Vibrational communication in the fiddler crab, Uca pugilator

Aicher, Bernhard; Tautz, Jürgen

doi:10.1007/bf00204807

Cited by 84 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, visual contact seemed to limit the time for mudballing by increasing the time spent waving. However, we cannot conclude that mudballing occurs in the absence of apparent neighbours because the isolated crabs could still have detected neighbours from signals such as substratum-borne vibrations (Aicher & Tautz 1990) or air-borne sounds (Salmon & Atsaides 1968).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Functions of mudballing behaviour in the European fiddler crabUca tangeri

Oliveira¹,

McGregor

Burford

et al. 1998

Animal Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. European fiddler crabs place mudballs around their burrow openings. Both males and females placed mudballs, but there were major differences between the sexes in mudballing behaviour, suggesting that the female's mudballs were a by-product of digging out the burrow whereas the male's may have additional functions. When the male's mudballs were removed experimentally, the number and intensity of male-male agonistic interactions increased significantly. Experimentally visually isolated males spent longer making mudballs and less time waving. In a binary choice test, females were more likely to approach dummy males with mudballs, spent longer near these males and were more likely to enter their burrows than dummy males without mudballs. The same pattern was apparent for males with 30 rather than 20 mudballs. These results are consistent with a dual function for mudballs in U. tangeri: to reduce the number and intensity of aggressive interactions between neighbouring males and to attract females.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Functions of mudballing behaviour in the European fiddler crabUca tangeri

Oliveira¹,

McGregor

Burford

et al. 1998

Animal Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is comparable to the sensitivity of rattlesnakes found by Hartline (Hartline, 1971), with best sensitivity of approximately -62dBre.1ms -2 at 200Hz (Fig.13). Two of the most prominent substrate vibrations are Lowe and Rayleigh waves, which contain most energy below 1kHz with a peak at 340-370Hz when propagated in sand (Aicher and Tautz, 1990). The frequency range and sensitivity of the snakes seem well adapted to detect these types of substrate vibrations.…”

Section: Hearing and Vibration Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Hearing with an atympanic ear: good vibration and poor sound-pressure detection in the royal python,Python regius

Christensen

Christensen‐Dalsgaard

Brandt

et al. 2012

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYSnakes lack both an outer ear and a tympanic middle ear, which in most tetrapods provide impedance matching between the air and inner ear fluids and hence improve pressure hearing in air. Snakes would therefore be expected to have very poor pressure hearing and generally be insensitive to airborne sound, whereas the connection of the middle ear bone to the jaw bones in snakes should confer acute sensitivity to substrate vibrations. Some studies have nevertheless claimed that snakes are quite sensitive to both vibration and sound pressure. Here we test the two hypotheses that: (1) snakes are sensitive to sound pressure and (2) snakes are sensitive to vibrations, but cannot hear the sound pressure per se. Vibration and sound-pressure sensitivities were quantified by measuring brainstem evoked potentials in 11 royal pythons, Python regius. Vibrograms and audiograms showed greatest sensitivity at low frequencies of 80-160Hz, with sensitivities of -54dBre.1ms -2 and 78dBre.20mPa, respectively. To investigate whether pythons detect sound pressure or sound-induced head vibrations, we measured the sound-induced head vibrations in three dimensions when snakes were exposed to sound pressure at threshold levels. In general, head vibrations induced by threshold-level sound pressure were equal to or greater than those induced by threshold-level vibrations, and therefore sound-pressure sensitivity can be explained by sound-induced head vibration. From this we conclude that pythons, and possibly all snakes, lost effective pressure hearing with the complete reduction of a functional outer and middle ear, but have an acute vibration sensitivity that may be used for communication and detection of predators and prey.Supplementary material available online at

show abstract

“…Foot-drumming of banner-tailed kangaroo rats (Randall, 1989) and the chela drumming of the male fiddler crab (Aicher and Tautz, 1990) are percussion-induced seismic signals. Markl (1983) suggests that drumming-induced communication is a close-ranged communication system.…”

Section: Seismic Vibrations Produced By Percussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Potential Use of Seismic Waves as a Communication Channel by Elephants and Other Large Mammals1

O’Connell‐Rodwell¹,

Hart

Arnason³

2001

American Zoologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SYNOPSIS. Bioseismic studies have previously documented the use of seismic stimuli as a method of communication in arthropods and small mammals. Seismic signals are used to communicate intraspecifically in many capacities such as mate finding, spacing, warning, resource assessing, and in group cohesion. Seismic signals are also used in interspecific mutualism and as a deterrent to predators. Although bioseismics is a significant mode of communication that is well documented for relatively small vertebrates, the potential for seismic communication has been all but ignored in large mammals. In this paper, we describe two modes of producing seismic waves with the potential for long distance transmission: 1) locomotion by animals causing percussion on the ground and 2) acoustic, seismicevoking sounds that couple with the ground. We present recordings of several mammals, including lions, rhinoceroses, and elephants, showing that they generate similar acoustic and seismic vibrations. These large animals that produce high amplitude vocalizations are the most likely to produce seismic vibrations that propagate long distances. The elephant seems to be the most likely candidate to engage in long distance seismic communication due to its size and its high amplitude, low frequency, relatively monotonic vocalizations that propagate in the ground and have the potential to travel long distances. We review particular anatomical features of the elephant that would facilitate the detection of seismic waves. We also assess low frequency sounds in the environment such as thunder and the likelihood of seismic transmission. In addition, we present the potential role of seismic stimuli in human communication as well as the impact of modern anthropogenic effects on the seismic environment.

show abstract

Vibrational communication in the fiddler crab, Uca pugilator

Cited by 84 publications

References 20 publications

Functions of mudballing behaviour in the European fiddler crabUca tangeri

Functions of mudballing behaviour in the European fiddler crabUca tangeri

Hearing with an atympanic ear: good vibration and poor sound-pressure detection in the royal python,Python regius

Exploring the Potential Use of Seismic Waves as a Communication Channel by Elephants and Other Large Mammals1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About