A quantitative inventory of global soniferous fish diversity

Looby, Audrey; Cox, Kieran; Bravo, S. Martín; Rountree, Rodney A.; Juanes, Francis; Reynolds, Laura K.; Martin, Charles W.

doi:10.1007/s11160-022-09702-1

Cited by 65 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The observations presented here highlight that further research on sound production in elasmobranchs is warranted, especially considering the limited number of examinations in this group to date (Looby et al, 2022 ). Our observations are of species that are encountered relatively often by snorkelers and yet were not previously known to produce sounds.…”

mentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Our observations and Fish and Mowbray's (1970) observations in captivity mean that three ray species (of approximately 245 Myliobatiformes [Stein et al, 2018]) have now been convincingly shown to actively produce sounds and to do so in the wild, voluntarily, and without artificial stimuli. Although elasmobranchs are generally not considered to be sound producing (Looby et al, 2022), our study illustrates that this is a misconception and more research into their ability to produce and hear such sounds is required.…”

mentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Although almost 990 species of bony fish (Osteichthyes) actively produce sounds, evidence for active sound production by elasmobranchs—sharks, rays, and skates—is scarce (Looby et al, 2022 ). To date, there have been only 27 examinations of sound production by elasmobranchs (Looby et al, 2022 ), and of the 13 recorded occurrences, the majority have been passive sounds associated with feeding (e.g., shell crushing; Ajemian et al, 2021 ). The only confirmed case of active sound production occurred when captive cownose rays Rhinoptera bonasus produced short, sharp clicks under duress, that is, forceful prodding (Fish & Mowbray, 1970 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evidence of sound production in wild stingrays

Fetterplace

Esteban²,

Pini-Fitzsimmons

et al. 2022

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 78%

mentioning

confidence: 87%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evidence of sound production in wild stingrays

Fetterplace

Esteban²,

Pini-Fitzsimmons

et al. 2022

Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Open-source collections of fish sounds are still in their infancy but are rapidly developing (i.e. recently launched www.fishsounds.net; Looby et al 2022). Manual identification and labeling of calls, such as this work, or manual labeling of calls and subsequent unsupervised identification of call types (Parra-Hernández et al 2020, Sainburg et al 2020) are critical for populating these data collections with a wealth of individual fish and invertebrate sounds.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ground-truthing daily and lunar patterns of coral reef fish call rates on a US Virgin Island reef

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coral reefs comprise some of the most biodiverse habitats on the planet. These ecosystems face a range of stressors, making quantifying community assemblages and potential changes vital to effective management. To understand short- and long-term changes in biodiversity and detect early warning signals of decline, new methods for quantifying biodiversity at scale are necessary. Acoustic monitoring techniques have proven useful in observing species activities and biodiversity on coral reefs through aggregate approaches (i.e. energy as a proxy). However, few studies have ground-truthed these acoustic analyses with human-based observations. In this study, we sought to expand these passive acoustic methods by investigating biological sounds and fish call rates on a healthy reef, providing a unique set of human-confirmed, labeled acoustic observations. We analyzed acoustic data from Tektite Reef, St. John, US Virgin Islands, over a 2 mo period. A subset of acoustic files was manually inspected to identify recurring biotic sounds and quantify reef activity throughout the day. We found a high variety of acoustic signals in this soundscape. General patterns of call rates across time conformed to expectations, with dusk and dawn showing important and significantly elevated peaks in soniferous fish activity. The data reflected high variability in call rates across days and lunar phases. Call rates did not correspond to sound pressure levels, suggesting that certain call types may drive crepuscular trends in sound levels while lower-level critical calls, likely key for estimating biodiversity and behavior, may be missed by gross sound level analyses.

show abstract

“…Over 1000 species of fishes worldwide are currently known to be soniferous (Kaatz, 2002; Looby et al, 2021; Rountree et al, 2006). It is likely that many more species produce sounds, but their repertoires have not yet been identified (Looby et al, 2022). Fish can produce sound incidentally while feeding or swimming (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of fish sounds in the wild using a set of portable audio‐video arrays

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Associating fish sounds to specific species and behaviours is important for making passive acoustics a viable tool for monitoring fish. While recording fish sounds in tanks can sometimes be performed, many fish do not produce sounds in captivity. Consequently, there is a need to identify fish sounds in situ and characterise these sounds under a wide variety of behaviours and habitats. We designed three portable audio‐video platforms capable of identifying species‐specific fish sounds in the wild: a large array, a mini array and a mobile array. The large and mini arrays are static autonomous platforms than can be deployed on the seafloor and record audio and video for one to two weeks. They use multichannel acoustic recorders and low‐cost video cameras mounted on PVC frames. The mobile array also uses a multichannel acoustic recorder, but mounted on a remotely operated vehicle with built‐in video, which allows remote control and real‐time positioning in response to observed fish presence. For all arrays, fish sounds were localised in three dimensions and matched to the fish positions in the video data. We deployed these three platforms at four locations off British Columbia, Canada. The large array provided the best localisation accuracy and, with its larger footprint, was well suited to habitats with a flat seafloor. The mini and mobile arrays had lower localisation accuracy but were easier to deploy, and well suited to rough/uneven seafloors. Using these arrays, we identified, for the first time, sounds from quillback rockfish Sebastes maliger, copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus and lingcod Ophiodon elongatus. In addition to measuring temporal and spectral characteristics of sounds for each species, we estimated mean source levels for lingcod and quillback rockfish sounds (115.4 and 113.5 dB re 1 μPa, respectively) and maximum detection ranges at two sites (between 10.5 and 33 m). All proposed array designs successfully identified fish sounds in the wild and were adapted to various budget, logistical and habitat constraints. We include here building instructions and processing scripts to help users replicate this methodology, identify more fish sounds around the world and make passive acoustics a more viable way to monitor fish.

show abstract

A quantitative inventory of global soniferous fish diversity

Cited by 65 publications

References 64 publications

Evidence of sound production in wild stingrays

Evidence of sound production in wild stingrays

Ground-truthing daily and lunar patterns of coral reef fish call rates on a US Virgin Island reef

Identification of fish sounds in the wild using a set of portable audio‐video arrays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About