115
Amorim MCP, Simões JM, Fonseca PJ, Turner GF (2008) Species differences in courtship acoustic signals among fi ve Lake Malawi cichlid species ( Pseudotropheus spp.). J Fish Biol
72:1355–1368. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.01802.x
Amorim MCP, Simões JM, Mendonça N, Bandarra NM, Almada VC, Fonseca PJ (2010) Lusitanian
toadfi sh song refl ects male quality. J Exp Biol 213:2997–3004. doi: 10.1242/jeb.044586
Amorim MCP, Pedroso SS, Bolgan M, Jordão JM, Caiano M, Fonseca PJ (2013a) Painted gobies
sing their quality out loud: acoustic rather than visual signals advertise male quality and contribute to mating success. Funct Ecol 27:289–298. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12032
Amorim MCP, da Ponte AN, Caiano M, Pedroso SS, Pereira R, Fonseca PJ (2013b) Mate preference in the painted goby: the infl uence of visual and acoustic courtship signals. J Exp Biol
216:3996–4004. doi: 10.1242/jeb.088682
Amorim MCP, Vasconcelos RO, Parreira B (2009) Variability in the sonic muscles of the Lusitanian
toadfi sh ( Halobatrachus didactylus ): acoustic signals may refl ect individual quality. Can J Zool
87:718–725. doi: 10.1139/Z09-067
Amoser S, Ladich F (2005) Are hearing sensitivities of freshwater fi sh adapted to the ambient
noise in their habitats? J Exp Biol 208:3533–3542. doi: 10.1242/jeb.01809
Barber SB, Mowbray WH (1956) Mechanism of sound production in the sculpin. Science
124:219–220. doi: 10.1126/science.124.3214.219
Bass A, Baker R (1991) Evolution of homologous vocal control traits. Brain Behav Evol 38:
240–254. doi: 10.1159/000114391
Bass AH, McKibben JR (2003) Neural mechanisms and behaviours for acoustic communication in
teleost fi sh. Prog Neurobiol 69:1–26. doi: 10.1016/S0301-0082(03)00004-2
Belanger AJ, Bobeica I, Higgs DM (2010) The effect of stimulus type and background noise on
hearing abilities of the round goby Neogobius melanostomus . J Fish Biol 77:1488.
doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02773.x
Betancur-R. R, Broughton RE, Wiley EO, Carpenter K, López JA, Li C, Holcroft NI, Arcila D,
Sanciangco M, Cureton II JC, Zhang F, Buser T, Campbell MA, Ballesteros JA, Roa-Varon A,
Willis S, Borden WC, Rowley T, Reneau PC, Hough DJ, Lu G, Grande T, Arratia G, Ortí G
(2013) The tree of life and a new classifi cation of bony fi shes. PLoS Curr. doi: 10.1371/currents.tol.53ba26640df0ccaee75bb165c8c26288
Bolgan M, Pedroso SS, Vasconcelos RO, Jordão JM, Amorim MCP, Fonseca PJ, Fonseca PJ
(2012) Hearing sensitivity of the painted goby, Pomatoschistus pictus . In: Popper AN, Hawkins
A (eds) The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer, New York, pp 109–111
Bolgan M, Pedroso SS, Picciulin M, Fonseca PJ, Amorim MCP (2013) Differential investment in
acoustic communication during social interactions in two closely-related sand goby species.
Behaviour 150(2):133–152. doi: 10.1163/1568539X-00003041
Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1998) Principles of Animal Communication. Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland
Cheng M-F, Peng JP, Johnson P (1998) Hypothalamic neurons preferentially respond to female
nest coo stimulation: demonstration of direct acoustic stimulation of luteinizing hormone
release. J Neurosci 18:5477–5489
Connaughton MA, Taylor MH, Fine ML (2000) Effects of fi sh size and temperature on weakfi sh
disturbance calls: implications for the mechanism of sound generation. J Exp Biol
203:1503–1512
Colleye O, Ovidio M, Salmon A, Parmentier E (2013) Contribution to the study of acoustic communication in two Belgian river bullheads ( Cottus rhenanus and C. perifretum ) with further
insight
into
the
sound-producing
mechanism.
Frontiers
Zool
10:71.
doi: 10.1186/1742-9994-10-71
Coers A, Bouton N, Vincourt D, Slabbekoorn H (2008) Fluctuating noise conditions may limit
acoustic communication distance in the rock-pool blenny. Bioacoustics 17:63–65. doi: 10.1080
/09524622.2008.9753765
Crawford JD (1997) Hearing and acoustic communication in Mormyrid electric fi shes. Mar Fresh
Behav Physiol 29:65–86. doi: 10.1080/10236249709379001
Convergent Aspects of Acoustic Communication in Darters, Sculpins, and Gobies
Amorim MCP, Simões JM, Fonseca PJ, Turner GF (2008) Species differences in courtship acoustic signals among fi ve Lake Malawi cichlid species ( Pseudotropheus spp.). J Fish Biol
72:1355–1368. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.01802.x
Amorim MCP, Simões JM, Mendonça N, Bandarra NM, Almada VC, Fonseca PJ (2010) Lusitanian
toadfi sh song refl ects male quality. J Exp Biol 213:2997–3004. doi: 10.1242/jeb.044586
Amorim MCP, Pedroso SS, Bolgan M, Jordão JM, Caiano M, Fonseca PJ (2013a) Painted gobies
sing their quality out loud: acoustic rather than visual signals advertise male quality and contribute to mating success. Funct Ecol 27:289–298. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12032
Amorim MCP, da Ponte AN, Caiano M, Pedroso SS, Pereira R, Fonseca PJ (2013b) Mate preference in the painted goby: the infl uence of visual and acoustic courtship signals. J Exp Biol
216:3996–4004. doi: 10.1242/jeb.088682
Amorim MCP, Vasconcelos RO, Parreira B (2009) Variability in the sonic muscles of the Lusitanian
toadfi sh ( Halobatrachus didactylus ): acoustic signals may refl ect individual quality. Can J Zool
87:718–725. doi: 10.1139/Z09-067
Amoser S, Ladich F (2005) Are hearing sensitivities of freshwater fi sh adapted to the ambient
noise in their habitats? J Exp Biol 208:3533–3542. doi: 10.1242/jeb.01809
Barber SB, Mowbray WH (1956) Mechanism of sound production in the sculpin. Science
124:219–220. doi: 10.1126/science.124.3214.219
Bass A, Baker R (1991) Evolution of homologous vocal control traits. Brain Behav Evol 38:
240–254. doi: 10.1159/000114391
Bass AH, McKibben JR (2003) Neural mechanisms and behaviours for acoustic communication in
teleost fi sh. Prog Neurobiol 69:1–26. doi: 10.1016/S0301-0082(03)00004-2
Belanger AJ, Bobeica I, Higgs DM (2010) The effect of stimulus type and background noise on
hearing abilities of the round goby Neogobius melanostomus . J Fish Biol 77:1488.
doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02773.x
Betancur-R. R, Broughton RE, Wiley EO, Carpenter K, López JA, Li C, Holcroft NI, Arcila D,
Sanciangco M, Cureton II JC, Zhang F, Buser T, Campbell MA, Ballesteros JA, Roa-Varon A,
Willis S, Borden WC, Rowley T, Reneau PC, Hough DJ, Lu G, Grande T, Arratia G, Ortí G
(2013) The tree of life and a new classifi cation of bony fi shes. PLoS Curr. doi: 10.1371/currents.tol.53ba26640df0ccaee75bb165c8c26288
Bolgan M, Pedroso SS, Vasconcelos RO, Jordão JM, Amorim MCP, Fonseca PJ, Fonseca PJ
(2012) Hearing sensitivity of the painted goby, Pomatoschistus pictus . In: Popper AN, Hawkins
A (eds) The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer, New York, pp 109–111
Bolgan M, Pedroso SS, Picciulin M, Fonseca PJ, Amorim MCP (2013) Differential investment in
acoustic communication during social interactions in two closely-related sand goby species.
Behaviour 150(2):133–152. doi: 10.1163/1568539X-00003041
Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (1998) Principles of Animal Communication. Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland
Cheng M-F, Peng JP, Johnson P (1998) Hypothalamic neurons preferentially respond to female
nest coo stimulation: demonstration of direct acoustic stimulation of luteinizing hormone
release. J Neurosci 18:5477–5489
Connaughton MA, Taylor MH, Fine ML (2000) Effects of fi sh size and temperature on weakfi sh
disturbance calls: implications for the mechanism of sound generation. J Exp Biol
203:1503–1512
Colleye O, Ovidio M, Salmon A, Parmentier E (2013) Contribution to the study of acoustic communication in two Belgian river bullheads ( Cottus rhenanus and C. perifretum ) with further
insight
into
the
sound-producing
mechanism.
Frontiers
Zool
10:71.
doi: 10.1186/1742-9994-10-71
Coers A, Bouton N, Vincourt D, Slabbekoorn H (2008) Fluctuating noise conditions may limit
acoustic communication distance in the rock-pool blenny. Bioacoustics 17:63–65. doi: 10.1080
/09524622.2008.9753765
Crawford JD (1997) Hearing and acoustic communication in Mormyrid electric fi shes. Mar Fresh
Behav Physiol 29:65–86. doi: 10.1080/10236249709379001
Convergent Aspects of Acoustic Communication in Darters, Sculpins, and Gobies