Female moths incorporate plant acoustic emissions into their oviposition decision-making process

Plant-insect communication has been shown to rely on various modalities, including vision, olfaction, and mechanoreception (Boppré, 1978; Kevan and Lane, 1985; Gori, 1989; Ne’eman and Nesher, 1995; Schiestl, 2010; Brito et al., 2015; van Dam and Bouwmeester, 2016). Plant-insect (airborne) acoustic communication, however, has never been demonstrated. It has long been known that plants vibrate at ultrasonic frequencies due to physiological processes such as cavitation, resulting from changes in their water pressure (Milburn and Johnson, 1966; Tyree and Dixon, 1983; Ponomarenko et al., 2014). Recently, it has also been shown that these ultrasonic sounds produced by a drought-stressed or cut plant are airborne and are probably loud enough to be detected by ultrasound-hearing moths from a distance of a few meters (Khait et al., 2023). Moreover, it was shown that these sounds can serve as reliable cues for the condition of the plant, specifically indicating whether a plant is drought-stressed.

Ultrasonic hearing abilities and hearing organs located on different body parts have evolved multiple times independently in several Lepidoptera families. Hearing sensitivity typically falls within the 20–60 kHz range in all groups of moths that have evolved ultrasonic hearing (Fenton and Fullard, 1979; Hoy, 1996; Conner, 1999; Robert and Göpfert, 2002; Moir et al., 2013; Göpfert and Hennig, 2016). Two main hypotheses exist regarding the evolution of these hearing organs. The first suggests that they have evolved for sexual communication, i.e., to detect ultrasonic signals produced by male moths (Nakano et al., 2009). The second hypothesis suggests that they have evolved as an antipredator mechanism to detect echolocation calls produced by bats (Conner, 1999; Greenfield and Weber, 2000; Nakano et al., 2015, but see Kawahara et al., 2019). Regardless of why it has evolved, ultrasonic hearing allows moths to detect various additional sounds (Spangler, 1988), including plant dehydration sound clicks which have a wide spectrum that overlaps with moths’ hearing range and peaks around 50 kHz (Khait et al., 2023). We thus hypothesized that herbivore female moths with ultrasonic hearing might exploit ultrasonic plant emissions as cues to infer plant condition and employ this information for oviposition.

The selection of an oviposition site has a significant impact on the fitness of the hatching herbivore larvae and is thus one of the most critical decisions in the life of a female moth (Lhomme et al., 2018). In this study, we examined the Egyptian cotton leafworm (Spodoptera littoralis; Noctuidae) – a polyphagous herbivore and one of the most significant pests of tomato plants (Prasad and Bhattacharya, 1975), which possesses tympanic ears tuned to ultrasonic frequencies (Tougaard, 1996; Skals et al., 2005; Anton et al., 2011). The ears’ sensitivity of many moths from the Noctuidae family has been fully characterized, and they typically show a wide range of sensitivity between ~20 and ~60 kHz (Fullard, 1998). The full audiogram of the Egyptian cotton leafworm moth has not been documented, but (in accordance with the moths in the Noctuidae family) its hearing has been shown to be most sensitive around 38 kHz, a frequency which is part of the plant’s click spectrum (Tougaard, 1998). Moreover, the spectra of the clicks of the males of this species (Figure 1), which are clearly heard by the females, broadly overlap with plant clicks. We further demonstrated that the moth can hear echolocation calls which are in the range between 40 and 80 kHz, thus demonstrating sensitivity in the plant clicking range (see Methods).

Figure 1 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Much research has been conducted to characterize the females’ oviposition choice in this species with many factors suggested to be important for their decision-making process. The females have been found to prefer certain species of host plants over others (Salama et al., 1971; Sadek et al., 2010), to select plants based on their larval experience (Proffit et al., 2015) and to choose plants devoid of parasitic larvae, possibly because the presence of such larvae could promote the recruitment of natural enemies (Sadek et al., 2010). Studies have also investigated female preferences in response to plant stress signals, particularly olfactory cues. However, there is no clear consensus on the direction of these preferences (e.g. Chen et al., 2008; Showler and Moran, 2003). Nonetheless, it is widely accepted that females are capable of recognizing and responding to these signals.

In this study, we investigated whether ultrasonic sounds typical of drought-stressed plants influence oviposition decision-making in the Egyptian cotton leafworm moths. Based on their general behavioral preference for non-dry plants (as we validated, see below), we hypothesized that the female moths would be affected by plant ultrasonic signals when making oviposition decisions. Our results support this hypothesis, providing the first evidence for the use of typical plant sounds by insects.

In each of the following experiments, we placed 10.9±0.17 (mean ± SE) fertile female S. littoralis moths in the center of a 100×50×50 cm³ arena divided in the middle, with two choices offered, one on either side of the arena (a two-alternative forced choice paradigm, see Methods). To assess their choice, we compared the number of egg clusters which the moths had laid on each side.

Each treatment was repeated at least nine times (i.e. with a new set of moths), but the moths in each repetition were observed for several consecutive nights so that the minimum number of egg-laying events per treatment was 17. Each night was considered an independent observation because the moth could make a new decision regarding where to lay her eggs (to account for this repetition, the nights were nested in the statistical model). The treatment and the control sides were alternated between repetitions. To ensure replicability, the main plant-acoustic treatments were run twice with a pause of several months in between (see Table 1 in the Methods). In these experiments, we used the number of egg clusters, rather than the total number of eggs, as the response variable because each cluster represents a distinct oviposition decision. However, we describe a third experiment below where we evaluated the effect of the plant sounds on egg number (and not cluster number).

First, to examine whether S. littoralis females prefer to lay their eggs on drying or fresh tomato plants (without any playback sound, see Experiment 1 in the Methods), we placed them in an arena with one drying and one fresh plant. Female S. littoralis demonstrated a strong preference to lay their eggs on fresh plants that were not drought-stressed (Figure 1A, 2.2±2.7 vs. 0.9±1.1 egg clusters; mean ± SE; clusters per night respectively, p=0.004, mixed effect generalized linear models (GLMM) with the number of egg clusters as the explained parameter, the treatment as a fixed effect and the number of the arena and the repetition round and night as random effects, see Statistics).

We next examined whether an ultrasonic acoustic stimulus affects moths’ oviposition decision-making. To this end, we played drought-stressed sounds (recorded from a real drying tomato plant) on one side of the arena and either placed nothing on the other side or placed a decoy silent resistor to control for electric field sensing (see Experiment 2 in the Methods). Because we aimed to examine the effect of sound only (without other sensory cues such as visual or olfactory), in this condition, there was no plant in the arena, and we placed a small mesh box wrapped with a paper towel in the center of each side to encourage oviposition (the speaker was under the mesh so that the moth could not sense the vibration directly, only through airborne sound waves). Female moths significantly preferred to lay their eggs on the side of the arena in which drying plant sounds were played (contradicting the initial observation that they prefer hydrated plants; Figure 1A vs. 1B1).

To make sure that the acoustic signals were the sole influential factor in the moths’ decision-making process, we deafened mated female moths (by puncturing the tympanic membrane located at the thoracoabdominal juncture using an entomological needle #2, see Methods section) and repeated the experiment (drought-stressed sounds – no plant in the arena). We placed 9.3±1.8 female moths in an arena and monitored their choice of oviposition sites. In accordance with the acoustic hypothesis, the deafened moths did not show any preference in egg-laying (Figure 1B2, 0.70±0.70 vs. 1.0±1.09 egg clusters per night, p=0.55, estimate = 0.12, GLMM).

Notably, this experiment was repeated twice – 6 months apart – and the preference was significant both times (Figure 1B1, 1.1±0.8 vs. 0.4±0.7 egg clusters per night for the playback and the silent side, respectively, mean ± SE, p=0.0004, estimate = 1, GLMM as above, see Table 1 for the results of each session). The average number of egg clusters (1.1 clusters per night) in this condition was lower than in the baseline condition with a plant (2.2 clusters), but this is reasonable when taking into account that there was no plant in the arena. The playback rate was high with 60 drought clicks played per minute. This is higher than the rate reported for a single young plant, but it is feasible when considering a patch of adult plants as we have demonstrated experimentally (see Methods). Moreover, we repeated this experiment in an improved experimental setup with a lower playback rate of 30 per minute and got the same result – see below.

To examine the importance of sound in oviposition decision-making under pseudo-natural conditions, we placed two hydrated tomato plants – one on either side of the arena – and added a speaker playing back drought emissions sounds on one side and a resistor on the other (with the same impedance as the speaker) to control for potential effects of the electric field, or nothing. Interestingly, females showed a significant preference for the silent plant. In this case, the female preference was similar to the initial experiment (without playback) in which the females preferred hydrated plants. The females laid 1.8±1.6 vs. 1.1±1.0 egg clusters per night on the silent and playback sides, respectively. This treatment was also repeated twice over a 12-month period (Figure 1B3, estimate = –0.52, p=0.01, GLMM as above, see Table 1 for the results of each repetition, note that the second repeat was only marginally significant).

To assess whether the moths’ response was specific to plant sounds, we conducted an additional test using male moths that were placed on one side of the arena (in a mesh box so females could not interact with). The male moths produced courtship clicks with a similar spectral range to tomato clicks (as we validated, Methods). Females showed no significant preference to lay their eggs near male moths (see Figure 1—figure supplement 1, Figure 1C, p=0.4, estimate = –0.25, GLMM as above).

To gain further insight into the moths’ decision-making process, we repeated Experiment 2 (Figure 1B) where drought-stressed sounds were played on one side of the arena without a plant in three additional repetitions (with a total of N=13 females) while videoing and tracking the entire behavior. In these repetitions, eggs were laid only on the playback side of the arena. The continuous tracking showed that most moths (8 of the 13) visited both sides of the arena, crossing sides 4.2±5.7 times (mean ± SD) on average during the night (Figure 2A). Moreover, over time, there was a significant increase in the female moths’ tendency to spend more time in the playback side (logistic GLMM, p<0.004, Figure 2B).

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

The sound gradient experiment: To control for a few of the experimental parameters from the setup shown in Figure 1, we conducted another experiment testing the main effect of plant sounds on oviposition. This experiment replicated the oviposition site preference between the plant stress sound side and the quiet side, but within a different experimental setup (see Sound gradient experiment in the Methods). Namely, in this experiment, we tested a single moth each time, with a lower biologically feasible plant click rate (30 clicks per minute, for experiment regarding natural click rate, see Methods) within a long arena – creating a sound gradient. To this end, we placed a single female moth in a 150-cm-long arena. On one side of the arena (location –75, Figure 3A), a speaker played sounds recorded from a drought-stressed tomato plant at a rate of 30 clicks per minute. On the other side of the arena (location +75, Figure 3A), there was a silent resistor. A feeder with 60% sugar solution was positioned at the center (location 0, Figure 3A). For each egg cluster, we then measured the distance from the center where it was laid and the number of eggs it contained. The results, for both egg and cluster numbers, revealed a clear bimodal distribution with peaks near the feeder and the speaker but not at the silent edge of the arena. Hence, most clusters were laid very close to the feeder or the speaker, while no eggs were laid near the resistor (the closest egg was 21 cm away, Figure 3B, both egg and cluster number distributions were significantly different from the expected H0 distribution which was estimated using permutation, Kolmogorov-Smirnov [K-S] test, p=2.2 × 10^–16 for the clusters, p=3.9 × 10^–14 for the eggs, and see Methods and Figure 3—figure supplement 2). 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=2.2 × 10^–16). This was thus a third independent validation that females prefer to lay eggs near plant playback and that this behavior is seen both when quantifying the individual egg or the cluster level.

Figure 3 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

As noted, moths prefer to oviposit near stress sounds in a plant-free system (Figure 1B1), but their response reverses when stress sounds are played in a system containing plants, leading them to choose oviposition sites near the quiet plant (Figure 1B3). In this experimental system, we aimed to test whether this reversal reflects a general preference for plants (even when stressed) over no-plant options. We offered moths a dehydrating plant with added clicking sounds on one edge of the arena and plain soil on the other (Figure 3—figure supplement 2). Moths significantly preferred to lay their eggs on the dehydrating clicking plant compared to plain soil (Figure 3—figure supplement 2). This experiment conceptually simulates one step prior to Figure 1B1 – removing the stressed plant while retaining only acoustic signals – suggesting that clicking sounds might be perceived as indicative of plant presence in the absence of multimodal signals.

We reveal first evidence for the use of acoustic information and specifically of sounds typically emitted by plants in insect decision-making. Despite decades of research on plant vibrations, it has only recently been shown that these vibrations can be detected remotely by organisms with ultrasonic hearing ability (Khait et al., 2023). Our current results suggest that S. littoralis females detect and respond to ultrasonic clicks which are typically emitted by drought-stressed tomato plants and adjust their choice of oviposition accordingly. This finding opens a whole new range of possibilities for animal-plant acoustic interactions.

Moreover, the presence of clicking male moths had no significant effect on the females’ oviposition preference, suggesting that female moths can distinguish between different sounds and specifically respond to plant-like sounds. Although the moth’s hearing system might be too simple to distinguish among the spectral properties of the different sounds, i.e., male clicks vs. plant sounds (Nakano et al., 2013), the temporal patterns of the sequences emitted from these sources are very different. While male moths emit bursts of several clicks (Figure 1—figure supplement 1), plants emit sporadic clicks with no clear temporal order (as used in our playback). Playback of additional sound signals is needed to examine moth specificity.

Although females responded in both treatments when ultrasonic drought-stressed signals were played, they exhibited opposite preferences depending on the presence of a plant. When there was no plant in the arena, the moths showed a strong preference to the playback side, while when plants were present in the arena, the moths switched preference to lay their eggs on the silent side. This latter choice was in accordance with their preference to lay eggs on thriving vs. dry plants, while the first choice (without a plant) was somewhat surprising.

One explanation for this reversal in preference might be the multimodal moth decision-making process. When drought-stressed signals alone (without a plant) were presented to the female moths, they might have become the only reliable signals for the presence of a plant in the arena, which can explain their strong preference for this side (Ramaswamy, 1988; Sadek, 2011; Zhang et al., 2024). In contrast, when we integrated thriving plants into the arena, the moths’ decision-making became multifactorial. Namely, on both sides of the arena, there were visual, texture, and olfactory cues of thriving plants, while the treatment side also exhibited an acoustic signal of a stressed plant. In this setup, the females’ oviposition preference was reversed to the side without the acoustic signal. This might suggest that the acoustic signal interpretation is content-dependent, i.e., that the playback of stress sounds in a multifactorial setup became a reliable signal of the physiological state of the plant. Therefore, the females reverted back to their original preference to oviposition on thriving plants.

To further examine this hypothesis, we conducted an additional experiment using the same protocol described for the ‘Sound gradient experiment’ (see Methods), except that we placed a dehydrated plant (subjected to the stress treatment detailed in Experiment 1) on the side of the speaker that was playing plant sounds. The resulting oviposition pattern closely mirrored those of our earlier studies: when presented with a stressed plant supposedly emitting dehydration sounds, S. littoralis females preferred to deposit their eggs on a dehydrated clicking plant rather than on a no-plant control (Figure 3—figure supplement 2). These findings imply that a stressed, clicking plant is more attractive for oviposition than an empty substrate, suggesting that clicking might be a cue for the presence of a plant.

Supporting this hypothesis, in the two-choice experiments, the probability of laying eggs at all was significantly higher when a plant was present than in the absence of a plant. Specifically, eggs were laid on 68% vs. 54% of the nights with and without plants, respectively (p=0.009; binomial test comparing Experiments 2 and 3). The number of egg clusters was also higher when a plant was present (see Figure 1). We conclude that the moths were more reluctant to lay their eggs when no plant was present.

The preference for the silent plant vs. a plant with stress acoustic playback was not as clear as the preference for the thriving hydrated plants (compare Figure 1B1 and B3). There are several potential explanations for this difference. First, moths probably rely on various cues, including olfaction, to detect a drying plant (Ramaswamy, 1988; Sadek, 2011; Zhang et al., 2024). Although the playback allowed us to isolate the specific effect of the acoustic cue, and we tried to select equal plants, we could not control for other cues provided by the plant, and we may have provided the animal with a partial (and likely even contradictory) set of cues. For instance, the plants might have secreted drought-related volatiles and (although watered) might have occasionally emitted sounds spontaneously, reducing the effect of our playback. Indeed, a physiological measurement of plant volatiles suggested that drying plants can be (at least partially) distinguished by the moths.

We further investigated the behavioral mechanism of the female moths as they explored the arena. We quantified the moths’ movement during the decision process in the experimental setup with drought-stressed acoustic signals played on one side and with an equal-impedance resistor on the other side. Our findings indicated that their decision process typically included crossing over between the two sides of the arena and spending an increasing amount of time on the (drought-stressed) playback side. This suggests that females explore the available space and ultimately decide based on comparing the two.

Various plant species emit airborne ultrasonic clicks when they are drought-stressed, which can serve as reliable cues for the physiological condition of the plant (Khait et al., 2023). Our findings demonstrate that moths with auditory abilities use these clicks when choosing a site for oviposition. We hypothesize that some other species of insects might also exploit these acoustic cues to their advantage in different contexts. Pollinating insects, for example, might use drought-related sounds when choosing where to forage. Some insects might even be able to distinguish between clicks produced by different plants or under different conditions, such as drying plants vs. plants under a pathogen attack.

Plant clicks are ultrasonic and thus very different from most other outdoors sounds (such as wind sounds, as we also show in Khait et al., 2023). Moreover, because the clicks are ultrasonic and not very intense, they can only be picked up by the moths from a short distance (~1.5 m), which allows the moths to localize them in space.

The sounds emitted by drought-stressed plants are probably a cue rather than a signal, i.e., they did not evolve to convey information to insects. The interaction that we have demonstrated in this study therefore cannot be considered ‘communication’ according to the conservative definition of the term, which relies on signals that have evolved to convey a specific message (Searcy and Nowicki, 2005; Skyrms, 2010). However, it is possible that some plants have evolved an ability to amplify their emissions or modify their spectral content to facilitate desirable interactions with animals and perhaps even with other plants (Veits et al., 2019). One exciting possibility would be that plants signal an insect attack by amplifying click intensity to recruit potential predators of the attacking insects, such as predatory insects, rodents, or bats. Such amplification could be achieved by various morphological modifications. Insects, on the other hand, might have evolved behavioral strategies to move near plants and pick up these weak acoustic signals. In conclusion, our study shows that moths are able to detect and respond to acoustic signals emitted by plants. This discovery suggests the existence of a third type of acoustic signal that moths utilize, in addition to those produced by bat echolocation and moth courtship clicks, raising new questions about the evolution of moth hearing. We predict that future studies will uncover more examples of acoustic communication between plants and animals.

Experimental setup: We collected pupae of S. littoralis that were reared under controlled breeding conditions (reared on castor bean leaves, 25 ± 1°C, 40% relative humidity with a 12–12 hr light–dark cycle). Newly emerged female and male moths were placed together until egg-laying was detected (approximately 2 days). Then, we transferred the females to an experimental arena. Each arena was 100×50×50 cm³ in size, divided in the middle by a plastic partition half the height of the arena (Figure 1A). On the partition, we placed a closed test tube with cotton wool containing 60% inverted sugar solution for ad libitum feeding throughout the experiment. Experiment 1 (see below) was performed in a greenhouse (2.5×4.5×3.5 m³) to simulate optimal conditions for plant development. The experiments involving acoustic signals (see below Experiments 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) were performed in an acoustically shielded room (2.5×4×2.5 m³) to prevent acoustic interference. Each of the following treatments was performed simultaneously in up to four arenas. Moths could choose between the treatments presented on each side of the arena (see below), and oviposition was monitored daily for 3 days by counting the number of egg clusters. At the end of each night, we cleaned the arena of counted egg clusters using a cloth with ethanol, so that on the subsequent night, we would not expect there to be evidence of previous oviposition. We repeated the experiments under the same conditions until acquiring at least nine nights with egg-laying observations (eggs were not always laid, which is not surprising given the artificial conditions in the acoustic room used for these experiments). We refer to the cluster and not to the individual egg as the moth’s decision unit, because each cluster requires a decision about the location of oviposition, whereas the number of eggs could be affected by the general condition of the female or by external interference. Indeed, there was much variation in the number of eggs per cluster – 68±134 eggs (mean ± SE). However, to determine whether counting eggs would have altered our results, we conducted an experiment comparing cluster counts to individual egg counts (Experiment 6). For experiments with actual plants, a young tomato plant (Solanum lycopersicum) in a small pot was used in all experiments. All the treatments are illustrated in Figure 1A–C. The number of repetitions of each treatment is noted in Table 1, and data is presented in Source data 1. To maintain moths’ vitality through the experiment, we have placed on the starting point (central platform) a closed test tube with cotton wool containing a 60% sugar solution for ad libitum feeding.

1. Drought-stressed vs. well-hydrated plants: We placed a single-stem tomato plant, 10 cm high, on either side of the arena. The plant on one side was drought-stressed (3 days without watering), and the other was thriving and well-hydrated. Moths could lay eggs on either plant (Figure 1A).

2. Playback of a drought-stressed plant vs. silence (without plants): Each side contained an oviposition box (10×15×5 cm³ made of 0.5×0.5 cm² mesh), covered with a paper towel. A speaker playing sounds recorded from a drought-stressed tomato plant (Khait et al., 2023) was placed under one of the two oviposition boxes (on one side of the arena). The speaker played drought sounds at the same intensity measured for real plants at a rate of 1 click per minute, with a stochastic 10% error in the intervals between clicks (see below for details on assessing intensity and playback rate). The oviposition box on the other side either had a resistor similar to the speaker in shape and identical in impedance to control for potential effects of the electric field created by the speaker (though we did not account for a magnetic field produced by the speaker, which might as well affect the choice) or no resistor (we did not find significant differences between the two silent controls, GLMM, p=0.58). The experiment was performed twice to strengthen the confidence in its results: the first trial was performed during August and September 2021 and the second during February to May 2022 (a pool of both trials and controls – with and without resistors – is presented in Figure 1B1). We also repeated this experiment a third time with a lower emission rate of 2 clicks per minute (Table 1).

3. Deaf females in a setup with silence vs. drought-stressed plant playback (without a plant): We deafened mated females by puncturing their tympanic membrane and placed them in an arena to assess their response to drought-stressed sounds, compared to a silent control (as described in Experiment 2). Deafening surgical procedure: We performed a surgical procedure on female moths to deafen them. The procedure involved puncturing the tympanic membrane located at the thoracoabdominal juncture using an entomological needle #2. The female moths recovered from the procedure within 2 min and were able to fly normally. We tested a sample of these females in a standard rearing box and found that they were able to lay eggs normally. To confirm that the surgery had successfully deafened the females, we conducted an inspection by playing a bat playback (the same as described below). We deafened a group of 20 moths and compared their reactions to a control group of 25 non-deafened moths. During the experiment, the moths were released in a dark acoustically isolated room (5.5×4.5×2.5 m³) with acoustic foam on the walls and ceiling and a single light source (12 W mercury vapor bulb peaked at 1650 lux), and while they were in flight around the light source, we emitted the sound. In the control group, five moths exhibited a response (such as falling or a significant change in direction) upon hearing the sound (scored by a naïve viewer who did not know whether the moths were treated). In contrast, none of the deafened moths displayed any reaction to the clicking stimulus (Q=4.5, p=0.03, chi-square test).

4. Well-hydrated plants with and without playback of drought-stressed plant sound: There was an oviposition box on each side of the arena. One side played drought-stressed sounds while the other remained silent, with either a resistor or no sound (same as Experiment 2). Additionally, a thriving, healthy tomato plant was placed on each oviposition box. This experiment was performed twice, 12 months apart, to strengthen the confidence of its results (a pool of both trials and controls [with and without resistors] is presented in Figure 1B3). To determine the specificity of the response to plant sounds, two additional controls were performed.

5. Male moths: Five males were enclosed under the oviposition box with sugar water to maintain them. The control box had only sugar water without any moths (Figure 1C). We validated that males in this condition produced clicks by recording the sounds emitted by the five male moths enclosed overnight in an acoustically isolated container, which showed that the males frequently clicked. The test was repeated five times and clicks were always emitted by the males (Figure 1—figure supplement 1).

All tables and codes are available via: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/yg7ms8rn37/1.

1. 1. Zer G

   (2025) Mendeley Data

   Female Moths Incorporate Plant Acoustic Emissions into Their Oviposition Decision-Making Process.

   https://doi.org/10.17632/yg7ms8rn37.1

1. 1. Anton S
   2. Evengaard K
   3. Barrozo RB
   4. Anderson P
   5. Skals N

   (2011) Brief predator sound exposure elicits behavioral and neuronal long-term sensitization in the olfactory system of an insect

   PNAS 108:3401–3405.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008840108

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Boppré M

   (1978) Chemical communication, plant relationships, and mimicry in the evolution of danaid butterflies

   Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 24:264–277.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1978.tb02782.x

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Brito VLG
   2. Weynans K
   3. Sazima M
   4. Lunau K

   (2015) Trees as huge flowers and flowers as oversized floral guides: the role of floral color change and retention of old flowers in Tibouchina pulchra

   Frontiers in Plant Science 6:362.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00362

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Chen Y
   2. Ruberson JR
   3. Olson DM

   (2008) Nitrogen fertilization rate affects feeding, larval performance, and oviposition preference of the beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua, on cotton

   Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 126:244–255.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2007.00662.x

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Conner WE

   (1999) “Un chant d’appel amoureux”: acoustic communication in moths

   The Journal of Experimental Biology 202 (Pt 13):1711–1723.

   https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.202.13.1711

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Fenton MB
   2. Fullard JH

   (1979) The influence of moth hearing on bat echolocation strategies

   Journal of Comparative Physiology? A 132:77–86.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00617734

   • Google Scholar
7. Book

   1. Fullard JH

   (1998) The sensory coevolution of moths and bats

   In: Hoy RR, Popper AN, editors. Comparative Hearing: Insects. Springer-Verlag. pp. 279–326.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0585-2_8

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Göpfert MC
   2. Hennig RM

   (2016) Hearing in Insects

   Annual Review of Entomology 61:257–276.

   https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-010715-023631

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Gori DF

   (1989) Floral color change in Lupinus argenteus (Fabaceae): Why should plants advertise the location of unrewarding flowers to pollinators?

   Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution 43:870–881.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1989.tb05184.x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Greenfield MD
    2. Weber T

    (2000) Evolution of ultrasonic signalling in wax moths: discrimination of ultrasonic mating calls from bat echolocation signals and the exploitation of an antipredator receiver bias by sexual advertisement

    Ethology Ecology & Evolution 12:259–279.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2000.9522800

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Hedrick TL

    (2008) Software techniques for two- and three-dimensional kinematic measurements of biological and biomimetic systems

    Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 3:034001.

    https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-3182/3/3/034001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Hoy RR

    (1996) Tympanal hearing in insects

    Annual Review of Entomology 41:433–450.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.41.1.433

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Kawahara AY
    2. Plotkin D
    3. Espeland M
    4. Meusemann K
    5. Toussaint EFA
    6. Donath A
    7. Gimnich F
    8. Frandsen PB
    9. Zwick A
    10. Dos Reis M
    11. Barber JR
    12. Peters RS
    13. Liu S
    14. Zhou X
    15. Mayer C
    16. Podsiadlowski L
    17. Storer C
    18. Yack JE
    19. Misof B
    20. Breinholt JW

    (2019) Phylogenomics reveals the evolutionary timing and pattern of butterflies and moths

    PNAS 116:22657–22663.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907847116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Kevan PG
    2. Lane MA

    (1985) Flower petal microtexture is a tactile cue for bees

    PNAS 82:4750–4752.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.82.14.4750

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Khait I
    2. Lewin-Epstein O
    3. Sharon R
    4. Saban K
    5. Goldstein R
    6. Anikster Y
    7. Zeron Y
    8. Agassy C
    9. Nizan S
    10. Sharabi G
    11. Perelman R
    12. Boonman A
    13. Sade N
    14. Yovel Y
    15. Hadany L

    (2023) Sounds emitted by plants under stress are airborne and informative

    Cell 186:1328–1336.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2023.03.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Lhomme P
    2. Carrasco D
    3. Larsson M
    4. Hansson B
    5. Anderson P

    (2018) A context-dependent induction of natal habitat preference in a generalist herbivorous insect

    Behavioral Ecology 29:360–367.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arx173

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Milburn JA
    2. Johnson RPC

    (1966) The conduction of sap

    Planta 69:43–52.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00380209

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Moir HM
    2. Jackson JC
    3. Windmill JFC

    (2013) Extremely high frequency sensitivity in a “simple” ear

    Biology Letters 9:20130241.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.0241

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Nakano R
    2. Takanashi T
    3. Fujii T
    4. Skals N
    5. Surlykke A
    6. Ishikawa Y

    (2009) Moths are not silent, but whisper ultrasonic courtship songs

    Journal of Experimental Biology 212:4072–4078.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.032466

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Nakano R
    2. Takanashi T
    3. Surlykke A
    4. Skals N
    5. Ishikawa Y

    (2013) Evolution of deceptive and true courtship songs in moths

    Scientific Reports 3:2003.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep02003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Nakano R
    2. Takanashi T
    3. Surlykke A

    (2015) Moth hearing and sound communication

    Journal of Comparative Physiology A 201:111–121.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-014-0945-8

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Ne’eman G
    2. Nesher R

    (1995) Pollination ecology and the significance of floral color change in lupinus pilosus L. (Fabaceae)

    Israel Journal of Plant Sciences 43:135–145.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/07929978.1995.10676599

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Ponomarenko A
    2. Vincent O
    3. Pietriga A
    4. Cochard H
    5. Badel É
    6. Marmottant P

    (2014) Ultrasonic emissions reveal individual cavitation bubbles in water-stressed wood

    Journal of the Royal Society, Interface 11:20140480.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.0480

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Prasad J
    2. Bhattacharya AK

    (1975) Growth and development of spodoptera littoralis (Boisd.) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) on several plants

    Zeitschrift Für Angewandte Entomologie 79:34–48.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1975.tb02313.x

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Proffit M
    2. Khallaf MA
    3. Carrasco D
    4. Larsson MC
    5. Anderson P

    (2015) “Do you remember the first time?” Host plant preference in a moth is modulated by experiences during larval feeding and adult mating

    Ecology Letters 18:365–374.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12419

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Ramaswamy SB

    (1988) Host finding by moths: Sensory modalities and behaviours

    Journal of Insect Physiology 34:235–249.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1910(88)90054-6

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Robert D
    2. Göpfert MC

    (2002) Novel schemes for hearing and orientation in insects

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 12:715–720.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4388(02)00378-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Sadek MM
    2. Hansson BS
    3. Anderson P

    (2010) Does risk of egg parasitism affect choice of oviposition sites by a moth? A field and laboratory study

    Basic and Applied Ecology 11:135–143.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2009.09.003

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Sadek MM

    (2011) Complementary behaviors of maternal and offspring spodoptera littoralis: oviposition site selection and larval movement together maximize performance

    Journal of Insect Behavior 24:67–82.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10905-010-9238-4

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Salama HS
    2. Dimetry NZ
    3. Salem SA

    (1971) On the host preference and biology of the cotton leaf

    Zeitschrift Für Angewandte Entomologie 67:261–266.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1971.tb02122.x

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Schiestl FP

    (2010) The evolution of floral scent and insect chemical communication

    Ecology Letters 13:643–656.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01451.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. Book

    1. Searcy WA
    2. Nowicki S

    (2005)

    The Evolution of Animal Communication: Reliability and Deception in Signalling Systems

    Princeton University Press.

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Showler AT
    2. Moran PJ

    (2003) Effects of drought stressed cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., on beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua (Hübner), oviposition, and larval feeding preferences and growth

    Journal of Chemical Ecology 29:1997–2011.

    https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025626200254

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Skals N
    2. Anderson P
    3. Kanneworff M
    4. Löfstedt C
    5. Surlykke A

    (2005) Her odours make him deaf: crossmodal modulation of olfaction and hearing in a male moth

    The Journal of Experimental Biology 208:595–601.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.01400

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. Book

    1. Skyrms B

    (2010) Signals: Evolution, Learning, and Information

    Oxford University Press.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199580828.001.0001

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Spangler HG

    (1988) Moth hearing, defense, and communication

    Annual Review of Entomology 33:59–81.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.33.1.59

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Tougaard J

    (1996) Energy detection and temporal integration in the noctuid A1 auditory receptor

    Journal of Comparative Physiology A 178:669–677.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00227379

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Tougaard J

    (1998) Detection of short pure-tone stimuli in the noctuid ear: what are temporal integration and integration time all about?

    Journal of Comparative Physiology A 183:563–572.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s003590050282

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Tyree MT
    2. Dixon MA

    (1983) Cavitation events in Thuja occidentalis L.? : Utrasonic acoustic emissions from the sapwood can be measured

    Plant Physiology 72:1094–1099.

    https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.72.4.1094

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. van Dam NM
    2. Bouwmeester HJ

    (2016) Metabolomics in the Rhizosphere: Tapping into belowground chemical communication

    Trends in Plant Science 21:256–265.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2016.01.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Veits M
    2. Khait I
    3. Obolski U
    4. Zinger E
    5. Boonman A
    6. Goldshtein A
    7. Saban K
    8. Seltzer R
    9. Ben-Dor U
    10. Estlein P
    11. Kabat A
    12. Peretz D
    13. Ratzersdorfer I
    14. Krylov S
    15. Chamovitz D
    16. Sapir Y
    17. Yovel Y
    18. Hadany L

    (2019) Flowers respond to pollinator sound within minutes by increasing nectar sugar concentration

    Ecology Letters 22:1483–1492.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13331

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Zhang X
    2. Liu Y
    3. Guo M
    4. Sun D
    5. Zhang M
    6. Chu X
    7. Berg BG
    8. Wang G

    (2024) A female-specific odorant receptor mediates oviposition deterrence in the moth Helicoverpa armigera

    Current Biology 34:1–11.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.11.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Rya Seltzer

   School of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Guy Zer Eshel

   For correspondence

   ryaseltzer@gmail.com

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3041-4648

2. Guy Zer Eshel

   School of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Rya Seltzer

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0009-0007-6828-1290

3. Omer Yinon

   School of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

   Contribution

   Data curation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Ahmed Afani

   School of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

   Contribution

   Data curation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Ofri Eitan

   School of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

   Contribution

   Data curation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Sabina Matveev

   Plant Protection Institute, Agricultural Research Organization – Volcani Institute, Rishon LeZiyyon, Israel

   Contribution

   Data curation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Galina Levedev

   Plant Protection Institute, Agricultural Research Organization – Volcani Institute, Rishon LeZiyyon, Israel

   Contribution

   Data curation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Michael Davidovitz

   Plant Protection Institute, Agricultural Research Organization – Volcani Institute, Rishon LeZiyyon, Israel

   Contribution

   Data curation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Tal Ben Tov

   School of Plant Sciences and Food Security, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

   Contribution

   Data curation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Gayl Sharabi

    School of Plant Sciences and Food Security, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Contribution

    Data curation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

11. Yuval Shapira

    School of Plant Sciences and Food Security, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Contribution

    Data curation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

12. Neta Shvil

    Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Contribution

    Data curation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

13. Maya Harari Gibli

    School of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Contribution

    Data curation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

14. Ireen Atallah

    School of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Contribution

    Data curation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

15. Sahar Hadad

    School of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Contribution

    Data curation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

16. Dana Ment

    Plant Protection Institute, Agricultural Research Organization – Volcani Institute, Rishon LeZiyyon, Israel

    Contribution

    Resources

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

17. Lilach Hadany

    1. School of Plant Sciences and Food Security, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
    2. Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Supervision, Investigation, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Yossi Yovel

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1642-5308

18. Yossi Yovel

    1. School of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
    2. Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Supervision, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Lilach Hadany

    For correspondence

    yossiyovel@gmail.com

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5429-9245

• 9,598

  views

• 737

  downloads

• 1

  citation

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Citations by DOI

• 1

  citation for Reviewed Preprint v1 https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.104700.1