Sound production by the West Australian dhufish (Glaucosoma hebraicum)

Abstract

Biological examinations of Glaucosomatid fish species have suggested that they could produce sound via swimbladder vibration, using "sonic" muscles. However, there have been few reported instances of it in the family. West Australian dhufish (Glaucosoma hebraicum) is an iconic teleost, endemic to Western Australia. Dissection of G. hebraicum in this study identified the presence of "sonic" muscle pairs in immature and sexually mature individuals. The muscle tissue originates in the otic region of the skull with its insertion at the anterior of the swimbladder. Recordings of sounds were acquired from two male G. hebraicum, at a range of 1 m, during capture. Calls comprised 1 to 14 swimbladder pulses with spectral peak frequency of 154 6 45 Hz (n ¼ 67 calls) and 3 dB bandwidth of 110 6 50 Hz. The mean of all call maximum source levels was 126 dB re 1 lPa at 1 m with the highest level at 137 dB re 1 lPa at 1 m. The confirmation of sound production by G. hebraicum and the acoustic characteristics of those sounds could be used to gain a better understanding of its ecology and, particularly, whether the production of sound is associated with specific behaviors, such as reproduction.

Listening forward: approaching marine biodiversity assessments using acoustic methods

“…Similar to the effect of mass phenomena, the impact of high-amplitude over lower-amplitude calls can bias an index towards a more diverse estimate. In Australia, for example, the source levels of mulloway ( Argyrosomus japonicus ) and West Australian dhufish ( Glaucomsoma hebraicum ) differ by greater than 30 dB re 1 µPa [ 185 , 186 ]. In the USA, Gulf corvina ( Cynoscion othonopterus ) and Atlantic cod ( Gadhus morhua ) differ by an even greater level, approximately 40 dB (100×) [ 124 , 148 ].…”

“…Sounds from cryptic or quiet species, such as G. hebraicum or G. morhua, or the damselfish, Dascyllus albisella , may only be detected above ambient noise (natural and/or anthropogenic) at ranges of a few to a few tens of metres [ 46 , 124 , 185 ]. If such species are not widely or uniformly distributed, then their contribution to local soundscapes, and therefore potentially the applicability of that soundscape to estimate diversity, is limited to the detection range.…”

Underwater Acoustic Signatures of Recreational Swimmers, Divers, Surfers and Kayakers

“…1H). Figure 6 repeats the mean recorded spectra from five of the recreational activities of this study, and compares them with a sound recorded from dhufish [4], the median source spectrum of jetskis [5], underwater ambient sound off a beach (recorded by the authors), and wind-dependent, ambient noise at four sea states [6]. Jetskis are amongst the quieter motorised vessels in terms of their underwater noise, with boats and ships being noisier.…”

“…The scuba diver also wore fins, but these did not penetrate the water surface, but rather were kicked at 1m depth and produced no bubbles. Mean spectra of recreational water activities from this study, compared with the median source spectrum of jetskis [5], a source spectrum recorded from dhufish [4], ambient underwater noise off a beach, and ambient wind-dependent noise at sea states 0.5, 1, and 2 [6]. Ambient noise off a beach was recorded by us authors with a recorder on the seafloor in 7 m of water, 250 m off a local beach, Western Australia, behind the surf zone.…”

“…The spectrum is dominated by the sound of waves breaking on the beach, in particular at low frequencies (<100 Hz). Small boats and jetskis dominate at mid frequencies (200-800 Hz), while snapping shrimp shape the spectrum at high frequencies (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) An oscillating gas bubble underwater produces a travelling sound wave, and the sound of bubbles and bubble clouds has been reported in the literature (e.g. [7,8]).…”