↓ Skip to main content

Convergent evolution of anti-bat sounds

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology A, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Convergent evolution of anti-bat sounds
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, July 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00359-014-0924-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron J. Corcoran, Nickolay I. Hristov

Abstract

Bats and their insect prey rely on acoustic sensing in predator prey encounters-echolocation in bats, tympanic hearing in moths. Some insects also emit sounds for bat defense. Here, we describe a previously unknown sound-producing organ in Geometrid moths-a prothoracic tymbal in the orange beggar moth (Eubaphe unicolor) that generates bursts of ultrasonic clicks in response to tactile stimulation and playback of a bat echolocation attack sequence. Using scanning electron microscopy and high-speed videography, we demonstrate that E. unicolor and phylogenetically distant tiger moths have evolved serially homologous thoracic tymbal organs with fundamentally similar functional morphology, a striking example of convergent evolution. We compared E. unicolor clicks to that of five sympatric tiger moths and found that 9 of 13 E. unicolor clicking parameters were within the range of sympatric tiger moths. Remaining differences may result from the small size of the E. unicolor tymbal. Four of the five sympatric clicking tiger moth species were unpalatable to bats (0-20 % eaten), whereas E. unicolor was palatable to bats (86 % eaten). Based on these results, we hypothesize that E. unicolor evolved tymbal organs that mimic the sounds produced by toxic tiger moths when attacked by echolocating bats.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 64 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Master 8 12%
Other 5 8%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 65%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Psychology 2 3%
Mathematics 1 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 15 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,419,133
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#137
of 1,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,689
of 229,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 229,102 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them