Fish acoustic community structure in Neptune seagrass meadows across the Mediterranean basin

Abstract

Sound production represents an integral part of social communication in many teleost fish; however, few studies have investigated the structure, organization and variability of fish sounds at the community level. Fish acoustic community structure was recorded simultaneously in three sites located along the Mediterranean basin within the endemic habitat of Posidonia oceanica seagrass beds. Acoustic diversity and species‐specific sound features were expected to differ between locations. We predicted that, in communities characterized by higher acoustic richness, fish species would specialize in their use of acoustic resources (i.e. realized acoustic niche compression), while the overall allocation of resources within the community signal space would expand. The fish acoustic communities inhabiting Posidonia beds were characterized by the same main contributors (the /Kwa/, Ophidion rochei and Sciaena umbra sound types). However, their relative occurrence, abundances and use of acoustic resources were site‐specific. Acoustic diversity differed between geographic locations. The range of spectral and temporal resources exploited by the fish acoustic community was wider in sites where acoustic richness was at its highest score. Ophidion rochei was highly specialized in its use of temporal resources where acoustic richness was higher, whilst S. umbra appeared less efficient in specializing the use of spectral and temporal resources. By showing that the same species can exploit different acoustic resources between locations, this study supports the concept of Acoustic Niche plasticity (i.e. plasticity of acoustic resources allocation within a species). The results suggest that the degree of acoustic niche plasticity might be determined by the species‐specific degree of sound‐producing system plasticity. In turn, different degrees of acoustic niche plasticity might determine different species‐specific levels of acoustic adaptability to changing biotic or environmental conditions.

Use of passive acoustic monitoring to fill knowledge gaps of fish global conservation status

“…18 countries in this study vs. 10 countries reported in Fishbase), and that it inhabits a diverse array of environments (e.g. Parmentier et al, 2010; Kéver et al, 2016; Bolgan et al, 2020; Di Iorio et al, 2021; La Manna et al, 2021; Bolgan et al, 2022). Furthermore, acoustic studies show that O. rochei sounds are among the most abundant fish sound types recorded in Mediterranean coastal areas, often generating acoustic mass phenomena (Di Iorio et al, 2021; La Manna et al, 2021; Bolgan et al, 2022; Figure 1g).…”

“…a chorus of many individuals emitting sounds in the same location and at the same time; McCauley & Cato, 2016) were generally recorded (e.g. Figure 1g; Di Iorio et al, 2021; Bolgan et al, 2022).…”

“…Marine Protected Areas; Picciulin et al, 2019) and unmanaged areas characterized by soft bottoms (Keskin, 2007; Farré et al, 2015) and hard substrates (Desiderà et al, 2019; La Manna et al, 2021). Ophidion rochei has also been found in meadows of Posidonia oceanica (Keskin, 2007; Ceraulo et al, 2018; Bolgan et al, 2022), Cystoseira barbata and Ulva rigida (Dulcic, 2001) and Cymodocea nodosa and Zostera marina (Keskin, 2007), and in coralligenous reefs (Di Iorio et al, 2021).…”

“…Right of the red dotted line, the call shows alternation between short and long pulse periods (b). Sounds recorded in different environments, with different hydrophones and in different moments, that is: (c) Picciulin et al (2019); (d) Parmentier et al (2010); (e) Bolgan et al (2022); and (f) Bolgan et al (2022). Despite obvious differences in signal‐to‐noise ratio, duration, stereotypicity, etc., all sounds can be clearly assigned to O. rochei thanks to pulse period succession and its alternation.…”

Ground-truthing daily and lunar patterns of coral reef fish call rates on a US Virgin Island reef

“…We found an increase in call rates around dusk and dawn, similar to those seen in previous studies on this reef and elsewhere (Staaterman et al 2014, Kaplan et al 2018). These methods tend to quantify overall SPLs and thus could be dominated by repeated, high-intensity calls from certain fish or invertebrate choruses (Radford et al 2008, Parsons et al 2016, Kahl et al 2021, Bolgan et al 2022 and miss more subtle lower-amplitude calls. Interestingly, we did not see a clear association be tween call SPL and call rate, despite generally similar diel trends (Fig.…”