Skip to main content
Log in

Sound strategy: acoustic aposematism in the bat–tiger moth arms race

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Naturwissenschaften Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The night sky is the venue for an ancient arms race. Insectivorous bats with their ultrasonic sonar exert an enormous selective pressure on nocturnal insects. In response insects have evolved the ability to hear bat cries, to evade their hunting maneuvers, and some, the tiger moths (Arctiidae), to utter an ultrasonic reply. We here determine what it is that tiger moths “say” to bats. We chose four species of arctiid moths, Cycnia tenera, Euchaetes egle, Utetheisa ornatrix, and Apantesis nais, that naturally differ in their levels of unpalatability and their ability to produce sound. Moths were tethered and offered to free-flying naïve big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus. The ability of the bats to capture each species was compared to their ability to capture noctuid, geometrid, and wax moth controls over a learning period of 7 days. We repeated the experiment using the single arctiid species E. egle that through diet manipulation and simple surgery could be rendered palatable or unpalatable and sound producing or mute. We again compared the capture rates of these categories of E. egle to control moths. Using both novel learning approaches we have found that the bats only respond to the sounds of arctiids when they are paired with defensive chemistry. The sounds are in essence a warning to the bats that the moth is unpalatable—an aposematic signal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acharya L, Fenton MB (1992) Echolocation behavior of vespertilionid bats (Lasiurus cinereus and Lasiurus borealis) attacking airborne targets including arctiid moths. Can J Zool 70:1292–1298

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber J, Conner WE (2004) Can you hear me now? Timing and complexity in tiger moths’ ultrasonic response to bat attack. Proc N Am Symp Bat Res 34:24–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates DL, Fenton MB (1990) Aposematism or startle? Predators learn their responses to the defenses of prey. Can J Zool 68:49–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Black HL (1972) Differential exploitation of moths by the bats Eptesicus fuscus and Lasiurus cinereus. J Mammal 53:598–601

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower LP (1969) Ecological chemistry. Sci Am 220:22–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen JA, Brower LP (1983) Cardenolide sequestration by the dogbane tiger moth. J Chem Ecol 9:521–531

    Google Scholar 

  • Domjan M, Grau JW (2003) The principles of learning and behavior. Thomson Wadworth, Belmont, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning DC (1968) Warning sounds of moths. Z. Tierpsychol 25:129–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning DC, Krüger M (1995) Aposematic sounds in African moths. Biotropica 27:227–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning DC, Roeder KD (1965) Moth sounds and the insect-catching behavior of bats. Science 147:173–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning DC, Acharya L, Merriman CB, Ferro LD (1992) Interactions between bats and arctiid moths. Can J Zool 70:2218–2223

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckrich M, Boppré M (1990) Chemical vs. acoustic cues in the defense of arctiid moths (Lepidoptera) against small mammals. Verh Dtsch Zool Ges 83:632

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullard JH, Fenton MB (1977) Acoustic and behavioral analyses of the sounds produced by some species of nearctic Arctiidae (Lepidoptera).Can J Zool 55:1213–1224

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullard JH, Heller B (1990) Functional organization of the arctiid moth tymbal (Insecta, Lepidoptera). J Morphol 204:57–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullard JH, Yack JE (1993) The evolutionary biology of insect hearing. Trends Ecol Evol 8:248–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullard JH, Fenton MB, Simmons JA (1979) Jamming bat echolocation: the clicks of arctiid moths. Can J Zool 57:647–649

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullard JH, Simmons JA, Sailant PA (1994) Jamming bat echolocation: the dogbane tiger moth Cycnia tenera times its clicks to the terminal attack calls of the big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus. J Exp Biol 194:285–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Hristov NI, Conner WE (2005) Effectiveness of tiger moth (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae) chemical defenses against an insectivorous bat (Eptesicus fuscus). Chemoecology (in press)

  • Humphries DA, Driver PM (1970) Protean defense by prey animals. Oecologia 5:285–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallet J, Joron M (1999) Evolution of diversity in warning color and mimicry: polymorphisms, shifting balance, and speciation. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 30:201–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller LA (1991) Arctiid moth clicks can degrade the accuracy of range difference discrimination in echolocating big brown bats Eptesicus fuscus. J Comp Physiol A 168:571–579

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller LA, Surlykke A (2001) How some insects detect and avoid being eaten by bats: tactics and countertactics of prey and predator. BioScience 51:570–581

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeder K (1967) Nerve cells and insect behavior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnitzler H-U, Kalko EKV (2001) Echolocation by insect-eating bats. BioScience 51:557–569

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel S, Castellan NJ (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tougaard J, Casseday JH, Covey E (1998) Arctiid moths and bat echolocation: Broad band clicks interfere with neural responses to auditory stimuli in the nuclei of the lateral lemniscus of the big brown bat. J Comp Physiol A 182:203–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller SJ, Jacobsen NL, Conner WE (1999) The evolution of chemical defenses and mating systems in tiger moths (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae). Biol J Linn Soc 68:557–578

    Google Scholar 

  • Yager DD, Cook AP, Pearson DL, Spangler HG (2000) A comparative study of ultrasound-triggered behaviour in tiger beetles (Cicindelidae). J Zool (Lond) 251:355–368

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

N.I.H. collected the data, whereas W.E.C. helped design the experiments and supervised the project. We thank Mitch Masters and Amanda Lollar for helpful advice on how to maintain a healthy bat colony. We are grateful to Wake Forest undergraduates Sarah Ross, Payton Deal, Megan Clendenin, and Jason Davenport for assistance with the learning experiments. Anna Price, Rebecca Cooke, and Hugh Labusohr reared many of the insects. Jesse Barber, Susan Fahrbach, and two anonymous reviewers greatly improved a previous version of this manuscript and Jesse assisted with the bat experiments. Mindy Conner provided editorial assistance and suggested the title for this article. The research was supported in part by the Science Research Fund at Wake Forest University, the Eppley Foundation of New York, and the National Science Foundation (IBN-0135825). All experiments were carried out in compliance with current laws in the United States.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William E. Conner.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hristov, N.I., Conner, W.E. Sound strategy: acoustic aposematism in the bat–tiger moth arms race. Naturwissenschaften 92, 164–169 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-005-0611-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-005-0611-7

Keywords

Navigation