.

Authors:  Jeneni Thiagavel; Sharlene E Santana; John M Ratcliffe
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  The anti-bat strategy of ultrasound absorption: the wings of nocturnal moths (Bombycoidea: Saturniidae) absorb more ultrasound than the wings of diurnal moths (Chalcosiinae: Zygaenoidea: Zygaenidae).

Authors:  Athanasios Ntelezos; Francesco Guarato; James F C Windmill
Journal:  Biol Open       Date:  2017-01-15       Impact factor: 2.422

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.