vocalizations is that they optimize the range of transmission and detectability at increasing distances from the source by adapting the characteristics of their sounds to the particular environment (see Clark and
Ellison in press; Tyack 2000; Tyack and Clark 2000). By contrast, although
the physical acoustics of very shallow water favor high-frequency vocal signaling, the majority of teleost fishes produce sounds below 500 Hz in the
intermediate- or low-frequency ranges. A number of explanations are suggested to account for this phenotype, including short communication distances to avoid detection by predators and competitors, increased range of
detection by the inner ear, and neural-mechanical structures for generating
stereotyped signals (Fig. 2.13).
The study of underwater sound communication is indeed in its infancy.
Progress has been hindered, in part, by the inherent difficulties of working
in aquatic, and especially marine, habitats as well as by the complexity in
describing the impact of physical parameters, such as the bottom-substrate
composition, on transmission loss. There are now technologies (e.g.,
hydrophone arrays) for investigating the details of animal movements and
distributions (e.g., Clark et al. 1986; McDonald et al. 1995; Stafford et al.
1998; Thode et al. 2000). Such techniques, when merged with empirical
studies of underwater sound transmission and applied to the incredible
diversity of social systems, encourage greater pursuit of studies to identify
the specific influence of abiotic and biotic ecological factors on vocal communication in an environment that accounts for nearly two-thirds of the
earth’s surface.
Acknowledgments. The authors’ work is supported by grants from NIH
(DC00092) to AHB and from ONR N00014-94-1-0872, N00014-94-C-6016,
N00014-99-1-0244 and the North Slope borough, Barrow, Alaska, to CWC.
We thank Margaret Marchaterre for the data in Figures 2.10–2.12; Adam
Frankel, M. Marchaterre, Margy Nelson, and Terri Natoli for help with the
figures; Terri Natoli, Connie Gordon, and Melissa Fowler for help with the
references and data collation; and William Ellison for many inspirational
conversations concerning whale sound propagation in the ocean. We also
thank Deana Bodnar, Jud Crawford, Richard Fay, Jessica McKibben,
Andrea Simmons, and Matthew Weeg for their many thoughtful comments
on the manuscript, and especially Sheryl Coombs and Alejandro Purgue for
their most generous time spent in discussions and comments.
References
Aroyan JL, McDonald MA, Webb SC, Hildebrand JA, Clark D, Laitman JT,
Reidenberg JS (2000) Acoustical models of sound production and propagation.
In: Au WWL, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Hearing by Whales and Dolphins. New
York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 409–471.
Bailey WJ (1991) Acoustic Behaviour of Insects. London: Chapman and Hall.
58
A.H. Bass and C.W. Clark
Ellison in press; Tyack 2000; Tyack and Clark 2000). By contrast, although
the physical acoustics of very shallow water favor high-frequency vocal signaling, the majority of teleost fishes produce sounds below 500 Hz in the
intermediate- or low-frequency ranges. A number of explanations are suggested to account for this phenotype, including short communication distances to avoid detection by predators and competitors, increased range of
detection by the inner ear, and neural-mechanical structures for generating
stereotyped signals (Fig. 2.13).
The study of underwater sound communication is indeed in its infancy.
Progress has been hindered, in part, by the inherent difficulties of working
in aquatic, and especially marine, habitats as well as by the complexity in
describing the impact of physical parameters, such as the bottom-substrate
composition, on transmission loss. There are now technologies (e.g.,
hydrophone arrays) for investigating the details of animal movements and
distributions (e.g., Clark et al. 1986; McDonald et al. 1995; Stafford et al.
1998; Thode et al. 2000). Such techniques, when merged with empirical
studies of underwater sound transmission and applied to the incredible
diversity of social systems, encourage greater pursuit of studies to identify
the specific influence of abiotic and biotic ecological factors on vocal communication in an environment that accounts for nearly two-thirds of the
earth’s surface.
Acknowledgments. The authors’ work is supported by grants from NIH
(DC00092) to AHB and from ONR N00014-94-1-0872, N00014-94-C-6016,
N00014-99-1-0244 and the North Slope borough, Barrow, Alaska, to CWC.
We thank Margaret Marchaterre for the data in Figures 2.10–2.12; Adam
Frankel, M. Marchaterre, Margy Nelson, and Terri Natoli for help with the
figures; Terri Natoli, Connie Gordon, and Melissa Fowler for help with the
references and data collation; and William Ellison for many inspirational
conversations concerning whale sound propagation in the ocean. We also
thank Deana Bodnar, Jud Crawford, Richard Fay, Jessica McKibben,
Andrea Simmons, and Matthew Weeg for their many thoughtful comments
on the manuscript, and especially Sheryl Coombs and Alejandro Purgue for
their most generous time spent in discussions and comments.
References
Aroyan JL, McDonald MA, Webb SC, Hildebrand JA, Clark D, Laitman JT,
Reidenberg JS (2000) Acoustical models of sound production and propagation.
In: Au WWL, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Hearing by Whales and Dolphins. New
York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 409–471.
Bailey WJ (1991) Acoustic Behaviour of Insects. London: Chapman and Hall.
58
A.H. Bass and C.W. Clark