Advertisement

Naturwissenschaften

, 95:241 | Cite as

Ignoring the irrelevant: auditory tolerance of audible but innocuous sounds in the bat-detecting ears of moths

  • James H. Fullard
  • John M. Ratcliffe
  • David S. Jacobs
Original Paper

Abstract

Noctuid moths listen for the echolocation calls of hunting bats and respond to these predator cues with evasive flight. The African bollworm moth, Helicoverpa armigera, feeds at flowers near intensely singing cicadas, Platypleura capensis, yet does not avoid them. We determined that the moth can hear the cicada by observing that both of its auditory receptors (A1 and A2 cells) respond to the cicada’s song. The firing response of the A1 cell rapidly adapts to the song and develops spike periods in less than a second that are in excess of those reported to elicit avoidance flight to bats in earlier studies. The possibility also exists that for at least part of the day, sensory input in the form of olfaction or vision overrides the moth’s auditory responses. While auditory tolerance appears to allow H. armigera to exploit a food resource in close proximity to acoustic interference, it may render their hearing defence ineffective and make them vulnerable to predation by bats during the evening when cicadas continue to sing. Our study describes the first field observation of an eared insect ignoring audible but innocuous sounds.

Keywords

Moths Auditory ecology Bats Cicadas Discrimination 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the management of De Hoop Nature Reserve for their hospitality, Michelle Venance for her help in the field and the anonymous reviewers whose suggestions greatly improved the paper. Peter Wall developed the MATLAB sound-generating and spike analysis applications. The study was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada Discovery Grant (JHF) and by the National Research Foundation (GUN 2053611) of South Africa (DSJ) and the University Research Committee of the University of Cape Town (DSJ). All experiments performed complied with the current laws of South Africa.

References

  1. Abate T, Ampofo JKO (1996) Insect pests of beans in Africa: their ecology and management. Annu Rev Entomol 41:45–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyan GS, Fullard JH (1988) Information processing at a central synapse suggests a noise filter in the auditory pathway of the noctuid moth. J Comp Physiol 164:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bush SL, Schul J (2006) Pulse-rate recognition in an insect: evidence of a role for oscillatory neurons. J Comp Physiol A 192:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coro F, Perez M (1984) Intensity coding by auditory receptors in Empyreuma pugione (Lepidoptera, Ctenuchidae). J Comp Physiol 154:287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fenton MB (1986) Design of bat echolocation calls: implications for foraging ecology and communication. Mammalia 50:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fullard JH (1982) Echolocation assemblages and their effects on moth auditory systems. Can J Zool 60:2572–2576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fullard JH (1984) Listening for bats: pulse repetition rate as a cue for a defensive behaviour in Cycnia tenera (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae). J Comp Physiol A 154:249–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fullard JH, Dawson JW, Jacobs DS (2003) Auditory encoding during the last moment of a moth’s life. J Exp Biol 206:281–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guignion C, Fullard JH (2004) A potential cost of responding to bats for moths flying over water. Can J Zool 82:529–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hedwig B (2006) Pulses, patterns and paths: neurobiology of acoustic behaviour in crickets. J Comp Physiol A 192:677–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jacobs DS, Barclay RMR, Walker MH (2007) The allometry of echolocation call frequencies of insectivorous bats: why do some species deviate from the pattern? Oecologia 152:583–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones G, Teeling EC (2006) The evolution of echolocation in bats. Trends Eco Evol 21:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marsat G, Pollack GS (2006) A behavioral role for feature detection by sensory bursts. J Neurosci 26:10542–10547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nabatiyan A, Poulet JFA, de Polavieja GG, Hedwig B (2003) Temporal pattern recognition based on instantaneous spike rate coding in a simple auditory system. J Neurophysiol 90:2484–2493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nüesch H (1957) Die Morphologie des Thorax von Telea polyphemus Cr (Lepid). . I. Nervensystem. Zool Jahrb 75:615–642Google Scholar
  16. Paul DH (1974) Responses to acoustic stimulation of thoracic interneurons in noctuid moths. J Insect Physiol 20:2205–2218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pérez M, Coro F (1985) Physiological characteristics of the tympanic organ in noctuoid moths. II. Responses to 45 ms and 5 s acoustic stimuli. J Comp Physiol A 156:689–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rodriguez RL, Greenfield MD (2004) Behavioural context regulates dual function of ultrasonic hearing in lesser waxmoths: bat avoidance and pair formation. Physiol Entomol 29:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roeder KD (1962) The behaviour of free flying moths in the presence of artificial ultrasonic pulses. Anim Behav 10:300–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roeder KD (1964) Aspects of the noctuid tympanic nerve response having significance in the avoidance of bats. J Insect Physiol 10:529–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Roeder KD (1966) Interneurons of the thoracic nerve cord activated by tympanic nerve fibres in noctuid moths. J Insect Physiol 12:1227–1244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roeder KD, Treat AE (1962) The acoustic detection of bats by moths. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Entomological Conference, Wien, vol 3, pp 7–11Google Scholar
  23. Schnitzler H-U, Kalko EKV (2001) Echolocation by insect-eating bats. Bioscience 51:557–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Skals N, Plepys D, Löfstedt C (2003) Foraging and mate-finding in the silver Y moth, Autographa gamma (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) under the risk of predation. Oikos 102:351–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stapells DR, Picton TW, Smith AD (1982) Normal hearing thresholds for clicks. J Acoust Soc Am 72:74–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Surlykke A (1984) Hearing in notodontid moths: a tympanic organ with a single auditory neurone. J Exp Biol 113:323–335Google Scholar
  27. Svensson AM, Eklöf J, Skals N, Rydell J (2003) Light dependent shift in the anti-predator response of a pyralid moth. Oikos 101:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Svensson GP, Löfstedt C, Skals N (2004) The odour makes the difference: male moths attracted by sex pheromones ignore the threat by predatory bats. Oikos 104:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Villet MH (1988) Calling songs of some South African cicadas (Homoptera: Cicadidae). S Afr J Zool 23:71–77Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • James H. Fullard
    • 1
  • John M. Ratcliffe
    • 2
    • 4
  • David S. Jacobs
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of Toronto at MississaugaMississaugaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Neurobiology and BehaviorCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  3. 3.Department of ZoologyUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa
  4. 4.Institute of BiologyUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations