Underwater sound production varies within not between species in sympatric newts

Hubácek, J; Šugerková, Monika; Gvoždı́k, Lumı́r

doi:10.7717/peerj.6649

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Giles et al (2009), Ferrara, Vogt, Giles et al (2014), and suggest that such calls are important in social structuring and that their complexity implies that some type of vibrating structure is responsible. The vocal mechanism operates as a closed system and presumably relies upon the shuttling of air, but the anatomical means of sound production remains unknown (Ferrara, Vogt, Giles, et al, 2014), as it does for underwater clicks emitted by newts (Hubáček, Šugerková, & Gvoždík, 2019).…”

Section: Vocalization and The Vocal Apparatus Of Reptile Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vocalization by extant nonavian reptiles: A synthetic overview of phonation and the vocal apparatus

Russell

Bauer

2020

The Anatomical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among amniote vertebrates, nonavian reptiles (chelonians, crocodilians, and lepidosaurs) are regarded as using vocal signals rarely (compared to birds and mammals). In all three reptilian clades, however, certain taxa emit distress calls and advertisement calls using modifications of regions of the upper respiratory tract. There is no central tendency in either acoustic mechanisms or the structure of the vocal apparatus, and many taxa that vocalize emit only relatively simple sounds. Available evidence indicates multiple origins of true vocal abilities within these lineages. Reptiles thus provide opportunities for studying the early evolutionary stages of vocalization. The early literature on the diversity of form of the laryngotracheal apparatus of reptiles boded well for the study of form-function relationships, but this potential was not extensively explored. Emphasis shifted away from anatomy, however, and centered instead on acoustic analysis of the sounds that are produced. New investigative techniques have provided novel ways of studying the form-function aspects of the structures involved in phonation and have brought anatomical investigation to the forefront again. In this review we summarize what is known about hearing in reptiles in order to contextualize the vocal signals they generate and the sound-producing mechanisms responsible for them. The diversity of form of the sound producing apparatus and the increasing evidence that reptiles are more dependent upon vocalization as a communication medium than previously thought indicates that they have a significant role to play in the understanding of the evolution of vocalization in amniotes.

show abstract

Section: Vocalization and The Vocal Apparatus Of Reptile Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vocalization by extant nonavian reptiles: A synthetic overview of phonation and the vocal apparatus

Russell

Bauer

2020

The Anatomical Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the ten families of caecilians, we found evidence of acoustic communication in representatives of four of them (Dermophiidae, Grandisoniidae, Ichthyophiidae and Siphonopidae) [16][17][18][19] . In salamanders, eight out of 10 families have representatives known to produce vocalisations, with evidence being absent only in Hynobiidae and Rhyacotritonidae [18][19][20][21][22] . We also found evidence for acoustic communication in all species of frogs of the genera Ascaphus 23,24 and Leiopelma [24][25][26] .…”

Section: Origins Of Acoustic Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common evolutionary origin of acoustic communication in choanate vertebrates

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acoustic communication, broadly distributed along the vertebrate phylogeny, plays a fundamental role in parental care, mate attraction and various other behaviours. Despite its importance, comparatively less is known about the evolutionary roots of acoustic communication. Phylogenetic comparative analyses can provide insights into the deep time evolutionary origin of acoustic communication, but they are often plagued by missing data from key species. Here we present evidence for 53 species of four major clades (turtles, tuatara, caecilian and lungfish) in the form of vocal recordings and contextual behavioural information accompanying sound production. This and a broad literature-based dataset evidence acoustic abilities in several groups previously considered non-vocal. Critically, phylogenetic analyses encompassing 1800 species of choanate vertebrates reconstructs acoustic communication as a homologous trait, and suggests that it is at least as old as the last common ancestor of all choanate vertebrates, that lived approx. 407 million years before present.

show abstract

The role of freshwater bioacoustics in ecological research

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conventional methodologies used to estimate biodiversity in freshwater ecosystems can be nonselective and invasive, sometimes leading to capture and potential injury of vulnerable species. Therefore, interest in noninvasive surveying techniques is growing among freshwater ecologists. Passive acoustic monitoring, the noninvasive recording of environmental sounds, has been shown to effectively survey biota in terrestrial and marine ecosystems. However, knowledge of the sounds produced by freshwater species is relatively scarce. Furthermore, little is known about the representation of different freshwater taxonomic groups and habitat types within the literature. Here we present results of a systematic review of research literature on freshwater bioacoustics and identify promising areas of future research. The review showed that fish are the focal taxonomic group in 44% of published studies and were studied primarily in laboratory aquaria and lotic habitats. By contrast, lentic habitats and other taxonomic groups have received relatively little research interest. It is particularly striking that arthropods are only represented by 26% of studies, despite their significant contributions to freshwater soundscapes. This indicates a mismatch between the representation of taxonomic groups within the freshwater bioacoustic literature and their relative acoustic contribution to natural freshwater soundscapes. In addition, the review indicates an ongoing shift from behavioral studies, often with focus on a single taxonomic group, towards fieldbased studies using ecoacoustic approaches. On the basis of this review we suggest that future freshwater bioacoustics research should focus on passive acoustic monitoring and arthropod sound, which would likely yield novel insights into freshwater ecosystem function and condition.

show abstract

Underwater sound production varies within not between species in sympatric newts

Cited by 4 publications

References 29 publications

Vocalization by extant nonavian reptiles: A synthetic overview of phonation and the vocal apparatus

Vocalization by extant nonavian reptiles: A synthetic overview of phonation and the vocal apparatus

Common evolutionary origin of acoustic communication in choanate vertebrates

The role of freshwater bioacoustics in ecological research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About