Hearing in Fishes under Noise Conditions

Abstract

Our current knowledge on sound detection in fishes is mainly based on data acquired under quiet laboratory conditions. However, it is important to relate auditory thresholds to background noise in order to determine the signal-detecting abilities of animals in the natural environment. We investigated the influence of two noise levels within the naturally occurring range on the auditory sensitivity of two hearing specialists (otophysines) and a hearing generalist. Audiograms of the goldfish Carassius auratus, the lined Raphael catfish Platydoras costatus and the pumpkinseed sunfish Lepomis gibbosus (hearing generalist) were determined between 200 and 4000 Hz (100Y800 Hz for L. gibbosus) under laboratory conditions and under continuous white noise by recording auditory evoked potentials (AEPs). Baseline thresholds showed greatest hearing sensitivity around 500 Hz in goldfish and catfish and at 100 Hz in the sunfish. Continuous white noise of 110 dB RMS elevated the thresholds by 15Y20 dB in C. auratus and by 4Y22 dB in P. costatus. White noise of 130 dB RMS elevated overall hearing thresholds significantly in the otophysines by 23Y44 dB. In the goldfish, threshold did not shift at 4 kHz. In contrast, auditory thresholds in the sunfish declined only at the higher noise level by 7Y11 dB. Our data show that the AEP recording technique is suitable for studying masking in fishes, and that the occurrence and degree of the threshold shift (masking) depend on the hearing sensitivity of fishes, the frequency, and noise levels tested. The results indicate that acoustic communication and orientation of fishes, in particular of hearing specialists, are limited by noise regimes in their environment.

Diversity in ambient noise in European freshwater habitats: Noise levels, spectral profiles, and impact on fishes

“…Several lab experiments ͑i.e., Fay, 1974;Amoser and Ladich, 2005;Wysocki and Ladich, 2005;Scholz and Ladich, 2006͒ have shown that the masking effect depends not only on level and type of noise but also on the overall hearing sensitivity of a given fish species.…”

“…The masking effect, i.e., the amount by which a signal must be louder in order to still be detected in the presence of background noise of a given level, has been demonstrated to largely depend on the overall hearing sensitivity of a particular fish species ͑Tavolga, 1967;Champman, 1973;Wysocki and Ladich, 2005͒. Recently, the masking effect of habitat noise has been studied in several freshwater species ͑Amoser and Scholz andLadich, 2006͒. Amoser and showed that hearing-sensitive fish such as carp are only moderately masked by quiet habitat noise levels of standing waters, whereas they are highly affected by stream and river noise, in whose presence acoustic signals must be up to 50 dB louder in their best hearing range ͑0.5-1.0 kHz͒ than in the quiet habitats to be detectable.…”

How Do Aquaria and Pond Noise Affect Hearing in Different Fish Species?

“…Audiograms of the goldfish Carassius auratus (0.1-4 kHz) and the pumpkinseed sunfish Lepomis gibbosus (0.1-0.8 kHz) were determined under laboratory conditions and in the presence of the four different background noise types utilizing the noninvasive auditory evoked potential (AEP) recording technique (Wysocki & Ladich 2005).…”

“…anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 17:01 04 November 2014 95be measured directly in order to quantify the effective sound stimulus (particle acceleration).Several studies on fishes showed that behaviour and auditory sensitivity are affected by underwater noise(Amoser & Ladich 2005;Scholz & Ladich 2006;Wysocki & Ladich 2005)…”

An Italian proposal on the monitoring of underwater noise: Relationship between the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and marine spatial planning directive (MSP)

“…The acoustic waves of anthropogenic origin operate as pollutants occupying the same spectral niches used by species to perceive the surrounding natural environment (Pijanowski et al, 2011). This dispersion of energy in the sea also has ecological implications, because it interferes with the ability of species to perceive signals that characterize the acoustic landscape, masking the biological signals that are present (Amoser and Ladich, 2005;Chapman and Hawkins, 1973;Wysocki and Ladich, 2005).…”