260
contributions of sound pressure and particle motion can be used to the experimenters’ advantage by examining behavioural responses of freely swimming fi sh in different components of the sound fi eld. Using this approach Zeddies et al. ( 2012 )
were able to defi nitively demonstrate that plainfi n midshipman ( Porichthys notatus )
can localize to tonal signals by following particle motion gradients in a tank but this
approach is rare. It is much more common to only characterize the sound pressure
level at a release site and assume a constant gradient from the sound source to the
animal of interest. Until more careful sound characterizations are done in the model
of Zeddies et al. ( 2012 ) it will be diffi cult, if not impossible, to ascertain exactly
what component of the sound is being used to drive “acoustic” responses in the
laboratory environment (Coffi n et al. 2014 ).
5 Acoustic Ecology
Despite the supposed importance of acoustic signalling in fi sh, there still remain
very few studies that have actually measured the propagation of fi sh acoustic communication in natural environments but, where these studies do exist, it appears that
acoustic communication is very limited in effective range (Egner and Mann 2005 ;
Lugli and Fine 2003 ; Fine and Lehnardt 1983 ). Many of the vocalizing species that
have been studied live in association with the bottom or in shallow, structured environments and in these situations there is poor sound propagation (Forrest et al.
1993 ). Even damselfi sh ( Dascyllus albisella ) that leave the bottom during acoustic
“signal jumps” have propagation of acoustic signals lasting only 11–12 m from the
source (Mann and Lobel 1997 ). Bottom-associated species such as gobies
( Padogobius martensii ) have an even greater transmission loss, calls are likely
indistinguishable from noise approximately 50–60 cm away from the source (Lugli
and Fine 2003 ). Even fi shes in the family Batrachoididae (“toadfi shes” such as O.
tau and Halobatrachus didactylus ) that are known to have quite loud calls (Fine and
Perini 1994 ) likely cannot detect conspecifi cs above background noise within 5 m
of the sources (Fine and Lehnardt 1983 ; Amorim and Vasconcelos 2008 ). Thus, the
vast majority of fi sh acoustic communication likely occurs in the nearfi eld, where
particle motion should dominate (Rogers and Cox 1988 ; Au and Hastings 2008 ),
and is likely to use lateral line receptors in conjunction with auditory receptors.
Lateral line receptivity has been characterized to explain the behavioural orientations to sound stimuli for at least one fi sh species, the squirrelfi sh, ( Myripristis spp.)
and physiological responses of lateral line afferents show directional- dependent
responses that are consistent with, and possibly suffi cient for, orientation behaviours to these sounds (Horch and Salmon 1973 ), although it remains possible that
auditory responses could also aid in orientation. When investigating the interplay of
sound and behaviour it is also important to consider the distance (farfi eld or
nearfi eld) at which the behaviour is occurring and the acoustic modality used. Here
we review the role sound plays in fi sh communication (short range) and orientation
(long range).
D.M. Higgs and C.A. Radford
contributions of sound pressure and particle motion can be used to the experimenters’ advantage by examining behavioural responses of freely swimming fi sh in different components of the sound fi eld. Using this approach Zeddies et al. ( 2012 )
were able to defi nitively demonstrate that plainfi n midshipman ( Porichthys notatus )
can localize to tonal signals by following particle motion gradients in a tank but this
approach is rare. It is much more common to only characterize the sound pressure
level at a release site and assume a constant gradient from the sound source to the
animal of interest. Until more careful sound characterizations are done in the model
of Zeddies et al. ( 2012 ) it will be diffi cult, if not impossible, to ascertain exactly
what component of the sound is being used to drive “acoustic” responses in the
laboratory environment (Coffi n et al. 2014 ).
5 Acoustic Ecology
Despite the supposed importance of acoustic signalling in fi sh, there still remain
very few studies that have actually measured the propagation of fi sh acoustic communication in natural environments but, where these studies do exist, it appears that
acoustic communication is very limited in effective range (Egner and Mann 2005 ;
Lugli and Fine 2003 ; Fine and Lehnardt 1983 ). Many of the vocalizing species that
have been studied live in association with the bottom or in shallow, structured environments and in these situations there is poor sound propagation (Forrest et al.
1993 ). Even damselfi sh ( Dascyllus albisella ) that leave the bottom during acoustic
“signal jumps” have propagation of acoustic signals lasting only 11–12 m from the
source (Mann and Lobel 1997 ). Bottom-associated species such as gobies
( Padogobius martensii ) have an even greater transmission loss, calls are likely
indistinguishable from noise approximately 50–60 cm away from the source (Lugli
and Fine 2003 ). Even fi shes in the family Batrachoididae (“toadfi shes” such as O.
tau and Halobatrachus didactylus ) that are known to have quite loud calls (Fine and
Perini 1994 ) likely cannot detect conspecifi cs above background noise within 5 m
of the sources (Fine and Lehnardt 1983 ; Amorim and Vasconcelos 2008 ). Thus, the
vast majority of fi sh acoustic communication likely occurs in the nearfi eld, where
particle motion should dominate (Rogers and Cox 1988 ; Au and Hastings 2008 ),
and is likely to use lateral line receptors in conjunction with auditory receptors.
Lateral line receptivity has been characterized to explain the behavioural orientations to sound stimuli for at least one fi sh species, the squirrelfi sh, ( Myripristis spp.)
and physiological responses of lateral line afferents show directional- dependent
responses that are consistent with, and possibly suffi cient for, orientation behaviours to these sounds (Horch and Salmon 1973 ), although it remains possible that
auditory responses could also aid in orientation. When investigating the interplay of
sound and behaviour it is also important to consider the distance (farfi eld or
nearfi eld) at which the behaviour is occurring and the acoustic modality used. Here
we review the role sound plays in fi sh communication (short range) and orientation
(long range).
D.M. Higgs and C.A. Radford