An official website of the United States government
Warning signals are well known in the visual system, but rare in other modalities. Some moths produce ultrasonic sounds to warn bats of noxious taste or to mimic unpalatable models. Here, we report results from a long-term study across the globe, assaying moth response to playback of bat echolocation. We tested 252 genera, spanning most families of large-bodied moths, and document anti-bat ultrasound production in 52 genera, with eight subfamily origins described. Based on acoustic analysis of ultrasonic emissions and palatability experiments with bats, it seems that acoustic warning and mimicry are the raison d'être for sound production in most moths. However, some moths use high-duty-cycle ultrasound capable of jamming bat sonar. In fact, we find preliminary evidence of independent origins of sonar jamming in at least six subfamilies. Palatability data indicate that jamming and warning are not mutually exclusive strategies. To explore the possible organization of anti-bat warning sounds into acoustic mimicry rings, we intensively studied a community of moths in Ecuador and, using machine-learning approaches, found five distinct acoustic clusters. While these data represent an early understanding of acoustic aposematism and mimicry across this megadiverse insect order, it is likely that ultrasonically signaling moths comprise one of the largest mimicry complexes on earth.
more »
« less
Tiger beetles produce anti-bat ultrasound and are probable Batesian moth mimics
Echolocating bats and their eared insect prey are in an acoustic evolutionary war. Moths produce anti-bat sounds that startle bat predators, signal noxiousness, mimic unpalatable models and jam bat sonar. Tiger beetles (Cicindelidae) also purportedly produce ultrasound in response to bat attacks. Here we tested 19 tiger beetle species from seven genera and showed that they produce anti-bat signals to playback of authentic bat echolocation. The dominant frequency of beetle sounds substantially overlaps the sonar calls of sympatric bats. As tiger beetles are known to produce defensive chemicals such as benzaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide, we hypothesized that tiger beetle sounds are acoustically advertising their unpalatability. We presented captive big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) with seven different tiger beetle species and found that 90 out of 94 beetles were completely consumed, indicating that these tiger beetle species are not aposematically signalling. Instead, we show that the primary temporal and spectral characteristics of beetle warning sounds overlap with sympatric unpalatable tiger moth (Arctinae) sounds and that tiger beetles are probably Batesian mimics of noxious moth models. We predict that many insect taxa produce anti-bat sounds and that the acoustic mimicry rings of the night sky are hyperdiverse.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10533647
- Publisher / Repository:
- The Royal Society Publishing
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Biology Letters
- Volume:
- 20
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 1744-957X
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
ABSTRACT Tiger moth species vary greatly in the number of clicks they produce and the resultant duty cycle. Signals with higher duty cycles are expected to more effectively interfere with bat sonar. However, little is known about the minimum duty cycle of tiger moth signals for sonar jamming. Is there a threshold that allows us to classify moths as acoustically aposematic versus sonar jammers based on their duty cycles? We performed playback experiments with three wild-caught adult male bats, Eptesicus fuscus. Bat attacks on tethered moths were challenged using acoustic signals of Bertholdia trigona with modified duty cycles ranging from 0 to 46%. We did not find evidence for a duty cycle threshold; rather, the ability to jam the bat's sonar was a continuous function of duty cycle consistent with a steady increase in the number of clicks arriving during a critical signal processing time window just prior to the arrival of an echo. The proportion of successful captures significantly decreased as the moth duty cycle increased. Our findings suggest that moths cannot be unambiguously classified as acoustically aposematic or sonar jammers based solely on duty cycle. Bats appear to compensate for sonar jamming by lengthening the duration of their terminal buzz and they are more successful in capturing moths when they do so. In contrast to previous findings for bats performing difficult spatial tasks, the number of sonar sound groups decreased in response to high duty cycles and did not affect capture success.more » « less
-
ABSTRACT Journal of Experimental Biology has a long history of reporting research discoveries on animal echolocation, the subject of this Centenary Review. Echolocating animals emit intense sound pulses and process echoes to localize objects in dynamic soundscapes. More than 1100 species of bats and 70 species of toothed whales rely on echolocation to operate in aerial and aquatic environments, respectively. The need to mitigate acoustic clutter and ambient noise is common to both aerial and aquatic echolocating animals, resulting in convergence of many echolocation features, such as directional sound emission and hearing, and decreased pulse intervals and sound intensity during target approach. The physics of sound transmission in air and underwater constrains the production, detection and localization of sonar signals, resulting in differences in response times to initiate prey interception by aerial and aquatic echolocating animals. Anti-predator behavioral responses of prey pursued by echolocating animals affect behavioral foraging strategies in air and underwater. For example, many insect prey can detect and react to bat echolocation sounds, whereas most fish and squid are unresponsive to toothed whale signals, but can instead sense water movements generated by an approaching predator. These differences have implications for how bats and toothed whales hunt using echolocation. Here, we consider the behaviors used by echolocating mammals to (1) track and intercept moving prey equipped with predator detectors, (2) interrogate dynamic sonar scenes and (3) exploit visual and passive acoustic stimuli. Similarities and differences in animal sonar behaviors underwater and in air point to open research questions that are ripe for exploration.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Synopsis Sound production in tiger moths (Erebidae: Arctiinae) plays a role in natural selection. Some species use tymbal sounds as jamming signals avoiding bat predation. High duty cycle signals have the greatest efficacy in this regard. Tiger moth sounds can also be used for intraspecific communication. Little is known about the role of sound in the mating behavior of jamming species or the signal preferences underlying mate choice. We recorded sound production during the courtship of two high duty cycle arctiines, Bertholdia trigona and Carales arizonensis. We characterized variation in their acoustic signals, measured female preference for male signals that vary in duty cycle, and performed female choice experiments to determine the effect of male duty cycle on the acceptance of male mates. Although both species produced sound during courtship, the role of acoustic communication appears different between the species. Bertholdia trigona was acoustically active in all intraspecific interactions. Females preferred and ultimately mated with males that produced higher duty cycles. Muted males were never chosen. In C. arizonensis however, sound emissions were limited during courtship and in some successful matings no sound was detected. Muted and clicking males were equally successful in female mate-choice experiments, indicating that acoustic communication is not essential for mating in C. arizonensis. Our results suggest that in B. trigona natural and sexual selection may work in parallel, to favor higher duty cycle clicking.more » « less
-
Most bat species have highly developed audio-vocal systems, which allow them to adjust the features of echolocation calls that are optimized for different sonar tasks, such as detecting, localizing, discriminating and tracking targets. Furthermore, bats can also produce a wide array of social calls to communicate with conspecifics. The acoustic properties of some social calls differ only subtly from echolocation calls, yet bats have the ability to distinguish them and reliably produce appropriate behavioral responses. Little is known about the underlying neural processes that enable the correct classification of bat social communication sounds. One approach to this question is to identify the brain regions that are involved in the processing of sounds that carry behavioral relevance. Here, we present preliminary data on neuronal activation, as measured by c-fos expression, in big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) exposed to either social calls, echolocation calls or kept in silence. We focused our investigation on five relevant brain areas; three within the canonical auditory pathway (auditory cortex, inferior colliculus and medial geniculate body) and two that are involved in the processing of emotive stimulus content (amygdala and nucleus accumbens). In this manuscript we report c-fos staining of the areas of interest after exposure to conspecific calls. We discuss future work designed to overcome experimental limitations and explore whether c-fos staining reveals anatomical segregation of neurons activated by echolocation and social call call categories.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2023.0610
