ABSTRACT

Echolocation in bats and high-frequency hearing in their insect prey make bats and insects an ideal system for studying the sensory ecology and neuroethology of predator–prey interactions. Here, we review the evolutionary history of bats and eared insects, focusing on the insect order Lepidoptera, and consider the evidence for antipredator adaptations and predator counter-adaptations. Ears evolved in a remarkable number of body locations across insects, with the original selection pressure for ears differing between groups. Although cause and effect are difficult to determine, correlations between hearing and life history strategies in moths provide evidence for how these two variables influence each other. We consider life history variables such as size, sex, circadian and seasonal activity patterns, geographic range and the composition of sympatric bat communities. We also review hypotheses on the neural basis for anti-predator behaviours (such as evasive flight and sound production) in moths. It is assumed that these prey adaptations would select for counter-adaptations in predatory bats. We suggest two levels of support for classifying bat traits as counter-adaptations: traits that allow bats to eat more eared prey than expected based on their availability in the environment provide a low level of support for counter-adaptations, whereas traits that have no other plausible explanation for their origination and maintenance than capturing defended prey constitute a high level of support. Specific predator counter-adaptations include calling at frequencies outside the sensitivity range of most eared prey, changing the pattern and frequency of echolocation calls during prey pursuit, and quiet, or ‘stealth’, echolocation.

Introduction: the evolutionary history of a predator–prey model system

As a well-known predator–prey model system, the interactions of bats and moths have long fascinated scientists (Roeder, 1967), university students (Alcock, 2013) and children alike (Oppel, 1997). Insect-eating bats detect and track moths using echolocation and attempt to capture and consume these insects in flight. In turn, some moths listen for bat echolocation calls to avoid being captured. Although the phrase ‘co-evolutionary arms race’ is often used to describe the moths' anti-bat defences (which include bat-detecting ears, sound-evoked defensive flight and sound production), there is no evidence of reciprocal adaptations between bats and moths at the species level, nor are the causes and effects of this arms race exclusive to the interactions between bats and moths. Most adaptations that make bats better moth hunters also make them more effective hunters of other insects, and such adaptations are therefore not moth specific. Likewise, some moths use their ears to detect not only bats but also insect-eating birds or mates (Conner, 1999; Nakano et al., 2015).

The evolutionary histories of predator and prey also differ. The order Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies) originated ∼150 million years ago (mya; Misof et al., 2014), long before the origin of bats, which first took to the wing sometime between 60 and 95 mya (Bininda-Emonds et al., 2007). Although powered flight is a defining characteristic of bats, laryngeal echolocation may have evolved only ∼50 mya (Simmons et al., 2008; Teeling, 2009; Veselka et al., 2010). The distinctive combination of echolocation and powered flight allowed bats to first exploit, then dominate the foraging niche of night-flying insects. Bat predation drove selection for both bat-detecting ears and non-auditory means of avoiding bats in a variety of insects, including moths and butterflies that never evolved ears and remain deaf to bats (Fullard and Napoleone, 2001; Barber et al., 2015).

The earliest adaptations in the arms race, laryngeal echolocation in bats and tympanal ears in moths, were not necessarily singular events – possibly not in bats, certainly not in moths. For bats, there are two equally parsimonious hypothetical time lines for the origination of laryngeal echolocation; it evolved either once (and was subsequently lost in the Pteropodidae) or twice (once in each of the two suborders Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera; Fig. 1). Ears have evolved numerous times independently in divergent lepidopteran groups, with bats as the apparent driver in every instance. Today, some lepidopteran lineages remain earless, having evolved other defences against bats. Interestingly, bats, which originated after insect-eating birds, may have driven some previously nocturnal lepidopteran lineages, including some extant butterflies (Yack and Fullard, 2000) and tiger moths (Ratcliffe and Nydam, 2008), into being diurnal.

Fig. 1.

Two equally parsimonious scenarios for the evolution of laryngeal echolocation in bats. (A) Laryngeal echolocation is presumed to be the ancestral state of bats and to have evolved once (+) with subsequent loss (−) in the family Pteropodidae. (B) Laryngeal echolocation is presumed to have evolved twice (+), once in the lineage leading to the Yangochiroptera, which includes the superfamilies Emballonuroidea, Vespertilionoidea and Noctilionoidea, and again in the lineage leading to the Rhinolophoidea, a superfamily within the suborder Yinpterochiroptera, which includes the Pteropodidae. Ticks indicate superfamilies in which all species are laryngeal echolocators, crosses indicate a lack of laryngeal echolocation. Adapted from Teeling (2009), Fenton and Ratcliffe (2010) and Fenton et al. (2012). mya, million years ago.

Fig. 1.

Two equally parsimonious scenarios for the evolution of laryngeal echolocation in bats. (A) Laryngeal echolocation is presumed to be the ancestral state of bats and to have evolved once (+) with subsequent loss (−) in the family Pteropodidae. (B) Laryngeal echolocation is presumed to have evolved twice (+), once in the lineage leading to the Yangochiroptera, which includes the superfamilies Emballonuroidea, Vespertilionoidea and Noctilionoidea, and again in the lineage leading to the Rhinolophoidea, a superfamily within the suborder Yinpterochiroptera, which includes the Pteropodidae. Ticks indicate superfamilies in which all species are laryngeal echolocators, crosses indicate a lack of laryngeal echolocation. Adapted from Teeling (2009), Fenton and Ratcliffe (2010) and Fenton et al. (2012). mya, million years ago.

The interactions of bats and moths do not meet a strict definition of co-evolution in which two species demonstrate reciprocal adaptations (Janzen, 1980; Jones and Rydell, 2003; Jacobs et al., 2008; Ratcliffe, 2009). Co-evolutionary relationships are most common between host and parasite species or mutualistic partners such as plants and pollinators, but are rarely observed between predator and prey. Dawkins and Krebs (1979) suggest that the rarity of co-evolution between predators and prey is due to the ‘life–dinner principle’ – the cost of a mistake being death for the prey versus only a lost meal for the predator – resulting in more specific antipredator defences than predator counter-strategies. Here, we concentrate on the traits of lepidopteran species that reduce their risk of being attacked by bats, emphasizing moths' ears, auditory-evoked evasive flight and defensive sounds. We also review auditory-based defences in other insect groups. Lastly, we discuss the evolutionary refinement of bat echolocation and related adaptations that have allowed bats to better exploit insects at night, including, but not limited to, moths with bat-detecting ears. In summary, we feel the relationship between bats, moths and other night-flying insects continues to represent an ideal system to improve our understanding of the sensory ecology and neuroethology of predator–prey interactions.

Glossary

Aerial hawking

The capture of airborne prey on the wing. Considered to be the predominant means of prey capture in most bats.

Chordotonal organs

Sensory structures specific to insects and crustaceans that contain stretch receptors and are dispersed throughout the body. Most chordotonal organs are proprioceptors, meaning that they detect and encode information about the position or movement of the animal's own body parts.

Feeding buzz

After laryngeal-echolocating bats detect airborne prey, they increase their echolocation call rate dramatically over the course of their attack, culminating in a feeding buzz (>>90 calls s−1).

Phonotaxis

The act of moving in response to sound. Positive phonotaxis refers to movement towards sound, such as when female crickets walk towards a singing male, whereas negative phonotaxis refers to movement away from sound, such as when a flying cricket flies away from an echolocating bat.

Stridulatory organ

A structure on an animal that is used to produce sound by rubbing one part against another. Often these consist of a series of ridges, called the file, and a single protrusion that is scraped against the file to produce sound.

Substrate gleaning

The capture of prey from terrestrial surfaces, e.g. vegetation or the ground. Although long known to be a means by which bats take prey, its prevalence has been underestimated.

Tymbal

A thin area of insect cuticle buckled by muscular action to produce sound. In tiger moths, tymbals are located on the ventral surface of the thorax and can be unstriated (producing two clicks per muscular contraction and relaxation cycle) or striated (producing multiple clicks per cycle).

Tympanum

A very thin region of insect cuticle forming a membrane that oscillates in response to sound waves. The tympanum is usually backed up by air sacs and is innervated either directly or indirectly by a chordotonal organ that transduces the movement of the tympanum into neural activity.

Anti-predator adaptations

The evolutionary origins of bat-detecting ears

The evolution of echolocation in bats set the stage for the vast diversity of ultrasound (>20 kHz) sensitive ears found in modern insects. As an active sensing system using high-energy acoustic signals, echolocation provides potential information to would-be prey. High-frequency-sensitive ears and auditory-evoked avoidance behaviours have evolved in at least six orders of insects (Yack and Dawson, 2008): Orthoptera (crickets, katydids and locusts), Diptera (some tachinid flies), Dictyoptera (mantids), Coleoptera (some tiger and scarab beetles), Neuroptera (green lacewings) and Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies) (Fig. 2A, Table 1). Within the Lepidoptera alone, ears have evolved independently at least six times (Fig. 2A, Table 1).

Fig. 2.

Distribution of ears across insects and moth ear structure. (A) A generalized insect and an insect phylogeny indicating where ears, if present, are located on the body in different orders and how many times ears have evolved independently in each of these orders. Shading indicates the known functions of ears: red, bat detection only; blue, functions other than bat detection; grey, bat detection plus other functions. Other functions include communication and eavesdropping on host signals. See Table 1 for references. Adapted from Yack and Dawson (2008); phylogeny redrawn from Misof et al. (2014). (B) Structural diagram of a noctuid moth ear, illustrating the presence of air sacs behind the tympanum and the attachment of the two auditory receptor cells, A1 and A2, to the tympanum (adapted from Roeder and Treat, 1957). The axon of the non-auditory B-cell, which monitors the movement of the moth's wings (Yack and Fullard, 1993), is also present in the auditory nerve. (C) Photograph of the inner surface of a noctuid moth tympanum showing the site of attachment of the receptor cells to the tympanic membrane (white fibres attaching to pale patch on dark tympanic membrane). Photo credit: M. B. Fenton (reproduced with permission).

Fig. 2.

Distribution of ears across insects and moth ear structure. (A) A generalized insect and an insect phylogeny indicating where ears, if present, are located on the body in different orders and how many times ears have evolved independently in each of these orders. Shading indicates the known functions of ears: red, bat detection only; blue, functions other than bat detection; grey, bat detection plus other functions. Other functions include communication and eavesdropping on host signals. See Table 1 for references. Adapted from Yack and Dawson (2008); phylogeny redrawn from Misof et al. (2014). (B) Structural diagram of a noctuid moth ear, illustrating the presence of air sacs behind the tympanum and the attachment of the two auditory receptor cells, A1 and A2, to the tympanum (adapted from Roeder and Treat, 1957). The axon of the non-auditory B-cell, which monitors the movement of the moth's wings (Yack and Fullard, 1993), is also present in the auditory nerve. (C) Photograph of the inner surface of a noctuid moth tympanum showing the site of attachment of the receptor cells to the tympanic membrane (white fibres attaching to pale patch on dark tympanic membrane). Photo credit: M. B. Fenton (reproduced with permission).

Table 1.

Comparative anatomical, physiological and behavioural traits of insect groups with ultrasound-sensitive ears

Comparative anatomical, physiological and behavioural traits of insect groups with ultrasound-sensitive ears
Comparative anatomical, physiological and behavioural traits of insect groups with ultrasound-sensitive ears

In insects with bat-detecting ears, auditory organs apparently evolved from chordotonal organs, which are sensory organs specific to insects and crustaceans that contain neurons sensitive to body movements (Kavlie and Albert, 2013). Chordotonal organs are dispersed throughout the body, explaining why ears are found in many different locations in insects (Fullard and Yack, 1993; Yack and Dawson, 2008; Fig. 2A). Insect ears that evolved from chordotonal organs consist of a tympanum (a membrane that vibrates in response to sound) and auditory receptor cells activated by sound-induced tympanal vibrations (Fig. 2B,C). Given the intense sounds produced by echolocating bats (Waters and Jones, 1995; Holderied and von Helversen, 2003; Holderied et al., 2005; Surlykke and Kalko, 2008), and thus the ability of these sounds to vibrate cuticle, it is easy to imagine an evolutionary progression from a chordotonal organ measuring the movements of particularly thin areas of the exoskeleton to the ears of modern insects (Yack, 2004; Yack and Dawson, 2008). Although some insects have non-tympanal ears, none of these ears are known to function in bat detection because they are insensitive to high-frequency sounds (Yack and Dawson, 2008). The ears of noctuoid moths are the best studied among the numerous families of moths with ears.

Despite the common use of ears for bat detection among the groups listed above, the original selection pressure for hearing varies. Fossil evidence shows that hearing evolved in orthopterans for intraspecific communication before the appearance of bats (Plotnick and Smith, 2012). Tachinid flies that listen for the calling songs of their cricket hosts also had ears before bats evolved (Rosen et al., 2009). For both of these groups, hearing was co-opted for bat detection in addition to still performing its original function. The original selection pressure for ears in some beetles is unclear: the ear is well suited for bat detection and ultrasound triggers evasive flight, but many species also produce sounds themselves, possibly for intraspecific communication (Yager and Spangler, 1995, 1997).

For mantids, green lacewings and moths, it had been assumed that hearing evolved in response to echolocating bats, because bat detection is the primary and often sole function of these ears today (Yack and Dawson, 2008). A recent paper using molecular methods, however, suggests that mantids had ears before bats evolved (Yager and Svenson, 2008). Mantid hearing may have first functioned in detecting other types of danger-indicating acoustic stimuli, and might then have been co-opted to detect bat echolocation calls. Although the evidence that bats drove the evolution of hearing in moths is strong, these surprising results from mantids make it clear that further molecular studies are needed to confirm whether the original function of moth and lacewing ears was indeed bat detection.

What is the evidence that moth ears evolved in response to echolocating bats? First, bat avoidance is the sole function of ears in most moth species (Fullard, 1988), and sound-triggered evasive flight provides a survival advantage for moths under attack by bats (Roeder and Treat, 1962; Acharya and Fenton, 1999; Fullard, 2001). Other uses, such as detecting insect-eating birds or intraspecific communication, are likely to be derived (Conner, 1999; Jacobs et al., 2008; Fournier et al., 2013). That said, ever more moth species are being reported to use sound for communication, and this function might be much more common than previously realized (Nakano et al., 2009). Second, the relative insensitivity of moth ears suggests that they are adapted to detecting high-intensity ultrasound sources, such as bat calls (Waters and Jones, 1995; Holderied and von Helversen, 2003; Holderied et al., 2005; Surlykke and Kalko, 2008), rather than faint ambient sounds like crackling vegetation (Fullard, 1988). Third, moth ears are typically tuned to the frequencies of echolocation calls used by their sympatric bat community and not to other environmental sources of sound (Fullard, 1988, 1998). The auditory receptors also quickly exhibit sensory adaptation to constant sound, but remain sensitive to pulsed sounds like bat calls (Fullard et al., 2008a). Fourth, there is a strong correlation between the sensitivity of moths' ears and their expected exposure to bats (ter Hofstede et al., 2008a).

Moth ears consist of a tympanum (see Glossary) that vibrates in response to sound and 1–4 auditory receptor neurons (depending on the species) that are activated by this movement (Fig. 2B,C; Box 1). Regardless of the number of auditory afferents in different moth taxa, each afferent has the same frequency tuning as the others, meaning that moths are not capable of frequency discrimination (Fullard, 1988, 1998). Each afferent, however, has different sound level thresholds (Fig. 3A; Roeder, 1967). The difference between the most sensitive receptor and the next most sensitive receptor is ∼2–6 dB in pyralids (Skals and Surlykke, 2000), 15 dB in geometrids (Roeder, 1974a; Surlykke and Filskov, 1997) and 15–20 dB in noctuids (ter Hofstede et al., 2013). These differences in threshold between afferents increase the range of amplitudes to which the ear can respond by allowing the less sensitive afferent to continue encoding increasing sound amplitude once the most sensitive afferent has reached its maximum firing capability. This allows for a very large dynamic range for intensity discrimination of 40–60 dB (Roeder, 1967; Coro and Perez, 1993), which should provide valuable information about the relative distance of an approaching bat.

Box 1. Adaptive simplicity in bat detection

With only 1–4 sensory cells per ear, depending on the family or superfamily (Table 1), moth ears are among the simplest sensory organs in nature, which could be adaptive for predator detection (Forrest et al., 1997; Yack et al., 1999; Surlykke et al., 2003). Sensory system complexity is advantageous if it provides more information for improved decision making and subsequent adaptive behaviours (Dangles et al., 2005). For rapid, reflex-like responses to predators, however, just a few cells with an appropriate threshold could provide an ideal rate of information transfer (Yack et al., 1999). Indeed, when we consider the number of auditory afferents across bat-detecting insects (Table 1), those that use their ears solely to detect bats have fewer afferents (1–32) than those that also use their ears for other purposes (60–150). The number of afferents is even greater for insects that only use their ears for communication, such as cicadas (∼1500; Wohlers et al., 1979) and bladder grasshoppers (∼2000; Van Staaden et al., 2003). In addition to rapid information processing, evolutionary history and physical and energetic constraints probably contributed to the simplicity of bat-detecting ears (Hasenfuss, 1997; Dusenbury, 2001; Smith and Lewicki, 2006; Niven and Laughlin, 2008). In most moth superfamilies, the number of auditory receptors in adult moths is the same as the number of sensory cells in the homologous chordotonal organ of the larva or closely related atympanate species (Hasenfuss, 1997; Yack et al., 1999). The complexity of the sense organ does not increase during the transition from chordotonal organ to ear, as it does in insects that also use their ears for communication (Yack et al., 1999). In the Noctuoidea, there is a reduction to one (Notodontidae) or two (other noctuoid families) auditory receptors from an original three sensory cells in the homologous larval structure (Hasenfuss, 1997). It is unclear whether Notodontidae is basal to the other noctuoid families, and lost two cells in one event (Zahiri et al., 2011), or whether this group is nested within the other noctuoid families (Regier et al., 2009, 2013) and independently lost these cells twice. In the adult ear of the Drepanidae, moths maintain the four sensory units found in the homologous larval structure, but only two function as auditory receptors (Surlykke et al., 2003). Thus, conserving just a few afferents, or even losing afferents, is common for moth ears and suggests a constraint on complex ears, or a benefit for simple ears, in this group.

Fig. 3.

Moth auditory tuning curves and distance model for bat–moth detection. (A) Threshold tuning curves for A1 and A2 of the noctuid moth Noctua pronuba (adapted from Madsen and Miller, 1987), showing the lowest sound level to elicit neural activity (lower values indicate more sensitive hearing). The two neurons have similarly shaped tuning curves – with greatest sensitivity to the ultrasonic frequencies typical of bat echolocation calls – but differ in sensitivity, with A2 thresholds ∼20 dB greater (less sensitive) than A1 thresholds. SPL, sound pressure level. (B) Variation in the sensitivity and shape of auditory tuning curves for noctuid moths living in the bat-free habitat of Tahiti (French Polynesia), the single bat species community of Kauai (Hawaiian Islands) and the bat-rich community of Zimbabwe (adapted from Fullard, 1998; Fullard et al., 2007). (C) Model depicting detection distances based on moth threshold tuning curves. The blue line shows the distance at which one moth species can hear the calls of one bat species, and the red line shows the distance at which the bat can hear the echo from the moth. For bat echolocation calls at low call source levels, bats hear moth echoes over greater distances than moths hear bat calls, and the opposite is true at high source levels. peSPL, peak equivalent sound pressure level, the sound level of a pure tone of the same frequency and peak-to-peak amplitude as the bat call. Adapted from Goerlitz et al. (2010).

Fig. 3.

Moth auditory tuning curves and distance model for bat–moth detection. (A) Threshold tuning curves for A1 and A2 of the noctuid moth Noctua pronuba (adapted from Madsen and Miller, 1987), showing the lowest sound level to elicit neural activity (lower values indicate more sensitive hearing). The two neurons have similarly shaped tuning curves – with greatest sensitivity to the ultrasonic frequencies typical of bat echolocation calls – but differ in sensitivity, with A2 thresholds ∼20 dB greater (less sensitive) than A1 thresholds. SPL, sound pressure level. (B) Variation in the sensitivity and shape of auditory tuning curves for noctuid moths living in the bat-free habitat of Tahiti (French Polynesia), the single bat species community of Kauai (Hawaiian Islands) and the bat-rich community of Zimbabwe (adapted from Fullard, 1998; Fullard et al., 2007). (C) Model depicting detection distances based on moth threshold tuning curves. The blue line shows the distance at which one moth species can hear the calls of one bat species, and the red line shows the distance at which the bat can hear the echo from the moth. For bat echolocation calls at low call source levels, bats hear moth echoes over greater distances than moths hear bat calls, and the opposite is true at high source levels. peSPL, peak equivalent sound pressure level, the sound level of a pure tone of the same frequency and peak-to-peak amplitude as the bat call. Adapted from Goerlitz et al. (2010).

Despite the convergence of form and function in moth ears, there are differences between moth species and taxonomic families that could provide insight into the evolutionary history between bats and moths. For example, the lowest threshold of the most sensitive receptor can range from 20 to 60 dB across different species of noctuids and notodontids (Surlykke, 1984; Surlykke et al., 1999; Fullard et al., 2008b; ter Hofstede et al., 2008a). By comparison, bats have much more sensitive ears, with hearing thresholds similar to those of humans, at 2–20 dB sound pressure level (SPL; Moss and Schnitzler, 1995). The enormous 40 dB range in hearing thresholds across moth species has important behavioural and ecological consequences: sensitivity determines the distance at which moths can detect an oncoming bat, and thus the time available for escape. Below, we consider the selection pressures that could have contributed to, or resulted from, variation in moths' hearing ranges and sensitivity.

Moth auditory sensitivity: cause and effect

Determining cause and effect in relationships between moth auditory sensitivity and behavioural ecology is difficult. Here, we present these relationships with no assumptions about which came first, variation in auditory sensitivity or variation in life history. Regardless, we must consider the costs that select against ever more sensitive high-frequency hearing. For a moth, reacting to non-threatening environmental sources of ultrasound, like crackling vegetation (Fullard, 1988) or bats that are too far away to be a viable threat, could result in missed mating or feeding opportunities, or even more dire consequences, such as being exposed to non-aerial predators as a result of evasive diving (Guignion and Fullard, 2004). In addition to such costs, species size, nocturnal activity level, phenology and aspects of the sympatric bat community are all correlated with moth auditory sensitivity – each of these aspects of life history is considered below.

Moth species size

Bats can detect larger moths at greater distances than they can detect smaller moths. Larger moths, however, have more sensitive ears (Surlykke et al., 1999) and detect bats at greater distances than do smaller moths, essentially compensating for their increased conspicuousness. This relationship between size and sensitivity is strongest for frequencies that are used by a large number of sympatric bats for echolocation (ter Hofstede et al., 2013). Forrest et al. (1995) suggest that this pattern of size and sensitivity may apply across all insects with bat-detecting ears. Römer et al. (2008), however, show that there is no relationship between size and high-frequency sensitivity in phaneropterine katydids, which produce high-frequency communication signals.

Nocturnal activity level

Moth species can vary in the sensitivity or tuning of their hearing depending on their exposure to bats, either temporally or geographically. Where there is sexual dimorphism in flight ability (flightless females, flight-capable males), males are at greater risk of bat predation, and females have less sensitive ears than males (Cardone and Fullard, 1988; Rydell et al., 1997). Interestingly, this relationship is also found in mantids (Yager, 1990). At a finer-grained level, for moth species in which both sexes fly, males might still be at greater risk of bat predation if they fly more at night in search of perched pheromone-releasing females. Although male-biased moth predation by bats has been observed around streetlights (Acharya, 1995), a male-biased flight-to-light response also exists in some moths (Altermatt et al., 2009). In general, for moth species in which both males and females fly, there is no evidence for differences in sensitivity between male and female moths (Surlykke and Gogala, 1986; Surlykke and Treat, 1995; Skals and Surlykke, 1999, 2000; Fullard, 2006). Sex and size aside, moth species with less sensitive ears fly less at night (ter Hofstede et al., 2008a). Thus, although less sensitive moths experience greater risks in terms of their proximity to bats before initiating evasive flight, they compensate for this cost by reducing their exposure to bats (ter Hofstede et al., 2008a).

Diurnal moth species either do not have ears or have less sensitive ears than nocturnal moths (Fullard et al., 1997, 2000; Surlykke et al., 1998; Muma and Fullard, 2004). Similarly, in butterflies, ultrasound-sensitive ears are only found among nocturnal species (Yack and Fullard, 2000), whereas some diurnal butterflies have ears that are sensitive to low-frequency sounds for communication or hearing avian predators (Yack et al., 2000; Lane et al., 2008; Lucas et al., 2009). Actograms of flight activity have revealed that many moths that were considered diurnal are also active at night, explaining the maintenance of sensitive ears in these species (Fullard and Dawson, 1999; Fullard and Napoleone, 2001). Moths that are active during the day often have greater sensitivity to sonic (<20 kHz) frequencies (Fullard et al., 1997; Surlykke et al., 1998), perhaps as a derived defence to detect the rustling sounds of birds (Jacobs et al., 2008).

Moth phenology

Seasonal differences in moth activity also correlate with ultrasound sensitivity. Moths that emerge in early spring before bats are active have higher hearing thresholds (Fullard, 1977; Fullard and Barclay, 1980). Yager et al. (2000) show a similar seasonal pattern for hearing in beetles. Winter moths also have higher thresholds, but only if they are effectively isolated from bats (Surlykke and Treat, 1995; Svensson et al., 1999; Rydell et al., 1997). Defensive sound production in tiger moths (see ‘Sound production in moths: defence, courtship and sexual antagonism’, below) follows the same pattern: species emerging in spring, when bat activity is low, have lost the ability to produce sound, whereas those emerging in summer, when bat activity is high, have not (Fullard, 1977; Fullard and Barclay, 1980; Ratcliffe and Nydam, 2008).

The sympatric bat community

Geographic variation in moth auditory sensitivity often corresponds with the number of bat species in an area (Fig. 3B). The approach of comparing auditory tuning in moths to the relevant ‘echolocation assemblage’ in which they live has been reviewed previously (Fullard, 1988, 1998). Moth species in areas with bat echolocation assemblages covering a wide frequency range have more sensitive ears that are more broadly tuned than those in areas of low bat diversity (Fullard, 1982a; Fullard et al., 1983). In the Neotropics, where there are many fruit-eating bats, the tuning of moth ears shows better congruence with the insect-eating bat echolocation assemblage than with the bat community as a whole (Fullard, 1988). In addition, moths with extremely sensitive ears tend to be found in areas of high bat predation pressure (Fullard, 1982a; Fullard et al., 2008b). In some cases, particular bat species seem to have an impact on the tuning of local moth ears. For example, the ears of Hawaiian moths have a much narrower tuning curve than those of moths found elsewhere, and they are closely tuned to the echolocation frequency of the one bat species in Hawaii, Lasiurus cinereus semotus (Fullard, 1984a). Horseshoe bats, if present, usually have the highest frequency echolocation calls in a community, and their presence appears to select for improved higher frequency hearing in local moth populations (Jacobs et al., 2008; ter Hofstede et al., 2013) and several Old World mantis species (Triblehorn and Yager, 2001).

Studies have found some evidence of neural regression in moth species that live where bats do not. Moths endemic to bat-free French Polynesia are less sensitive to sounds >25 kHz compared with more recent immigrants (Fullard, 1994; Fullard et al., 2007). This high-frequency deafness might reflect neural regression (Fullard et al., 2007) or thickening of the tympana (Ratcliffe, 2009). The behavioural response to ultrasound is also lost in most of these endemic species (Fullard et al., 2004; Fig. 3B). However, this pattern was not found for bat-free arctic locations, possibly because these moth populations are not isolated from gene flow from southern populations or have not been isolated for long enough for changes to occur (Surlykke, 1986; Rydell et al., 2000).

Bat-avoidance behaviour in moths and other insects

Given the well-supported hypothesis that the original and primary purpose of moths' ears is to detect predatory bats, we should expect to see adaptive behavioural responses to ultrasonic sounds in moths with ultrasound-sensitive ears. Many studies have shown evasive behaviours by moths in response to bat-like sounds (Table 1). These evasive responses are usually graded, meaning that the responses change in a quantitative or qualitative manner with increasing sound amplitude. Almost all other insects with bat-evasive behaviours also show this pattern of graded response, changing from small alterations in flight direction or speed to drastic, last-ditch behaviours as sound amplitude at their ears increases (green lacewings: Miller and Olesen, 1979; crickets: Nolen and Hoy, 1986; mantids: Yager et al., 1990; beetles: Forrest et al., 1995; some katydids: Schulze and Schul, 2001; tachinid flies: Rosen et al., 2009). This is a highly adaptive pattern for bat avoidance. Many insects can detect bats before the bats can detect the echoes reflected from the insect (Surlykke, 1988; Surlykke et al., 1999; Goerlitz et al., 2010; Fig. 3C), and under these circumstances, directional flight or small changes in flight trajectory should allow the insect to get out of the path of the approaching bat before it is detected (Surlykke, 1988; Surlykke et al., 1999; Goerlitz et al., 2010). Insects with two ears might use differences in the sound arrival time or intensity at each ear as information about the direction of the sound source (Payne et al., 1966). Most of these studies have investigated responses to ultrasound in tethered animals, and it is not entirely clear whether or how some of these graded behaviours translate into differences in behaviour in free flight.

If a bat makes a sudden change in flight direction, a flying insect might find itself confronted by a hunting bat ready to attack. Similarly, some bats will continue to track evasively flying insects, rather than give up. In such situations, the insect may take advantage of its greater manoeuvrability compared with that of the larger bat (Ghose et al., 2009), and behaviours such as loops, dives, zig-zigs and spirals can allow the insect to drop out of the bat's sonar beam. Directional flight away from low-amplitude ultrasonic pulses and last-ditch manoeuvres in response to high-amplitude ultrasonic pulses have been observed in noctuids, geometrids and notodontids (Roeder, 1962, 1964; Agee, 1967, 1969; Surlykke, 1984; Rydell et al., 1997; Svensson et al., 1999). Pyralids (Table 1) probably have a graded response as well; they dive in response to loud ultrasound, but flight responses to low-amplitude ultrasound have been difficult to classify (Skals and Surlykke, 2000; Rodríguez and Greenfield, 2004). Graded responses have also been observed for insects that lack directional hearing (e.g. mantids and sphingids), with low-amplitude ultrasound eliciting turning and higher amplitudes eliciting flight cessation (Yager et al., 1990; Göpfert and Wasserthal, 1999a).

The behavioural responses of moths to bat calls are known to occur at lower sound amplitudes when sound pulses are broadcast at biologically relevant repetition rates, i.e. those used by bats during their search for and approach to prey, rather than isolated sound pulses (noctuids: Agee, 1969; Roeder, 1964; arctiids: Fullard, 1984b; pyralids: Skals and Surlykke, 2000). This pattern also holds for other insect groups with bat-detecting ears (lacewings: Miller and Olesen, 1979; crickets: Nolen and Hoy, 1986; mantids: Triblehorn and Yager, 2005). In addition, moths with ears will fly less at night when subjected to the playbacks of bat calls than they do under silent conditions (Fullard et al., 2003; Ratcliffe et al., 2008). Together, these studies show that insect responses to ultrasound are fine-tuned to the predatory cues of bats.

Erratic flight is a pervasive strategy for predator avoidance for many flying insects, providing defence against birds (Jacobs et al., 2008; Fournier et al., 2013) and bats (Roeder, 1967; Acharya and Fenton, 1999) alike. Compared with eared moths, earless moths rely more on passive defences, such as flying less at night (Morrill and Fullard, 1992; Fullard and Napoleone, 2001; Soutar and Fullard, 2004), closer to vegetation (Lewis et al., 1993; Rydell, 1998), more erratically (Lewis et al., 1993; Rydell and Lancaster, 2000) or at times when bats are not active (Yack, 1988; Morrill and Fullard, 1992; Lewis et al., 1993). Hepialis humuli is an earless moth that performs short visual flight displays at dusk, thereby reducing its exposure to birds and bats (Andersson et al., 1998). Although these moths exhibit this and all the other passive defences listed above for earless moths (Rydell, 1998; Rydell and Lancaster, 2000), the bat Eptesicus nilssonii can apparently overcome these defences by emerging early in the evening and using vision to locate these large white moths (Eklöf et al., 2002).

With the appearance of bats, different moth species took parallel paths to bat avoidance: reactionary auditory-evoked evasive flight in eared moths and preventative continuous erratic flight in earless moths. The evolution of ears might have released some moths from the necessity of inefficient erratic flight, allowing for a more efficient straight flight path, only interrupted by erratic flight in the presence of bats.

Sound production in moths: defence, courtship and sexual antagonism

Until now, we have considered only passive bat avoidance behaviours in earless insects (e.g. meandering flight) and two forms of active bat avoidance in eared moths: auditory-evoked negative phonotaxis (i.e. moving away from a sound source; see Glossary), which occurs in response to distant bats, and erratic flight behaviours, which occur in response to nearby bats. Tiger moths and their allies (family Erebidae, subfamily Arctiinae) are closely related to the noctuids and lymantriids, and, as expected based on their phylogenetic position, possess a pair of ears with two auditory afferents (the A1 and A2 cells found in noctuids; Box 2, Figs 2B, 3A). Chemical defence, by way of compounds produced de novo or sequestered from plants during the caterpillar stage, and high-frequency, high-energy sound production are thought to be ancestral characteristics of this clade (Weller et al., 1999; Nishida, 2002). Tiger moth species that produce sound do so using two tymbals (see Glossary) found on opposite sides of the thorax. These produce a train of clicks as they buckle in and out. Tiger moths produce these sounds in response to tactile stimulation, bat echolocation calls or both. The timing of the clicks varies within and between species, but most sound-producing species appear to time their clicks to the echolocation pulses of nearby bats in the approach phase of attack (Fullard, 1984b; Ratcliffe and Fullard, 2005; Barber and Conner, 2006).

Box 2. Neural basis for evasive flight in moths

Moth auditory neurophysiology has been best studied in noctuids. The noctuid auditory nerve is composed of two auditory receptor cells (A1 and A2) and a non-auditory B-cell (see Fig. 2B). The axons of these cells enter the pterothoracic ganglion located in the thorax (Surlykke and Miller, 1982), where they synapse with auditory interneurons (Boyan and Fullard, 1986). The A1 and B-cells have projections that either terminate in the pterothoracic ganglion or extend up to the suboesophogeal ganglion, whereas A2 projections are limited to the pterothoracic ganglion (Agee and Orona, 1988; Zhemchuzhnikov et al., 2014). The exact circuitry involved in processing auditory inputs is unknown in moths, although models have been proposed (Boyan and Fullard, 1986; Boyan et al., 1990). Numerous interneurons, which either repeat or filter/process the input of the auditory receptors, have been identified in the pterothoracic ganglion, and many are believed to have axons extending to the brain (Boyan et al., 1990). The influence of the brain on evasive flight has been studied by observing the behavioural responses of decapitated moths to pulsed ultrasound, with mixed results depending on moth family (Treat, 1955; Agee, 1985; Fullard, 1982b; Dawson and Fullard, 1995; Skals and Surlykke, 2000). Therefore, the role of the brain in bat evasion appears to differ between these groups. The context of bat detection can also influence decision-making processes in some moths. For example, the detection of pheromones reduces anti-bat behaviour in male moths (Svensson et al., 2004; Skals et al., 2005). A frequently cited but untested hypothesis for the neural basis of evasive flight in noctuid moths is that the more sensitive receptor (A1) triggers directional flight, whereas the less sensitive receptor (A2) triggers last-ditch behaviour (Roeder, 1974b). This hypothesis implies that A1 and A2 encode different types of information about predation risk: potentially ‘I am not yet detected by the bat’ and ‘I am now detectable by the bat’ (ter Hofstede et al., 2013). Other authors (Surlykke, 1984; Ratcliffe et al., 2009) have suggested that A2 might only increase the dynamic range of the ear, i.e. simply the number of receptor spikes in a given time from A1 or both A1 and A2 would determine the type of behavioural response. Whether moths with more than two receptors display more than two types of evasive behaviour has also never been tested. Further work on the relationship between neural activity and behaviour is needed to address the adaptive significance of hearing for anti-predator defences in moths.

Sound production in tiger moths has long been recognized to have a defensive function against bats, deterring experienced bats from completing their aerial hawking attacks (see Glossary) in both the field and flight room (Acharya and Fenton, 1992; Dunning et al., 1992; Hristov and Conner, 2005; Ratcliffe and Fullard, 2005). Three hypotheses have sought to explain how tiger moth clicks deter bats: (i) by startling naive bats, (ii) by jamming bat echolocation and (iii) by acting as warning signals, reminding experienced bats of the moths' chemical defences (Hristov and Conner, 2005; Ratcliffe and Fullard, 2005; Ratcliffe, 2009; Corcoran et al., 2010). We argue that startle and jamming should be considered together as auditory interference, where startle effects of the tiger moth clicks diminish with bats' experience, and, regardless of experience, tiger moth species able to produce greater numbers of clicks per unit time are better able to interfere with the ranging abilities of attacking bats (in other words, ‘jamming’ bat echolocation).

Moths of the palatable species Bertholdia trigona are at the extreme of this tymbal click rate continuum, producing so many clicks that they inarguably must interfere with an attacking bat's target ranging capabilities. Cycnia tenera and Euchaetes egle, conversely, produce roughly the same number of clicks per unit time and far fewer clicks than B. trigona, and, as follows, these clicks are less likely to fall within the 2 ms window at the bat's ear when it is expecting target echoes (<20% of the time for C. tenera; Ratcliffe and Fullard, 2005). Supporting this contention, behavioural data from naive bats suggest that clicks, in and of themselves, deter bats ∼20% of the time in palatable E. egle and >90% of the time in B. trigona (Hristov and Conner, 2005; Corcoran et al., 2009). Further, when the clicks of chemically defended C. tenera fall within this 2 ms window, they do interfere with echolocation in experienced bats (Ratcliffe and Fullard, 2005). Sound production is not limited to tiger moths, and new evidence suggests that some sphinx moths also deter bats by producing many clicks per unit time with a stridulatory organ (see Glossary; Barber and Kawahara, 2013; Kawahara and Barber, 2015).

During aerial hawking attacks, tiger moth clicks can act as warning signals for experienced bats. We have suggested previously that this third hypothesized mechanism of bat deterrence (‘acoustic aposematism’) may be related to the effectiveness of the clicks as interference signals (Ratcliffe and Fullard, 2005). Specifically, we suggest that the more high-frequency clicks produced per unit time, the more negative and salient the warning signal. To illustrate, with respect to food flavours, the more negative and salient the signal (e.g. bitter or sour), the more readily the signal is associated with a negative consequence (e.g. gastrointestinal malaise; reviewed in Ratcliffe et al., 2003). If this is also the case in the auditory domain, tiger moths producing more clicks per unit time may be more effective at training individual bats to avoid them in the future (Ratcliffe and Fullard, 2005). At present, the inter- and intra-specific relationships, if any, between palatability and signal complexity are unknown, and these relationships are complicated by mimics – sympatric sound-producing tiger moths that are more palatable than their putative models (Barber and Conner, 2007).

As seen in noctuid moths, the context in which tiger moths detect bats can influence decision making in these species. In the dogbane tiger moth, C. tenera, anti-bat sounds are initially produced in equal numbers to bat-like sounds representing a searching bat (low risk) or an attacking bat (high risk). Over time, however, the moths habituate more (i.e. produce fewer sounds) to the sounds of a low-risk searching bat than to those of an attacking bat, reflecting an adaptive response to different levels of risk. These changes in behaviour are not due to sensory adaptation or muscle fatigue, and thus are the result of changes at the central nervous system level (Ratcliffe et al., 2011a).

In addition to this defensive function, some tiger moths and noctuids use sounds during courtship. Although we will not describe this additional function of sound production in detail, we mention it here because we believe it is an interesting extension of the bat–moth story. For example, males of the pyralid moth Ostrinia furnacalis produce sounds to elicit an anti-bat response (freezing) so they can forcibly mate with perched females, whereas females of the arctiid moth Eilema japonica can distinguish between bat and male calls and only take defensive action to bat calls (Nakano et al., 2013). Producing sounds for mating purposes also comes at the potential cost of attracting eavesdropping bats, as is seen in the pyralid moth Achroia grisella (Alem et al., 2011). Generally considered rare in moths, acoustic communication for mating has been discovered in more and more moth species in recent years, suggesting that it is far more common than previously appreciated, but was previously overlooked in some species because of the low intensity of the signals (Nakano et al., 2008, 2009). For reviews of intraspecific acoustic communication in moths, see Conner (1999) and Nakano et al. (2015).

Evolution of hunting strategies in bats: better ways to catch insects, eared or otherwise

The evolutionary origins of echolocation in bats

The case for bats having evolved counter-measures against eared prey is not nearly as strong as the evidence supporting bat predation as the selection pressure for hearing in many insect groups. The adaptive radiation of bats into the ∼20 families and >1300 species seen today occurred ∼50 mya, after laryngeal echolocation had evolved in the ancestral bat (Teeling et al., 2005; Teeling, 2009; Fenton and Ratcliffe, 2010). More than 1000 extant bat species are laryngeal echolocators (Ratcliffe et al., 2013). This diversification was due to the success of bats in exploiting the unoccupied foraging niche of night-flying insects (Griffin, 1958). Although the first bats might not have echolocated (Simmons et al., 2008; Veselka et al., 2010), they most likely ate insects, using passive listening to detect prey on the vegetation and the ground (Simmons and Geisler, 1998). As powered flight further developed, so too, we expect, did echolocation and the ability to track airborne prey (Ratcliffe et al., 2011b, 2013). Emerging hundreds of millions of years after the appearance of insects (Bininda-Emonds et al., 2007; Misof et al., 2014) and ∼100 million years after the origin of the Lepidoptera (Bininda-Emonds et al., 2007; Misof et al., 2014), the first echolocating bats would have encountered many night-flying insects that were defenceless against aerial attacks. Presumably, these insects would, at first, have been easy prey compared with modern night-flying insects.

Aerial hawking was and remains the primary selective pressure for the evolution and maintenance of bat detection and defence in insects (Ratcliffe and Fullard, 2005; Ratcliffe, 2009). Although many bat species take prey from water and terrestrial surfaces, most of these species also capture prey in flight (Ratcliffe et al., 2006; Ratcliffe, 2009). Over time, airborne insects, through the evolution of bat-detecting ears and auditory-evoked defensive flight behaviours and passive anti-bat behaviours (both discussed above), would in general have become more difficult to track and capture, providing selective pressure for bat biosonar systems to better track would-be prey.

Here, we review the evidence for adaptive counter-strategies in bats against eared moths. We propose two criteria for assessing whether a given bat species or clade evolved adaptations specifically to circumvent bat-detecting ears in insects. The first criterion is met if the bat species eats a significantly larger proportion of eared insects than is available in the environment. This is frequently estimated using the proportion of moths in the diet (Box 3). This level of evidence can be considered as a ‘low bar’ that represents only weak support for the existence of counter-adaptation, given that eared moths fly relatively slowly, are soft-bodied and thus should be especially attractive to bats as compared with hard-shelled beetles, fast-flying sphinx moths, measly flies (e.g. mosquitos) and miniscule chironomids. The second ‘high bar’ criterion, which provides a higher level of support for bat counter-adaptation, requires that the putative bat counter-measure against insect hearing has no plausible alternative explanation for its origination and maintenance.

Box 3. What is a moth specialist?

Frequently, the proportion of moths in the diets of bats is used as a measure of the proficiency of a bat species at overcoming the auditory defences of insect prey. Moths, however, make up a substantial proportion of the large flying insects that are active at night, and, not surprisingly, constitute a large proportion of the diet of many bat species (Ratcliffe, 2009; Clare et al., 2009; Bohmann et al., 2011). Thus, an actual preference for moths in a given bat species dictates that the proportion of moths consumed must be significantly larger than the proportion of moths making up the community of insect species flying at night. That is, for a bat to be a ‘moth specialist’, its moth encounter rate must be lower than its moth consumption rate. Furthermore, the preference of a given bat species for a specific size range of flying insect prey should also be taken into consideration: a general preference for moth-sized insects in a moth-rich environment should not be taken as unequivocal evidence of dietary preference. For example, the eastern red bat, Lasiurus borealis, was until recently considered to be a moth specialist. These fast-flying, open-space aerial hawkers often hunt moths around streetlights, using two remarkable behaviours. First, these bats use the longest feeding buzzes recorded, at times exceeding 3 s (Acharya and Fenton, 1999). Most bats produce ∼200 ms buzzes in the field, and shorter ones in a flight room (Simmons et al., 1979; Surlykke and Moss, 2000; Schnitzler and Kalko, 2001; Moss et al., 2006; Ratcliffe et al., 2013). By combining the high-update rates of the buzz with a lower-frequency, broader sonar beam, red bats should be able to track unpredictably flying insects for much longer than other bats. Second, eared moths, when they do escape the attack of one bat, are often taken by a second opportunistic red bat as the moth dives to the ground (Reddy and Fenton, 2003). Although anecdotal evidence once suggested that red bats were moth specialists, recent genetic diet analyses show that red bats are dietary generalists, taking no greater percentage of moths than expected based on their availability (Clare et al., 2009). These putative moth specialists are thus similar to the majority of insect-eating bat species; they are opportunists, foraging to maximize energy intake versus time and energy output.

The allotonic frequency hypothesis

The majority of eared insects are most sensitive to sounds within the range of most bat echolocation signals, between 20 and 50 kHz (Fullard, 1998; Ratcliffe, 2009). Therefore, one potential counter-strategy for bats against insect hearing, referred to as the allotonic frequency hypothesis, would be to produce either very high- or very low-frequency echolocation calls outside the best hearing range of most insects. A handful of species, including several molossids and at least one vespertilionid – the spotted bat, Euderma maculatum – are known to produce exceptionally low-frequency echolocation calls (Fullard and Dawson, 1997). Euderma maculatum is a small- to medium-sized bat. Based on the relationship between size and echolocation call frequency that is well established among vespertilionid species (Jones, 1999), E. maculatum would be expected to use echolocation calls with maximum energy around or above 30 kHz. Instead, they produce narrowband calls with peak frequencies of ∼10 kHz, outside the sensitivity range of sympatric eared moth species (Fullard and Dawson, 1997). Genetic diet analyses have not been conducted, but faecal analysis suggests that these bats consume many more moths than would be predicted from moth abundance alone (Painter et al., 2009).

Although E. maculatum and some of the molossids with low-frequency calls (e.g. Eumops spp.) satisfy our criterion for the low bar, they do not unequivocally cross our high bar for evidence of counter-adaptation. This is because the use of very low-frequency echolocation calls has other advantages for the species that produce them. All of these species are fast-flying, open-space aerial hawkers. Low frequencies attenuate less rapidly in air (Griffin, 1971; Lawrence and Simmons, 1982) and, all else being equal, these bats should enjoy the advantage of greater detection ranges (reviewed in Ratcliffe, 2009).

At the other extreme of the echolocation call frequency spectrum is the little-studied African hipposiderid, Cleotis percivalis, which produces echolocation calls with maximum energy at a frequency higher than any animal ever recorded (∼212 kHz: Fenton and Bell, 1981); these signals are almost certainly inaudible to even the most sensitive moth species throughout the entire pursuit (Fullard, 1998; Ratcliffe, 2009). Owing to the extreme atmospheric attenuation of such frequencies, however, the detection range of C. pervalis will be very short, imposing a cost for orientation and prey detection, and suggesting that this extreme frequency might have evolved to circumvent auditory detection by insects. However, using high-frequency calls can also provide the benefit of more-detailed information about one's immediate surroundings, and therefore only fulfils the low bar criterion as a counter-adaptation to insect hearing.

Among aerially hawking laryngeal-echolocating bats, there are those that produce short-duration, often frequency-modulated calls and separate call and echo in time to estimate the position of prey and other objects, and those that produce longer-duration calls of constant frequency and separate call from echo using frequency differences generated by Doppler shifts (Neuweiler, 1990; Fenton et al., 2012). Bats from the first group, called frequency-modulating or low duty cycle (LDC) bats, are found in both suborders and have a worldwide distribution. Bats in the second group, called constant-frequency or high duty cycle (HDC) bats, are, with the exception of a few mormoopid species, found only in one suborder and confined to the Old World. Relative to LDC bats of the same size, HDC bats tend to use higher peak frequencies, and, as a result, have been proposed to circumvent the auditory defences of moths. Among communities of HDC bats, those that use the highest frequencies consume the most moths (Schoeman and Jacobs, 2003). However, owing to the increased sensitivity of moth ears to longer-duration sounds (Tougaard, 1996, 1998; Ratcliffe et al., 2009), any advantage conferred to HDC bats by using higher frequencies appears to be nullified by their very long duration calls (Jacobs et al., 2008). HDC bats are able to detect fluttering insect wings (through acoustic glints) and distinguish them from background echoes (e.g. those from vegetation); LDC bats cannot. For this reason, insects flying close to clutter, whether eared or earless, may be more susceptible to capture by HDC bats.

Terminal buzz phases as counter-measures against increasingly evasive flying insects

During an aerial attack, bats produce calls more rapidly as they approach prey. A feeding buzz (i.e. echolocation call rates of >100 calls s−1, and ≥200 calls s−1 in some species; see Glossary) has been described for almost all bats studied when taking airborne prey, a rare exception being the primarily substrate gleaning bat (see Glossary) Megaderma lyra from the ancient, species-poor family Megadermatidae (Schmidt et al., 2011). During the terminal sub-phase of a feeding buzz (often referred to as buzz II), species in the sister LDC bat families Vespertilionidae and Molossidae drop the peak frequency of their echolocation calls by an octave and, consequently, roughly double the breadth of their sonar beam (Jakobsen et al., 2013; Ratcliffe et al., 2013). HDC rhinolophids, through an unknown mechanism, also broaden their beam during the buzz (Matsuta et al., 2013). For all hawking species, we suggest that the buzz evolved to allow better tracking of ever more evasive prey (Elemans et al., 2011; Ratcliffe et al., 2013; Hulgard and Ratcliffe, 2016). For vespertilionids and molossids, the octave drop of buzz II might represent a further counter-adaptation to track evasively flying insects, including, but not limited to, eared moths and other insects with bat-detecting ears (Jakobsen and Surlykke, 2010; Ratcliffe et al., 2013).

Quiet calling

When flying in open space, bats are far louder than previously recognized, producing signals between 120 and 140 dB SPL when measured at 10 cm from the bat's mouth (Surlykke and Kalko, 2008). Bats therefore have much longer detection ranges than previously appreciated but are detected by eared prey at even greater distances. This occurs because, although bats' ears are more sensitive than those of insects, prey echoes returning to the bat have travelled – and attenuated – over the distance both to and from the insect, and consequently contain much less energy than the signal reaching the insect (Fig. 3C). Through substrate gleaning of prey from terrestrial surfaces, some bats might circumvent eared insects' defences. Gleaning is likely to be the ancestral condition of predatory bats, and has independently evolved many times since (Simmons and Geisler, 1998). Extant gleaning bats – and those which both glean and hawk prey – use echolocation calls of much lower intensity than hawking bats, and are relatively inaudible to eared moths (Faure et al., 1990, 1993). The presence of gleaning bats might not select for more sensitive ears in moths if the risk of being eaten by a gleaning bat is less than the risk of never mating owing to unnecessary evasion of aerially hawking bats that are too far away to pose a threat.

There is scant evidence that gleaning bats take more eared prey than would be expected by chance, or that low-intensity echolocation calls evolved in the context of gleaning to circumvent the ears of moths or other insects. Bats use lower-intensity echolocation as they approach objects – whether to land, fly by or take prey – to prevent self-deafening from intense echoes and reduce the costs of producing high-intensity sounds when they are unnecessary to produce audible echoes (Kick and Simmons, 1984; Hartley, 1992).

The only bat thus far that meets both of our criteria for a counter-strategy to insect hearing is the hawking vespertilionid, Barbastella barbastellus (Goerlitz et al., 2010). When searching for prey, B. barbastellus produces echolocation calls of much lower intensity (∼94 dB SPL) than those of the sympatric vespertilionid Nyctalus leisleri (∼127 dB SPL). Both bat species produce calls with peak frequencies within the best hearing range of sympatric moths (B. barbastellus: 33 kHz; N. leisleri: 28 kHz). Owing to its low-intensity calls, however, B. barbastellus is not detected by noctuid moths until the bat is ∼4 m away. Conversely, N. leisleri can be detected at >30 m. A stealth approach has benefits and costs; B. barbastellus is the only bat species known that should detect eared moths before the moths detect them (Fig. 3C). However, the prey detection range of B. barbastellus is only ∼5 m, whereas that of N. leisleri is ∼20 m. Molecular diet analyses of these two species reveal that ∼85% of the diet of B. barbastellus consists of eared moths, whereas for N. leisleri the range is 0–56%. There is no plausible functional explanation for using echolocation calls of such low intensity in open space other than to circumvent the bat-detecting ears of insects, which is likely to explain the fact that the diet of B. barbastellus consists almost entirely of eared moths. This suggests that circumventing moth hearing is the selective pressure that maintains, and perhaps originally selected for, the use of low-intensity calls by B. barbastellus. Further phylogenetic analyses are needed to determine the ancestral state of calling amplitude in the bat lineages closely related to B. barbastellus to provide stronger evidence for this hypothesis.

Conclusions

Bats and their insect prey provide a fascinating study system to investigate questions related to the evolution of sensory systems and behaviour. The evolution of echolocation in bats for orientation and finding food was a major change for the entire nocturnal animal community at the time, and the number of times that bat-detecting ears have independently evolved in the insects is a testament to the intense selection pressure that bats exert on these species. Designating these relationships as co-evolutionary processes is problematic because of the very diffuse interactions between these groups, but research into potential counter-adaptations by bats to the anti-bat adaptations in insects provides exciting examples of how bat echolocation can be influenced by their prey. Several aspects of bat–insect interactions make them excellent candidates for future work on predator–prey dynamics. First, whereas most predator–prey interactions may be multimodal, and thus require many combinations of sensory stimuli for adequate behavioural tests, bats and moths present a simple, almost exclusively acoustic-based system. Second, sound is relatively easily recorded, analysed and reproduced for experimentation. Third, recent advances in 3D microphone arrays and 3D infrared videography mean that researchers have begun to investigate these interactions in the wild (Corcoran and Conner, 2012). Fourth, using combinations of real-world interactions, naturalistic acoustic stimuli and neurophysiological recordings, researchers will soon be able to elucidate the neural underpinnings of bat–moth interactions, thus providing us with further insight into this fascinating system.

Acknowledgements

We dedicate this review to James Fullard and Annemarie Surlykke. We thank Jeneni Thiagavel, Signe Brinkløv, Jesse Barber, Charlotte Rutledge and one anonymous reviewer for comments on the manuscript.

Footnotes

Funding

The Danish Research Council (FNU), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the National Geographic Society, the University of Toronto and Dartmouth College have funded our research.

References

Acharya
,
L.
(
1995
).
Sex-biased predation on moths by insectivorous bats
.
Anim. Behav.
49
,
1461
-
1468
.
Acharya
,
L.
and
Fenton
,
M. B.
(
1992
).
Echolocation behaviour of vespertilionid bats (Lasiurus cinereus and Lasiurus borealis) attacking airborne targets including arctiid moths
.
Can. J. Zool.
70
,
1292
-
1298
.
Acharya
,
L.
and
Fenton
,
M. B.
(
1999
).
Bat attacks and moth defensive behaviour around street lights
.
Can. J. Zool.
77
,
27
-
33
.
Agee
,
H. R.
(
1967
).
Response of acoustic sense cell of the bollworm and tobacco budworm to ultrasound
.
J. Econ. Entomol.
60
,
366
-
369
.
Agee
,
H. R.
(
1969
).
Response of flying bollworm moths and other tympanate moths to pulsed ultrasound
.
Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am.
62
,
801
-
807
.
Agee
,
H. R.
(
1985
).
Neurobiology of the bollworm moth: neural elements controlling behavioral responses to pulsed ultrasound
.
J. Agric. Entomol.
2
,
345
-
350
.
Agee
,
H. R.
and
Orona
,
E.
(
1988
).
Studies of the neural basis of evasive flight behavior in response to acoustic stimulation in Heliothis zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): organization of the tympanic nerves
.
Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am.
81
,
977
-
985
.
Alcock
,
J.
(
2013
).
Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach
.
Sunderland
:
Sinauer Associates
.
Alem
,
S.
,
Koselj
,
K.
,
Siemers
,
B. M.
and
Greenfield
,
M. D.
(
2011
).
Bat predation and the evolution of leks in acoustic moths
.
Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.
65
,
2105
-
2116
.
Altermatt
,
F.
,
Baumeyer
,
A.
and
Ebert
,
D.
(
2009
).
Experimental evidence for male biased flight-to-light behavior in two moth species
.
Entomol. Exp. Appl.
130
,
259
-
265
.
Andersson
,
S.
,
Rydell
,
J.
and
Svensson
,
M. G. E.
(
1998
).
Light, predation and the lekking behaviour of the ghost swift Hepialus humuli (L.) (Lepidoptera: Hepialidae)
.
Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.
265
,
1345
-
1351
.
Barber
,
J. R.
and
Conner
,
W. E.
(
2006
).
Tiger moth responses to a simulated bat attack: timing and duty cycle
.
J. Exp. Biol.
209
,
2637
-
2650
.
Barber
,
J. R.
and
Conner
,
W. E.
(
2007
).
Acoustic mimicry in a predator prey interaction
.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
104
,
9331
-
9334
.
Barber
,
J. R.
and
Kawahara
,
A. Y.
(
2013
).
Hawkmoths produce anti-bat ultrasound
.
Biol. Lett.
9
,
20130161
.
Barber
,
J. R.
,
Leavell
,
B. C.
,
Keener
,
A. L.
,
Breinholt
,
J. W.
,
Chadwell
,
B. A.
,
McClure
,
C. J. W.
,
Hill
,
G. M.
and
Kawahara
,
A. Y.
(
2015
).
Moth tails divert bat attack: evolution of acoustic deflection
.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
112
,
2812
-
2816
.
Bininda-Emonds
,
O. R. P.
,
Cardillo
,
M.
,
Jones
,
K. E.
,
MacPhee
,
R. D. E.
,
Beck
,
R. M. D.
,
Grenyer
,
R.
,
Price
,
S. A.
,
Vos
,
R. A.
,
Gittleman
,
J. L.
and
Purvis
,
A.
(
2007
).
The delayed rise of present-day mammals
.
Nature
446
,
507
-
512
.
Bohmann
,
K.
,
Monadjem
,
A.
,
Noer
,
C. L.
,
Rasmussen
,
M.
,
Zeale
,
M. R. K.
,
Clare
,
E.
,
Jones
,
G.
,
Willerslev
,
E.
,
Thomas
,
M.
and
Gilbert
,
P.
(
2011
).
Molecular diet analysis of two African free-tailed bats (Molossidae) using high throughput sequencing
.
PLoS ONE
6
,
e21441
.
Boyan
,
G. S.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
1986
).
Interneurons responding to sound in the tobacco budworm moth Heliothis virescens (Noctuidae): morphological and physiological characteristics
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
158
,
391
-
404
.
Boyan
,
G.
,
Williams
,
L.
and
Fullard
,
J.
(
1990
).
Organization of the auditory pathway in the thoracic ganglia of noctuid moths
.
J. Comp. Neurol.
295
,
248
-
267
.
Boyd
,
P.
,
Kühne
,
R.
,
Silver
,
S.
and
Lewis
,
B.
(
1984
).
Two-tone suppression and song coding by ascending neurones in the cricket Gryllus campestris L
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
154
,
423
-
430
.
Cardone
,
B.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
1988
).
Auditory characteristics and sexual dimorphism in the gypsy moth
.
Physiol. Entomol.
13
,
9
-
14
.
Clare
,
E. L.
,
Fraser
,
E. E.
,
Braid
,
H. E.
,
Fenton
,
M. B.
and
Hebert
,
P. D. N.
(
2009
).
Species on the menu of a generalist predator, the eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis): using a molecular approach to detect arthropod prey
.
Mol. Ecol.
18
,
2532
-
2542
.
Conner
,
W. E.
(
1999
).
‘Un chant d'appel amoureux’: acoustic communication in moths
.
J. Exp. Biol.
202
,
1711
-
1723
.
Corcoran
,
A. J.
and
Conner
,
W. E.
(
2012
).
Sonar jamming in the field: effectiveness and behavior of a unique prey defense
.
J. Exp. Biol.
215
,
4278
-
4287
.
Corcoran
,
A. J.
,
Barber
,
J. R.
and
Conner
,
W. E.
(
2009
).
Tiger moth jams bat sonar
.
Science
325
,
325
-
327
.
Corcoran
,
A. J.
,
Conner
,
W. E.
and
Barber
,
J. R.
(
2010
).
Anti-bat tiger moth sounds: form and function
.
Curr. Zool.
56
,
358
-
369
.
Coro
,
F.
and
Perez
,
M.
(
1993
).
Threshold and suprathreshold responses of the auditory receptors in an arctiid moth
.
Experientia
49
,
285
-
290
.
Dangles
,
O.
,
Magal
,
C.
,
Pierre
,
D.
,
Olivier
,
A.
and
Casas
,
J.
(
2005
).
Variation in morphology and performance of predator-sensing system in wild cricket populations
.
J. Exp. Biol.
208
,
461
-
468
.
Dawkins
,
R.
and
Krebs
,
J. R.
(
1979
).
Arms races between and within species
.
Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.
205
,
489
-
511
.
Dawson
,
J. W.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
1995
).
The neuroethology of sound production in tiger moths (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae). II. Location of the thoracic circuitry controlling the tymbal response in Cycnia tenera Hübner
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
176
,
541
-
549
.
Dunning
,
D. C.
,
Acharya
,
L.
,
Merriman
,
C. B.
and
Ferro
,
L. D.
(
1992
).
Interactions between bats and arctiid moths
.
Can. J. Zool.
70
,
2218
-
2223
.
Dusenbury
,
D. B.
(
2001
).
Physical constraints in sensory ecology
. In
Ecology of Sensing
(ed.
F. G.
Barth
and
A.
Schmid
), pp.
19
-
37
.
New York
:
Springer-Verlag
.
Eklöf
,
J.
,
Svensson
,
A. M.
and
Rydell
,
J.
(
2002
).
Northern bats (Eptesicus nilssonii) use vision but not flutter-detection when searching for prey in clutter
.
Oikos
99
,
347
-
351
.
Elemans
,
C. P. H.
,
Mead
,
A. F.
,
Jakobsen
,
L.
and
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
(
2011
).
Superfast muscles set maximum call rate in echolocating bats
.
Science
333
,
1885
-
1888
.
Faure
,
P. A.
and
Hoy
,
R. R.
(
2000
).
Neuroethology of the katydid T-cell. I. Tuning and responses to pure tones
.
J. Exp. Biol.
203
,
3225
-
3243
.
Faure
,
P. A.
,
Fullard
,
J. H.
and
Barclay
,
R. M. R.
(
1990
).
The response of tympanate moths to the echolocation calls of a substrate gleaning bat, Myotis evotis
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
166
,
843
-
849
.
Faure
,
P. A.
,
Fullard
,
J. H.
and
Dawson
,
J. W.
(
1993
).
The gleaning attacks of the northern long-eared bat, Myotis septentrionalis, are relatively inaudible to moths
.
J. Exp. Biol.
178
,
173
-
189
.
Fenton
,
M. B.
and
Bell
,
G. P.
(
1981
).
Recognition of species of insectivorous bats by their echolocation calls
.
J. Mammal.
62
,
233
-
243
.
Fenton
,
M. B.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
1979
).
The influence of moth hearing on bat echolocation strategies
.
J. Comp. Physiol.
132
,
77
-
86
.
Fenton
,
M. B.
and
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
(
2010
).
Bats
.
Curr. Biol.
20
,
R1060
-
R1062
.
Fenton
,
M. B.
,
Faure
,
P. A.
and
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
(
2012
).
Evolution of high duty cycle echolocation in bats
.
J. Exp. Biol.
215
,
2935
-
2944
.
Forrest
,
T. G.
,
Farris
,
H. E.
and
Hoy
,
R. R.
(
1995
).
Ultrasound acoustic startle response in scarab beetles
.
J. Exp. Biol.
198
,
2593
-
2598
.
Forrest
,
T. G.
,
Farris
,
H. E.
and
Hoy
,
R. R.
(
1997
).
A tympanal hearing organ in scarab beetles
.
J. Exp. Biol.
200
,
601
-
606
.
Fournier
,
J. P.
,
Dawson
,
J. W.
,
Mikhail
,
A.
and
Yack
,
J. E.
(
2013
).
If a bird flies in the forest, does an insect hear it?
Biol. Lett.
9
,
20130319
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
1977
).
Phenology of sound-producing arctiid moths and the activity of insectivorous bats
.
Nature
267
,
42
-
43
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
1982a
).
Echolocation assemblages and their effects on moth auditory systems
.
Can. J. Zool.
60
,
2572
-
2576
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
1982b
).
Cephalic influences on a defensive behaviour in the dogbane tiger moth, Cycnia tenera
.
Physiol. Entomol.
7
,
157
-
162
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
1984a
).
Acoustic relationships between tympanate moths and the Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus)
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
155
,
795
-
801
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
1984b
).
Listening for bats: pulse repetition rate as a cue for a defensive behavior in Cycnia tenera (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae)
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
154
,
249
-
252
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
1988
).
The tuning of moth ears
.
Experientia
44
,
423
-
428
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
1994
).
Auditory changes in noctuid moths endemic to a bat-free habitat
.
J. Evol. Biol.
7
,
435
-
445
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
1998
).
The sensory coevolution of moths and bats
. In
Comparative Hearing: Insects
(ed.
R. R.
Hoy
,
A. N.
Popper
and
R. R.
Fay
), pp.
279
-
326
.
New York
:
Springer
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
2001
).
Auditory sensitivity of Hawaiian moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and selective predation by the Hawaiian hoary bat (Chiroptera: Lasiurus cinereus semotus)
.
Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.
268
,
1375
-
1380
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
2006
).
Evolution of hearing in moths: the ears of Oenosandra boisduvalii (Noctuoidea: Oenosandridae)
.
Aust. J. Zool.
54
,
51
-
56
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
and
Barclay
,
R. M. R.
(
1980
).
Audition in spring species of arctiid moths as a possible response to differential levels of insectivorous bat predation
.
Can. J. Zool.
58
,
1745
-
1750
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
and
Dawson
,
J. W.
(
1997
).
The echolocation calls of the spotted bat, Euderma maculatum are relatively inaudible to moths
.
J. Exp. Biol.
200
,
129
-
137
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
and
Dawson
,
J. W.
(
1999
).
Why do diurnal moths have ears?
Naturwiss
86
,
276
-
279
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
and
Napoleone
,
N.
(
2001
).
Diel flight periodicity and the evolution of auditory defences in the Macrolepidoptera
.
Anim. Behav.
62
,
349
-
368
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
and
Yack
,
J. E.
(
1993
).
The evolutionary biology of insect hearing
.
Trends Ecol. Evol.
8
,
248
-
252
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
,
Fenton
,
M. B.
and
Furlonger
,
C. L.
(
1983
).
Sensory relationships of moths and bats sampled from two Nearctic sites
.
Can. J. Zool.
61
,
1752
-
1757
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
,
Dawson
,
J. W.
,
Otero
,
L. D.
and
Surlykke
,
A.
(
1997
).
Bat-deafness in day-flying moths (Lepidoptera, Notodontidae, Dioptinae)
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A Sens. Neural. Behav. Physiol.
181
,
477
-
483
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
,
Otero
,
L. D.
,
Orellana
,
A.
and
Surlykke
,
A.
(
2000
).
Auditory sensitivity and diel flight activity in Neotropical Lepidoptera
.
Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am.
93
,
956
-
965
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
,
Muma
,
K. E.
and
Dawson
,
J. W.
(
2003
).
Quantifying an anti-bat flight response by eared moths
.
Can. J. Zool.
81
,
395
-
399
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
,
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
and
Soutar
,
A. R.
(
2004
).
Extinction of the acoustic startle response in moths endemic to a bat-free habitat
.
J. Evol. Biol.
17
,
856
-
861
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
,
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
and
ter Hofstede
,
H. M.
(
2007
).
Neural evolution in the bat-free habitat of Tahiti: partial regression in an anti-predator auditory system
.
Biol. Lett.
3
,
26
-
28
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
,
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
and
Jacobs
,
D. S.
(
2008a
).
Ignoring the irrelevant: auditory tolerance of audible but innocuous sounds in the bat-detecting ears of moths
.
Naturwiss
95
,
241
-
245
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
,
Jackson
,
M. E.
,
Jacobs
,
D. S.
,
Pavey
,
C. R.
and
Burwell
,
C. J.
(
2008b
).
Surviving cave bats: auditory and behavioural defences in the Australian noctuid moth, Speiredonia spectans
.
J. Exp. Biol.
211
,
3808
-
3815
.
Fullard
,
J. H.
,
ter Hofstede
,
H. M.
,
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
,
Pollack
,
G. S.
,
Brigidi
,
G. S.
,
Tinghitella
,
R. M.
and
Zuk
,
M.
(
2010
).
Genetic distance and sensoribehavioural regression in the Pacific field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus
.
Naturwiss
97
,
53
-
61
.
Ghose
,
K.
,
Triblehorn
,
J. D.
,
Bohn
,
K.
,
Yager
,
D. D.
and
Moss
,
C.
(
2009
).
Behavioral responses of big brown bats to dives by praying mantises
.
J. Exp. Biol.
212
,
693
-
703
.
Goerlitz
,
H. R.
,
ter Hofstede
,
H. M.
,
Zeale
,
M. R. K.
,
Jones
,
G.
and
Holderied
,
M. W.
(
2010
).
An aerial-hawking bat uses stealth echolocation to counter moth hearing
.
Curr. Biol.
20
,
1568
-
1572
.
Göpfert
,
M. C.
and
Wasserthal
,
L. T.
(
1999a
).
Hearing with the mouthparts: behavioural responses and the structural basis of ultrasound perception in acherontiine hawmoths
.
J. Exp. Biol.
202
,
909
-
918
.
Göpfert
,
M. C.
and
Wasserthal
,
L. T.
(
1999b
).
Auditory sensory cells in hawkmoths: identification, physiology and structure
.
J. Exp. Biol.
202
,
1579
-
1587
.
Göpfert
,
M. C.
,
Surlykke
,
A.
and
Wasserthal
,
L. T.
(
2002
).
Tympanal and atympanal ‘mouth-ears’ in hawkmoths (Sphingidae)
.
Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.
269
,
89
-
95
.
Griffin
,
D. R.
(
1958
).
Listening in the Dark
.
New Haven, CT
:
Yale University Press
.
Griffin
,
D. R.
(
1971
).
The importance of atmospheric attenuation for the echolocation of bats (Chiroptera)
.
Anim. Behav.
19
,
55
-
61
.
Guignion
,
C.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
2004
).
A potential cost of responding to bats for moths flying over water
.
Can. J. Zool.
82
,
529
-
532
.
Hartley
,
D. J.
(
1992
).
Stabilization of perceived echo amplitudes in echolocating bats. II. The acoustic behavior of the big brown bat, Eptesicus fuscus, when tracking moving prey
.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
91
,
1133
.
Hasenfuss
,
I.
(
1997
).
Precursor structures and evolution of tympanal organs in Lepidoptera (Insecta, Pterygota)
.
Zoomorphology
117
,
155
-
164
.
Heller
,
K.-G.
and
Krahe
,
R.
(
1994
).
Sound production and hearing in the pyralid moth Symmoracma minoralis
.
J. Exp. Biol.
187
,
101
-
111
.
Holderied
,
M. W.
and
von Helversen
,
O.
(
2003
).
Echolocation range and wingbeat period match in aerial-hawking bats
.
Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.
270
,
2293
-
2299
.
Holderied
,
M. W.
,
Korine
,
C.
,
Fenton
,
M. B.
,
Parsons
,
S.
,
Robson
,
S.
and
Jones
,
G.
(
2005
).
Echolocation call intensity in the aerial hawking bat Eptesicus bottae (Vespertilionidae) studied using stereo videogrammetry
.
J. Exp. Biol.
208
,
1321
-
1327
.
Hristov
,
N. I.
and
Conner
,
W. E.
(
2005
).
Sound strategy: acoustic aposematism in the bat–tiger moth arms race
.
Naturwiss
92
,
164
-
169
.
Hulgard
,
K.
and
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
(
2016
).
Sonar sound groups and increased terminal buzz duration reflect task complexity in hunting bats
.
Sci. Rep.
6
,
21500
.
Jacobs
,
D. S.
,
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
2008
).
Beware of bats, beware of birds: The auditory responses of eared moths to bat and bird predation
.
Behav. Ecol.
19
,
1333
-
1342
.
Jakobsen
,
L.
and
Surlykke
,
A.
(
2010
).
Vespertilionid bats control the width of their biosonar sound beam dynamically during prey pursuit
.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
107
,
13930
-
13935
.
Jakobsen
,
L.
,
Brinkløv
,
S.
and
Surlykke
,
S.
(
2013
).
Intensity and directionality of bat echolocation signals
.
Front. Physiol.
4
,
89
.
Janzen
,
D. H.
(
1980
).
When is it coevolution?
Evolution
34
,
611
-
612
.
Jones
,
G.
(
1999
).
Scaling of echolocation call parameters in bats
.
J. Exp. Biol.
202
,
3359
-
3367
.
Jones
,
G.
and
Rydell
,
J.
(
2003
).
Attack and defense: interactions between echolocating bats and their insect prey
. In
Bat Ecology
(ed.
T. H.
Kunz
and
M. B.
Fenton
), pp.
301
-
345
.
Chicago
:
University of Chicago Press
.
Kavlie
,
R. G.
and
Albert
,
J. T.
(
2013
).
Chordotonal organs
.
Curr. Biol.
23
,
R334
-
R335
.
Kawahara
,
A. Y.
and
Barber
,
J. R.
(
2015
).
Tempo and mode of antibat ultrasound production and sonar jamming in the diverse hawkmoth radiation
.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
112
,
6407
-
6412
.
Kick
,
S. A.
and
Simmons
,
J. A.
(
1984
).
Automatic gain control in the bat's sonar receiver and the neuroethology of echolocation
.
J. Neurosci.
4
,
2725
-
2737
.
Lane
,
K. A.
,
Lucas
,
K. M.
and
Yack
,
J. E.
(
2008
).
Hearing in a diurnal, mute butterfly, Morpho peleides (Papilionoidea, Nymphalidae)
.
J. Comp. Neurol.
508
,
677
-
686
.
Lawrence
,
B. D.
and
Simmons
,
J. A.
(
1982
).
Measurements of atmospheric attenuation at ultrasonic frequencies and the significance for echolocation by bats
.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
71
,
585
.
Lewis
,
F. P.
,
Fullard
,
J. H.
and
Morrill
,
S. B.
(
1993
).
Auditory influences on the flight behaviour of moths in a Nearctic site. II. Flight times, heights, and erraticism
.
Can. J. Zool.
71
,
1562
-
1568
.
Libersat
,
F.
and
Hoy
,
R. R.
(
1991
).
Ultrasonic startle behavior in bushcrickets (Orthoptera; Tettigoniidae)
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
169
,
507
-
514
.
Lucas
,
K. M.
,
Windmill
,
J. F. C.
,
Robert
,
D.
and
Yack
,
J. E.
(
2009
).
Auditory mechanics and sensitivity in the tropical butterfly Morpho peleides (Papilionoidea, Nymphalidae)
.
J. Exp. Biol.
212
,
3533
-
3541
.
Madsen
,
B. M.
and
Miller
,
L. A.
(
1987
).
Auditory input to motor neurons of the dorsal longitudinal flight muscles in a noctuid moth (Barathra brassicae L.)
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
160
,
23
-
31
.
Matsuta
,
N.
,
Hiryu
,
S.
,
Fujioka
,
E.
,
Yamada
,
Y.
,
Riquimaroux
,
H.
and
Watanabe
,
Y.
(
2013
).
Adaptive beam-width control of echolocation sounds by CF-FM bats, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum nippon, during prey-capture flight
.
J. Exp. Biol.
216
,
1210
-
1218
.
Miller
,
L. A.
(
1970
).
Structure of the green lacewing tympanal organ (Chrysopa carnea, Neuroptera)
.
J. Morphol.
131
,
359
-
382
.
Miller
,
L. A.
(
1971
).
Physiological responses of green lacewings (Chrysopa, Neuroptera) to ultrasound
.
J. Insect Physiol.
17
,
491
-
506
.
Miller
,
L. A.
and
Olesen
,
J.
(
1979
).
Avoidance behavior in green lacewings. I. Behavior of free flying green lacewings to hunting bats and ultrasound
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
131
,
113
-
120
.
Minet
,
J.
and
Surlykke
,
A.
(
2003
).
Auditory and sound producing organs
. In
Handbook of Zoology IV/36, Lepidoptera: Moths and Butterflies
, Vol.
2
(ed.
N. P.
Kristensen
), pp.
289
-
323
.
New York
:
Walter de Gruyter
.
Misof
,
B.
,
Liu
,
S.
,
Meusemann
,
K.
,
Peters
,
R. S.
,
Donath
,
A.
,
Mayer
,
C.
,
Frandsen
,
P. B.
,
Ware
,
J.
,
Flouri
,
T.
,
Beutel
,
R. G.
, et al. 
(
2014
).
Phylogenomics resolves the timing and pattern of insect evolution
.
Science
346
,
763
-
767
.
Morrill
,
S. B.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
1992
).
Auditory influences on the flight behaviour of moths in a Nearctic site. I. Flight tendency
.
Can. J. Zool.
70
,
1097
-
1101
.
Moss
,
C. F.
and
Schnitzler
,
H.-U.
(
1995
).
Behavioral studies of auditory information processing
. In
Springer Handbook of Auditory Research: Hearing by Bats
(ed.
R.
Fay
and
A.
Popper
), pp.
87
-
145
.
Berlin
:
Springer-Verlag
.
Moss
,
C. F.
,
Bohn
,
K.
,
Gilkenson
,
H.
and
Surlykke
,
A.
(
2006
).
Active listening for spatial orientation in a complex auditory scene
.
PLoS Biol.
4
,
e79
.
Muma
,
K. E.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
2004
).
Persistence and regression of hearing in the exclusively diurnal moths, Trichodezia albovittata (Geometridae) and Lycomorpha pholus (Arctiidae)
.
Ecol. Entomol.
29
,
718
-
726
.
Nakano
,
R.
,
Skals
,
N.
,
Takanashi
,
T.
,
Surlykke
,
A.
,
Koike
,
T.
,
Yoshida
,
K.
,
Maruyama
,
H.
,
Tatsuki
,
S.
and
Ishikawa
,
Y.
(
2008
).
Moths produce extremely quiet ultrasonic courtship songs by rubbing specialized scales
.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
105
,
11812
-
11817
.
Nakano
,
R.
,
Takanashi
,
T.
,
Fujii
,
T.
,
Skals
,
N.
,
Surlykke
,
A.
and
Ishikawa
,
Y.
(
2009
).
Moths are not silent, but whisper ultrasonic courtship songs
.
J. Exp. Biol.
212
,
4072
-
4078
.
Nakano
,
R.
,
Takanashi
,
T.
,
Surlykke
,
A.
,
Skals
,
N.
and
Ishikawa
,
Y.
(
2013
).
Evolution of deceptive and true courtship songs in moths
.
Sci. Rep.
3
,
2003
.
Nakano
,
R.
,
Takanashi
,
T.
and
Surlykke
,
A.
(
2015
).
Moth hearing and sound communication
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
201
,
111
-
121
.
Neuweiler
,
G.
(
1990
).
Auditory adaptations for prey capture in echolocating bats
.
Physiol. Rev.
70
,
615
-
641
.
Nishida
,
R.
(
2002
).
Sequestration of defensive substances from plants by Lepidoptera
.
Annu. Rev. Entomol.
47
,
57
-
92
.
Niven
,
J. E.
and
Laughlin
,
S. B.
(
2008
).
Energy limitation as a selective pressure on the evolution of sensory systems
.
J. Exp. Biol.
211
,
1792
-
1804
.
Nolen
,
T. G.
and
Hoy
,
R. R.
(
1986
).
Phonotaxis in flying crickets. I. Attraction to the calling song and avoidance of bat-like ultrasound are discrete behaviors
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
159
,
423
-
439
.
Oppel
,
K.
(
1997
).
Silverwing
.
New York
:
HarperCollins
.
Painter
,
M. L.
,
Chambers
,
C. L.
,
Siders
,
M.
,
Doucett
,
R. R.
,
Whitaker
,
J. O.
, Jr
and
Phillips
,
D. L.
(
2009
).
Diet of spotted bats (Euderma maculatum) in Arizona as indicated by fecal analysis and stable isotopes
.
Can. J. Zool.
87
,
865
-
875
.
Payne
,
R. S.
,
Roeder
,
K. D.
and
Wallman
,
J.
(
1966
).
Directional sensitivity of the ears of noctuid moths
.
J. Exp. Biol.
44
,
17
-
31
.
Pérez
,
M.
and
Zhantiev
,
R. D.
(
1976
).
Functional organization of the tympanal organ of the flour moth, Ephestia kuehniella
.
J. Insect Physiol.
22
,
1267
-
1273
.
Plotnick
,
R. E.
and
Smith
,
D. M.
(
2012
).
Exceptionally preserved fossil insect ears from the Eocene Green River formation of Colorado
.
J. Paleontol.
86
,
19
-
24
.
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
(
2009
).
Predator-prey interaction in an auditory world
. In
Cognitive Ecology II
(ed.
R.
Dukas
and
J. M.
Ratcliffe
), pp.
201
-
225
.
Chicago
:
University of Chicago Press
.
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
2005
).
The adaptive function of tiger moth clicks against echolocating bats: an experimental and synthetic approach
.
J. Exp. Biol.
208
,
4689
-
4698
.
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
and
Nydam
,
M. L.
(
2008
).
Multimodal warning signals for a multiple predator world
.
Nature
455
,
96
-
99
.
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
,
Fenton
,
M. B.
and
Galef
,
B. G.
(
2003
).
An exception to the rule: common vampire bats do not learn taste aversions
.
Anim. Behav.
65
,
385
-
389
.
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
,
Fenton
,
M. B.
and
Shettleworth
,
S. J.
(
2006
).
Behavioral flexibility positively correlated with relative brain volume in predatory bats
.
Brain Behav. Evol.
67
,
165
-
176
.
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
,
Soutar
,
A. R.
,
Muma
,
K. E.
,
Guignion
,
C.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
2008
).
Anti-bat flight activity in sound-producing versus silent moths
.
Can. J. Zool.
86
,
582
-
587
.
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
,
Fullard
,
J. H.
,
Arthur
,
B. J.
and
Hoy
,
R. R.
(
2009
).
Tiger moths and the threat of bats: decision-making based on the activity of a single sensory neuron
.
Biol. Lett.
5
,
368
-
371
.
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
,
Fullard
,
J. H.
,
Arthur
,
B. J.
and
Hoy
,
R. R.
(
2011a
).
Adaptive auditory risk assessment in the dogbane tiger moth when pursued by bats
.
Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.
278
,
364
-
370
.
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
,
Jakobsen
,
L.
,
Kalko
,
E. K. V.
and
Surlykke
,
A.
(
2011b
).
Frequency alternation and an offbeat rhythm indicate foraging behavior in the echolocating bat, Saccopteryx bilineata
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
197
,
413
-
423
.
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
,
Elemans
,
C. P. H.
,
Jakobsen
,
L.
and
Surlykke
,
A.
(
2013
).
How the bat got its buzz
.
Biol. Lett.
9
,
20121031
.
Reddy
,
E.
and
Fenton
,
M. B.
(
2003
).
Exploiting vulnerable prey: moths and red bats (Lasiurus borealis; Vespertilionidae)
.
Can. J. Zool.
81
,
1553
-
1560
.
Regier
,
J. C.
,
Zwick
,
A.
,
Cummings
,
M. P.
,
Kawahara
,
A. Y.
,
Cho
,
S.
,
Weller
,
S.
,
Roe
,
A.
,
Baixeras
,
J.
,
Brown
,
J. W.
,
Parr
,
C.
, et al. 
(
2009
).
Toward reconstructing the evolution of advanced moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera: Ditrysia): an initial molecular study
.
BMC Evol. Biol.
9
,
280
.
Regier
,
J. C.
,
Mitter
,
C.
,
Zwick
,
A.
,
Bazinet
,
A. L.
,
Cummings
,
M. P.
,
Kawahara
,
A. Y.
,
Sohn
,
J.-C.
,
Zwick
,
D. J.
,
Cho
,
S.
,
Davis
,
D. R.
, et al. 
(
2013
).
A large-scale, higher-level, molecular phylogenetic study of the insect order Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies)
.
PLoS ONE
8
,
e58568
.
Robert
,
D.
(
1989
).
Auditory behaviour of flying locusts
.
J. Exp. Biol.
147
,
279
-
301
.
Robert
,
D.
,
Amoroso
,
J.
and
Hoy
,
R. R.
(
1992
).
The evolutionary convergence of hearing in a parasitoid fly and its cricket host
.
Science
258
,
1135
-
1137
.
Robert
,
D.
,
Edgecomb
,
R. S.
,
Read
,
M. P.
and
Hoy
,
R. R.
(
1996
).
Tympanal hearing in tachinid flies (Diptera, tachinidae, Ormiini): the comparative morphology of an innovation
.
Cell Tissue Res.
284
,
435
-
448
.
Rodríguez
,
R. L.
and
Greenfield
,
M. D.
(
2004
).
Behavioural context regulates dual function of ultrasonic hearing in lesser waxmoths: bat avoidance and pair formation
.
Physiol. Entomol.
29
,
159
-
168
.
Roeder
,
K. D.
(
1962
).
The behaviour of free flying moths in the presence of artificial ultrasonic pulses
.
Anim. Behav.
10
,
300
-
304
.
Roeder
,
K. D.
(
1964
).
Aspects of the noctuid tympanic nerve response having significance in the avoidance of bats
.
J. Insect Physiol.
10
,
529
-
546
.
Roeder
,
K. D.
(
1967
).
Nerve Cells and Insect Behavior
.
Cambridge
:
Harvard University Press
.
Roeder
,
K. D.
(
1974a
).
Responses of the less sensitive acoustic sense cells in the tympanic organs of some noctuid and geometrid moths
.
J. Insect Physiol.
20
,
55
-
66
.
Roeder
,
K. D.
(
1974b
).
Acoustic sensory responses and possible bat-evasion tactics of certain moths
. In
Proceedings of the Canadian Society of Zoologists’ Annual Meeting
(ed.
M. D. B.
Burt
), pp.
71
-
78
.
Fredericton
:
University of New Brunswick Press
.
Roeder
,
K. D.
(
1975
).
Acoustic interneuron responses compared in certain hawk moths
.
J. Insect Physiol.
21
,
1625
-
1631
.
Roeder
,
K. D.
and
Treat
,
A. E.
(
1957
).
Ultrasonic reception by the tympanic organ of noctuid moths
.
J. Exp. Zool.
134
,
127
-
157
.
Roeder
,
K. D.
and
Treat
,
A. E.
(
1962
).
The acoustic detection of bats by moths
. In
Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Entomology
(ed.
H.
Strouhal
and
M.
Beier
), pp.
7
-
11
.
Vienna
:
Naturhistorisches Museum
.
Roeder
,
K. D.
,
Treat
,
A. E.
and
Vandeberg
,
J. S.
(
1968
).
Auditory sense in certain sphingid moths
.
Science
159
,
331
-
333
.
Römer
,
H.
,
Marquart
,
V.
and
Hardt
,
M.
(
1988
).
Organization of a sensory neuropile in the auditory pathway of two groups of orthoptera
.
J. Comp. Neurol.
275
,
201
-
215
.
Römer
,
H.
,
Lang
,
A.
and
Hartbauer
,
M.
(
2008
).
No correlation of body size and high-frequency hearing sensitivity in neotropical phaneropterine katydids
.
J. Orthop. Res.
17
,
343
-
346
.
Rosen
,
M. J.
,
Levin
,
E. C.
and
Hoy
,
R. R.
(
2009
).
The cost of assuming the life history of a host: acoustic startle in the parasitoid fly Ormia ochracea
.
J. Exp. Biol.
212
,
4068-4064
.
Rydell
,
J.
(
1998
).
Bat defence in lekking ghost swifts (Hepialus humuli), a moth without ultrasonic hearing
.
Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.
265
,
1373
-
1376
.
Rydell
,
J.
and
Lancaster
,
W. C.
(
2000
).
Flight and thermoregulation in moths were shaped by predation from bats
.
Oikos
88
,
13
-
18
.
Rydell
,
J.
,
Skals
,
N.
,
Surlykke
,
A.
and
Svensson
,
M.
(
1997
).
Hearing and bat defence in geometrid winter moths
.
Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.
264
,
83
-
88
.
Rydell
,
J.
,
Roininen
,
H.
and
Philip
,
K. W.
(
2000
).
Persistence of bat defence reactions in high Arctic moths (Lepidoptera)
.
Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.
267
,
553
-
557
.
Rydell
,
J.
,
Kaerma
,
S.
,
Hedelin
,
H.
and
Skals
,
N.
(
2003
).
Evasive response to ultrasound by the crepuscular butterfly Manataria maculata
.
Naturwiss
90
,
80
-
83
.
Schildberger
,
K.
(
1984
).
Temporal selectivity of identified auditory neurons in the cricket brain
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
155
,
171
-
185
.
Schmidt
,
S.
,
Yapa
,
W.
and
Grunwald
,
J.-E.
(
2011
).
Echolocation behaviour of Megaderma lyra during typical orientation situations and while hunting aerial prey: a field study
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
197
,
403
-
412
.
Schnitzler
,
H.-U.
and
Kalko
,
E. K. V.
(
2001
).
Echolocation by insect-eating bats
.
Bioscience
51
,
557
-
569
.
Schoeman
,
M. C.
and
Jacobs
,
D. S.
(
2003
).
Support for the allotonic frequency hypothesis in an insectivorous bat community
.
Oecologia
134
,
154
-
162
.
Schulze
,
W.
and
Schul
,
J.
(
2001
).
Ultrasound avoidance behaviour in the bushcricket Tettigonia viridissima (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae)
.
J. Exp. Biol.
204
,
733
-
740
.
Simmons
,
N. B.
and
Geisler
,
J. H.
(
1998
).
Phylogenetic relationships of Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx to extant bat lineages, with comments on the evolution of echolocation and foraging strategies in Microchiroptera
.
Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.
235
,
2
-
182
.
Simmons
,
J. A.
,
Fenton
,
M. B.
and
O'Farrell
,
M. J.
(
1979
).
Echolocation and pursuit of prey by bats
.
Science
203
,
16
-
21
.
Simmons
,
N. B.
,
Seymour
,
K. L.
,
Habersetzer
,
J.
and
Gunnell
,
G. F.
(
2008
).
Primitive early Eocene bat from Wyoming and the evolution of flight and echolocation
.
Nature
451
,
818
-
821
.
Skals
,
N.
and
Surlykke
,
A.
(
1999
).
Sound production by abdominal tymbal organs in two moth species: the green silver-line and the scarce silver-line (Noctuoidea: Nolidae: Chloephorinae)
.
J. Exp. Biol.
202
,
2937
-
2949
.
Skals
,
N.
and
Surlykke
,
A.
(
2000
).
Hearing and evasive behaviour in the greater wax moth, Galleria mellonella (Pyralidae)
.
Physiol. Entomol.
25
,
354
-
362
.
Skals
,
N.
,
Anderson
,
P.
,
Kanneworff
,
M.
,
Löfstedt
,
C.
and
Surlykke
,
A.
(
2005
).
Her odours make him deaf: crossmodal modulation of olfaction and hearing in a male moth
.
J. Exp. Biol.
208
,
595
-
601
.
Smith
,
E. C.
and
Lewicki
,
M. S.
(
2006
).
Efficient auditory coding
.
Nature
439
,
978
-
982
.
Soutar
,
A. R.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
2004
).
Nocturnal anti-predator adaptations in eared and earless Nearctic Lepidoptera
.
Behav. Ecol.
15
,
1016
-
1022
.
Spangler
,
H. G.
(
1988
).
Hearing in tiger beetles (Cicindelidae)
.
Physiol. Entomol.
13
,
447
-
452
.
Stumpner
,
A.
and
Lakes-Harlan
,
R.
(
1996
).
Auditory interneurons in a hearing fly (Therobia leonidei, Ormiini, Tachinidae, Diptera)
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
178
,
227
-
233
.
Surlykke
,
A.
(
1984
).
Hearing in notodontid moths: a tympanic organ with a single auditory neurone
.
J. Exp. Biol.
113
,
323
-
335
.
Surlykke
,
A.
(
1986
).
Moth hearing on the Faeroe Islands, an area without bats
.
Physiol. Entomol.
11
,
221
-
225
.
Surlykke
,
A.
(
1988
).
Interaction between echolocating bats and their prey
. In
Animal Sonar: Processes and Performance
(ed.
P. E.
Nachtigall
and
P. W. B.
Moore
), pp.
551
-
566
.
New York
:
Plenum Press
.
Surlykke
,
A.
and
Filskov
,
M.
(
1997
).
Hearing in geometrid moths
.
Naturwiss
84
,
356
-
359
.
Surlykke
,
A.
and
Gogala
,
M.
(
1986
).
Stridulation and hearing in the noctuid moth Thecophora fovea (Tr.)
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
159
,
267
-
273
.
Surlykke
,
A.
and
Kalko
,
E. K. V.
(
2008
).
Echolocating bats cry out loud to detect their prey
.
PLoS ONE
3
,
e2036
.
Surlykke
,
A.
and
Miller
,
L. A.
(
1982
).
Central branchings of three sensory axons from a moth ear (Agrotis segetum, Noctuidae)
.
J. Insect Physiol.
28
,
357
-
364
.
Surlykke
,
A.
and
Moss
,
C. F.
(
2000
).
Echolocation behavior of big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus, in the field and the laboratory
.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
108
,
2419
-
2429
.
Surlykke
,
A.
and
Treat
,
A. E.
(
1995
).
Hearing in wintermoths
.
Naturwiss
82
,
382
-
384
.
Surlykke
,
A.
,
Skals
,
N.
,
Rydell
,
J.
and
Svensson
,
M.
(
1998
).
Sonic hearing in a diurnal geometrid moth, Archiearis parthenias, temporally isolated from bats
.
Naturwiss
85
,
36
-
37
.
Surlykke
,
A.
,
Filskov
,
M.
,
Fullard
,
J. H.
and
Forrest
,
E.
(
1999
).
Auditory relationships to size in noctuid moths: bigger is better
.
Naturwissenschaften
86
,
238
-
241
.
Surlykke
,
A.
,
Yack
,
J. E.
,
Spence
,
A. J.
and
Hasenfuss
,
I.
(
2003
).
Hearing in hooktip moths (Drepanidae: Lepidoptera)
.
J. Exp. Biol.
206
,
2653
-
2663
.
Svensson
,
M. G. E.
,
Rydell
,
J.
and
Brown
,
R.
(
1999
).
Bat predation and flight timing of winter moths, Epirrita and Operophtera species (Lepidoptera, Geometridae)
.
Oikos
84
,
193
-
198
.
Svensson
,
G.
,
Löfstedt
,
C.
and
Skals
,
N.
(
2004
).
The odour makes the difference: male moths attracted by sex pheromones ignore the threat by predatory bats
.
Oikos
104
,
91
-
97
.
Takanashi
,
T.
,
Nakano
,
R.
,
Surlykke
,
A.
,
Tatsuta
,
H.
,
Tabata
,
J.
,
Ishikawa
,
Y.
and
Skals
,
N.
(
2010
).
Variation in courtship ultrasounds of three Ostrinia moths with different sex pheromones
.
PLoS ONE
5
,
e13144
.
Teeling
,
E. C.
(
2009
).
Hear, hear: the convergent evolution of echolocation in bats?
Trends Ecol. Evol.
24
,
351
-
354
.
Teeling
,
E. C.
,
Springer
,
M. S.
,
Madsen
,
O.
,
Bates
,
P.
,
O'Brien
,
S. J.
and
Murphy
,
W. J.
(
2005
).
A molecular phylogeny for bats illuminates biogeography and the fossil record
.
Science
307
,
580
-
584
.
ter Hofstede
,
H. M.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
2008
).
The neuroethology of song cessation in response to gleaning bat calls in two species of katydids, Neoconocephalus ensiger and Amblycorypha oblongifolia
.
J. Exp. Biol.
211
,
2431
-
2441
.
ter Hofstede
,
H. M.
,
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
2008a
).
Nocturnal activity positively correlated with auditory sensitivity in noctuoid moths
.
Biol. Lett.
4
,
262
-
265
.
ter Hofstede
,
H. M.
,
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
2008b
).
The effectiveness of katydid (Neoconocephalus ensiger) song cessation as antipredator defence against the gleaning bat Myotis septentrionalis
.
Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.
63
,
217
-
226
.
ter Hofstede
,
H. M.
,
Kalko
,
E. K. V.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
2010
).
Auditory-based defence against gleaning bats in neotropical katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae)
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
196
,
349
-
358
.
ter Hofstede
,
H. M.
,
Goerlitz
,
H. R.
,
Ratcliffe
,
J. M.
,
Holderied
,
M. W.
and
Surlykke
,
A.
(
2013
).
The simple ears of noctuoid moths are tuned to the calls of their sympatric bat community
.
J. Exp. Biol.
216
,
3954
-
3962
.
Tougaard
,
J.
(
1996
).
Energy detection and temporal integration in the noctuid A1 auditory receptor
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
178
,
669
-
677
.
Tougaard
,
J.
(
1998
).
Detection of short pure-tone stimuli in the noctuid ear: what are temporal integration and integration time all about?
J. Comp. Physiol. A Sens. Neural. Behav. Physiol.
183
,
563
-
572
.
Treat
,
A. E.
(
1955
).
The response to sound in certain Lepidoptera
.
Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am.
48
,
272
-
284
.
Triblehorn
,
J. D.
and
Yager
,
D. D.
(
2001
).
Broad versus narrow auditory tuning and corresponding bat-evasive flight behaviour in praying mantids
.
J. Zool.
254
,
27
-
40
.
Triblehorn
,
J. D.
and
Yager
,
D. D.
(
2005
).
Timing of praying mantis evasive responses during simulated bat attack sequences
.
J. Exp. Biol.
208
,
1867
-
1876
.
Van Staaden
,
M. J.
,
Rieser
,
M.
,
Ott
,
S. R.
,
Pabst
,
M. A.
and
Römer
,
H.
(
2003
).
Serial hearing organs in the atympanate grasshopper Bullacris membracioides (Orthoptera, Pneumoridae)
.
J. Comp. Neurol.
465
,
579
-
592
.
Veselka
,
N.
,
McErlain
,
D. D.
,
Holdsworth
,
D. W.
,
Eger
,
J. L.
,
Chhem
,
R. K.
,
Mason
,
M. J.
,
Brain
,
K. L.
,
Faure
,
P. A.
and
Fenton
,
M. B.
(
2010
).
A bony connection signals laryngeal echolocation in bats
.
Nature
463
,
939
-
942
.
Waters
,
D. A.
and
Jones
,
G.
(
1995
).
Echolocation call structure and intensity in five species of insectivorous bats
.
J. Exp. Biol.
198
,
475
-
489
.
Weller
,
S. J.
,
Jacobson
,
N. L.
and
Conner
,
W. E.
(
1999
).
The evolution of chemical defences and mating systems in tiger moths (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae)
.
Biol. J. Linn. Soc.
68
,
557
-
578
.
Wohlers
,
D. W.
,
Williams
,
J. L. D.
,
Huber
,
F.
and
Moore
,
T. E.
(
1979
).
Central projections of fibers in the auditory and tensor nerves of cicadas (Homoptera: Cicadidae)
.
Cell Tissue Res.
203
,
35
-
51
.
Yack
,
J. E.
(
1988
).
Seasonal partitioning of atympanate moths in relation to bat activity
.
Can. J. Zool.
66
,
753
-
755
.
Yack
,
J. E.
(
2004
).
The structure and function of auditory chordotonal organs in insects
.
Microscop. Res. Tech.
63
,
315
-
337
.
Yack
,
J. E.
and
Dawson
,
J. W.
(
2008
).
Insect ears
. In
The Senses: A Comprehensive Reference, Vol. 3: Audition
(ed.
P.
Dallos
and
D.
Oertel
), pp.
35
-
53
.
Oxford
:
Elsevier
.
Yack
,
J. E.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
1993
).
Proprioceptive activity of the wing-hinge stretch receptor in Manduca sexta and other atympanate moths: a study of the noctuoid moth ear B cell homologue
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
173
,
301
-
307
.
Yack
,
J. E.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
2000
).
Ultrasonic hearing in nocturnal butterflies
.
Nature
403
,
265
-
266
.
Yack
,
J. E.
,
Scudder
,
G. G. E.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
1999
).
Evolution of the metathoracic tympanal ear and its mesothoracic homologue in the Macrolepidoptera (Insecta)
.
Zoomorphology
119
,
93
-
103
.
Yack
,
J. E.
,
Otero
,
L. D.
,
Dawson
,
J. W.
,
Surlykke
,
A.
and
Fullard
,
J. H.
(
2000
).
Sound production and hearing in the blue cracker butterfly Hamadryas feronia (Lepidotpera, Nymphalidae) from Venezuela
.
J. Exp. Biol.
203
,
3689
-
3702
.
Yack
,
J. E.
,
Kalko
,
E. K. V.
and
Surlykke
,
A.
(
2007
).
Neuroethology of ultrasonic hearing in nocturnal butterflies (Hedyloidea)
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
193
,
577
-
590
.
Yager
,
D. D.
(
1990
).
Sexual dimorphism of auditory function and structure in praying mantises (Mantodea: Dictyoptera)
.
J. Zool.
221
,
517
-
537
.
Yager
,
D. D.
and
Hoy
,
R. R.
(
1987
).
The midline metathoracic ear of the praying mantis, Mantis religiosa
.
Cell Tissue Res.
250
,
531
-
541
.
Yager
,
D. D.
and
Hoy
,
R. R.
(
1989
).
Audition in the praying mantis, Mantis religiosa L.: identification of an interneuron mediating ultrasonic hearing
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
165
,
471
-
493
.
Yager
,
D. D.
and
Spangler
,
H. G.
(
1995
).
Characterization of auditory afferents in the tiger beetle, Cicindela marutha Dow
.
J. Comp. Physiol. A
176
,
587
-
599
.
Yager
,
D. D.
and
Spangler
,
H. G.
(
1997
).
Behavioral response to ultrasound by the tiger beetle Cicindela marutha Dow combines aerodynamic changes and sound production
.
J. Exp. Biol.
200
,
649
-
659
.
Yager
,
D. D.
and
Svenson
,
G. J.
(
2008
).
Patterns of praying mantis auditory system evolution based on morphological, molecular, neurophysiological, and behavioural data
.
Biol. J. Linn. Soc.
94
,
541
-
568
.
Yager
,
D. D.
,
May
,
M. L.
and
Fenton
,
M. B.
(
1990
).
Ultrasound-triggered, flight-gated evasive maneuvers in the praying mantis, Parasphendale agrionina (Gerst.). I. Free flight
.
J. Exp. Biol.
152
,
17
-
39
.
Yager
,
D. D.
,
Cook
,
A. P.
,
Pearson
,
D. L.
and
Spangler
,
H. G.
(
2000
).
A comparative study of ultrasound-triggered behaviour in tiger beetles (Cicindelidae)
.
J. Zool.
251
,
355
-
368
.
Zahiri
,
R.
,
Kitching
,
I. J.
,
Lafontaine
,
J. D.
,
Mutanen
,
M.
,
Kaila
,
L.
,
Holloway
,
J. D.
and
Wahlberg
,
N.
(
2011
).
A new molecular phylogeny offers hope for a stable family level classification of the Noctuoidea (Lepidoptera)
.
Zool. Script.
40
,
158
-
173
.
Zhemchuzhnikov
,
M. K.
,
Pfuhl
,
G.
and
Berg
,
B. G.
(
2014
).
Tracing and 3-dimensional representation of the primary afferents from the moth ear
.
Arthrop. Struct. Dev.
43
,
231
-
241
.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing or financial interests.