Fish Sounds and Mate Choice

Amorim, M. Clara P.; Vasconcelos, Raquel O.; Fonseca, Paulo J.

doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-1846-7_1

Cited by 76 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 149 publications

(236 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, communication distances in fish are usually much shorter. Typically, fish respond to conspecifics at distances of a few body lengths after an opponent or mate was detected visually (Ladich and Myrberg, 2006;Amorim et al, 2015). Present data do not provide unambiguous support that shallow water acoustics was an important selective force in the evolution of accessory hearing structures in any taxon.…”

Section: Why Hearing Enhancement In Fishes?contrasting

confidence: 46%

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

2016

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: Why Hearing Enhancement In Fishes?contrasting

confidence: 46%

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

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several characteristics of vocalizations depend on size and fish may use them to assess the fighting ability of opponents (Ladich 1998) or in mate choice (Myrberg et al 1986;McKibben and Bass 1998;Amorim et al 2015). Correlations between signal structure and size or age are evident in those ontogenetic studies in which size differs considerably between stages.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main reason for this sex-specific difference in reporting acoustic signalling in fishes is that vocal fish are typically substrate breeders, with males advertising and defending their nest sites acoustically and also vocalizing during courtship (Myrberg and Lugli 2006;Ladich 2014;Amorim et al 2015;Kaatz et al 2017). Female sound production was mainly reported during aggressive interactions (Myrberg et al 1965; KEYWORDS sound production; fish; sound level; dominant frequency; correlation Hawkins and Rasmussen 1978;Schwarz 1980;Ladich 1990Ladich , 2007Hawkins and Amorim 2000;Lagardere et al 2005;Maruska and Mensinger 2009;Kéver et al 2012) and on some occasions during mating (Ladich 2007;Oliveira et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acoustic signalling in female fish: factors influencing sound characteristics in croaking gouramis

Ladich

Maiditsch

2017

Bioacoustics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The characteristics of sounds produced by fishes are influenced by several factors such as size. The current study analyses factors affecting structural properties of acoustic signals produced by female croaking gouramis Trichopsis vittata during agonistic interactions. Female sounds (although seldom analysed separately from male sounds) can equally be used to investigate factors affecting the sound characteristics in fish. Sound structure, dominant frequency and sound pressure levels (SPL) were determined and correlated to body size and the order in which sounds were emitted. Croaking sounds consisted of series of single-pulsed or double-pulsed bursts, each burst produced by one pectoral fin. Main energies were concentrated between 1.3 and 1.5 kHz. The dominant frequency decreased with size, as did the percentage of single-pulsed bursts within croaking sounds. The SPL and the number of bursts within a sound were independent of size but decreased significantly with the order of their production. Thus, acoustic signals produced at the beginning of agonistic interactions were louder and consisted of more bursts than subsequent ones. Our data indicate that body size affects the dominant frequency and structure of sounds. The increase in the percentage of double-pulsed bursts with size may be due to stronger pectoral muscles in larger fish. In contrast, ongoing fights apparently result in muscle fatigue and subsequently in a decline in the number of bursts and SPL. The factor 'order of sound production' points to an intra-individual variability of sounds and should be considered in future studies.

show abstract

“…Fishes may communicate over distances of just a few centimetres up to approximately 10 m when advertising nest sites (Myrberg et al, 1986). Potential communication distances of 30-100 m have been claimed for sciaenids (drums) but there is no experimental evidence (Locascio and Mann, 2011;Amorim et al, 2015). Fish vocalizations are typically not substitutes for visual signals, but serve to emphasize aggressive or courtship displays at short distances.…”

Section: Aquatic Vertebratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acoustic communication in terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates

Ladich

Winkler

2017

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sound propagates much faster and over larger distances in water than in air, mainly because of differences in the density of these media. This raises the question of whether terrestrial (land mammals, birds) and (semi-)aquatic animals (frogs, fishes, cetaceans) differ fundamentally in the way they communicate acoustically. Terrestrial vertebrates primarily produce sounds by vibrating vocal tissue (folds) directly in an airflow. This mechanism has been modified in frogs and cetaceans, whereas fishes generate sounds in quite different ways mainly by utilizing the swimbladder or pectoral fins. On land, vertebrates pick up sounds with light tympana, whereas other mechanisms have had to evolve underwater. Furthermore, fishes differ from all other vertebrates by not having an inner ear end organ devoted exclusively to hearing. Comparing acoustic communication within and between aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates reveals that there is no 'aquatic way' of sound communication, as compared with a more uniform terrestrial one. Birds and mammals display rich acoustic communication behaviour, which reflects their highly developed cognitive and social capabilities. In contrast, acoustic signaling seems to be the exception in fishes, and is obviously limited to short distances and to substrate-breeding species, whereas all cetaceans communicate acoustically and, because of their predominantly pelagic lifestyle, exploit the benefits of sound propagation in a dense, obstacle-free medium that provides fast and almost lossless signal transmission.

show abstract

Fish Sounds and Mate Choice

Cited by 76 publications

References 149 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

Acoustic signalling in female fish: factors influencing sound characteristics in croaking gouramis

Acoustic communication in terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About