Journal of Comparative Physiology A

, Volume 154, Issue 3, pp 441–447 | Cite as

Physiological characteristics of the tympanic organ in noctuoid moths

I. Responses to brief acoustic pulses
  • Martha Pérez
  • Frank Coro
Article
Accepted:

Summary

  1. 1.

    The tympanic organs ofSpodoptera frugiperda, Mocis latipes, Erebus odorata, Maenas jussiae andEmpyreuma pugione (Lepidoptera) were stimulated with acoustic pulses of 3.5 ms duration, 20 kHz intrinsic frequency and intensities ranging from 35 to 100 dB (0 dB=2×10−5 N/m2). The electric activity of the auditory receptors was recorded with a stainless steel hook electrode at the tympanic nervelet, in the zone where it adjoins the alar nerve in the mesothorax.

     
  2. 2.

    The increase of stimulus intensity above threshold evokes a linear increment in the number of spikes per acoustic pulse of the auditory receptors (A1 and A2 cells), without saturation even with the highest intensities used. At the same time the latency period of the response of both auditory receptors decreases exponentially. The interspike intervals during the response of these cells change with stimulus intensity, as well as with the time-course of the response.M. latipes shows the briefest interval value, around 1.0 ms, whileE. pugione has the longest, around 1.8 ms.S. frugiperda andM. latipes show brief latency periods (less than 2.0 ms for intensities 20 dB above the A1-cell threshold), and during the response the briefest interval occurs sooner than in the other three species, which show longer latency periods (around 3.0 ms); the minimum interspike interval value is reached later.

     
  3. 3.

    These interspecific differences may be due to the temporal course of the generator potential of the auditory receptors.

     

Keywords

Latency Period Electric Activity Stimulus Intensity Physiological Characteristic Generator Potential 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Abbreviation

AP

action potential

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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams WB (1971) Intensity characteristics of the noctuid acoustic receptor. J Gen Physiol 58:562–579Google Scholar
  2. Coro F (1979) Morpho-functional organization of auditory receptors inEmpyreuma pugione (L.) (Lepidoptera). PhD Thesis (in Russian), Havana-MoscowGoogle Scholar
  3. Coro F, Pérez M (1984) Intensity coding by auditory receptors inEmpyreuma pugione (Lepidoptera, Ctenuchidae). J Comp Physiol A 154:287–295Google Scholar
  4. Eggers F (1916) Notes supplementaires sur l'organe tympanal thoracal des noctuides et de quelques autres familles de Lepidoptères. Rev Russe Entomol 16:249–265Google Scholar
  5. Ghiradella H (1971) Fine structure of the noctuid moth ear. I. The transducer area and connection to the tympanic membrane inFeltia subgothica (Haworth). J Morphol 134:21–45Google Scholar
  6. Popov AV, Shuvalov VF, Svietlogorskaya ID, Markovich AM (1974) Acoustic behavior and auditory systems in insects. In: Schwartzkopff J (ed) Mechanoreception. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp 281–306Google Scholar
  7. Rheinlaender J, Mörchen A (1979) Time-intensity trading in locust auditory interneurons. Nature 281:672–674Google Scholar
  8. Roeder KD (1962) Interaction between flying bats and moths by ultrasound. In: Bernard E (ed) Biological prototypes and synthetic systems. Plenum Press, New York, pp 75–82Google Scholar
  9. Roeder KD (1964) Aspects of the noctuid tympanic nerve response having significance in the avoidance of bats. J Insect Physiol 10:529–546Google Scholar
  10. Roeder KD (1965) Moths and ultrasound. Sci Am 212:94–102Google Scholar
  11. Roeder KD (1966) Auditory system of noctuid moths. Science 154:1515–1521Google Scholar
  12. Roeder KD (1967) Nerve cells and insect behavior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  13. Roeder KD (1973) Brain interneurons in noctuoid moths: binaural excitation and slow potentials. J Insect Physiol 19:1591–1601Google Scholar
  14. Roeder KD (1974) Responses of the less sensitive acoustic sense cells in the tympanic organs of some noctuid and geometrid moths. J Insect Physiol 20:55–66Google Scholar
  15. Roeder KD, Treat AE (1960) The acoustic detection of bats by moths. Proceedings of the XI International Entomological Congress, pp 150–158Google Scholar
  16. Roeder KD, Treat AE (1961) The detection and evasion of bats by moths. Am Sci 49:135–148Google Scholar
  17. Römer H (1976) Die Informationsverarbeitung tympanaler Rezeptorelemente vonLocusta migratoria (Acrididae, Orthoptera). J Comp Physiol 109:101–122Google Scholar
  18. Suga N (1961) Functional organization of two tympanic neurons in noctuid moths. Jpn J Physiol 11:666–677Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martha Pérez
    • 1
  • Frank Coro
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Fisiología Animal, Facultad de BiologíaUniversidad de La HabanaLa HabanaCuba

Personalised recommendations