Diversity in Hearing in Fishes: Ecoacoustical, Communicative, and Developmental Constraints

Ladich, Friedrich

doi:10.1007/2506_2013_26

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ladich and Wysocki (2003) demonstrated that bilateral extirpation of the tripus in the goldfish Carassius auratus resulted in a decline in hearing sensitivity of 7 dB at 100 Hz up to 33 dB at 2 kHz and a loss of detection of frequencies above 2 kHz ( Figure 13B). Unilateral tripus extirpation did not result in any hearing loss, which is easily explained by the fact that both chains of Weberian ossicles transmit swim bladder oscillations to an unpaired perilymphatic sinus (see Figure 13A; Ladich, 2014a).…”

Section: Otophysan Fishesmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…In the non-related families Holocentridae (squirrelfishes), Cichlidae, and Sciaenidae (drums and croakers), some genera possess hearing specializations and improved hearing abilities while others lack such auditory enhancements. The functional significance of this diversity is widely unknown and poses one of the main riddles of sensory biology (Ladich and Popper, 2004;Braun and Grande, 2008;Ladich, 2014aLadich, ,b, 2016Schulz-Mirbach and Ladich, 2016).…”

Section: Diversity In Auditory Systems In Fishmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Apparently, species with accessory auditory structures, which mostly correlate with improved hearing (Ladich and Popper, 2004;Braun and Grande, 2008;Ladich and Fay, 2013;Ladich, 2014a), often display modified orientation patterns on the maculae, mainly on the macula sacculi (Platt and Popper, 1981a). This is evident in the vertical pattern of otophysans and mormyrids ( Figures 7A,C), the opposing pattern of anabantiform fishes ( Figure 7D) or "unique" patterns (see Antimora; Figure 7F) that cannot be assigned to one of the five patterns.…”

Section: Modified Otolith End Organs In Teleostsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Diversity in Fish Auditory Systems: One of the Riddles of Sensory Biology

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An astonishing diversity of inner ears and accessory hearing structures (AHS) that can enhance hearing has evolved in fishes. Inner ears mainly differ in the size of the otolith end organs, the shape and orientation of the sensory epithelia, and the orientation patterns of ciliary bundles of sensory hair cells. Despite our profound morphological knowledge of inner ear variation, two main questions remain widely unanswered. (i) What selective forces and/or constraints led to the evolution of this inner ear diversity? (ii) How is the morphological variability linked to hearing abilities? Improved hearing is mainly based on the ability of many fish species to transmit oscillations of swim bladder walls or other gas-filled bladders to the inner ears. Swim bladders may be linked to the inner ears via a chain of ossicles (in otophysans), anterior extensions (e.g., some cichlids, squirrelfishes), or the gas bladders may touch the inner ears directly (labyrinth fishes). Studies on catfishes and cichlids demonstrate that larger swim bladders and more pronounced linkages to the inner ears positively affect both auditory sensitivities and the detectable frequency range, but lack of a connection does not exclude hearing enhancement. This diversity of auditory structures and hearing abilities is one of the main riddles in fish bioacoustics research. Hearing enhancement might have evolved to facilitate intraspecific acoustic communication. A comparison of sound-producing species, however, indicates that acoustic communication is widespread in taxa lacking AHS. Eco-acoustical constraints are a more likely explanation for the diversity in fish hearing sensitivities. Low ambient noise levels may have facilitated the evolution of AHS, enabling fish to detect low-level abiotic noise and sounds from con-and heterosopecifics, including predators and prey. Aquatic habitats differ in ambient noise regimes, and preliminary data indicate that hearing sensitivities of fishes vary accordingly.

show abstract

Section: Otophysan Fishesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Diversity In Auditory Systems In Fishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modified Otolith End Organs In Teleostsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diversity in Fish Auditory Systems: One of the Riddles of Sensory Biology

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Egner and Mann, 2005;Maruska et al, 2007) and are higher than that of many nonreef-dwelling species (Ladich and Fay, 2013). Although differences in recording techniques preclude direct comparisons, it is possible that the noisy coral reef environment constrains adaptations for higher hearing sensitivity, as seen in aquatic environments with less background noise (Ladich, 2014). The difference in hearing sensitivity between F. flavissimus and Chaetodon species is not likely to be explained by differences in habitat selection because the two species overlap extensively in their distribution over the reef, although this remains to be tested.…”

Section: Butterflyfish Sound Communication On Coral Reefsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wenz, 1962;Tricas and Boyle, 2014;Lammers et al, 2008) that overlap with the spectrum of their communication sounds (Tricas and Boyle, 2105). Ambient background noise can have several effects on sound detection and communication in fishes and it is necessary to understand the sound characteristics of their natural habitats to determine their auditory efficiency and behavior (Ladich, 2013(Ladich, , 2014.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sound pressure enhances the hearing sensitivity of Chaetodon butterflyfishes on noisy coral reefs

Tricas

Boyle

2015

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Butterflyfishes are conspicuous members of coral reefs that communicate with acoustic signals during social interactions with mates and other conspecifics. Members of the genus Chaetodon have a laterophysic connection (LC) -a unique association of anterior swim bladder horns and the cranial lateral line -but the action of the LC system on auditory sensitivity is unexplored. Here, we show in baseline auditory evoked potential threshold experiments that Forcipiger flavissimus (which lacks swim bladder horns and LC) is sensitive to sound tones from 100 Hz up to 1000 Hz, and that thresholds for three species of Chaetodon are 10-15 dB lower, with extended hearing ranges up to 1700-2000 Hz. The relatively high thresholds to sound pressure and low pass response near 500 Hz for all four species are consistent with a primary sensitivity to hydrodynamic particle acceleration rather than sound pressure. Deflation of the swim bladder in F. flavissimus had no measurable effect on auditory sensitivity. In contrast, displacement of gas from the swim bladder horns in Chaetodon multicinctus and Chaetodon auriga increased thresholds (decreased sensitivity) by 5-20 dB, with the greatest effect at 600 Hz. The evolution of swim bladder horns associated with the LC system in Chaetodon species has increased hearing sensitivity through sound pressure transduction in the frequency bands used for social acoustic communication. The close affiliative behaviors that are common in Chaetodon species and other butterflyfish facilitate sound perception and acoustic communication at close distances relative to the high background noise levels found in their natural reef environment.

show abstract

Fish responses to underwater sounds depend on auditory adaptations: An experimental test of the effect of motorboat sounds on the fish community of a large fluvial lake

Barbeau,

Mazzei,

Rodríguez

et al. 2024

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Freshwater fishes exhibit a wide range of auditory adaptations and capabilities, which are assumed to help them navigate their environment, avoid predators, and find potential mates. Yet, we know very little about how freshwater environments sound to fish, or how fish with different auditory adaptations respond to different soundscapes. We first compiled data on fish hearing acuity and adaptations and provided a portrait of how anthropogenic sounds compare to natural sounds in different freshwater soundscapes. We then conducted a sound‐enrichment field experiment at Lake Saint Pierre, a large fluvial lake in Canada, to evaluate the effect of motorboat sound exposure on the fish community by looking at the extent to which changes in species abundances were linked to auditory adaptations. Data compilation showed that the hearing acuity of most species overlaps with a wide range of ambient and anthropogenic underwater sounds while the field experiment showed that species with more specialized auditory structures were captured less often in sound‐enriched traps, indicating avoidance behavior. Our findings highlight the importance of considering species' sensorial adaptations when evaluating the community‐scale effects of anthropogenic sounds on the fish community, especially at low levels of anthropogenic activity.

show abstract

Diversity in Hearing in Fishes: Ecoacoustical, Communicative, and Developmental Constraints

Cited by 22 publications

References 82 publications

Diversity in Fish Auditory Systems: One of the Riddles of Sensory Biology

Diversity in Fish Auditory Systems: One of the Riddles of Sensory Biology

Sound pressure enhances the hearing sensitivity of Chaetodon butterflyfishes on noisy coral reefs

Fish responses to underwater sounds depend on auditory adaptations: An experimental test of the effect of motorboat sounds on the fish community of a large fluvial lake

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About