First published online May 5, 2005
Journal of Experimental Biology 208, 1867-1876 (2005)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2005
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01565
Timing of praying mantis evasive responses during simulated bat attack sequences
Jeffrey D. Triblehorn* and
David D. Yager
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
20742, USA
View larger version (38K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1. The pulse repetition rates (PRRs, blue line) and pulse durations (red line)
for all five simulated bat attack sequences used in the experiment. Each
sequence was based on an actual successful bat attack collected during the
Triblehorn and Yager (2002 )
experiment. The gray bar represents the transition phase. Sequences contained
either rapid (RT) or gradual (GT) transitions in PRR. The number indicates the
slope of the transition in terms of PRR (pps) per 10 ms. Higher slopes
indicate faster transitions.
|
|
View larger version (23K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2. (A) Schematic of tethered flight behavior paradigm and the method for
marking when the behavioral response occurs during the simulated attack
sequences using a laser and photocell. (B) Example of laser trace as mantis
forelegs break the laser during a standard pulse trains to obtain an estimate
of the response latency (see text for details). (C) Example of laser trace as
mantis forelegs break the laser during a simulated attack sequence and the
calculation of the predicted trigger point (see text for details).
|
|
View larger version (16K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3. The average behavioral responses (diamonds) and predicted trigger times
(triangles) relative to time to `contact' for eight mantids (represented by
color) to the three rapid transition simulated attack sequences. The black
line represents the PRR. The gray bar is the same as in
Fig. 1. Placement of each
symbol along the y-axis is based on the PRR of the sequence at that
time relative to `contact.' The spread of the trigger point and behavior data
differ due to individual differences in the response latency measured for
predicting the trigger points (see Materials and methods). Responses occur
after the transition period, while the predicted trigger times mostly occur
during the transition phase.
|
|
View larger version (23K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4. The average behavioral responses (diamonds) and predicted trigger times
(triangles) relative to time to `contact' for eight mantids (represented by
color) to the two gradual transition simulated attack sequences. Colors
represent the same individuals as in Fig.
3. The black line represents the PRR. The gray bar is the same as
in Fig. 1. Placement of each
symbol along the y-axis is based on the PRR of the sequence at that
time relative to `contact.' The spread of the trigger point and behavior data
differ due to individual differences in the response latency measured for
predicting the trigger points (see Materials and methods). Both predicted
trigger times and behavioral responses occur during the transition period for
GT1. The same is true for half of the individuals for GT2, although half of
the behavioral response occur just after the transition period.
|
|
View larger version (19K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5. Effects of intensity on behavioral response times during two simulated
attack sequences. Behavioral response times are relative to response times
elicited by 85 dB SPL. Positive values indicate longer latencies
while negative values indicate shorter latencies. Each color represents the
means ± S.D. for individual mantids (1-3
observations per intensity per mantis). The same color in both graphs
represents the same mantis. Since all data is relative to 85 dB
SPL, data at this intensity lacks error bars.
|
|
© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2005
