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

First published online June 26, 2009
Journal of Experimental Biology 212, 2141-2148 (2009)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2009
doi: 10.1242/jeb.029991

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplementary Material 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 Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Barber, J. R. Articles by Conner, W. E. PubMed Articles by Barber, J. R. Articles by Conner, W. E. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

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

Jesse R. Barber^1,*, Brad A. Chadwell¹, Nick Garrett¹, Barbara Schmidt-French² and William E. Conner¹

¹ Department of Biology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109, USA
² Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX 78746, USA

^* Author for correspondence at present address: Colorado State University, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA (e-mail: barber.jesse{at}gmail.com)

Accepted 31 March 2009

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.

Key words: kinematics, bioacoustics, bats, moths, Arctiidae, acoustic mimicry

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

Related articles in JEB:

BATS SPOT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND BAD TASTING MOTH MIMICS

Kathryn Knight
JEB 2009 212: i. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Knight BATS SPOT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND BAD TASTING MOTH MIMICS J. Exp. Biol., July 15, 2009; 212(14): i - i. [Full Text] [PDF]