Female moths incorporate plant acoustic emissions into their oviposition decision-making process
- School of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Israel
- Plant Protection Institute, Agricultural Research Organization – Volcani Institute, Israel
- School of Plant Sciences and Food Security, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Israel
- Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Figures
Figure 1 with 2 supplements
The setup and results.
In all panels A–D, the sound played in the setup is presented in the left section (treatment). Because the number of egg clusters was low (between 0 and 5 clusters), we find that presenting the Bayesian posterior (see Methods) for the probability to lay a cluster is more informative (we present the raw data on Figure 1—figure supplement 2). The posterior distribution is depicted by solid lines. The prior distribution (with a mean of 0.5 and a standard deviation of 0.1) is represented by dashed lines. To create these plots, eggs laid on the tested side (where the speaker was active or hydrated plant in the initial experiment) are denoted as 1, while those on the opposite side are marked as 0. These plots thus demonstrate the probability of obtaining a 1 or 0 in each experiment. The middle section shows the two-choice oviposition setup, and the right side shows the results for the following conditions: (A) Drought-stressed vs. thriving plant (no playback). (B1) Silence vs. drought-stressed plant playback (without a plant). (B2) Deaf females in a setup with silence vs. drought-stressed plant playback (without a plant). (B3) Silent plant vs. playback of drought-stressed plant. (C) A box with male moths vs. an empty box. Tomato and male clicks are presented (time signal and spectrum) in panels B and C. The horizontal black bar depicts 0.1 ms.
Figure 1—figure supplement 1
Male Egyptian cotton leaf moths (S. littoralis) courtship sequences recorded when we placed males in the arena (spectrogram presented).
Figure 1—figure supplement 2
Raw scatter plot data supporting Figure 1 (two-choice experiments).
This figure replicates the experiment shown in Figure 1, displaying the raw measurements without Bayesian analysis. In all panels (A–D), the treatment is shown in the left section. These graphs summarize every datum collected throughout the two-choice experiments. Each marker represents a cluster deposited at the choice indicated on the X-axis. The overall mean is overlaid as a solid black line, and the median as a solid red line. (A) Drought-stressed vs. thriving plant (no playback). (B1) Silence vs. drought-stressed plant playback (without a plant). (B2) Deaf females in a setup with silence vs. drought-stressed plant playback (without a plant). (B3) Silent plant vs. playback of drought-stressed plant. (C) A box with male moths vs. an empty box.
Figure 2
Females’ movement and decision-making.
(A) The continuous location over time in the arena (top view) of four individual moths during one trial of the drought sounds vs. silent treatment. Time is represented by color in minutes, with a red triangle indicating the playback side and red X’s marking the locations where eggs were laid. Note that we cannot be sure which of the individuals laid the eggs. (B) The proportion of time moths spent in the playback side (in bins of 30 min) increased over time.
Figure 3 with 2 supplements
Females lay eggs near acoustic playback.
(A) The long arena creates an acoustic gradient, allowing us to investigate whether female moths prefer to lay their eggs in specific locations based on the sound environment. Additionally, there is sugar water in the center of the arena, which serves as the adult moth’s food. (B) Egg count density (solid line) and cluster density (dashed line). Both figures display a bimodal distribution, with one peak near the speaker (–75) and another near the feeder (0). The points under the graph depict laid clusters, illustrating the relationship between the number of eggs per cluster and their spatial distribution within the arena.
Figure 3—figure supplement 1
On the left, comparison between the egg count results (solid line) in the elongated arena and the pseudorandom distribution (dashed line) (Kolmogorov-Smirnov [K-S] test, D=0.3, p=2.2 × 10–16).
On the right, comparison between the cluster count results (solid line) pseudorandom distribution (dashed line) (K-S test, D=0.21, p=3.9 × 10–14). The speaker was placed on location –75, a feeder was placed on the center (location 0), and a resistor was placed on location 75. To exclude any potential effect of temporal correlations on egg-laying, we have also rerun the statistics when only taking the first night, when the females laid clusters to avoid the desensitization or dependency. This test revealed similar results (D=0.55, p-value<2.2 × 10–16).
Figure 3—figure supplement 2
Sound gradient two-choice test: Drought-stressed playback+ plant vs. quiet control.
(A) We conducted an additional experiment using the same protocol described for the ‘sound gradient experiment’ (see Methods, Sound gradient experiment), except that we placed a dehydrated plant (subjected to the stress treatment detailed in Experiment 1) on the speaker side and a resistor plus soil on the control side. (B) The resulting oviposition pattern closely mirrored those of our earlier studies: When presented with a stressed plant vs. an empty control, S. littoralis females deposited significantly more egg clusters on the dehydrated clicking plant. To test the effect of the treatments on the oviposition, we compared the observed cluster locations (solid line) to pseudorandom distribution (dashed line). We found significant differences between the two distributions (Kolmogorov-Smirnov [K-S] test, D=0.29, p=0.001). The speaker was placed at location –75 cm, a feeder was placed on the center (location 0), and a resistor was placed at location 75 cm. We have also rerun the statistics when only taking the first night when the females laid clusters to avoid the fear of dependency. These tests revealed similar results (D=0.34, p=0.020). Light-gray bars denote the observed measurements aggregated into 10 cm bins (N=20).
Tables
Table 1
Summary of experimental conditions, including the number of repetitions, i.e., the number of times that new moths were placed in the arenas and the number of observations (each repetition was observed for approximately three consecutive nights).
The total number of egg clusters and the p-values for each experiment are reported. Experiments that were replicated twice appear in two separate lines denoted for combined statistics and by #1 or #2. Experiments and observations that did not produce any egg-laying were excluded from the dataset, and that is why the number of observations is often the same as the number of repetitions.
| Experiment | #Repetitions | #Observations | #Egg clusters | Mean ± SE clusters on the side of the treatment | Mean ± SE clusters on the side of the control | p-Value | Estimates (# of egg clusters) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drought-stressed plants vs. well-hydrated plants | 17 | 17 | 53 | 0.88±1.11 | 2.23±2.68 | 0.01 | 0.93 |
| Playback of a drought-stressed plant vs. silence, combined trials (playback: 60 per minute) | 38 | 45 | 67 | 1.08±0.82 | 0.40±0.65 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| Playback of a drought-stressed plant vs. silence #1 (playback: 60 per minute) | 11 | 17 | 24 | 1.11±0.69 | 0.29±0.58 | 0.01 | 1.34 |
| Playback of a drought-stressed plant vs. silence #2 (playback: 60 per minute) | 27 | 28 | 43 | 1.07±0.89 | 0.46±0.69 | 0.02 | 0.84 |
| Deafened moths –Playback of a drought-stressed plant vs. silence | 23 | 23 | 39 | 0.70±0.70 | 1.00±1.09 | 0.55 | 0.12 |
| Well-hydrated plants and playback of a drought-stressed plant, combined trials (playback: 60 per minute) | 29 | 39 | 110 | 1.05±0.99 | 1.76±1.64 | 0.01 | –0.52 |
| Well-hydrated plants and playback of a drought-stressed plant #1 (playback: 60 per minute) | 9 | 19 | 44 | 0.78±0.91 | 1.52±1.38 | 0.05 | –0.66 |
| Well-hydrated plants and playback of a drought-stressed plant #2 (playback: 60 per minute) | 20 | 20 | 66 | 1.30±1.03 | 2.00±1.86 | 0.10 | –0.43 |
| Males vs. no-males | 19 | 29 | 48 | 0.72±0.92 | 0.93±1.33 | 0.39 | –0.25 |
Additional files
-
MDAR checklist
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/104700/elife-104700-mdarchecklist1-v1.pdf
-
Source data 1
Raw data tables and analysis code that constitute the primary sources for all analyses in this study.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/104700/elife-104700-data1-v1.zip
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Female moths incorporate plant acoustic emissions into their oviposition decision-making process
eLife 13:RP104700.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.104700.3
