The Acoustic Response Threshold of the Norway Lobster, Nephrops Norvegicus (L.) in a Free Sound Field

Physiological and agonistic behavioural response of Procambarus clarkii to an acoustic stimulus

“…traffic vessels, wind turbines, electroacoustic instruments for exploration and navigation), and the impact on aquatic organisms should be investigated over brief, medium and long-term exposure periods (Payne et al, 2007). However, in accordance with Goodall et al (Goodall et al, 1990), further studies should be also performed in an open, controlled, natural environment (where the acoustical field is not influenced by walls such as in the small tanks) to increase the information about the effects of noise on the behavioural and physiological response. Asterisks represent significant differences between control and test groups (***P<0.001).…”

“…From our study is not possible to discern the quantitative and qualitative receptors involved in the perception of the variation of pressure or particle water movement or determine whether the sound produced physical effects on the entire animal body without stimulating a specific receptor. Previous studies have shown that lobster and crayfish primarily respond to hydrodynamic stimulation (behavioural study) rather than pressure (Goodall et al, 1990;Popper et al, 2001). However, these studies focused on acoustic frequencies lower (20-180Hz) than those used in the present study (0.1-25kHz).…”

“…However, no data on the anatomical-functional structures with which they detect acoustic energy (such as variation in pressure) are currently available. The sensitivity of aquatic decapods to particle displacement and hydrodynamic stimulation is poor compared with other aquatic organism such as fishes (Breithaupt and Tautz, 1990;Goodall et al, 1990;Popper et al, 2001). From our study is not possible to discern the quantitative and qualitative receptors involved in the perception of the variation of pressure or particle water movement or determine whether the sound produced physical effects on the entire animal body without stimulating a specific receptor.…”

Evidence that potential fish predators elicit the production of carapace vibrations by the American lobster

“…Our previous work (Henninger and Watson, 2005), as well as studies with other marine invertebrates [Norway lobster (Goodall et al, 1990); shrimp (Lovell et al, 2005); squid (Mooney et al, 2010); crayfish (Monteclaro et al, 2010)], indicates that a number of species are capable of detecting sounds over a frequency range that encompasses the 180Hz carapace vibrations produced by American lobsters. Moreover, it appears that in most of these cases, species are detecting the particle displacement component of the sound using either statocysts (Mooney et al, 2010) or sensory elements on their antennules (Monteclaro et al, 2010).…”

Response properties of crayfish antennules to hydrodynamic stimuli: functional differences in the lateral and medial flagella

“…It has been shown that mechanoreceptors can perceive the swimming movement of fish, as demonstrated in the response of blindfolded P. clarkii (Breithaupt et al, 1995). Similarly, the Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus responded to water particle displacement and showed a specific set of postural responses to sound frequencies of 20-180Hz (Goodall et al, 1990). Owing to their position, it can be assumed that antennular mechanoreceptors provide information on the presence and movement of predators and prey that are present in front of the animal.…”