Acoustic communication in marine shallow waters: testing the acoustic adaptive hypothesis in sand gobies

Abstract

Acoustic communication is an important part of social behaviour of fish species that live or breed in shallow noisy waters. Previous studies have shown that some fish species exploit a quiet window in the background noise for communication. However, it remains to be examined whether hearing abilities and sound production of fish are adapted to marine habitats presenting high hydrodynamism. Here, we investigated whether the communication system of the painted () and the marbled () gobies is adapted to enhance sound transmission and reception in Atlantic shallow water environments. We recorded and measured the sound pressure levels of social vocalisations of both species, as well as snapshots of ambient noise of habitats characterised by different hydrodynamics. Hearing thresholds (in terms of both sound pressure and particle acceleration) and responses to conspecific signals were determined using the auditory evoked potential recording technique. We found that the peak frequency range (100-300 Hz) of acoustic signals matched the best hearing sensitivity in both species and appeared well adapted for short-range communication in Atlantic habitats. Sandy/rocky exposed beaches presented a quiet window, observable even during the breaking of moderate waves, coincident with the main sound frequencies and best hearing sensitivities of both species. Our data demonstrate that the hearing abilities of these gobies are well suited to detect conspecific sounds within typical interacting distances (a few body lengths) in Atlantic shallow waters. These findings lend support to the acoustic adaptive hypothesis, under the sensory drive framework, proposing that signals and perception systems coevolve to be effective within local environment constraints.

Acoustic fish communities: sound diversity of rocky habitats reflects fish species diversity

“…The red-mouthed goby also produces pulse series that may fall within the PS category (Picciulin et al 2006, Sebastianutto et al 2008. However, the other sounds emitted by this species were not recorded here, and as their propagation ranges are short (Amorim et al 2018), it is likely that even if present, sounds from small Gobiidae could not be captured. The LT sound shares many similarities with the vocalization reported for the meagre Argyrosomus regius (Lagardère & Mariani 2006), but this species was not visually assessed within the MPA.…”

An overview of fish bioacoustics and the impacts of anthropogenic sounds on fishes

“…As a consequence, when investigating the effects of sounds upon fishes, it is important to describe the sounds in terms of particle motion (Popper & Hawkins, ), as well as sound pressure. This may be done by measuring the particle motion directly (Amorim et al, ; Mickle et al, ; Roberts & Breithaupt, ) or by conducting experiments under free‐field acoustic conditions, where the particle motion can be predicted from measurements of the sound pressure (Hawkins et al, ). Until recently, most studies of sound and fishes have only included measurement of the sound pressure and very few have considered particle motion in a biologically relevant context.…”

Predicting the effects of anthropogenic noise on fish reproduction

“…For example, release from masking can occur when sound sources are located at different angles from the receiver ('spatial release') or if masked frequencies co-modulate with frequencies that are not masked (Brumm and Slabbekoorn 2005;Erbe et al 2016). Alternatively, communication signals may be tuned to relatively quiet spectral or temporal windows in the habitat-specific ambient noise (Crawford et al 1997;Lugli 2010;Amorim et al 2018). The detection threshold is the minimum level at which a sound is audible to a receiver within the background of noise.…”