QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online June 29, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 2637-2650 (2006)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2006
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02295

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JEB Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Barber, J. R. Articles by Conner, W. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Barber, J. R. Articles by Conner, W. E.

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

J. R. Barber^* and W. E. Conner

Department of Biology, Wake Forest University, 226 Winston Hall, Winston-Salem, NC 27109, USA

^* Author for correspondence (e-mail: barbjr2{at}wfu.edu)

Accepted 24 April 2006

Many night-flying insects perform complex, aerobatic escape maneuvers when echolocating bats initiate attack. Tiger moths couple this kinematic defense with an acoustic reply to a bat's biosonar-guided assault. The jamming hypothesis for the function of these moth sounds assumes that tiger moth clicks presented at high densities, temporally locked to the terminal phase of the bat attack will produce the greatest jamming efficacy. Concomitantly, this hypothesis argues that moths warning bats of bad tasting chemicals sequestered in their tissues should call early to give the bat time to process the meaning of the warning signal and that moths calling at low duty cycles are more likely to employ such an aposematic strategy. We report here the first investigation of a tiger moth assemblage's response to playback of a bat echolocation attack sequence. This assemblage of arctiid moths first answered the echolocation attack sequence 960±547 ms (mean ± s.d.) from the end of the bat attack. The assemblage reached a half-maximum response shortly after the first response, at 763±479 ms from the end of the terminal buzz. Tiger moth response reached a maximum at 475±344 ms from the end of the sequence; during the approach phase, well before the onset of the terminal buzz. In short, much of tiger moth response to bat attack occurs outside of the jamming hypotheses' predictions. Furthermore, no relationship exists between the duty cycle of a tiger moth's call (and thus the call's probability of jamming the bat) and its temporal response to bat attack. These data call into doubt the assumptions behind the jamming hypothesis as currently stated but do not directly test the functionality of arctiid sounds in disrupting echolocation in bat-moth aerial battles.

Key words: Arctiidae, tiger moth, echolocation, aposematism, jamming, startle, predator, prey

Related articles in JEB:

ARE MOTHS JAMMING OR WARNING?

Kathryn Phillips
JEB 2006 209: i. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. H. Fullard, J. M. Ratcliffe, and C. G. Christie Acoustic feature recognition in the dogbane tiger moth, Cycnia tenera J. Exp. Biol., July 15, 2007; 210(14): 2481 - 2488. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Barber and W. E. Conner Acoustic mimicry in a predator prey interaction PNAS, May 29, 2007; 104(22): 9331 - 9334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Phillips ARE MOTHS JAMMING OR WARNING? J. Exp. Biol., July 15, 2006; 209(14): i - i. [Full Text] [PDF]