Use of the swim bladder and lateral line in near-field sound source localization by fishes

Abstract

We investigated the roles of the swim bladder and the lateral line system in sound localization behavior by the plainfin midshipman fish (Porichthys notatus). Reproductive female midshipman underwent either surgical deflation of the swim bladder or cryoablation of the lateral line and were then tested in a monopolar sound source localization task. Fish with nominally 'deflated' swim bladders performed similar to sham-deflated controls; however, postexperiment evaluation of swim bladder deflation revealed that a majority of 'deflated' fish (88%, seven of the eight fish) that exhibited positive phonotaxis had partially inflated swim bladders. In total, 95% (21/22) of fish that localized the source had at least partially inflated swim bladders, indicating that pressure reception is likely required for sound source localization. In lateral line experiments, no difference was observed in the proportion of females exhibiting positive phonotaxis with ablated (37%) versus sham-ablated (47%) lateral line systems. These data suggest that the lateral line system is likely not required for sound source localization, although this system may be important for fine-tuning the approach to the sound source. We found that midshipman can solve the 180 deg ambiguity of source direction in the shallow water of our test tank, which is similar to their nesting environment. We also found that the potential directional cues (phase relationship between pressure and particle motion) in shallow water differs from a theoretical free-field. Therefore, the general question of how fish use acoustic pressure cues to solve the 180 deg ambiguity of source direction from the particle motion vector remains unresolved.

Mechanisms of Fish Sound Production

“…pomacentrids (Myrberg and Spires 1980), cods (Sand and Hawkins 1973) and midshipman (Coffin et al 2014)], suggesting species differences in the ability to detect pressure. However, these studies do not rule out the possibility of an unknown conducting pathway between the bladder and the ears (see treatment of pomacentrid sound production below) requiring further work to settle this question.…”

Silver, bighead, and common carp orient to acoustic particle motion when avoiding a complex sound

“…However, although the capacity for directional hearing in fish is relatively well described [1–4], only a handful of experimental studies have tested how it is mediated. These studies have shown that both sound pressure and particle motion can play very different, and independent roles in the oriented movement of fish seeking a sound source (positive phonotaxis) [5–9]. In contrast, although sound induced repulsion (negative phonotaxis) has also been described in a few species of fish, the sensory cues responsible for these responses have not yet been explicitly described so are unknown [10–14].…”

Coral reef soundscapes : spatiotemporal variability and links to species assemblages

“…Propagation of reef sounds is likely to vary considerably based on source amplitude and spectral characteristics, bathymetry, bottom type, sea state, temperature, and salinity (Rogers and Cox, 1988). While some recent investigations of fish orientation behavior have directly measured particle motion in the lab (e.g., Zeddies et al, 2012;Coffin et al, 2014), until recently there have been no direct field measurements of coral reef acoustic particle motion. Such field measurements of both particle motion and sound pressure at a range of distances from a reef are required to assess the distances over which reef sound might act as a relevant cue for settlement-stage larval fishes and invertebrates.…”