Contrasting laboratory and field outcomes of bat–moth interactions

Predator–prey interactions are important but difficult to study in the field. Therefore, laboratory studies are often used to examine the outcomes of predator–prey interactions. Previous laboratory studies have shown that moth hearing and ultrasound production can help prey avoid being eaten by bats. We report here that laboratory behavioral outcomes may not accurately reflect the outcomes of field bat–moth interactions. We tested the success rates of two bat species capturing moths with distinct anti-bat tactics using behavioral experiments. We compared the results with the dietary composition of field bats using next‐generation DNA sequencing. Rhinolophus episcopus and Rhinolophus osgoodi had a lower rate of capture success when hunting for moths that produce anti-bat clicks than for silent eared moths and earless moths. Unexpectedly, the success rates of the bats capturing silent eared moths and earless moths did not differ significantly from each other. However, the field bats had a..., We investigated the success rate of a bat capturing a tethered moth in flight in a recording room. The acoustic signals of the bat and the moth were recorded using an ultrasonic microphone (UltraSoundGate CM16/CMPA, Avisoft Bioacoustics, Berlin, Germany) connected to an ultrasound recording interface (UltraSoundGate 116Hm), and their behavior was recorded using two digital video cameras (Sony FDR-AX60, Sony, Tokyo, Japan). The success rate of a bat capturing a moth was calculated as the reciprocal of the number of capture attempts multiplied by 100%. When a bat failed to catch a moth during a five-minute foraging period, the capture success of the bat was defined as zero. 
We analyzed the diet composition of fecal samples of the bat species using next-generation DNA sequencing. We extracted DNA from 100 mg feces per sample using the E.Z.N.A. DNA Extraction Kit (Omega Bio-tek) following the manufacturer’s protocol. DNA extracts were amplified in three replicates using two primer pairs. A..., Excel and WINRAR, # Contrasting laboratory and field outcomes of bat–moth interactions

## Description of the data and file structure

We obtained the success rates of two bat species, *Rhinolophus episcopus* and *Rhinolophus osgoodi,* capturing earless moths, silent eared moths, and clicking moths in the laboratory. We obtained the proportions of insect orders/families in the diets of *R. episcopus* and *R. osgoodi*. Moreover, We provided the behavioral and ecological information of the moth species captured in the bat foraging habitats. We provided sound files of the acoustic response of moths to tactile stimulation and attacking bats.

We investigated the success rate of a bat capturing a tethered moth in flight in a recording room. The acoustic signals of the bat and the moth were recorded using an ultrasonic microphone (UltraSoundGate CM16/CMPA, Avisoft Bioacoustics, Berlin, Germany) connected to an ultrasound recording interface (UltraSoundGate 116Hm), and their behavior was recorded using two digi...