Arctiid moth clicks can degrade the accuracy of range difference discrimination in echolocating big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus

Summary

Four big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) born and raised in captivity were trained using the Yes/No psychophysical method to report whether a virtual sonar target was at a standard distance or not. At threshold bats were able to detect a minimum range difference of 6 mm (a Δt of 36 μs).

Following threshold determinations, a click burst 1.8 ms long containing 5 pulses from the ruby tiger moth, Phragmatobia fuliginosa (Arctiidae), was presented randomly after each phantom echo. The sound energy of the click burst was -4 dB relative to that of the phantom echo. Clicks presented for the very first time could startle naive bats to different degrees depending on the individual.

The bats' performance deteriorated by as much as 4000% when the click burst started within a window of about 1.5 ms before the phantom echo (Fig. 4). Even when one of ten phantom echoes was preceded by a click burst, the range difference discrimination worsened by 200% (Fig. 9). Hence, clicks falling within the 1.5 ms time window seem to interfere with the bat's neural timing mechanism.

The clicks of arctiid moths appear to serve 3 functions: they can startle naive bats, interfere with range difference determinations, or they can signal the moth's distastefulness, as shown in earlier studies.

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

Abbreviations

peSPL :

peak equivalent sound pressure level

sd :

standard deviation

FM :

frequency modulation

CF :

constant frequency

EPROM :

erasable programmable read only memory

References

  1. Andersen BB, Miller LA (1977) A portable ultrasonic detection system for recording bat cries in the field. J Mammal 58:226–229

    Google Scholar 

  2. Au WWL, Moore PWB (1988) Detection of complex echoes in noise by an echolocating dolphin. J Acoust Soc Am 83:662–668

    Google Scholar 

  3. Berkowitz A, Suga N (1989) Neural mechanisms of ranging are different in two species of bats. Hearing Res 41:255–264

    Google Scholar 

  4. Blest AD (1964) Protective display and sound production in some New World arctiid and ctenuchid moths. Zoologica. Scientific contributions of the New York Zoological Society, pp 161–181

  5. Blest AD, Collett TS, Pye JD (1963) The generation of ultrasonic signals by a New World arctiid moth. Proc R Soc Lond B 158:196–207

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bodenhamer RD, Pollak GD (1981) Time and frequency domain processing in the inferior colliculus of echolocating bats. Hearing Res 5:317–355

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  9. Feng AS, Simmons JA, Kick SA (1978) Echo detection and target ranging neurons in the auditory system of the bat Eptesicus fuscus. Science 202:645–648

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fenton MB, Roeder KD (1974) The microtymbals of some Arctiidae. J Lepidopterists' Soc 28:205–211

    Google Scholar 

  11. Freeman PW (1981) Correspondence of food habits and morphology in insectivorous bats. J Mammal 62:166–173

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fullard JH (1979) Behavioral analyses of auditory sensitivity in Cycnia tenera Hübner (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae). J Comp Physiol 129:79–83

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gellerman LW (1933) Chance disorders of alternating stimuli in visual discrimination experiments. J Genet Psychol 42:205–208

    Google Scholar 

  16. Green DM, Forrest TG (1989) Temporal gaps in noise and sinusiods. J Acoust Soc Am 86:961–970

    Google Scholar 

  17. Griffin DR (1958) Listening in the dark. Yale Univ Press, New Haven (reprinted 1974 Dover Publications, New York)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Miller LA (1983) How insects detect and avoid bats. In: Huber F, Markl H (eds) Neuroethology and behavioral physiology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo, pp 251–266

    Google Scholar 

  19. Møhl B, Surlykke A (1989) Detection of sonar signals in the presence of pulses of masking noise by the echolocating bat, Eptesicus fuscus. J Comp Physiol A 165:119–124

    Google Scholar 

  20. Moss CF (1988) Ontogeny of vocal signals in the big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus. In: Nachtigall PE, Moore PWB (eds) Animal sonar: processes and performance. Plenum Press, New York London, pp 115–120

    Google Scholar 

  21. O'Neill WE, Suga N (1982) Encoding of target-range information and its representation in the auditory cortex of the mustached bat. J Neurosci 2:17–31

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pollak GD (1988) Time is traded for intensity in the bat's auditory system. Hearing Res 36:107–124

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pollak GD, Marsh D, Bodenhamer RD, Souter H (1977) Characteristics of phasic-on neurons in the inferior colliculus of bats with observations relating to mechanisms of echo-ranging. J Neurophysiol 40:926–942

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rothschild M, Reichstein T, Euw J von, Aplin R, Harman RRM (1970) Toxic Lepidoptera. Toxicon 8:293–299

    Google Scholar 

  25. Roverud RC (1989) A gating mechanism for sound pattern recognition is correlated with the temporal structure of echolocation sounds in the rufous horseshoe bat. J Comp Physiol A 166:243–249

    Google Scholar 

  26. Roverud RC, Grinnell AD (1985a) Discrimination performance and echolocation signal integration requirements for target detection and distance determination in the CF/FM bat, Noctilio albiventris. J Comp Physiol A 156:447–456

    Google Scholar 

  27. Roverud RC, Grinnell AD (1985b) Echolocation sound features processed to provide distance information in the CF/FM bat, Noctilio albiventris: evidence for a gated time window utilizing both CF and FM components. J Comp Physiol A 156:457–469

    Google Scholar 

  28. Simmons JA, Grinnell AD (1988) The performance of echolocation: acoustic images percieved by echolocating bats. In: Nachtigall PE, Moore PWB (eds) Animal sonar: processes and performance. Plenum Press, New York London, pp 353–385

    Google Scholar 

  29. Simmons JA, Freedman EG, Stevenson SB, Chen L, Wohlgenant TJ (1989) Clutter interference and the integration time of echoes in the echolocating bat, Eptesicus fuscus. J Acoust Soc Am 86:1318–1332

    Google Scholar 

  30. Simmons JA, Moss CF, Ferragamo M (1990) Convergence of temporal and spectral information into acoustic images of complex sonar targets preceived by the echolocating bat, Eptesicus fuscus. J Comp Physiol A 166:449–470

    Google Scholar 

  31. Stapells DR, Picton TW, Smith AD (1982) Normal hearing thresholds for clicks. J Acoust Soc Am 72:74–79

    Google Scholar 

  32. Suga N (1970) Echo-ranging neurons in the inferior colliculus of bats. Science 170:449–452

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sullivan WE (1982) Neural representation of target distance in auditory cortex of the echolocating bat Myotis lucifugus. J Neurophysiol 48:1011–1032

    Google Scholar 

  34. Surlykke A, Miller JA (1985) The influence of arctiid moth clicks on bat echolocation; Jamming or warning? J Comp Physiol A 156:831–843

    Google Scholar 

  35. Troest N, Møhl B (1986) The detection of phantom targets in noise by serotine bats; negative evidence for the coherent receiver. J Comp Physiol A 159:559–567

    Google Scholar 

  36. Urick RJ (1983) Principles of underwater sound 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Webster FA, Griffin DR (1962) The role of the flight membranes in insect capture by bats. Anim Behav 10:332–340

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miller, L.A. 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 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00215079

Download citation

Key words

  • Echolocation
  • Bat sonar
  • Moth clicks
  • Range difference discrimination