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

First published online February 1, 2008
Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 555-562 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
doi: 10.1242/jeb.005736

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 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 Triblehorn, J. D. Articles by Yager, D. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Triblehorn, J. D. Articles by Yager, D. D. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Free-flight encounters between praying mantids (Parasphendale agrionina) and bats (Eptesicus fuscus)

J. D. Triblehorn^1,*, K. Ghose^1,2, K. Bohn¹, C. F. Moss^1,2,3 and D. D. Yager^1,2

¹ Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
² Neuroscience and Cognitive Science Program, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
³ Institute for Systems Research, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA

^* Author for correspondence at present address: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211, USA (e-mail: triblehornj{at}missouri.edu)

Accepted 29 November 2007

Through staged free-flight encounters between echolocating bats and praying mantids, we examined the effectiveness of two potential predator-evasion behaviors mediated by different sensory modalities: (1) power dive responses triggered by bat echolocation detected by the mantis ultrasound-sensitive auditory system, and (2) `last-ditch' maneuvers triggered by bat-generated wind detected by the mantis cercal system. Hearing mantids escaped more often than deafened mantids (76% vs 34%, respectively; hearing conveyed 42% advantage). Hearing mantis escape rates decreased when bat attack sequences contained very rapid increases in pulse repetition rates (escape rates <40% for transition slopes >16 p.p.s. 10 ms^–1; escape rates >60% for transition slopes <16 p.p.s. 10 ms^–1). This suggests that echolocation attack sequences containing very rapid transitions (>16 p.p.s. 10 ms^–1) could circumvent mantis/insect auditory defenses. However, echolocation attack sequences containing such transitions occurred in only 15% of the trials. Since mantis ultrasound-mediated responses are not 100% effective, cercal-mediated evasive behaviors triggered by bat-generated wind could be beneficial as a backup/secondary system. Although deafened mantids with functioning cerci did not escape more often than deafened mantids with deactivated cerci (35% vs 32%, respectively), bats dropped mantids with functioning cerci twice as frequently as mantids with deactivated cerci. This latter result was not statistically reliable due to small sample sizes, since this study was not designed to fully evaluate this result. It is an interesting observation that warrants further investigation, however, especially since these dropped mantids always survived the encounter.

Key words: escape, hearing, insect, echolocation, predator–prey

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. K. Riskin, J. W. Bahlman, T. Y. Hubel, J. M. Ratcliffe, T. H. Kunz, and S. M. Swartz Bats go head-under-heels: the biomechanics of landing on a ceiling J. Exp. Biol., April 1, 2009; 212(7): 945 - 953. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Ghose, J. D. Triblehorn, K. Bohn, D. D. Yager, and C. F. Moss Behavioral responses of big brown bats to dives by praying mantises J. Exp. Biol., March 1, 2009; 212(5): 693 - 703. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]