The importance of particle motion to fishes and invertebrates

Abstract

This paper considers the importance of particle motion to fishes and invertebrates and the steps that need to be taken to improve knowledge of its effects. It is aimed at scientists investigating the impacts of sounds on fishes and invertebrates but it is also relevant to regulators, those preparing environmental impact assessments, and to industries creating underwater sounds. The overall aim of this paper is to ensure that proper attention is paid to particle motion as a stimulus when evaluating the effects of sound upon aquatic life. Directions are suggested for future research and planning that, if implemented, will provide a better scientific basis for dealing with the impact of underwater sounds on marine ecosystems and for regulating those human activities that generate such sounds. The paper includes background material on underwater acoustics, focusing on particle motion; the importance of particle motion to fishes and invertebrates; and sound propagation through both water and the substrate. Consideration is then given to the data gaps that must be filled in order to better understand the interactions between particle motion and aquatic animals. Finally, suggestions are provided on how to increase the understanding of particle motion and its relevance to aquatic animals.

Passive acoustic monitoring shows no effect of anthropogenic noise on acoustic communication in the invasive round goby (Neogobius melanostomus)

“…In laboratory studies, increased noise levels can affect calling rate in other gobiid species (De Jong, Amorim, Fonseca, Fox, & Heubel, 2018; . While it is difficult to equate laboratory acoustic experiments to field settings (Popper & Hawkins, 2018) it may be that the sound exposures in our current study were lower than those in the De Jong, Amorim, Fonseca, Fox, and Heubel (2018) and laboratory studies so we may still see effects in the field at higher intensities. Long-term exposure to motorboat noise in brackish waters had no effect on the stress response of Eurasian perch (Perca fluviatilis) and roach (Rutilus rutilus; Johansson, Sigray, Backström, & Magnhagen, 2016), although short-term ship noise exposure did elevate metabolic oxygen demand in European eels (Anguilla anguilla) in a field setting (Simpson, Purser, & Radford, 2016) and there are numerous reports of fish avoiding noise generated by larger ships in the field (Handegard, Michalsen, & Tjøstheim, 2003;Mitson & Knudsen, 2003;Vabø, Olsen, & Huse, 2002).…”

“…The main driver of increases in anthropogenic noises is boat and ship noise (Frisk, ) and these have been shown to induce behavioural effects in at least some fish species (De Jong, Amorim, Fonseca, Fox, & Heubel, ; De Jong, Amorim, Fonseca, & Heubel, ; De Robertis & Handegard, ; Engås, Misund, Soldal, Horvei, & Solstad, ; Picciulin, Sebastianutto, Codarin, Farina, & Ferrero, ; Sarà et al., ). All fish tested to date can detect the particle motion component of sound waves, especially predominant at frequencies below approximately 800 Hz close to the sound source (Popper & Hawkins, ), but to detect the pressure component of sound, fish must have evolved some specialised relationship between a gas‐filled structure and the ear to change the pressure waves into particle displacement (Schulz‐Mirbach & Ladich, ). Because of the variety of hearing specialisations present in teleosts (Braun & Grande, ; Higgs, Lui, & Mann, ; Schulz‐Mirbach & Ladich, ), the responses of fish to anthropogenic noise sources is likely to differ based at least on phylogenetic position and specialisation.…”

An overview of fish bioacoustics and the impacts of anthropogenic sounds on fishes

“…), there are papers in a volume by Webb et al () as well as several more recent reviews (Ladich, ; Ladich & Fay, ; Mickle & Higgs, ; Putland et al, ). More detailed reviews of potential effects of anthropogenic sound on fishes (and other aquatic animals) can be found in papers by the authors of this review (Hawkins et al, ; Hawkins & Popper, ; Popper & Hawkins, ) and in the reports of several meetings on the Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life (http://www.an-2019.org; Hawkins et al, ; Popper & Hawkins, , and the open access Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics (http://www.go.umd.edu/UcA). Finally, a general overview of effects of anthropogenic sound on animals is provided by Slabbekoorn et al ().…”

“…A fundamental point is that all fishes (including elasmobranchs) detect and use particle motion, particularly at frequencies below several hundred Hz (Nedelec et al, ; Popper & Hawkins, ). Thus, the detection of particle motion is integral to hearing in all fishes (and invertebrates) and it is used to locate the direction of the source, even in those fishes that are also sensitive to sound pressure (Hawkins et al, ; Nedelec et al, ).…”

“…Thus, the detection of particle motion is integral to hearing in all fishes (and invertebrates) and it is used to locate the direction of the source, even in those fishes that are also sensitive to sound pressure (Hawkins et al, ; Nedelec et al, ). As a consequence, when investigating the effects of sounds upon fishes, it is important to describe the sounds in terms of particle motion (Popper & Hawkins, ), as well as sound pressure. This may be done by measuring the particle motion directly (Amorim et al, ; Mickle et al, ; Roberts & Breithaupt, ) or by conducting experiments under free‐field acoustic conditions, where the particle motion can be predicted from measurements of the sound pressure (Hawkins et al, ).…”