Supporting Information Barber et al. 10.1073/pnas.1421926112 Fig. S1. Echolocation behavior of big brown bats (E. fuscus) during interactions with luna moths. IPI profiles of echolocation attacks on intact luna moths (A. luna, black lines) and moths with ablated tails (gray lines) during some of the first interactions these naive bats had with luna moths (dashed lines) and interactions after the bats had gained experience (2–7 d later; solid lines). (A) Four sonar attacks from one bat. (B) A spectrogram of a sonar attack on an intact luna moth. (C ) A spectrogram of the same bat attacking a luna moth with ablated tails. (D) Twenty-nine sonar attacks for eight bats. Using logistic regression, we noted no differences in F min of buzz II between attacks on intact (18.4 ± 1.6 kHz) or ablated (18.3 ± 2.0 kHz) luna moths or between early (17.8 ± 1.6 kHz) and late (19.1 ± 1.7 kHz) attacks. Further, logistic regression revealed no differences in IPIs of the approach, buzz I, or buzz II components of the echolocation sequences between attacks on intact versus ablated moths or between early versus late attacks. Barber et al. www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/1421926112 1 of 9
Transcript
Supporting InformationBarber et al. 10.1073/pnas.1421926112
Fig. S1. Echolocation behavior of big brown bats (E. fuscus) during interactions with luna moths. IPI profiles of echolocation attacks on intact luna moths(A. luna, black lines) and moths with ablated tails (gray lines) during some of the first interactions these naive bats had with luna moths (dashed lines) andinteractions after the bats had gained experience (2–7 d later; solid lines). (A) Four sonar attacks from one bat. (B) A spectrogram of a sonar attack on an intactluna moth. (C) A spectrogram of the same bat attacking a luna moth with ablated tails. (D) Twenty-nine sonar attacks for eight bats. Using logistic regression,we noted no differences in Fmin of buzz II between attacks on intact (18.4 ± 1.6 kHz) or ablated (18.3 ± 2.0 kHz) luna moths or between early (17.8 ± 1.6 kHz)and late (19.1 ± 1.7 kHz) attacks. Further, logistic regression revealed no differences in IPIs of the approach, buzz I, or buzz II components of the echolocationsequences between attacks on intact versus ablated moths or between early versus late attacks.
Barber et al. www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/1421926112 1 of 9
Fig. S2. Example echo profiles from ensonification experiments of luna moths. Oscillogram and spectrograms show echoes from synthetic FM playback stimuli(playback stimulus, 70–30 kHz sweep, 2 ms pulse duration, IPI of 10 ms) reflecting from flying luna moths in three conditions: (A) intact, (B) wings only (tailsablated), and (C) tails only (wings occluded by sound-absorbing foam). Movie frames below the spectrogram show the approximate location of the wings overtime. Audio files were normalized to highlight patterns of amplitude and frequency modulation, not for comparison of the absolute values. Amplitudemodulations (relative decibel change from lowest to highest amplitude echo over one wingbeat: ∼100 ms) produced by intact moths ensonified at 90 degreescreate a peak echo intensity change (12.1 ± 1.1 dB, n = 5) equivalent to moths with tails ablated (11.3 ± 2.3 dB, n = 4). We were unable to measure the peakintensity change in echoes from tails in a comparable manner due to our method of placing foam, which created an intense echo, in front of the beating wings.However, we demonstrate that tails do impose a characteristic amplitude modulation profile on the returning echo stream independent of the wings and findan increase of 2.4 ± 0.7 dB (n = 4) over the elevated acoustic floor from the foam. We reviewed high-speed video footage (14 of moths tethered during bat–moth interaction experiments and 5 of moths tethered for ensonification) and conclude that luna moth wings and tails beat approximately in phase with anapproximate 10-ms lag time between the tails and the wings (leading).
Barber et al. www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/1421926112 2 of 9
Fig. S5. Ancestral state tree showing the number of tail origins in Saturniidae, calculated in Mesquite. Marginal probability reconstructions with MK1, rate0.67042979, –log L.:40.04444013.
Barber et al. www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/1421926112 5 of 9
Fig. S6. Phytools tree showing saturniid tail length corrected for body size.
Table S1. Average flight kinematics of luna moths (A. luna) with and without tails
Flight kinematics Intact Ablated
Speed, m/s 1.94 ± 0.52, n = 12 2.00 ± 0.39, n = 14Acceleration, m/s 11.2 ± 10.2, n = 12 11.0 ± 6.34, n = 14Normal acceleration, m/s 9.56 ± 9.04, n = 12 9.52 ± 5.43, n = 14Normal acceleration in the horizontal plane, m/s 6.70 ± 6.75, n = 12 7.10 ± 3.96, n = 14Curvature, cm 0.04 ± 0.05, n = 12 0.04 ± 0.04, n = 14Wingbeat frequency, Hz 10.0 ± 1.16, n = 12 11.1 ± 0.79, n = 14
Values are mean ± SD, with sample size in parentheses. Bold type denotes a statistically significantcomparison.
Barber et al. www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/1421926112 6 of 9
Movie S3. E. fuscus aiming at the body of luna moths (A. luna) with a direct approach strategy where the bat surrounds the prey with the wings and tailmembrane concurrently and, in one motion, attempts to bring the insect to the mouth. The movie is slowed down ∼8 times.
Movie S3
Movie S4. E. fuscus attacking pyralid (G. mellonella) and luna (A. luna) moths using an aerobatic technique that involves guiding the prey with a wing towardthe midline of the bat before bringing the tail toward the head. The first two clips are slowed down ∼8 times, the third clip ∼12 times.
Movie S4
Barber et al. www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/1421926112 8 of 9
