In response to sonar-guided attacking bats, some tiger moths make ultrasonic clicks of their own. The lepidopteran sounds have previously been shown to alert bats to some moths' toxic chemistry and also to startle bats unaccustomed to sonic prey. The moth sounds could also interfere with, or "jam," bat sonar, but evidence for such jamming has been inconclusive. Using ultrasonic recording and high-speed infrared videography of bat-moth interactions, we show that the palatable tiger moth Bertholdia trigona defends against attacking big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) using ultrasonic clicks that jam bat sonar. Sonar jamming extends the defensive repertoire available to prey in the long-standing evolutionary arms race between bats and insects.

The intimate details regarding the coevolution of bats and moths have been elucidated over the past 50 years. The bat-moth story began with the evolution of bat sonar, an exquisite ultrasonic system for tracking prey through the night sky. Moths countered with ears tuned to the high frequencies of bat echolocation and with evasive action through directed turns, loops, spirals, drops, and power dives. Some bat species responded by moving the frequency and intensity of their echolocation cries away from the peak sensitivity of moth ears, and the arms race was on. Tiger moths countered by producing anti-bat sounds. Do the sounds advertise moth toxicity, similar to the bright coloration of butterflies; do they startle the bat, giving the moth a momentary advantage in their aerobatic battle; or do they jam the sonar of the bat? The answer is yes. They do all and more in different situations and in different species. Any insect that flies at night must deal with bat predation. Beetles, mantids, true crickets, mole crickets, katydids, green lacewings, and locusts have anti-bat strategies, and we have just scratched the surface. In an exciting new twist, researchers are taking the technologies developed in the laboratory back into the field, where they are poised to appreciate the full richness of this remarkable predator-prey interaction.

What determines whether fleeing prey escape from attacking predators? To answer this question, biologists have developed mathematical models that incorporate attack geometries, pursuit and escape trajectories, and kinematics of predator and prey. These models have rarely been tested using data from actual predator-prey encounters. To address this problem, we recorded multi-camera infrared videography of bat-insect interactions in a large outdoor enclosure. We documented 235 attacks by four Myotis volans bats on a variety of moths. Bat and moth flight trajectories from 50 high-quality attacks were reconstructed in 3-D. Despite having higher maximum velocity, deceleration and overall turning ability, bats only captured evasive prey in 69 of 184 attacks (37.5%); bats captured nearly all moths not evading attack (50 of 51; 98%). Logistic regression indicated that prey radial acceleration and escape angle were the most important predictors of escape success (44 of 50 attacks correctly classified; 88%). We found partial support for the turning gambit mathematical model; however, it underestimated the escape threshold by 25% of prey velocity and did not account for prey escape angle. Whereas most prey escaping strikes flee away from predators, moths typically escaped chasing bats by turning with high radial acceleration toward 'safety zones' that flank the predator. This strategy may be widespread in prey engaged in chases. Based on these findings, we developed a novel geometrical model of predation. We discuss implications of this model for the co-evolution of predator and prey kinematics and pursuit and escape strategies.

The night sky is the venue of an ancient acoustic battle between echolocating bats and their insect prey. Many tiger moths (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae) answer the attack calls of bats with a barrage of high frequency clicks. Some moth species use these clicks for acoustic aposematism and mimicry, and others for sonar jamming, however, most of the work on these defensive functions has been done on individual moth species. We here analyze the diversity of structure in tiger moth sounds from 26 species collected at three locations in North and South America. A principal components analysis of the anti-bat tiger moth sounds reveals that they vary markedly along three axes: (1) frequency, (2) duty cycle (sound production per unit time) and frequency modulation, and (3) modulation cycle (clicks produced during flexion and relaxation of the sound producing tymbal) structure. Tiger moth species appear to cluster into two distinct groups: one with low duty cycle and few clicks per modulation cycle that supports an acoustic aposematism function, and a second with high duty cycle and many clicks per modulation cycle that is consistent with a sonar jamming function. This is the first evidence from a community-level analysis to support multiple functions for tiger moth sounds. We also provide evidence supporting an evolutionary history for the development of these strategies. Furthermore, cross-correlation and spectrogram correlation measurements failed to support a “phantom echo” mechanism underlying sonar jamming, and instead point towards echo interference.

Communication signals are susceptible to interference ("jamming") from conspecifics and other sources. Many active sensing animals, including bats and electric fish, alter the frequency of their emissions to avoid inadvertent jamming from conspecifics. We demonstrated that echolocating bats adaptively jam conspecifics during competitions for food. Three-dimensional flight path reconstructions and audio-video field recordings of foraging bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) revealed extended interactions in which bats emitted sinusoidal frequency-modulated ultrasonic signals that interfered with the echolocation of conspecifics attacking insect prey. Playbacks of the jamming call, but not of control sounds, caused bats to miss insect targets. This study demonstrates intraspecific food competition through active disruption of a competitor's sensing during food acquisition.