4.5 Article

Development of vocalization, auditory sensitivity and acoustic communication in the Lusitanian toadfish Halobatrachus didactylus

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
Volume 211, Issue 4, Pages 502-509

Publisher

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.008474

Keywords

ontogeny; sound spectra; hearing; auditory evoked potential; acoustic communication; Halobatrachus didactylus

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ontogenetic development of acoustic communication has so far only been investigated in one fish species. In order to determine whether detectability of conspecific sounds changes during growth in a species with limited hearing abilities (generalist), we investigated the development of auditory sensitivity and agonistic vocalizations in the Lusitanian toadfish Halobatrachus didactylus. Agonistic grunts were recorded, their sound pressure levels determined, and auditory sensitivities measured in five different size groups ranging from 3 to 32 cm standard length. Hearing thresholds were obtained using the auditory evoked potentials (AEP) recording technique. Dominant frequency, sound duration and number of pulses decreased, whereas pulse period and sound level increased with increasing fish size. The best hearing was below 300 Hz in all groups. Lower hearing sensitivity was found in the smallest juveniles at 100 Hz as well as at higher frequencies (800 and 1000 Hz). Comparisons between audiograms and sound spectra within the same-sized fish revealed that smaller juveniles would be barely able to detect agonistic grunts, while these vocalizations were clearly perceived by larger fish. In the latter, the main energy of sounds was found at the most sensitive frequencies. This study demonstrates that acoustic communication in the Lusitanian toadfish might be absent in early developmental stages and seems to start when juveniles are able to generate grunts of higher sound level and lower dominant frequency.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available