Masked auditory thresholds in sciaenid fishes: A comparative study

Ramcharitar, John; Popper, Arthur N.

doi:10.1121/1.1771614

Cited by 32 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The bandwidth increases with higher centre frequency, so that Q (the bandwidth divided by the centre frequency) is approximately constant (Fay 1991). These results are consistent with those of a recent study on sciaenids, which revealed that the effects of masking varies with the hearing capabilities of the fish (Ramcharitar & Popper 2004).…”

Section: Fish Sound-detectionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Hearing in fish and their reactions to sounds from offshore wind farms

Wahlberg¹,

Westerberg²

2005

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current knowledge on detection of, and reaction to, sound by fish is reviewed, with special emphasis on underwater noise from offshore wind farms. The detection distance to wind farms for 3 species of fish representing various hearing capabilities varies between 0.4 and 25 km at wind speeds of 8 to 13 m s -1. The detection distance depends on the size and number of windmills, the hearing abilities of the fish, background noise level, wind speed, water depth and type of sea bottom. The noise from windmills may decrease the effective range for sound communication of fish; however, it is not known to what extent this decrease affects the behaviour and fitness of fish. Windmill noise does not have any destructive effects upon the hearing abilities of fish, even within distances of a few metres. It is estimated that fish are consistently scared away from windmills only at ranges shorter than about 4 m, and only at high wind speeds (higher than 13 m s -1 ). Thus, the acoustic impact of windmills on fish is restricted to masking communication and orientation signals rather than causing physiological damage or consistent avoidance reactions. These conclusions must be viewed with great caution, however, as the existing data are prone to large uncertainties. Further studies on more detailed measurements of the sound-field and of fish behaviour around windmills are needed. KEY WORDS: Bioacoustics · Detection range · Fish communication · Hearing in fish · Sea-based wind farm Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisherMar Ecol Prog Ser 288: [295][296][297][298][299][300][301][302][303][304][305][306][307][308][309] 2005 underwater noise, and did not take into consideration new and more detailed measurements of sounds from offshore windmills by Degn (2000), Fristedt et al. (2001) and Ingemansson (2003). In addition, recent studies have shown that continuous exposure to sound of high intensity can cause inner ear damage to fish (Hastings et al. 1996, McCauley et al. 2003. It seems important to re-evaluate the possible impact of windmill noise on fish in the light of these new studies.The present review begins with an outline of some important principles of underwater acoustics, with special emphasis on hearing in fish and their reaction to sound. Subsequently, the possible effects of windmill sounds on fish are evaluated in terms of detection distances, communication masking and damage to hearing. SOUND AND FISH Underwater sound: decibelsSome issues of acoustics relevant to our discussion are not readily available in the acoustic literature. The important concepts of near and far fields are particularly confusing. Bioacousticians use these terms to describe either acoustic interference or range-dependent variations in acoustic impedance. Below we clarify the difference between these fields, as well as other technical issues important when discussing sound from windmills. Most of what is treated here has been synthesised from a variety of textbooks and reviews, especially thos...

show abstract

Section: Fish Sound-detectionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Hearing in fish and their reactions to sounds from offshore wind farms

Wahlberg¹,

Westerberg²

2005

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Holocentrus, on the other hand, has an intermediate status and an intermediate sensitivity (Tavolga and Wodinsky, 1963). Atlantic sciaenids have a large variation in swimbladders and their relationship to the otic region (Ramcharitar and Popper, 2004). In the black drum Pogonias chromis and the spot Leiostomus xanthurus, the swimbladder is relatively far from the otic capsule, while in the Atlantic croaker Micropogonias undulatus and the weakfish Cynoscion regalis, anteriorly directed bladder-diverticula end close to the otic capsule (Ramcharitar and Popper, 2004;Ramcharitar et al, 2006).…”

Section: Auditory Sensitivitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Size matters: diversity in swimbladders and Weberian ossicles affects hearing in catfishes

Lechner

Ladich

2008

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYOtophysine fish possess Weberian ossicles, which connect the swimbladder to the inner ear and improve hearing ability. There is a high diversity in the morphology of the swimbladder and Weberian apparatus in catfishes, which might affect hearing. We have examined these structures in representatives of six families with large, single bladders (Ariidae, Auchenipteridae, Heptapteridae, Malapteruridae, Mochokidae, Pseudopimelodidae) and five subfamilies from two families (Callichthyidae, Loricariidae) having small, paired, encapsulated bladders. We tested their hearing abilities utilizing the non-invasive auditory evoked potential recording technique. Species with single, non-encapsulated, free airbladders possess one, three or four ossicles, whereas species with encapsulated bladders possess one or two. The relative sizes of the bladders and ossicles were significantly smaller in the latter group. All species were able to detect sound stimuli between 50·Hz and 5·kHz. Interspecific differences in hearing sensitivity varied at most by 24·dB below 1·kHz, whilst this variation increased to more than 50·dB at higher frequencies. Catfishes with free bladders had lower thresholds above 1·kHz than those having encapsulated ones. The relative lengths of swimbladders and of ossicular chains were correlated with hearing sensitivity above 1 and 2·kHz, respectively. The number of ossicles affected hearing at 4 and 5·kHz. These results indicate that larger bladders and ossicles as well as higher ossicle numbers improve hearing ability at higher frequencies in catfishes. We furthermore assume that the tiny bladders have minimized their hydrostatic function but were not completely lost because of their auditory function.

show abstract

“…Investigating the effect of different maskers on different hearing sensitivities calls for choosing closely related species, ideally belonging to the same family, that differ considerably in their auditory sensitivities. An intra-familial masking study was carried out only within sciaenids (drums and croakers); it compared two species which, however, did not differ in absolute hearing sensitivities except in the maximum frequency detectable [17]. Pronounced differences in swim bladder morphology and auditory sensitivities have been described only within two (non-related) teleost families, namely holocentrids (squirrelfishes) and cichlids [26]–[29].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hearing in Cichlid Fishes under Noise Conditions

Ladich

Schulz‐Mirbach

2013

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHearing thresholds of fishes are typically acquired under laboratory conditions. This does not reflect the situation in natural habitats, where ambient noise may mask their hearing sensitivities. In the current study we investigate hearing in terms of sound pressure (SPL) and particle acceleration levels (PAL) of two cichlid species within the naturally occurring range of noise levels. This enabled us to determine whether species with and without hearing specializations are differently affected by noise.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe investigated auditory sensitivities in the orange chromide Etroplus maculatus, which possesses anterior swim bladder extensions, and the slender lionhead cichlid Steatocranus tinanti, in which the swim bladder is much smaller and lacks extensions. E. maculatus was tested between 0.2 and 3kHz and S. tinanti between 0.1 and 0.5 kHz using the auditory evoked potential (AEP) recording technique. In both species, SPL and PAL audiograms were determined in the presence of quiet laboratory conditions (baseline) and continuous white noise of 110 and 130 dB RMS. Baseline thresholds showed greatest hearing sensitivity around 0.5 kHz (SPL) and 0.2 kHz (PAL) in E. maculatus and 0.2 kHz in S. tinanti. White noise of 110 dB elevated the thresholds by 0–11 dB (SPL) and 7–11 dB (PAL) in E. maculatus and by 1–2 dB (SPL) and by 1–4 dB (PAL) in S. tinanti. White noise of 130 dB elevated hearing thresholds by 13–29 dB (SPL) and 26–32 dB (PAL) in E. maculatus and 6–16 dB (SPL) and 6–19 dB (PAL) in S. tinanti.ConclusionsOur data showed for the first time for SPL and PAL thresholds that the specialized species was masked by different noise regimes at almost all frequencies, whereas the non-specialized species was much less affected. This indicates that noise can limit sound detection and acoustic orientation differently within a single fish family.

show abstract

Masked auditory thresholds in sciaenid fishes: A comparative study

Cited by 32 publications

References 25 publications

Hearing in fish and their reactions to sounds from offshore wind farms

Hearing in fish and their reactions to sounds from offshore wind farms

Size matters: diversity in swimbladders and Weberian ossicles affects hearing in catfishes

Hearing in Cichlid Fishes under Noise Conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About