Tiger moth responses to a simulated bat attack: timing and duty cycle

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.

Buckling-induced sound production in the aeroelastic tymbals of Yponomeuta

The loss of elastic stability (buckling) can lead to catastrophic failure in the context of traditional engineering structures. Conversely, in nature, buckling often serves a desirable function, such as in the prey-trapping mechanism of the Venus fly trap (Dionaea muscipula). This paper investigates the buckling-enabled sound production in the wingbeat-powered (aeroelastic) tymbals of Yponomeuta moths. The hindwings of Yponomeuta possess a striated band of ridges that snap through sequentially during the up- and downstroke of the wingbeat cycle-a process reminiscent of cellular buckling in compressed slender shells. As a result, bursts of ultrasonic clicks are produced that deter predators (i.e. bats). Using various biological and mechanical characterization techniques, we show that wing camber changes during the wingbeat cycle act as the single actuation mechanism that causes buckling to propagate sequentially through each stria on the tymbal. The snap-through of each stria excites a bald patch of the wing's membrane, thereby amplifying sound pressure levels and radiating sound at the resonant frequencies of the patch. In addition, the interaction of phased tymbal clicks from the two wings enhances the directivity of the acoustic signal strength, suggesting an improvement in acoustic protection. These findings unveil the acousto-mechanics of Yponomeuta tymbals and uncover their buckling-driven evolutionary origin. We anticipate that through bioinspiration, aeroelastic tymbals will encourage novel developments in the context of multi-stable morphing structures, acoustic structural monitoring, and soft robotics.

A framework for understanding post-detection deception in predator-prey interactions

Predators and prey exist in persistent conflict that often hinges on deception-the transmission of misleading or manipulative signals-as a means for survival. Deceptive traits are widespread across taxa and sensory systems, representing an evolutionarily successful and common strategy. Moreover, the highly conserved nature of the major sensory systems often extends these traits past single species predator-prey interactions toward a broader set of perceivers. As such, deceptive traits can provide a unique window into the capabilities, constraints and commonalities across divergent and phylogenetically-related perceivers. Researchers have studied deceptive traits for centuries, but a unified framework for categorizing different types of post-detection deception in predator-prey conflict still holds potential to inform future research. We suggest that deceptive traits can be distinguished by their effect on object formation processes. Perceptual objects are composed of physical attributes (what) and spatial (where) information. Deceptive traits that operate after object formation can therefore influence the perception and processing of either or both of these axes. We build upon previous work using a perceiver perspective approach to delineate deceptive traits by whether they closely match the sensory information of another object or create a discrepancy between perception and reality by exploiting the sensory shortcuts and perceptual biases of their perceiver. We then further divide this second category, sensory illusions, into traits that distort object characteristics along either the what or where axes, and those that create the perception of whole novel objects, integrating the what/where axes. Using predator-prey examples, we detail each step in this framework and propose future avenues for research. We suggest that this framework will help organize the many forms of deceptive traits and help generate predictions about selective forces that have driven animal form and behavior across evolutionary time.

High duty cycle moth sounds jam bat echolocation: bats counter with compensatory changes in buzz duration

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.

Anti-bat ultrasound production in moths is globally and phylogenetically widespread

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.

Communication with self, friends and foes in active-sensing animals

Animals that rely on electrolocation and echolocation for navigation and prey detection benefit from sensory systems that can operate in the dark, allowing them to exploit sensory niches with few competitors. Active sensing has been characterized as a highly specialized form of communication, whereby an echolocating or electrolocating animal serves as both the sender and receiver of sensory information. This characterization inspires a framework to explore the functions of sensory channels that communicate information with the self and with others. Overlapping communication functions create challenges for signal privacy and fidelity by leaving active-sensing animals vulnerable to eavesdropping, jamming and masking. Here, we present an overview of active-sensing systems used by weakly electric fish, bats and odontocetes, and consider their susceptibility to heterospecific and conspecific jamming signals and eavesdropping. Susceptibility to interference from signals produced by both conspecifics and prey animals reduces the fidelity of electrolocation and echolocation for prey capture and foraging. Likewise, active-sensing signals may be eavesdropped, increasing the risk of alerting prey to the threat of predation or the risk of predation to the sender, or drawing competition to productive foraging sites. The evolutionary success of electrolocating and echolocating animals suggests that they effectively counter the costs of active sensing through rich and diverse adaptive behaviors that allow them to mitigate the effects of competition for signal space and the exploitation of their signals.

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

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Acoustic signals are used by many animals to transmit information. Variation in the acoustic characteristics of these signals often covaries with morphology and can relay information about an individual's fitness, sex, species, and/or other characteristics important for both mating and defense. Tiger moths (Lepidoptera: Erebidae: Arctiinae) use modified cuticular plates called "tymbal organs" to produce ultrasonic clicks which can aposematically signal their toxicity, mimic the signals of other species, or, in some cases, disrupt bat echolocation. The morphology of the tymbal organs and the sounds they produce vary greatly between species, but it is unclear how the variation in morphology gives rise to the variation in acoustic characteristics. This is the first study to determine how the morphological features of tymbals can predict the acoustic characteristics of the signals they produce.

RESULTS

We show that the number of striations on the tymbal surface (historically known as "microtymbals") and, to a lesser extent, the ratio of the projected surface area of the tymbal to that of the thorax have a strong, positive correlation with the number of clicks a moth produces per unit time. We also found that some clades have significantly different regression coefficients, and thus the relationship between microtymbals and click rate is also dependent on the shared ancestry of different species.

CONCLUSIONS

Our predictive model allows the click rates of moths to be estimated using preserved material (e.g., from museums) in cases where live specimens are unavailable. This has the potential to greatly accelerate our understanding of the distribution of sound production and acoustic anti-bat strategies employed by tiger moths. Such knowledge will generate new insights into the evolutionary history of tiger moth anti-predator defenses on a global scale.

The seismic wave motion camouflage of large carnivorous dinosaurs

Living elephants produce seismic waves during vocalizations and locomotion that are potentially detectable at large distances. In the Mesozoic world, seismic waves were probably a very relevant source of information about the behavior of large dinosaurs. In this work, we study the relationship between foot shape and the directivity pattern of seismic waves generated during locomotion. For enlarged foot morphologies (based on a morphological index) of theropod dinosaurs, there is a marked effect of seismic wave directivity at 20 m. This effect is not important in the foot morphologies of other dinosaurs, including the foot shapes of herbivores and theropods such as therizinosaurids. This directivity produces a lower intensity in the forward direction that would slightly reduce the probability of detection of an ambush predator. Even more relevant is the fact that during the approach of a predator, the intensity of seismic waves detected by potential prey remains constant in the mentioned distance range. This effect hides the predator's approach, and we call this "seismic wave camouflage". We also discuss the potential relationship of this effect with enlarged fossil footprints assigned to metatarsal support.

Evolutionary escalation: the bat-moth arms race

Echolocation in bats and high-frequency hearing in their insect prey make bats and insects an ideal system for studying the sensory ecology and neuroethology of predator-prey interactions. Here, we review the evolutionary history of bats and eared insects, focusing on the insect order Lepidoptera, and consider the evidence for antipredator adaptations and predator counter-adaptations. Ears evolved in a remarkable number of body locations across insects, with the original selection pressure for ears differing between groups. Although cause and effect are difficult to determine, correlations between hearing and life history strategies in moths provide evidence for how these two variables influence each other. We consider life history variables such as size, sex, circadian and seasonal activity patterns, geographic range and the composition of sympatric bat communities. We also review hypotheses on the neural basis for anti-predator behaviours (such as evasive flight and sound production) in moths. It is assumed that these prey adaptations would select for counter-adaptations in predatory bats. We suggest two levels of support for classifying bat traits as counter-adaptations: traits that allow bats to eat more eared prey than expected based on their availability in the environment provide a low level of support for counter-adaptations, whereas traits that have no other plausible explanation for their origination and maintenance than capturing defended prey constitute a high level of support. Specific predator counter-adaptations include calling at frequencies outside the sensitivity range of most eared prey, changing the pattern and frequency of echolocation calls during prey pursuit, and quiet, or 'stealth', echolocation.

Acoustic Aposematism and Evasive Action in Select Chemically Defended Arctiine (Lepidoptera: Erebidae) Species: Nonchalant or Not?

Tiger moths (Erebidae: Arctiinae) have experienced intense selective pressure from echolocating, insectivorous bats for over 65 million years. One outcome has been the evolution of acoustic signals that advertise the presence of toxins sequestered from the moths’ larval host plants, i.e. acoustic aposematism. Little is known about the effectiveness of tiger moth anti-bat sounds in their natural environments. We used multiple infrared cameras to reconstruct bat-moth interactions in three-dimensional (3-D) space to examine how functional sound-producing organs called tymbals affect predation of two chemically defended tiger moth species: Pygarctia roseicapitis (Arctiini) and Cisthene martini (Lithosiini). P. roseicapitis and C. martini with intact tymbals were 1.8 and 1.6 times less likely to be captured by bats relative to those rendered silent. 3-D flight path and acoustic analyses indicated that bats actively avoided capturing sound-producing moths. Clicking behavior differed between the two tiger moth species, with P. roseicapitis responding in an earlier phase of bat attack. Evasive flight behavior in response to bat attacks was markedly different between the two tiger moth species. P. roseicapitis frequently paired evasive dives with aposematic sound production. C. martini were considerably more nonchalant and employed evasion in fewer interactions. Our results show that acoustic aposematism is effective at deterring bat predation in a natural context and that this strategy is likely to be the ancestral function of tymbal organs within the Arctiinae.

Tempo and mode of antibat ultrasound production and sonar jamming in the diverse hawkmoth radiation

The bat-moth arms race has existed for over 60 million y, with moths evolving ultrasonically sensitive ears and ultrasound-producing organs to combat bat predation. The evolution of these defenses has never been thoroughly examined because of limitations in simultaneously conducting behavioral and phylogenetic analyses across an entire group. Hawkmoths include >1,500 species worldwide, some of which produce ultrasound using genital stridulatory structures. However, the function and evolution of this behavior remain largely unknown. We built a comprehensive behavioral dataset of hawkmoth hearing and ultrasonic reply to sonar attack using high-throughput field assays. Nearly half of the species tested (57 of 124 species) produced ultrasound to tactile stimulation or playback of bat echolocation attack. To test the function of ultrasound, we pitted big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) against hawkmoths over multiple nights and show that hawkmoths jam bat sonar. Ultrasound production was immediately and consistently effective at thwarting attack and bats regularly performed catching behavior without capturing moths. We also constructed a fossil-calibrated, multigene phylogeny to study the evolutionary history and divergence times of these antibat strategies across the entire family. We show that ultrasound production arose in multiple groups, starting in the late Oligocene (∼ 26 Ma) after the emergence of insectivorous bats. Sonar jamming and bat-detecting ears arose twice, independently, in the Miocene (18-14 Ma) either from earless hawkmoths that produced ultrasound in response to physical contact only, or from species that did not respond to touch or bat echolocation attack.

Hawkmoths produce anti-bat ultrasound

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.

Optimal predator risk assessment by the sonar-jamming arctiine moth Bertholdia trigona

Nearly all animals face a tradeoff between seeking food and mates and avoiding predation. Optimal escape theory holds that an animal confronted with a predator should only flee when benefits of flight (increased survival) outweigh the costs (energetic costs, lost foraging time, etc.). We propose a model for prey risk assessment based on the predator's stage of attack. Risk level should increase rapidly from when the predator detects the prey to when it commits to the attack. We tested this hypothesis using a predator – the echolocating bat – whose active biosonar reveals its stage of attack. We used a prey defense – clicking used for sonar jamming by the tiger moth Bertholdia trigona– that can be readily studied in the field and laboratory and is enacted simultaneously with evasive flight. We predicted that prey employ defenses soon after being detected and targeted, and that prey defensive thresholds discriminate between legitimate predatory threats and false threats where a nearby prey is attacked. Laboratory and field experiments using playbacks of ultrasound signals and naturally behaving bats, respectively, confirmed our predictions. Moths clicked soon after bats detected and targeted them. Also, B. trigona clicking thresholds closely matched predicted optimal thresholds for discriminating legitimate and false predator threats for bats using search and approach phase echolocation – the period when bats are searching for and assessing prey. To our knowledge, this is the first quantitative study to correlate the sensory stimuli that trigger defensive behaviors with measurements of signals provided by predators during natural attacks in the field. We propose theoretical models for explaining prey risk assessment depending on the availability of cues that reveal a predator's stage of attack.

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

Bats and insects provide a model system for integrating our understanding of predator–prey ecology, animal behavior and neurophysiology. Previous field studies of bat–insect interactions have been limited by the technological challenges involved with studying nocturnal, volant animals that use ultrasound and engage in battles that frequently last a fraction of a second. We overcame these challenges using a robust field methodology that included multiple infrared cameras calibrated for three-dimensional reconstruction of bat and moth flight trajectories and four ultrasonic microphones that provided a spatial component to audio recordings. Our objectives were to document bat–moth interactions in a natural setting and to test the effectiveness of a unique prey defense – sonar jamming. We tested the effect of sonar jamming by comparing the results of interactions between bats and Grote’s tiger moth, Bertholdia trigona, with their sound-producing organs either intact or ablated. Jamming was highly effective, with bats capturing more than 10 times as many silenced moths as clicking moths. Moths frequently combined their acoustic defense with two separate evasive maneuvers: flying away from the bat and diving. Diving decreased bat capture success for both clicking and silenced moths, while flying away did not. The diving showed a strong directional component, a first for insect defensive maneuvers. We discuss the timing of B. trigona defensive maneuvers – which differs from that of other moths – in the context of moth auditory neuroethology. Studying bat–insect interactions in their natural environment provides valuable information that complements work conducted in more controlled settings.

How do tiger moths jam bat sonar?

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.

Sound strategies: the 65-million-year-old battle between bats and insects

The intimate details regarding the coevolution of bats and moths have been elucidated over the past 50 years. The bat-moth story began with the evolution of bat sonar, an exquisite ultrasonic system for tracking prey through the night sky. Moths countered with ears tuned to the high frequencies of bat echolocation and with evasive action through directed turns, loops, spirals, drops, and power dives. Some bat species responded by moving the frequency and intensity of their echolocation cries away from the peak sensitivity of moth ears, and the arms race was on. Tiger moths countered by producing anti-bat sounds. Do the sounds advertise moth toxicity, similar to the bright coloration of butterflies; do they startle the bat, giving the moth a momentary advantage in their aerobatic battle; or do they jam the sonar of the bat? The answer is yes. They do all and more in different situations and in different species. Any insect that flies at night must deal with bat predation. Beetles, mantids, true crickets, mole crickets, katydids, green lacewings, and locusts have anti-bat strategies, and we have just scratched the surface. In an exciting new twist, researchers are taking the technologies developed in the laboratory back into the field, where they are poised to appreciate the full richness of this remarkable predator-prey interaction.

Adaptive auditory risk assessment in the dogbane tiger moth when pursued by bats

Moths and butterflies flying in search of mates risk detection by numerous aerial predators; under the cover of night, the greatest threat will often be from insectivorous bats. During such encounters, the toxic dogbane tiger moth, Cycnia tenera uses the received intensity, duration and emission pattern of the bat's echolocation calls to determine when, and how many, defensive ultrasonic clicks to produce in return. These clicks, which constitute an acoustic startle response, act as warning signals against bats in flight. Using an integrated test of stimulus generalization and dishabituation, here we show that C. tenera is able to discriminate between the echolocation calls characteristic of a bat that has only just detected it versus those of a bat actively in pursuit of it. We also show that C. tenera habituates more profoundly to the former stimulus train (‘early attack’) than to the latter (‘late attack’), even though it was initially equally responsive to both stimuli. Matched sensory and behavioural data indicate that reduced responsiveness reflects habituation and is not merely attributable to sensory adaptation or motor fatigue. In search of mates in the face of bats, C. tenera's ability to discriminate between attacking bats representing different levels of risk, and to habituate less so to those most dangerous, should function as an adaptive cost–benefit trade-off mechanism in nature.

To females of a noctuid moth, male courtship songs are nothing more than bat echolocation calls

It has been proposed that intraspecific ultrasonic communication observed in some moths evolved, through sexual selection, subsequent to the development of ears sensitive to echolocation calls of insectivorous bats. Given this scenario, the receiver bias model of signal evolution argues that acoustic communication in moths should have evolved through the exploitation of receivers' sensory bias towards bat ultrasound. We tested this model using a noctuid moth Spodoptera litura, males of which were recently found to produce courtship ultrasound. We first investigated the mechanism of sound production in the male moth, and subsequently the role of the sound with reference to the female's ability to discriminate male courtship songs from bat calls. We found that males have sex-specific tymbals for ultrasound emission, and that the broadcast of either male songs or simulated bat calls equally increased the acceptance of muted males by the female. It was concluded that females of this moth do not distinguish between male songs and bat calls, supporting the idea that acoustic communication in this moth evolved through a sensory exploitation process.

Moths are not silent, but whisper ultrasonic courtship songs

Ultrasonic hearing is widespread among moths, but very few moth species have been reported to produce ultrasounds for sexual communication. In those that do, the signals are intense and thus well matched for long distance communication. By contrast, males of the Asian corn borer moth (Crambidae) were recently shown to whisper extremely low-intensity ultrasonic courtship songs close to females. Since low sound levels will prevent eavesdropping by predators, parasites and conspecific rivals, we predicted low intensity ultrasound communication to be widespread among moths. Here we tested 13 species of moths including members of the Noctuidae, Arctiidae, Geometridae and Crambidae. Males of nine species, 70%, produced broadband ultrasound close to females. Peak frequencies ranged from 38 to above 100 kHz. All sounds were of low intensity, 43-76 dB SPL at 1 cm [64±10 dB peSPL (mean ± s.d.), N=9 species]. These quiet and/or hyper-frequency ultrasounds are audible to nearby mates, but inaudible to unintended receivers. Although largely unknown because it is so inconspicuous, acoustic communication using low intensity ultrasound appears to be widespread among hearing moths. Thus, acoustic communication may be the norm rather than the exception.

Tiger moth jams bat sonar

In response to sonar-guided attacking bats, some tiger moths make ultrasonic clicks of their own. The lepidopteran sounds have previously been shown to alert bats to some moths' toxic chemistry and also to startle bats unaccustomed to sonic prey. The moth sounds could also interfere with, or "jam," bat sonar, but evidence for such jamming has been inconclusive. Using ultrasonic recording and high-speed infrared videography of bat-moth interactions, we show that the palatable tiger moth Bertholdia trigona defends against attacking big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) using ultrasonic clicks that jam bat sonar. Sonar jamming extends the defensive repertoire available to prey in the long-standing evolutionary arms race between bats and insects.

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

Naïve red (Lasiurus borealis Müller) and big brown (Eptesicus fuscus Beauvois) bats quickly learn to avoid noxious sound-producing tiger moths. After this experience with a model tiger moth, bats generalize the meaning of these prey-generated sounds to a second tiger moth species producing a different call. Here we describe the three-dimensional kinematic and bioacoustic details of this behaviour, first, as naïve bats learn to deal with an unpalatable model tiger moth and subsequently, as they avoid acoustic mimics. The tiger moths' first clicks influenced the bats' echolocation behaviour and the percentage of interactions that included terminal buzzes was associated with capture and investigatory behaviour. When the mimic was introduced, the bats decreased both their minimum distance to the tiger moth and the time at which they broke off their attack compared with their exposure to the model on the night before. These kinematic signatures closely match the bats' behaviour on their first night of experience with the model. Minimum distances and time of pursuit cessation increased again by the last night of the mimic's presentation. These kinematic and bioacoustic results show that although naïve bats generalize the meaning of aposematic tiger moth calls, they discriminate the prey-generated signals as different and investigate. Extrapolating to experienced bats, these results suggest that acoustic predators probably exert potent and fine-scaled selective forces on acoustic mimicry complexes.

Non-visual crypsis: a review of the empirical evidence for camouflage to senses other than vision

I review the evidence that organisms have adaptations that confer difficulty of detection by predators and parasites that seek their targets primarily using sensory systems other than vision. In other words, I will answer the question of whether crypsis is a concept that can usefully be applied to non-visual sensory perception. Probably because vision is such an important sensory system in humans, research in this field is sparse. Thus, at present we have very few examples of chemical camouflage, and even these contain some ambiguity in deciding whether they are best seen as examples of background matching or mimicry. There are many examples of organisms that are adaptively silent at times or in locations when or where predation risk is higher or in response to detection of a predator. By contrast, evidence that the form (rather than use) of vocalizations and other sound-based signals has been influenced by issues of reducing detectability to unintended receivers is suggestive rather than conclusive. There is again suggestive but not completely conclusive evidence for crypsis against electro-sensing predators. Lastly, mechanoreception is highly understudied in this regard, but there are scattered reports that strongly suggest that some species can be thought of as being adapted to be cryptic in this modality. Hence, I conclude that crypsis is a concept that can usefully be applied to senses other than vision, and that this is a field very much worthy of more investigation.

Acoustic feature recognition in the dogbane tiger moth,Cycnia tenera

Certain tiger moths (Arctiidae) defend themselves against bats by phonoresponding to their echolocation calls with trains of ultrasonic clicks. The dogbane tiger moth, Cycnia tenera, preferentially phonoresponds to the calls produced by attacking versus searching bats, suggesting that it either recognizes some acoustic feature of this phase of the bat's echolocation calls or that it simply reacts to their increased power as the bat closes. Here, we used a habituation/generalization paradigm to demonstrate that C. tenera responds neither to the shift in echolocation call frequencies nor to the change in pulse duration that is exhibited during the bat's attack phase unless these changes are accompanied by either an increase in duty cycle or a decrease in pulse period. To separate these features, we measured the moth's phonoresponse thresholds to pulsed stimuli with variable versus constant duty cycles and demonstrate that C. tenerais most sensitive to echolocation call periods expressed by an attacking bat. We suggest that, under natural conditions, C. tenera identifies an attacking bat by recognizing the pulse period of its echolocation calls but that this feature recognition is influenced by acoustic power and can be overridden by unnaturally intense sounds.

Acoustic mimicry in a predator-prey interaction

Mimicry of visual warning signals is one of the keystone concepts in evolutionary biology and has received substantial research attention. By comparison, acoustic mimicry has never been rigorously tested. Visualizing bat-moth interactions with high-speed, infrared videography, we provide empirical evidence for acoustic mimicry in the ultrasonic warning sounds that tiger moths produce in response to echolocating bats. Two species of sound-producing tiger moths were offered successively to naïve, free-flying red and big brown bats. Noctuid and pyralid moth controls were also offered each night. All bats quickly learned to avoid the noxious tiger moths first offered to them, associating the warning sounds with bad taste. They then avoided the second sound-producing species regardless of whether it was chemically protected or not, verifying both Müllerian and Batesian mimicry in the acoustic modality. A subset of the red bats subsequently discovered the palatability of the Batesian mimic, demonstrating the powerful selective force these predators exert on mimetic resemblance. Given these results and the widespread presence of tiger moth species and other sound-producing insects that respond with ultrasonic clicks to bat attack, acoustic mimicry complexes are likely common components of the acoustic landscape.

Acoustic mimicry in a predator-prey interaction

Mimicry of visual warning signals is one of the keystone concepts in evolutionary biology and has received substantial research attention. By comparison, acoustic mimicry has never been rigorously tested. Visualizing bat-moth interactions with high-speed, infrared videography, we provide empirical evidence for acoustic mimicry in the ultrasonic warning sounds that tiger moths produce in response to echolocating bats. Two species of sound-producing tiger moths were offered successively to naïve, free-flying red and big brown bats. Noctuid and pyralid moth controls were also offered each night. All bats quickly learned to avoid the noxious tiger moths first offered to them, associating the warning sounds with bad taste. They then avoided the second sound-producing species regardless of whether it was chemically protected or not, verifying both Müllerian and Batesian mimicry in the acoustic modality. A subset of the red bats subsequently discovered the palatability of the Batesian mimic, demonstrating the powerful selective force these predators exert on mimetic resemblance. Given these results and the widespread presence of tiger moth species and other sound-producing insects that respond with ultrasonic clicks to bat attack, acoustic mimicry complexes are likely common components of the acoustic landscape.