Startle Response in Herring: The Effect of Sound Stimulus Frequency, Size of Fish and Selective Interference With The Acoustico-Lateralis System

Blaxter, J. H. S.; Hoss, Donald E.

doi:10.1017/s0025315400023018

Cited by 52 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A given sound pressure should move the bulla the same amount, regardless of fish size. If this is the mechanism of higher frequency sound detection in shad, as has been shown for other Clupeiformes (Blaxter and Hoss, 1981), then one should expect no change in auditory sensitivity with shad development once the bullae are filled, as was shown by our ABR results. Bulla inflation was complete by 14·mm, much before the size at which animals responded to ultrasound (26·mm).…”

Section: M Higgs and Otherssupporting

confidence: 69%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of ultrasound detection in American shad (Alosa sapidissima)

Higgs

Plachta

Rollo

et al. 2004

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYIt has recently been shown that a few fish species, including American shad(Alosa sapidissima; Clupeiformes), are able to detect sound up to 180 kHz, an ability not found in most other fishes. Initially, it was proposed that ultrasound detection in shad involves the auditory bullae, swim bladder extensions found in all members of the Clupeiformes. However, while all clupeiformes have bullae, not all can detect ultrasound. Thus, the bullae alone are not sufficient to explain ultrasound detection. In this study, we used a developmental approach to determine when ultrasound detection begins and how the ability to detect ultrasound changes with ontogeny in American shad. We then compared changes in auditory function with morphological development to identify structures that are potentially responsible for ultrasound detection. We found that the auditory bullae and all three auditory end organs are present well before fish show ultrasound detection behaviourally and we suggest that an additional specialization in the utricle(one of the auditory end organs) forms coincident with the onset of ultrasound detection. We further show that this utricular specialization is found in two clupeiform species that can detect ultrasound but not in two clupeiform species not capable of ultrasound detection. Thus, it appears that ultrasound-detecting clupeiformes have undergone structural modification of the utricle that allows detection of ultrasonic stimulation.

show abstract

Section: M Higgs and Otherssupporting

confidence: 69%

“…The indirect pathway allows the ear to respond to higher frequencies than would be possible without this pathway (Blaxter and Hoss, 1981).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of ultrasound detection in American shad (Alosa sapidissima)

Higgs

Plachta

Rollo

et al. 2004

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Casagrand et al (1999) also recalculated the sound pressure threshold given by Lewis and Rogers (1998), for eliciting directional startle behaviours in goldfish, to an acceleration threshold of 0.03·m·s -2 . and Blaxter and Hoss (1981) found the threshold for acoustic startle in the herring to be approximately 70·dB above the absolute threshold, corresponding to pressures in the range [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] and to accelerations within the range 0.01-0.04·m·s -2 . The latency of acoustic or vibratory startle responses in fish are typically in the range 5-40·ms depending on the stimulus intensity and frequency (Eaton et al, 1977;.…”

Section: Startle Thresholdsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…In natural conditions, neither pressure nor acceleration will appear separately, and it is thus not surprising that both components are necessary to elicit startle in fish. Even though acceleration conveys the crucial directional information to the fish, several studies have shown that the startle escape appears to be triggered only when the pressure reaches a critical value (Blaxter and Hoss, 1981;Blaxter and Fuiman, 1990;Canfield and Eaton, 1990). and Guzik et al (1999) have adopted the original phase model for directional hearing to explain the directional startle responses.…”

Section: Directionality Of the Startle Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infrasound initiates directional fast-start escape responses in juvenile roachRutilus rutilus

Karlsen

Piddington

Enger

et al. 2004

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Acoustic stimuli within the sonic range are effective triggers of C-type escape behaviours in fish. We have previously shown that fish have an acute sensitivity to infrasound also, with acceleration thresholds in the range of 10–5 m s–2. In addition, infrasound at high intensities around 10–2 m s–2 elicits strong and sustained avoidance responses in several fish species. In the present study, the possible triggering of C-escapes by infrasonic single-cycle vibrations was examined in juvenile roach Rutilus rutilus. The fish were accelerated in a controlled and quantifiable manner using a swing system. The applied stimuli simulated essential components of the accelerations that a small fish would encounter in the hydrodynamic flow field produced by a predatory fish. Typical C- and S-type escape responses were induced by accelerations within the infrasonic range with a threshold of 0.023 m s–2 for an initial acceleration at 6.7 Hz. Response trajectories were on average in the same direction as the initial acceleration. Unexpectedly, startle behaviours mainly occurred in the trailing half of the test chamber, in which the fish were subjected to linear acceleration in combination with compression, i.e. the expected stimuli produced by an approaching predator. Very few responses were observed in the leading half of the test chamber, where the fish were subjected to acceleration and rarefaction, i.e. the stimuli expected from a suction type of predator. We conclude that particle acceleration is essential for the directionality of the startle response to infrasound, and that the response is triggered by the synergistic effects of acceleration and compression.

show abstract

“…2H). Blaxter and Hoss (1981) exposed herring to 0.07-0.2 kHz signals, found startle responses at received levels between 122-138 dB (re 1 Pa), and observed that the response depended on the size of the herring. Olson (1971) reports that herring showed a clear behavioural response to 0.1 kHz signals when the signal was 20-25 dB above the ambient noise level.…”

Section: Page 9 Of 24 Mermentioning

confidence: 98%