If a bird flies in the forest, does an insect hear it?

Ambush predation and the origin of euprimates

Primates of modern aspect (euprimates) are characterized by a suite of characteristics (e.g., convergent orbits, grasping hands and feet, reduced claws, and leaping), but the selective pressures responsible for the evolution of these euprimate characteristics have long remained controversial. Here, we used a molecular phyloecological approach to determine the diet of the common ancestor of living primates (CALP), and the results showed that the CALP had increased carnivory. Given the carnivory of the CALP, along with the general observation that orbital convergence is largely restricted to ambush predators, our study suggests that the euprimate characteristics could have been more specifically adapted for ambush predation. In particular, our behavior experiment further shows that nonclaw climbing can significantly reduce noises, which could benefit the ancestral euprimates' stalking to ambush their prey in trees. Therefore, our study suggests that the distinctive euprimate characteristics may have evolved as their specialized adaptation for ambush predation in arboreal environments.

Fire as a driver and mediator of predator-prey interactions

Both fire and predators have strong influences on the population dynamics and behaviour of animals, and the effects of predators may either be strengthened or weakened by fire. However, knowledge of how fire drives or mediates predator–prey interactions is fragmented and has not been synthesised. Here, we review and synthesise knowledge of how fire influences predator and prey behaviour and interactions. We develop a conceptual model based on predator–prey theory and empirical examples to address four key questions: (i) how and why do predators respond to fire; (ii) how and why does prey vulnerability change post‐fire; (iii) what mechanisms do prey use to reduce predation risk post‐fire; and (iv) what are the outcomes of predator–fire interactions for prey populations? We then discuss these findings in the context of wildlife conservation and ecosystem management before outlining priorities for future research. Fire‐induced changes in vegetation structure, resource availability, and animal behaviour influence predator–prey encounter rates, the amount of time prey are vulnerable during an encounter, and the conditional probability of prey death given an encounter. How a predator responds to fire depends on fire characteristics (e.g. season, severity), their hunting behaviour (ambush or pursuit predator), movement behaviour, territoriality, and intra‐guild dynamics. Prey species that rely on habitat structure for avoiding predation often experience increased predation rates and lower survival in recently burnt areas. By contrast, some prey species benefit from the opening up of habitat after fire because it makes it easier to detect predators and to modify their behaviour appropriately. Reduced prey body condition after fire can increase predation risk either through impaired ability to escape predators, or increased need to forage in risky areas due to being energetically stressed. To reduce risk of predation in the post‐fire environment, prey may change their habitat use, increase sheltering behaviour, change their movement behaviour, or use camouflage through cryptic colouring and background matching. Field experiments and population viability modelling show instances where fire either amplifies or does not amplify the impacts of predators on prey populations, and vice versa. In some instances, intense and sustained post‐fire predation may lead to local extinctions of prey populations. Human disruption of fire regimes is impacting faunal communities, with consequences for predator and prey behaviour and population dynamics. Key areas for future research include: capturing data continuously before, during and after fires; teasing out the relative importance of changes in visibility and shelter availability in different contexts; documenting changes in acoustic and olfactory cues for both predators and prey; addressing taxonomic and geographic biases in the literature; and predicting and testing how changes in fire‐regime characteristics reshape predator–prey interactions. Understanding and managing the consequences for predator–prey communities will be critical for effective ecosystem management and species conservation in this era of global change.

Do the evolutionary interactions between moths and bats promote niche partitioning between bats and birds?

Ecological theory suggests that the coexistence of species is promoted by the partitioning of available resources, as in dietary niche partitioning where predators partition prey. Yet, the mechanisms underlying dietary niche partitioning are not always clear. We used fecal DNA metabarcoding to investigate the diets of seven nocturnal insectivorous bird and bat species. Low diet overlap (2%-22%) supported resource partitioning among all species. Differences in diet corresponded with species identity, prey detection method, and foraging behavior of predators. Insects with ultrasonic hearing capabilities were consumed significantly more often by birds than bats, consistent with an evolved avoidance of echolocating strategies. In turn, bats consumed a greater proportion of noneared insects such as spruce budworms. Overall, our results suggest that evolutionary interactions among bats and moths translate to dietary niche partitioning and coexistence among bats and nocturnal birds.

Quiet flight, the leading edge comb, and their ecological correlates in owls (Strigiformes)

Owls have evolved sensitive hearing facilitated by a facial disc, and flight that is quieted in part by a leading-edge comb on their wing. This comb is a series of modified barbs, or serrations, which project up from the outermost primary feathers on the leading edge of the wing. Here we explore the evolution of comb and facial disc morphology. We measured leading-edge comb morphology on museum skins of 147 owl species, and facial disc morphology from photos, as well as ecological traits, on 66 species. The first principal component of comb morphology loaded on serration length, which varied between 0 and ~6 mm long in the species we sampled. Comb size (PC1) was correlated with relative facial disc size, suggesting that owls with good hearing also tend to have quiet flight. Two non-exclusive hypotheses for why quiet flight evolved are for stealth, allowing the owl to approach prey undetected; or to reduce self-masking, enabling the owl to hear prey better midflight. We examined whether ecological variables (prey type, active period and habitat) suggest whether stealth or self-masking better explain the evolution of comb size. Phylogenetic analyses suggested support for both the stealth and the self-masking hypotheses for the evolution of quiet flight.

How oscillating aerodynamic forces explain the timbre of the hummingbird's hum and other animals in flapping flight

How hummingbirds hum is not fully understood, but its biophysical origin is encoded in the acoustic nearfield. Hence, we studied six freely hovering Anna’s hummingbirds, performing acoustic nearfield holography using a 2176 microphone array in vivo, while also directly measuring the 3D aerodynamic forces using a new aerodynamic force platform. We corroborate the acoustic measurements by developing an idealized acoustic model that integrates the aerodynamic forces with wing kinematics, which shows how the timbre of the hummingbird’s hum arises from the oscillating lift and drag forces on each wing. Comparing birds and insects, we find that the characteristic humming timbre and radiated power of their flapping wings originates from the higher harmonics in the aerodynamic forces that support their bodyweight. Our model analysis across insects and birds shows that allometric deviation makes larger birds quieter and elongated flies louder, while also clarifying complex bioacoustic behavior.

Anyone walking outdoors has heard the whooshing sound of birdwings flapping overhead, the buzzing sound of bees flying by, or the whining of mosquitos seeking blood. All animals with flapping wings make these sounds, but the hummingbird makes perhaps the most delightful sound of all: their namesake hum. Yet, how hummingbirds hum is poorly understood.

Bird wings generate large vortices of air to boost their lift and hover in the air that can generate tones. Further, the airflow over bird wings can be highly turbulent, meaning it can generate loud sounds, like the jets of air coming out of the engines of aircraft. Given all the sound-generating mechanisms at hand, it is difficult to determine why some wings buzz whereas others whoosh or hum.

Hightower, Wijnings et al. wanted to understand the physical mechanism that causes animal wings to whine, buzz, hum or whoosh in flight. They hypothesized that the aerodynamic forces generated by animal wings are the main source of their characteristic wing sounds. Hummingbird wings have the most features in common with different animals’ wings, while also featuring acoustically complex feathers. This makes them ideal models for deciphering how birds, bats and even insects make wing sounds.

To learn more about wing sounds, Hightower, Wijnings et al. studied how a species of hummingbird called Anna’s hummingbird hums while drinking nectar from a flower. A three-dimensional ‘acoustic hologram’ was generated using 2,176 microphones to measure the humming sound from all directions. In a follow-up experiment, the aerodynamic forces the hummingbird wings generate to hover were also measured. Their wingbeat was filmed simultaneously in slow-motion in both experiments. Hightower, Wijnings et al. then used a mathematical model that governs the wing’s aeroacoustics to confirm that the aerodynamic forces generated by the hummingbirds’ wings cause the humming sound heard when they hover in front of a flower. The model shows that the oscillating aerodynamic forces generate harmonics, which give the wings’ hum the acoustic quality of a musical instrument.

Using this model Hightower, Wijnings et al. found that the differences in the aerodynamic forces generated by bird and insect wings cause the characteristic timbres of their whines, buzzes, hums, or whooshes. They also determined how these sounds scale with body mass and flapping frequency across 170 insect species and 80 bird species. This showed that mosquitos are unusually loud for their body size due to the unusual unsteadiness of the aerodynamic forces they generate in flight.

These results explain why flying animals’ wings sound the way they do – for example, why larger birds are quieter and mosquitos louder. Better understanding of how the complex forces generated by animal wings create sound can advance the study of how animals change their wingbeat to communicate. Further, the model that explains how complex aerodynamic forces cause sound can help make the sounds of aerial robots, drones, and fans not only more silent, but perhaps more pleasing, like the hum of a hummingbird.

Introduction to the Symposium: Bio-Inspiration of Quiet Flight of Owls and Other Flying Animals: Recent Advances and Unanswered Questions

Animal wings produce an acoustic signature in flight. Many owls are able to suppress this noise to fly quietly relative to other birds. Instead of silent flight, certain birds have conversely evolved to produce extra sound with their wings for communication. The papers in this symposium synthesize ongoing research in "animal aeroacoustics": the study of how animal flight produces an acoustic signature, its biological context, and possible bio-inspired engineering applications. Three papers present research on flycatchers and doves, highlighting work that continues to uncover new physical mechanisms by which bird wings can make communication sounds. Quiet flight evolves in the context of a predator-prey interaction, either to help predators such as owls hear its prey better, or to prevent the prey from hearing the approaching predator. Two papers present work on hearing in owls and insect prey. Additional papers focus on the sounds produced by wings during flight, and on the fluid mechanics of force production by flapping wings. For instance, there is evidence that birds such as nightbirds, hawks, or falcons may also have quiet flight. Bat flight appears to be quieter than bird flight, for reasons that are not fully explored. Several research avenues remain open, including the role of flapping versus gliding flight or the physical acoustic mechanisms by which flight sounds are reduced. The convergent interest of the biology and engineering communities on quiet owl flight comes at a time of nascent developments in the energy and transportation sectors, where noise and its perception are formidable obstacles.

Social learning exploits the available auditory or visual cues

The ability to acquire a behavior can be facilitated by exposure to a conspecific demonstrator. Such social learning occurs under a range of conditions in nature. Here, we tested the idea that social learning can benefit from any available sensory cue, thereby permitting learning under different natural conditions. The ability of naïve gerbils to learn a sound discrimination task following 5 days of exposure adjacent to a demonstrator gerbil was tested in the presence or absence of visual cues. Naïve gerbils acquired the task significantly faster in either condition, as compared to controls. We also found that exposure to a demonstrator was more potent in facilitating learning, as compared to exposure to the sounds used to perform the discrimination task. Therefore, social learning was found to be flexible and equally efficient in the auditory or visual domains.

What Does an Insect Hear? Reassessing the Role of Hearing in Predator Avoidance with Insights from Vertebrate Prey

Insects have a diversity of hearing organs known to function in a variety of contexts, including reproduction, locating food, and defense. While the role of hearing in predator avoidance has been extensively researched over the past several decades, this research has focused on the detection of one type of predator-echolocating bats. Here we reassess the role of hearing in antipredator defense by considering how insects use their ears to detect and avoid the wide range of predators that consume them. To identify the types of sounds that could be relevant to insect prey, we first review the topic of hearing-mediated predator avoidance in vertebrates. Sounds used by vertebrate prey to assess predation risk include incidental sound cues (e.g., flight sounds, rustling vegetation, and splashing) produced by an approaching predator or another escaping prey, as well as communication signals produced by a predator (e.g., echolocation calls, songs) or nonpredator (e.g., alarm calls). We then review what is known, and what is not known, about such sounds made by the main predators and parasitoids of insects (i.e., birds, bats, terrestrial vertebrates, and invertebrates) and how insects respond to them. Three key insights emerged from our review. First, there is a lack of information on how both vertebrate and insect prey use passive sound cues produced by predators to avoid being captured. Second, while there are numerous examples of vertebrate prey eavesdropping on the calls and songs of predators and nonpredators to assess risk, there are currently no such examples for eared insect prey. Third, the hearing sensitivity of many insects, including those with ears considered to be dedicated to detecting bats or mates, overlaps with both sound cues and signals generated by nonbat predators. Sounds of particular relevance to insect prey include the flight sounds and calls of insectivorous birds, the flight sounds of insect predators and parasitoids, and rustling vegetation sounds of birds and terrestrial predators. We conclude that research on the role of insect hearing in predator avoidance has been disproportionally focused on bat-detection, and that acoustically-mediated responses to other predators may have been overlooked because the responses of prey may be subtle (e.g., ceasing activity, increasing vigilance). We recommend that researchers expand their testing of hearing-mediated risk assessment in insects by considering the wide range of sounds generated by predators, and the varied responses exhibited by prey to these sounds.

Evidence that the Dorsal Velvet of Barn Owl Wing Feathers Decreases Rubbing Sounds during Flapping Flight

Owls have specialized feather features hypothesized to reduce sound produced during flight. One of these features is the velvet, a structure composed of elongated filaments termed pennulae that project dorsally from the upper surface of wing and tail feathers. There are two hypotheses of how the velvet functions to reduce sound. According to the aerodynamic noise hypothesis, the velvet reduces sound produced by aerodynamic processes, such as turbulence development on the surface of the wing. Alternatively, under the structural noise hypothesis, the velvet reduces frictional noise produced when two feathers rub together. The aerodynamic noise hypothesis predicts impairing the velvet will increase aerodynamic flight sounds predominantly at low frequency, since turbulence formation predominantly generates low frequency sound; and that changes in sound levels will occur predominantly during the downstroke, when aerodynamic forces are greatest. Conversely, the frictional noise hypothesis predicts impairing the velvet will cause a broadband (i.e., across all frequencies) increase in flight sounds, since frictional sounds are broadband; and that changes in sound levels will occur during the upstroke, when the wing feathers rub against each other the most. Here, we tested these hypotheses by impairing with hairspray the velvet on inner wing feathers (P1-S4) of 13 live barn owls (Tyto alba) and measuring the sound produced between 0.1 and 16 kHz during flapping flight. Relative to control flights, impairing the velvet increased sound produced across the entire frequency range (i.e., the effect was broadband) and the upstroke increased more than the downstroke, such that the upstroke of manipulated birds was louder than the downstroke, supporting the frictional noise hypothesis. Our results suggest that a substantial amount of bird flight sound is produced by feathers rubbing against feathers during flapping flight.

Evolutionary and Ecological Correlates of Quiet Flight in Nightbirds, Hawks, Falcons, and Owls

Two hypotheses have been proposed for the evolution of structures that reduce flight sounds in birds. According to the stealth hypothesis, flying quietly reduces the ability of other animals (e.g., prey) to detect the animal’s approach from its flight sounds. This hypothesis predicts that animals hunting prey with acute hearing evolve silencing features. The self-masking hypothesis posits that reduced flight sounds permit the animal itself to hear better (such as the sounds of its prey, or its own echolocation calls) during flight. This hypothesis predicts that quieting features evolve in predators that hunt by ear, or in species that echolocate. Owls, certain hawks, and nightbirds (nocturnal Caprimulgiformes) have convergently evolved a sound-reducing feature: a velvety coating on the dorsal surface of wing and tail feathers. Here we document a fourth independent origin of the velvet, in the American kestrel (Falco sparverius). Among these four clades (hawks, falcons, nightbirds, and owls), the velvet is longer and better developed in wing and tail regions prone to rubbing with neighboring feathers, apparently to reduce broadband frictional noise produced by rubbing of adjacent feathers. We tested whether stealth or self-masking better predicted which species evolved the velvet. There was no support of echolocation as a driver of the velvet: oilbird(Steatornis caripensis) and glossy swiftlet (Collocalia esculenta) each evolved echolocation but neither had any velvet. A phylogenetic least squares fit of stealth and self-masking (to better hear prey sounds) provided support for both hypotheses. Some nightbirds (nightjars, potoos, and owlet-nightjars) eat flying insects that do not make much sound, implying the velvet permits stealthy approach of flying insects. One nightbird clade, frogmouths (Podargus) have more extensive velvet than other nightbirds and may hunt terrestrial prey by ear, in support of self-masking. In hawks, the velvet is also best developed in species known or suspected to hunt by ear (harriers and kites), supporting the self-masking hypothesis, but velvet is also present in reduced form in hawk species not known to hunt by ear, in support of the stealth hypothesis. American kestrel is not known to hunt by ear, and unlike the other falcons sampled, flies slowly (kite-like) when hunting. Thus the presence of velvet in it supports the stealth hypothesis. All owls sampled (n = 13 species) had extensive velvet, including the buffy fish-owl (Ketupa ketupu), contrary to literature claims that fish-owls had lost the velvet. Collectively, there is support for both the self-masking and stealth hypotheses for the evolution of dorsal velvet in birds.

Evolution and Ecology of Silent Flight in Owls and Other Flying Vertebrates

We raise and explore possible answers to three questions about the evolution and ecology of silent flight of owls: (1) do owls fly silently for stealth, or is it to reduce self-masking? Current evidence slightly favors the self-masking hypothesis, but this question remains unsettled. (2) Two of the derived wing features that apparently evolved to suppress flight sound are the vane fringes and dorsal velvet of owl wing feathers. Do these two features suppress aerodynamic noise (sounds generated by airflow), or do they instead reduce structural noise, such as frictional sounds of feathers rubbing during flight? The aerodynamic noise hypothesis lacks empirical support. Several lines of evidence instead support the hypothesis that the velvet and fringe reduce frictional sound, including: the anatomical location of the fringe and velvet, which is best developed in wing and tail regions prone to rubbing, rather than in areas exposed to airflow; the acoustic signature of rubbing, which is broadband and includes ultrasound, is present in the flight of other birds but not owls; and the apparent relationship between the velvet and friction barbules found on the remiges of other birds. (3) Have other animals also evolved silent flight? Wing features in nightbirds (nocturnal members of Caprimulgiformes) suggest that they may have independently evolved to fly in relative silence, as have more than one diurnal hawk (Accipitriformes). We hypothesize that bird flight is noisy because wing feathers are intrinsically predisposed to rub and make frictional noise. This hypothesis suggests a new perspective: rather than regarding owls as silent, perhaps it is bird flight that is loud. This implies that bats may be an overlooked model for silent flight. Owl flight may not be the best (and certainly, not the only) model for "bio-inspiration" of silent flight.

Phylogenomics reveals the evolutionary timing and pattern of butterflies and moths

Lepidoptera play key roles in many biological systems. Butterflies are hypothesized to have evolved contemporaneously with flowering plants, and moths are thought to have gained anti-bat defenses in response to echolocating predatory bats, but these hypotheses have largely gone untested. Using a transcriptomic, dated evolutionary tree of Lepidoptera, we demonstrate that the most recent common ancestor of Lepidoptera is considerably older than previously hypothesized. The oldest moths in crown Lepidoptera were present in the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, and began to diversify largely in synchrony with angiosperms. We show that multiple lineages of moths independently evolved hearing organs well before the origin of bats, rejecting the hypothesis that lepidopteran hearing organs arose in response to these predators.

Butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) are one of the major superradiations of insects, comprising nearly 160,000 described extant species. As herbivores, pollinators, and prey, Lepidoptera play a fundamental role in almost every terrestrial ecosystem. Lepidoptera are also indicators of environmental change and serve as models for research on mimicry and genetics. They have been central to the development of coevolutionary hypotheses, such as butterflies with flowering plants and moths’ evolutionary arms race with echolocating bats. However, these hypotheses have not been rigorously tested, because a robust lepidopteran phylogeny and timing of evolutionary novelties are lacking. To address these issues, we inferred a comprehensive phylogeny of Lepidoptera, using the largest dataset assembled for the order (2,098 orthologous protein-coding genes from transcriptomes of 186 species, representing nearly all superfamilies), and dated it with carefully evaluated synapomorphy-based fossils. The oldest members of the Lepidoptera crown group appeared in the Late Carboniferous (∼300 Ma) and fed on nonvascular land plants. Lepidoptera evolved the tube-like proboscis in the Middle Triassic (∼241 Ma), which allowed them to acquire nectar from flowering plants. This morphological innovation, along with other traits, likely promoted the extraordinary diversification of superfamily-level lepidopteran crown groups. The ancestor of butterflies was likely nocturnal, and our results indicate that butterflies became day-flying in the Late Cretaceous (∼98 Ma). Moth hearing organs arose multiple times before the evolutionary arms race between moths and bats, perhaps initially detecting a wide range of sound frequencies before being co-opted to specifically detect bat sonar. Our study provides an essential framework for future comparative studies on butterfly and moth evolution.

Using on-board sound recordings to infer behaviour of free-moving wild animals

Technological advances in the last 20 years have enabled researchers to develop increasingly sophisticated miniature devices (tags) that record an animal's behaviour not from an observational, external viewpoint, but directly on the animals themselves. So far, behavioural research with these tags has mostly been conducted using movement or acceleration data. But on-board audio recordings have become more and more common following pioneering work in marine mammal research. The first questions that come to mind when recording sound on-board animals concern their vocal behaviour. When are they calling? How do they adjust their behaviour? What acoustic parameters do they change and how? However, other topics like foraging behaviour, social interactions or environmental acoustics can now be addressed as well and offer detailed insight into the animals' daily life. In this Review, we discuss the possibilities, advantages and limitations of on-board acoustic recordings. We focus primarily on bats as their active-sensing, echolocating lifestyle allows many approaches to a multi-faceted acoustic assessment of their behaviour. The general ideas and concepts, however, are applicable to many animals and hopefully will demonstrate the versatility of on-board acoustic recordings and stimulate new research.

In that vein: inflated wing veins contribute to butterfly hearing

Insects have evolved a diversity of hearing organs specialized to detect sounds critical for survival. We report on a unique structure on butterfly wings that enhances hearing. The Satyrini are a diverse group of butterflies occurring throughout the world. One of their distinguishing features is a conspicuous swelling of their forewing vein, but the functional significance of this structure is unknown. Here, we show that wing vein inflations function in hearing. Using the common wood nymph, Cercyonis pegala, as a model, we show that (i) these butterflies have ears on their forewings that are most sensitive to low frequency sounds (less than 5 kHz); (ii) inflated wing veins are directly connected to the ears; and (iii) when vein inflations are ablated, sensitivity to low frequency sounds is impaired. We propose that inflated veins contribute to low frequency hearing by impedance matching.

Auditory sensitivity, spatial dynamics, and amplitude of courtship song in Drosophila melanogaster

Acoustic communication is an important component of courtship in Drosophila melanogaster. It takes the form of courtship song produced by males through the unilateral extension and vibration of a wing. Following the paradigm of sender-receiver matching, song content is assumed to match tuning in the auditory system, however, D. melanogaster audition is nonlinear and tuning dependent upon signal amplitude. At low stimulus amplitudes or in the absence of sound the antenna is tuned into song frequency, but as amplitude increases the antenna's resonance is shifted up by hundreds of Hertz. Accurate measurements of song amplitude have been elusive because of the strong dependency of amplitude upon the spatial geometry between sender and receiver. Here, D. melanogaster auditory directional sensitivity and the geometric position between the courting flies are quantified. It is shown that singing occurs primarily from positions resulting in direct stimulation of the female antenna. Using this information, it is established that the majority of song is louder than theoretically predicted and at these sound levels the female antenna should not amplify or be tuned into song. The study implies that Drosophila hearing, and, in particular, its active mechanisms, could function in a broader context than previously surmised.

Evolutionary escalation: the bat-moth arms race

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.

Specialized primary feathers produce tonal sounds during flight in rock pigeons (Columba livia)

For centuries, naturalists have suggested that the tonal elements of pigeon wing sounds may be sonations (non-vocal acoustic signals) of alarm. However, spurious tonal sounds may be produced passively as a result of aeroelastic flutter in the flight feathers of almost all birds. Using mechanistic criteria emerging from recent work on sonations, we sought to: (1) identify characteristics of rock pigeon flight feathers that might be adapted for sound production rather than flight, and (2) provide evidence that this morphology is necessary for in vivo sound production and is sufficient to replicate in vivo sounds. Pigeons produce tonal sounds (700±50 Hz) during the latter two-thirds of each downstroke during take-off. These tones are produced when a small region of long, curved barbs on the inner vane of the outermost primary feather (P10) aeroelastically flutters. Tones were silenced in live birds when we experimentally increased the stiffness of this region to prevent flutter. Isolated P10 feathers were sufficient to reproduce in vivo sounds when spun at the peak angular velocity of downstroke (53.9-60.3 rad s(-1)), but did not produce tones at average downstroke velocity (31.8 rad s(-1)), whereas P9 and P1 feathers never produced tones. P10 feathers had significantly lower coefficients of resultant aerodynamic force (CR) when spun at peak angular velocity than at average angular velocity, revealing that production of tonal sounds incurs an aerodynamic cost. P9 and P1 feathers did not show this difference in CR These mechanistic results suggest that the tonal sounds produced by P10 feathers are not incidental and may function in communication.

Listening to the environment: hearing differences from an epigenetic effect in solitarious and gregarious locusts

Locusts display a striking form of phenotypic plasticity, developing into either a lone-living solitarious phase or a swarming gregarious phase depending on population density. The two phases differ extensively in appearance, behaviour and physiology. We found that solitarious and gregarious locusts have clear differences in their hearing, both in their tympanal and neuronal responses. We identified significant differences in the shape of the tympana that may be responsible for the variations in hearing between locust phases. We measured the nanometre mechanical responses of the ear's tympanal membrane to sound, finding that solitarious animals exhibit greater displacement. Finally, neural experiments signified that solitarious locusts have a relatively stronger response to high frequencies. The enhanced response to high-frequency sounds in the nocturnally flying solitarious locusts suggests greater investment in detecting the ultrasonic echolocation calls of bats, to which they are more vulnerable than diurnally active gregarious locusts. This study highlights the importance of epigenetic effects set forth during development and begins to identify how animals are equipped to match their immediate environmental needs.

Unexpected dynamic up-tuning of auditory organs in day-flying moths

In certain nocturnal moth species the frequency range of best hearing shifts to higher frequencies during repeated sound stimulation. This could provide the moths with a mechanism to better detect approaching echolocating bats. However, such a dynamic up-tuning would be of little value for day-flying moths that use intra-specific acoustic communication. Here we examined if the ears of day-flying moths provide stable tuning during longer sound stimulation. Contrary to our expectations, dynamic up-tuning was found in the ear of the day-flying species Urania boisduvalii and Empyreuma pugione. Audiograms were measured with distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs). The level of the dominant distortion product (i.e. 2f1-f2) varied as a function of time by as much as 45 dB during ongoing acoustic stimulation, showing a systematic decrease at low frequencies and an increase at high frequencies. As a consequence, within about 2 s of acoustic stimulation, the DPOAEs audiogram shifted from low to high frequencies. Despite the up-tuning, the range of best audition still fell within the frequency band of the species-specific communication signals, suggesting that intra-specific communication should not be affected adversely. Up-tuning could be an ancestral condition in moth ears that in day-flying moths does not underlie larger selection pressure.

Sensory evolution of hearing in tettigoniids with differing communication systems

In Tettigoniidae (Orthoptera: Ensifera), hearing organs are essential in mate detection. Male tettigoniids usually produce calling songs by tegminal stridulation, whereas females approach the males phonotactically. This unidirectional communication system is the most common one among tettigoniids. In several tettigoniid lineages, females have evolved acoustic replies to the male calling song which constitutes a bidirectional communication system. The genus Poecilimon (Tettigoniidae: Phaneropterinae) is of special interest because the ancestral state of bidirectional communication, with calling males and responding females, has been reversed repeatedly to unidirectional communication. Acoustic communication is mediated by hearing organs that are adapted to the conspecific signals. Therefore, we analyse the auditory system in the Tettigoniidae genus Poecilimon for functional adaptations in three characteristics: (i) dimension of sound-receiving structures (tympanum and acoustic spiracle), (ii) number of auditory sensilla and (iii) hearing sensitivity. Profound differences in the auditory system correlate with uni- or bidirectional communication. Among the sound-receiving structures, the tympana scale with body size, whereas the acoustic spiracle, the major sound input structure, was drastically reduced in unidirectional communicating species. In the unidirectional P. ampliatus group, auditory sensilla are severely reduced in numbers, but not in the unidirectional P. propinquus group. Within the P. ampliatus group, the number of auditory sensilla is further reduced in P. intermedius which lost acoustic signalling due to parthenogenesis. The auditory sensitivity correlated with the size of the acoustic spiracle, as hearing sensitivity was better with larger spiracles, especially in the ultrasonic range. Our results show a significant reduction in auditory structures, shaped by the differing sex roles during mate detection.