Moth Tails Divert Bat Attack: Evolution of Acoustic Deflection
Moth tails divert bat attack: Evolution of acoustic deflection Jesse R. Barbera,1, Brian C. Leavella, Adam L. Keenera, Jesse W. Breinholtb, Brad A. Chadwellc, Christopher J. W. McClurea,d, Geena M. Hillb, and Akito Y. Kawaharab,1 aDepartment of Biological Sciences, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725; bFlorida Museum of Natural History, McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611; cDepartment of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, OH 44272; and dPeregrine Fund, Boise, ID 83709 Edited by May R. Berenbaum, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, and approved January 28, 2015 (received for review November 15, 2014) Adaptations to divert the attacks of visually guided predators the individuals that were tested. Interactions took place under have evolved repeatedly in animals. Using high-speed infrared darkness in a sound-attenuated flight room. We recorded each videography, we show that luna moths (Actias luna) generate an engagement with infrared-sensitive high-speed cameras and ul- acoustic diversion with spinning hindwing tails to deflect echolo- trasonic microphones. To constrain the moths’ flight to a ∼1m2 cating bat attacks away from their body and toward these non- area surveyed by the high-speed cameras, we tethered luna moths essential appendages. We pit luna moths against big brown bats from the ceiling with a monofilament line. (Eptesicus fuscus) and demonstrate a survival advantage of ∼47% for moths with tails versus those that had their tails removed. The Results and Discussion benefit of hindwing tails is equivalent to the advantage conferred Bats captured 34.5% (number of moths presented; n = 87) of to moths by bat-detecting ears.
[Show full text]