The evolution of anti-bat sensory illusions in moths

Rubin, Juliette J.; Hamilton, Chris A.; McClure, Christopher J. W.; Chadwell, Brad A.; Kawahara, Akito Y.; Barber, Jesse R.

doi:10.1126/sciadv.aar7428

Cited by 43 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Saturniidae -e.g., whether tails evolved using the same path, over and over, and whether 741 long hindwing tails gradually evolved in a progressive manner from no tails. Similar to the 742 findings of Rubin and Hamilton et al (2018), our results indicate that hindwing tails evolved 743 rapidly and not transitionally. 744…”

Section: Morphology and Trait Evolution 730supporting

confidence: 78%

“…2). If we classify specimens by 594 subfamily, we see that the Arsenurinae and Saturniinae generally occupy the same 595 morphological space, independently, as found by Rubin and Hamilton et al (2018), 596…”

Section: Analyzed 592mentioning

confidence: 65%

“…The Arsenurinae is not a "species rich" lineage of Saturniidae, but their diverse wing 731 shape morphospace and discovery to be a relictual lineage (Hamilton et al 2019) can shed 732 significant light on the evolution of the Saturniidae. The subfamily possesses a number of 733 wing shapes that are shared with other subfamilies (see Rubin et al 2018). For example, 734…”

Section: Morphology and Trait Evolution 730mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evolution of body size and wing shape trade-offs in arsenurine silkmoths

Hamilton

Winiger

Rubin

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the key objectives in biological research is understanding how evolutionary processes have produced Earth’s biodiversity. These processes have led to a vast diversity of wing shapes in insects; an unanswered question especially pronounced in moths. As one of the major predators of nocturnal moths, bats are thought to have been involved in a long evolutionary arms race with their prey. In response, moths are thought to have evolved many counter strategies, such as diverse wing shapes and large body sizes. However, the tradeoffs between body size and wing shape are not well understood. Here we examined the evolution of wing shape in the wild silkmoth subfamily Arsenurinae (Saturniidae). By using phylogenomics and geometric morphometrics, we established the framework to evaluate potential evolutionary relationships between body size and wing shape. The phylogeny was inferred based on 781 loci from target capture data of 42 arsenurine species representing all 10 recognized genera.We found there are evolutionary trade-offs between body size, wing shape, and the interaction of fore- and hindwing shape. Namely, body size decreases with increasing hindwing length, but increases as forewing shape becomes more complex. Additionally, hindwing shape has a significant effect on forewing shape complexity. The complex wing shapes that make Arsenurinae, and silkmoths as a whole, so charismatic are likely driven by the strong forces of natural selection and genomic constraints.One other important outcome was discovering within our data one of the most vexing problems in phylogenetic inference – a region of a tree that possesses short branches and no “support” for relationships (i.e., a polytomy). These parts of the Tree of Life are often some of the most interesting from an evolutionary standpoint. To investigate this problem, we used reciprocal illumination to determine the most probable generic relationships within the Arsenurinae by inspecting differing phylogenetic inferences, alternative support values, quartets, and phylogenetic networks to reveal hidden phylogenetic signal.

show abstract

Section: Morphology and Trait Evolution 730supporting

confidence: 78%

Section: Analyzed 592mentioning

confidence: 65%

Section: Morphology and Trait Evolution 730mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evolution of body size and wing shape trade-offs in arsenurine silkmoths

Hamilton

Winiger

Rubin

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such an increase in shape variability and conversely a decreasing density of veins along the chordwise wing section may reflect an anteroposterior decrease in aerodynamic constraints. Lepidoptera HWs frequently show large shape variation between species, such as the presence of scalloped edges or expanded tails (Robbins, 1981;Rubin et al, 2018), contrasting with the generally subtler variation in FW shape. HW tails that closely resemble a butterfly's head in some lycaenid species are thought to deflect predator attacks (López-Palafox and Cordero, 2017;Robbins, 1981).…”

Section: Contrasting Behavioural Compensation Between Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of natural wing damage on flight performance in Morpho butterflies: what can it tell us about wing shape evolution?

Roy

Cornette

Llaurens

et al. 2019

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flying insects frequently experience wing damage during their life. Such irreversible alterations of wing shape affect flight performance and ultimately fitness. Insects have been shown to compensate for wing damage through various behavioural adjustments, but the importance of damage location over the wings has scarcely been studied. Using natural variation in wing damage, we tested how the loss of different wing parts affects flight performance. We quantified flight performance in two species of large butterflies, Morpho helenor and Morpho achilles, caught in the wild and displaying large variation in the extent and location of wing damage. We artificially generated more severe wing damage in our sample to contrast natural versus higher magnitude wing loss. Wing shape alteration across our sample was quantified using geometric morphometrics to test the effect of different damage distributions on flight performance. Our results show that impaired flight performance clearly depends on damage location over the wings, pointing to a relative importance of different wing parts for flight. A deteriorated forewing leading edge most critically affected flight performance, specifically decreasing flight speed and the proportion of gliding flight. In contrast, the most frequent natural damage, deteriorated wing margin, had no detectable effect on flight behaviour. Damage located on the hindwingsalthough having a limited effect on flightwas associated with reduced flight height, suggesting that the forewings and hindwings play different roles in butterfly flight. By contrasting harmless and deleterious consequences of various types of wing damage, our study highlights different selective regimes acting on morphological variations of butterfly wings.

show abstract

“…biting and stinging) in ants and termites. Nocturnal moths, lacewings, praying mantises and fireflies exhibit defensive morphologies and behaviors to escape from insectivorous bats (Miller & Olesen 1979;Leavell et al 2018;Rubin et al 2018). The flying adults of some moths, mantises and lacewings even have "ears" to detect the ultrasound produced by bats (Yack & Fullard 1999).…”

Section: Mammalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predators as drivers of insect defenses

Sugiura

2020

Entomological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insects have evolved various types of antipredator defenses. For example, many insects have evolved crypsis, and exhibit cryptic body colors and shapes for hiding from predators. Other insects produce toxins as a form of chemical defense against predators, and some toxic insects are aposematic, with conspicuous body colors for advertising their toxins. Insects can also develop hairs, spines or hard exoskeletons as morphological defenses to protect themselves from predation. In addition, insects can evolve behavioral defenses, in which insects exhibit autotomy or dropping, or feign death. This study investigated which predator types evoke these types of defenses, through a review of the effectiveness of antipredator defenses in insects against carnivorous animals that are commonly used as model predators in studies. These predators include other insects, spiders, fish, frogs, lizards, birds and mammals. The results provide the first step for clarifying the evolutionary drivers of antipredator defenses in insects. The following aspects should be considered for future studies: multiple predator species and sufficient replication, alternative prey and predator models, and tolerance to predators in insects.

show abstract

The evolution of anti-bat sensory illusions in moths

Abstract: Experimental bat-moth battles reveal that sonar sensing is a driving force in the repeated evolution of silk moth hindwings.

Cited by 43 publications

References 68 publications

Evolution of body size and wing shape trade-offs in arsenurine silkmoths

Evolution of body size and wing shape trade-offs in arsenurine silkmoths

Effects of natural wing damage on flight performance in Morpho butterflies: what can it tell us about wing shape evolution?

Predators as drivers of insect defenses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About