Auditory Systems of Marine Animals

Au, Whitlow W. L.; Hastings, Mardi C.

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-78365-9_7

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although spectrum plots are more commonly used, they may not truly represent the way marine animals perceive sound, because they do not incorporate the critical bands of the auditory system (Ghazali 2012). Therefore, presenting the sound power in the relevant critical band (N th octave band level) is probably more meaningful in the context of sound perception, because it approximates the auditory filter of marine teleosts (Au & Hastings 2009). The acoustic power spectra and octave band plots for each tank were generated using fast Fourier transform analyses of 10 s samples, selected randomly from 30 s recordings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chronic low-intensity noise exposure affects the hearing thresholds of juvenile snapper

Caiger¹,

Montgomery²,

Radford³

2012

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing body of evidence suggests that larval fish use sound as an orientation cue to remotely locate suitable settlement habitats. Several theoretical models have used hearing thresholds to estimate the distance at which fish larvae can detect reefs. However, researchers have often measured hearing thresholds from fish raised in aquaculture environments, or held them in closed-system tanks once caught, where equipment can significantly increase the noise levels in the tanks. The possibility arises that exposure to such noise negatively affects the hearing ability of the fish held there, such that distances predicted from these studies may be underestimated. The objective of this study was to compare the hearing ability of wild versus aquacultured snapper Pagrus auratus using auditory evoked potentials. Juvenile snapper from aquaculture tanks had significantly higher hearing thresholds at 100, 200 and 400 Hz than wild snapper. A controlled noise-exposure experiment, where snapper were ex posed for 2 wk to low-intensity noise at 120 dB re 1 µPa, confirmed these results. When plotted using an extended reef-based model, the distance at which aquaculture-raised snapper are predicted to detect a particular reef was half of that found for their wild counterparts. Clearly, the acoustic history of experimental subjects is an important consideration when using hearing thresholds to make ecological estimations, such as the distance at which larvae could detect reefs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chronic low-intensity noise exposure affects the hearing thresholds of juvenile snapper

Caiger¹,

Montgomery²,

Radford³

2012

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Historically, two pathways for sound conduction to the ear have been hypothesized: (1) the primary path along the pan bone region of the jaw, which deliver sound to the ossicles of the ear, and (2) an external path through the auditory meatus. Now, toothed whales are believed to conduct sound through the internal mandibular fat body pathways along the jaw [ 22 , 23 ]. These mandibular trumpet-shaped fat bodies have a low structural impedance that might be specialized for capturing different frequency signals, as well as amplifying sound [ 21 ].…”

Section: Cetacean Audition and Auditory Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These mandibular trumpet-shaped fat bodies have a low structural impedance that might be specialized for capturing different frequency signals, as well as amplifying sound [ 21 ]. Once sound has entered the ear, hair cells are stimulated in the cochlear membrane causing receptor potentials, which are communicated to nerve fibers and sent to an expanded auditory cortex for processing [ 22 ]. Each part of toothed whales’ auditory systems evolved for sound reception and amplification of sounds traveling in water, making them susceptible to rising levels of anthropogenic noise pollution [ 24 ].…”

Section: Cetacean Audition and Auditory Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cetacean Acoustic Welfare in Wild and Managed-Care Settings: Gaps and Opportunities

Stevens

Hill

Bruck

2021

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cetaceans are potentially at risk of poor welfare due to the animals’ natural reliance on sound and the persistent nature of anthropogenic noise, especially in the wild. Industrial, commercial, and recreational human activity has expanded across the seas, resulting in a propagation of sound with varying frequency characteristics. In many countries, current regulations are based on the potential to induce hearing loss; however, a more nuanced approach is needed when shaping regulations, due to other non-hearing loss effects including activation of the stress response, acoustic masking, frequency shifts, alterations in behavior, and decreased foraging. Cetaceans in managed-care settings share the same acoustic characteristics as their wild counterparts, but face different environmental parameters. There have been steps to integrate work on welfare in the wild and in managed-care contexts, and the domain of acoustics offers the opportunity to inform and connect information from both managed-care settings and the wild. Studies of subjects in managed-care give controls not available to wild studies, yet because of the conservation implications, wild studies on welfare impacts of the acoustic environment on cetaceans have largely been the focus, rather than those in captive settings. A deep integration of wild and managed-care-based acoustic welfare research can complement discovery in both domains, as captive studies can provide greater experimental control, while the more comprehensive domain of wild noise studies can help determine the gaps in managed-care based acoustic welfare science. We advocate for a new paradigm in anthropogenic noise research, recognizing the value that both wild and managed-care research plays in illustrating how noise pollution affects welfare including physiology, behavior, and cognition.

show abstract

“…Sound reception is found in most marine taxa and occurs via diverse organs, including ears with an outer tympanum in mammals, an inner ear with otoliths in fishes (connected to the swim bladder in some species), a variety of cutaneous receptors and statoliths in invertebrates, lateral line systems with neuromasts in fishes and other means of sensing and focussing vibrations, including the jaw in dolphins and other odontocetes (Au & Hastings 2008, Mooney et al 2012, Ladich & Schulz-Mirbach 2016. A comprehensive overview of hearing capabilities and underlying mechanisms in fishes can be found in Webb et al (2008).…”

Section: Soundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of Anthropogenic Changes in the Sensory Landscape of Marine Animals

Nagelkerken¹,

Doney²,

Munday³

2019

Oceanography and Marine Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human activities are altering a wide range of key marine cues at local and global scales, and it is important to know how animals may respond. Species survival and performance depend on the ability of individuals to successfully extract and interpret information from their environment about preferred abiotic conditions and the presence of prey, predators, competitors, mates and suitable habitats. Such information is made available via a wide range of abiotic and biotic cues that can be detected by organisms through various sensory modalities. Global anthropogenic changes, however, are rapidly altering the sensory landscape ('cuescape') and behaviour of animals by modifying the production, transmission and interpretation of critical natural cues, as well as introducing novel anthropogenic cues. To date, most studies have focussed on how animals respond to such changes rather than investigating how the cues themselves are changing. Because the responses that individuals show ultimately depend on factors affecting both the generation and reception of cues, better integration is needed to understand how these factors ultimately affect individual performance. This review provides a holistic assessment of how multiple cues (e.g. sounds, visual cues, chemicals, salinity, temperature and electromagnetism) are being altered at different spatial and temporal scales in marine habitats. Natural cuescapes are being modified by humans and novel anthropogenic cues are being introduced into the ocean, both of which can directly and indirectly alter the diversity and strength of natural cues. Examples are provided of how species might respond to such changes, focussing on what coping and adaptation mechanisms are available for species to persist in a future ocean. While 'sensory generalist' species may prevail in marine environments with diminishing or masked natural cues, some 'sensory specialists' might sustain themselves via sensory compensation, behavioural plasticity or avoidance of detrimental cues in the short term, or via genetic adaptation in the longer term. Due to the rapid loss of natural cuescapes, alternative research agendas are needed to monitor and measure multicue changes throughout the oceans. Together with mechanistic and field studies of animal responses, such research can inform management by identifying the species most at risk and the areas that may be suitable for cuescape preservation.

show abstract

Auditory Systems of Marine Animals

Cited by 9 publications

References 44 publications

Chronic low-intensity noise exposure affects the hearing thresholds of juvenile snapper

Chronic low-intensity noise exposure affects the hearing thresholds of juvenile snapper

Cetacean Acoustic Welfare in Wild and Managed-Care Settings: Gaps and Opportunities

Consequences of Anthropogenic Changes in the Sensory Landscape of Marine Animals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About