Sound production to electric discharge: sonic muscle evolution in progress in<i>Synodontis</i>spp. catfishes (Mochokidae)

Boyle, Kelly S.; Colleye, Orphal; Parmentier, Éric

doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1197

Cited by 39 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, head negative first phase of electric discharge in Auchenoglanis coincides in polarity with the initial phase of the discharge in Malapterurus [11] though ratios of amplitudes of the first and second phases dif fer in these fish by orders of magnitudes. Finally, the assumption of Bennett [15] that the electric organs of Malapterurus developed in the process of evolution from acoustic muscles is supported by the results of modern investigations of electrogenerative tissues of Synodontis [1,4] demonstrating that these structures are modified acoustic muscles morphologically con nected with the swimming bladder.…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Electric discharges of two African catfishes of the genus Auchenoglanis (Claroteidae, Siluriformes)

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Malapteruridae) the specialized electric activity was recorded in catfishes of the genus Synodontis (fam. Mochokidae) [1][2][3][4], genera Clarias and Heterobranchus (fam. Clariidae) [5,6] and in one representative of the genus Auche noglanis (fam.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Electric discharges of two African catfishes of the genus Auchenoglanis (Claroteidae, Siluriformes)

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some insight into the origins of myogenic electric organs has emerged from studies of weak electric signals in the African freshwater catfish genus Synodontis . At least seven species in this genus generate both sounds and weak (< 30 mV cm −1 ) asynchronous (non‐stereotyped) EODs from swim bladder muscle during social interactions (Boyle et al ., ; Hagedorn et al ., ). Boyle et al .…”

Section: On the Origins Of Electric Organsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Electroreception, electrogenesis and electric signal evolution

Crampton

2019

Journal of Fish Biology

110

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electroreception, the capacity to detect external underwater electric fields with specialised receptors, is a phylogenetically widespread sensory modality in fishes and amphibians. In passive electroreception, a capacity possessed by c. 16% of fish species, an animal uses low‐frequency‐tuned ampullary electroreceptors to detect microvolt‐range bioelectric fields from prey, without the need to generate its own electric field. In active electroreception (electrolocation), which occurs only in the teleost lineages Mormyroidea and Gymnotiformes, an animal senses its surroundings by generating a weak (< 1 V) electric‐organ discharge (EOD) and detecting distortions in the EOD‐associated field using high‐frequency‐tuned tuberous electroreceptors. Tuberous electroreceptors also detect the EODs of neighbouring fishes, facilitating electrocommunication. Several other groups of elasmobranchs and teleosts generate weak (< 10 V) or strong (> 50 V) EODs that facilitate communication or predation, but not electrolocation. Approximately 1.5% of fish species possess electric organs. This review has two aims. First, to synthesise our knowledge of the functional biology and phylogenetic distribution of electroreception and electrogenesis in fishes, with a focus on freshwater taxa and with emphasis on the proximate (morphological, physiological and genetic) bases of EOD and electroreceptor diversity. Second, to describe the diversity, biogeography, ecology and electric signal diversity of the mormyroids and gymnotiforms and to explore the ultimate (evolutionary) bases of signal and receptor diversity in their convergent electrogenic–electrosensory systems. Four sets of potential drivers or moderators of signal diversity are discussed. First, selective forces of an abiotic (environmental) nature for optimal electrolocation and communication performance of the EOD. Second, selective forces of a biotic nature targeting the communication function of the EOD, including sexual selection, reproductive interference from syntopic heterospecifics and selection from eavesdropping predators. Third, non‐adaptive drift and, finally, phylogenetic inertia, which may arise from stabilising selection for optimal signal‐receptor matching.

show abstract

“…In addition, the ESA morphology exists in some catfish species that may rarely (if at all) produce drumming sounds. Some species of Synodontis (Mochokidae) possess an ESA and produce electric organ discharges with the ESA protractor muscle in addition to sounds, whereas others may not produce sounds at all (Hagedorn et al, 1990;Baron et al, 2001;Boyle et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation in swim bladder drumming sounds from three doradid catfish species with similar sonic morphologies

Boyle

Riepe

Bolen

et al. 2015

Journal of Experimental Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A variety of teleost fishes produce sounds for communication by vibrating the swim bladder with fast contracting muscles. Doradid catfishes have an elastic spring apparatus (ESA) for sound production. Contractions of the ESA protractor muscle pull the anterior transverse process of the 4th vertebra or Müllerian ramus (MR) to expand the swim bladder and elasticity of the MR returns the swim bladder to the resting state. In this study, we examined the sound characteristics and associated fine structure of the protractor drumming muscles of three doradid species: Acanthodoras cataphractus, Platydoras hancockii and Agamyxis pectinifrons. Despite large variations in size, sounds from all three species had similar mean dominant rates ranging from 91 to 131 Hz and showed frequencies related to muscle contraction speed rather than fish size. Sounds differed among species in terms of waveform shape and their rate of amplitude modulation. In addition, multiple distinguishable sound types were observed from each species: three sound types from A. cataphractus and P. hancockii, and two sound types from A. pectinifrons. Although sounds differed among species, no differences in muscle fiber fine structure were observed at the species level. Drumming muscles from each species bear features associated with fast contractions, including sarcoplasmic cores, thin radial myofibrils, abundant mitochondria and an elaborated sarcoplasmic reticulum. These results indicate that sound differences between doradids are not due to swimbladder size, muscle anatomy, muscle length or Müllerian ramus shape, but instead result from differences in neural activation of sonic muscles.

show abstract

Sound production to electric discharge: sonic muscle evolution in progress inSynodontisspp. catfishes (Mochokidae)

Cited by 39 publications

References 44 publications

Electric discharges of two African catfishes of the genus Auchenoglanis (Claroteidae, Siluriformes)

Electric discharges of two African catfishes of the genus Auchenoglanis (Claroteidae, Siluriformes)

Electroreception, electrogenesis and electric signal evolution

Variation in swim bladder drumming sounds from three doradid catfish species with similar sonic morphologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About