Title: Coevolution
1Coevolution
- Coevolution Coadaptation
- Ehrlich Raven (1965) Butterflies Plants
Plants eaten by larvae ? under selection to
produce chemicals ? larvae under selection to
de-toxify ? plants under selection to more
toxify.
2Requirements of Coevolution
1. Specificity i.e. evolution of trait in 1 spp
consequence of evolution of trait in
another spp 2. Reciprocity i.e. both traits
evolve (Janzen 1980)
3Consequence Evolutionary Arms-Race
4Bats vs Moths
5Hearing Insects
6Moth Hearing to Detect Bats?
- Peak sensitivity 20 60 kHz
- Sensitivity correlated with bat community
diversity - Auditory degeneration in day moths
- Tympanate ears of large moths have lower best
frequencies more sensitive than ears of
smaller moths(Waters 2003)
7Moth Hearing Success
Arctiidae
Geometridae
gt 80 of moth spp (Pavey and Burwell
1998, Schoeman and Jacobs 2003)
Noctuidae
Notodontidae
Pyralidae
8Moth Hearing Success
- Tympanate moths are 40 more successful at
evading bats (Acharya Fenton 1994)? i.e.
exert considerable selective pressure on bats to
evolve adaptations to overcome these defenses
9Have Bats Responded?
1. Use frequencies lt 20 kHz gt 60 kHz allotonic
frequencies
10Allotonic Frequency Hypothesis
11 Moth
Peak Echolocation Frequency (kHz)
12(No Transcript)
13Have Bats Responded?
1. Use frequencies lt 20 kHz gt 60 kHz allotonic
frequencies 2. Use passive listening low
intensity / short duration echolocation
calls
14(No Transcript)
15Have Bats Responded?
1. Use frequencies lt 20 kHz gt 60 kHz allotonic
frequencies 2. Use passive listening low
intensity / short duration echolocation
calls ? However, low intensity calls may not be
an adaptation per se to avoid detection by
moths. This is likely the case with short
duration calls used to avoid pulse-echo
overlap in cluttered habitats.
16Conclusions
- Moths certainly evolved ears to detect foraging
bats - Evolutionary responses of bats less certain
- ? perhaps example of diffuse or guild
coevolution
17Conclusions
- What is necessary to show coevolution
conclusively ?