The effect of biological and anthropogenic sound on the auditory sensitivity of oyster toadfish, Opsanus tau

Rogers, Loranzie S.; Putland, Rosalyn L.; Mensinger, Allen F.

doi:10.1007/s00359-019-01381-x

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, the latency of AEP responses in lobsters ranged between 30 and 40 ms following the stimulus onset, a result consistent with other AEP studies (Mooney et al, 2010;Rogers et al, 2020). Interestingly, we still recorded AEP responses when placing the lobsters in cold seawater (4.2°C).…”

Section: Auditory Sensitivity Of the American Lobster And Comparison With Literaturesupporting

confidence: 91%

“…In addition, the response frequencies were about twice the stimulus frequencies (see Fig. S3), as seen in other invertebrates (squids, Mooney et al, 2010;crabs, Hughes et al, 2014) and fish (Egner and Mann, 2005;Rogers et al, 2020). This has been explained to be a function of hair cells that are oriented (and maximally stimulated) in-line and in the opposite phase but parallel to the direction of the acoustic waves (Fay, 1974).…”

Section: Auditory Sensitivity Of the American Lobster And Comparison With Literaturementioning

confidence: 51%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sound detection by the American lobster (Homarus americanus)

Jézéquel

Jones

Bonnel

et al. 2021

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although many crustaceans produce sounds, their hearing abilities and mechanisms are poorly understood, leaving uncertainties regarding whether or how these animals use sound for acoustic communication. Marine invertebrates lack gas-filled organs required for sound pressure detection, but some of them are known to be sensitive to particle motion. Here, we examined whether the American lobster (Homarus americanus) could detect sound and subsequently sought to discern the auditory mechanisms. Acoustic stimuli responses were measured using auditory evoked potential (AEP) methods. Neurophysiological responses were obtained from the brain using tone pips between 80 and 250 Hz, with best sensitivity at 80–120 Hz. There were no significant differences between the auditory thresholds of males and females. Repeated controls (recordings from deceased lobsters, moving electrodes away from the brain and reducing seawater temperature) indicated the evoked potentials' neuronal origin. In addition, AEP responses were similar before and after antennules (including statocysts) were ablated, demonstrating that the statocysts, a long-proposed auditory structure in crustaceans, are not the sensory organs responsible for lobster sound detection. However, AEPs could be eliminated (or highly reduced) after immobilizing hairfans, which cover much of lobster bodies. These results suggest that these external cuticular hairs are likely to be responsible for sound detection, and imply that hearing is mechanistically possible in a wider array of invertebrates than previously considered. Because the lobsters' hearing range encompasses the fundamental frequency of their buzzing sounds, it is likely that they use sound for intraspecific communication, broadening our understanding of the sensory ecology of this commercially vital species. The lobsters' low-frequency acoustic sensitivity also underscores clear concerns about the potential impacts of anthropogenic noise.

show abstract

Section: Auditory Sensitivity Of the American Lobster And Comparison With Literaturesupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Auditory Sensitivity Of the American Lobster And Comparison With Literaturementioning

confidence: 51%

Sound detection by the American lobster (Homarus americanus)

Jézéquel

Jones

Bonnel

et al. 2021

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the frequency band of the sound is consistent with that of biological sounds, so the most likely source of the noise is marine animals. Biological sounds are often associated with behavior such as predation, courtship, reproduction, warning or attack, communication, and navigation (Kasumyan, 2008;Popper and Hawkins, 2019;Rogers et al, 2020). Some sounds are made by marine animals themselves, whereas others are generated by impacts between marine animals and water flow or water surface.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Weakfish (Sciaenid family) Connaughton et al, 2000Connaughton et al, , 2002Mann and Grothues, 2009 Tigerfish (Therapon jarbua) Schneider, 1967;Fine, 1978;Bass and Baker, 1991;Connaughton et al, 2000;Rogers et al, 2020 Batrachoididae (Toadfish or frogfish) Bass and Baker, 1991;Fine et al, 2001;Mann, 2016;Rice et al, 2017 Oyster toadfish (Opsanus tau) Groupers (Epinephelidae) Mann, 2016 Black drum (Pogonias cromis) Rice et al, 2017 Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus)…”

Section: Fish Species Referencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Fish Chorus on the Margin of New Jersey Atlantic Continental Shelf

Zhang

Katsnelson

2021

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report herein an underwater biological chorus coming from the margin of the New Jersey Atlantic continental shelf that we tentatively attribute to a species of fish. The chorus occurred every night for over a month during the Shallow Water 2006 experiment and covers the frequency band 150–4,800 Hz, with maximum intensity in the band from 1450 to 2,000 Hz. Remarkable intensity peaks occurred at 500, 725, 960, 1,215, 1,465, 1,700, and 1,920 Hz, rising to as much as 20 dB above the background noise without the chorus. The chorus begins at sunset and reaches its maximum intensity within an hour, following which it weakens slightly and then gradually climbs again to a peak before sunrise, at which point it quickly weakens and disappears. Its frequency-domain characteristics and the nocturnal timing are reminiscent of sound produced by underwater animals. The intensity of the chorus weakens along the across-shelf path going shoreward, which indicates that the chorus originates from the margin of the continental shelf rather than from the coastal zone, as is generally considered. The chorus contains a single type of acoustic signal that takes the form of double-pulse bursts that last about 8.7 ms, with each pulse containing several acoustic cycles. The time interval between successive bursts varies from 1.5 to 1.9 s. Signals containing a number of bursts vary in length from tens to hundreds of seconds. Although it is impossible to determine the fish species responsible for the chorus, its characteristics, including its low frequency and intensity, its single type of short-duration sound signal, and its multiple peaks in the frequency domain, are all consistent with the general characteristics of fish sounds.

show abstract

“…An AEP was determined to be present if the signal showed a doubling of the stimulus frequency (e.g. an 400 Hz peak when the signal presented was 200 Hz) (Casper & Mann, 2006;Rogers et al, 2020).…”

Section: Vocalization and Hearing Thresholdmentioning

confidence: 99%