4.5 Article

Vocalisations of the bigeye Pempheris adspersa: characteristics, source level and active space

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
Volume 218, Issue 6, Pages 940-948

Publisher

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.115295

Keywords

Contact call; Active space; Ambient sound; Fish; Vocalisations

Categories

Funding

  1. Glenn Family Foundation
  2. Royal Society of New Zealand
  3. Government of Malaysia
  4. UKM

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fish sounds are an important biological component of the underwater soundscape. Understanding species-specific sounds and their associated behaviour is critical for determining how animals use the biological component of the soundscape. Using both field and laboratory experiments, we describe the sound production of a nocturnal planktivore, Pempheris adspersa (New Zealand bigeye), and provide calculations for the potential effective distance of the sound for intraspecific communication. Bigeye vocalisations recorded in the field were confirmed as such by tank recordings. They can be described as popping sounds, with individual pops of short duration (7.9 +/- 0.3 ms) and a peak frequency of 405 +/- 12 Hz. Sound production varied during a 24 h period, with peak vocalisation activity occurring during the night, when the fish are most active. The source level of the bigeye vocalisation was 115.8 +/- 0.2 dB re. 1 mu Pa at 1 m, which is relatively quiet compared with other soniferous fish. Effective calling range, or active space, depended on both season and lunar phase, with a maximum calling distance of 31.6 m and a minimum of 0.6 m. The bigeyes' nocturnal behaviour, characteristics of their vocalisation, source level and the spatial scale of its active space reported in the current study demonstrate the potential for fish vocalisations to function effectively as contact calls for maintaining school cohesion in darkness.

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