94
1 Introduction
Soniferous darters (Perciformes, Percidae), sculpins (Perciformes, Cottidae), and
many gobioids (Gobiiformes, Gobioidei) have convergent life history traits, including a benthic lifestyle and the cavity nesting spawning mode (current phylogeny by
Bentacur et al. 2013). These taxa produce low frequency sounds with dominant
frequencies below 200 Hz (with some notable exceptions) in agonistic and reproductive contexts. While low frequency sounds and acoustic signaling in agonistic
and reproductive contexts is a widespread characteristic of teleost acoustic communication (Bass and McKibben 2003 ; Amorim 2006 ; Ladich 2014 ), a few additional
characteristics shared by the soniferous members of these groups make their integrative study informative for understanding the selective pressures and constraints
on acoustic communication in fi shes. This chapter examines the currently documented diversity of sound production in these taxa, the design effi cacy of signals
(i.e., acoustic characteristics of sounds, signal propagation within soundscapes, and
receiver audiograms) (Endler 1992 ), and the potential functional signifi cance of
sound attributes in relation to territorial and reproductive behaviours.
These fi shes have reduced or absent swim bladders, which limits or prevents
hearing enhancement via pressure sensitivity and drumming amplifi cation via swim
bladder motion (Demski et al. 1973 ; Popper and Fay 1993 , 2011 ). Swim bladder
drumming sounds are a widespread sound production mechanism in fi shes (Ladich
and Fine 2006 ), but sound production in darters, gobies, and sculpins does not
appear to involve the swim bladder. Swim bladders are absent in adult sculpins and
either absent or reduced more broadly in Etheostomatine darters, but absent in the
soniferous Catonotus darters (Evans and Page 2003 ; Nelson 2006 ). The phylogenetic distribution of the swim bladder in gobies has not yet been thoroughly examined (Hesthagen and Koefoed 1979 ), though both species possessing a swim bladder
(e.g. Padogobius bonelli , Pomatoschistus minutus , Gobius cruentatus ) and species
lacking a swim bladder (e.g. Padogobius nigricans , Neogobius melanostomus ) have
been found to be soniferous. Experimental manipulations in gobies have not supported involvement of the swim bladder in sound production (Lugli et al. 2003 ;
Parmentier et al. 2013 ). The similar cranial-pectoral muscular anatomies of gobies
and sculpins (Parmentier et al. 2013 ; Colleye et al. 2013 ) and the observed “nodding” and/or pectoral fi n motion during sound production in all three taxa suggest
similar sound production mechanisms involving of cranial-pectoral muscle contraction (Parmentier et al. 2013 ; Colleye et al. 2013 ; DEH pers. obs.).
The effi cacy of signaling within the shallow water habitats occupied by many
members of these groups is also examined. Soniferous gobies have adapted to marine,
transitional, and freshwater habitats, while currently described soniferous darters and
Cottus are stream inhabitants (Page 1985 ; Ladich 1989 ; Nelson 2006 ; Kierl and
Johnston 2010 ; Colleye et al. 2013 ). In the shallow stream and coastal habitats, low
frequency sounds are limited in propagation due to cutoff frequencies (Rogers and
Cox 1988 ; Mann 2006 ). However, within these constraints, research on gobies indicates that low frequencies could optimize signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio as a result of two
J.N. Zeyl et al.
1 Introduction
Soniferous darters (Perciformes, Percidae), sculpins (Perciformes, Cottidae), and
many gobioids (Gobiiformes, Gobioidei) have convergent life history traits, including a benthic lifestyle and the cavity nesting spawning mode (current phylogeny by
Bentacur et al. 2013). These taxa produce low frequency sounds with dominant
frequencies below 200 Hz (with some notable exceptions) in agonistic and reproductive contexts. While low frequency sounds and acoustic signaling in agonistic
and reproductive contexts is a widespread characteristic of teleost acoustic communication (Bass and McKibben 2003 ; Amorim 2006 ; Ladich 2014 ), a few additional
characteristics shared by the soniferous members of these groups make their integrative study informative for understanding the selective pressures and constraints
on acoustic communication in fi shes. This chapter examines the currently documented diversity of sound production in these taxa, the design effi cacy of signals
(i.e., acoustic characteristics of sounds, signal propagation within soundscapes, and
receiver audiograms) (Endler 1992 ), and the potential functional signifi cance of
sound attributes in relation to territorial and reproductive behaviours.
These fi shes have reduced or absent swim bladders, which limits or prevents
hearing enhancement via pressure sensitivity and drumming amplifi cation via swim
bladder motion (Demski et al. 1973 ; Popper and Fay 1993 , 2011 ). Swim bladder
drumming sounds are a widespread sound production mechanism in fi shes (Ladich
and Fine 2006 ), but sound production in darters, gobies, and sculpins does not
appear to involve the swim bladder. Swim bladders are absent in adult sculpins and
either absent or reduced more broadly in Etheostomatine darters, but absent in the
soniferous Catonotus darters (Evans and Page 2003 ; Nelson 2006 ). The phylogenetic distribution of the swim bladder in gobies has not yet been thoroughly examined (Hesthagen and Koefoed 1979 ), though both species possessing a swim bladder
(e.g. Padogobius bonelli , Pomatoschistus minutus , Gobius cruentatus ) and species
lacking a swim bladder (e.g. Padogobius nigricans , Neogobius melanostomus ) have
been found to be soniferous. Experimental manipulations in gobies have not supported involvement of the swim bladder in sound production (Lugli et al. 2003 ;
Parmentier et al. 2013 ). The similar cranial-pectoral muscular anatomies of gobies
and sculpins (Parmentier et al. 2013 ; Colleye et al. 2013 ) and the observed “nodding” and/or pectoral fi n motion during sound production in all three taxa suggest
similar sound production mechanisms involving of cranial-pectoral muscle contraction (Parmentier et al. 2013 ; Colleye et al. 2013 ; DEH pers. obs.).
The effi cacy of signaling within the shallow water habitats occupied by many
members of these groups is also examined. Soniferous gobies have adapted to marine,
transitional, and freshwater habitats, while currently described soniferous darters and
Cottus are stream inhabitants (Page 1985 ; Ladich 1989 ; Nelson 2006 ; Kierl and
Johnston 2010 ; Colleye et al. 2013 ). In the shallow stream and coastal habitats, low
frequency sounds are limited in propagation due to cutoff frequencies (Rogers and
Cox 1988 ; Mann 2006 ). However, within these constraints, research on gobies indicates that low frequencies could optimize signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio as a result of two
J.N. Zeyl et al.