Affiliation:
1. University of Vienna, Department of Neurobiology and Behavior,Althanstrasse 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria
Abstract
SUMMARYSeveral groups of fishes, among them two thirds of all freshwater fishes,have developed hearing specializations that enhance auditory sensitivity and broaden frequency ranges compared with hearing non-specialists (generalists),which lack such adaptations. It has been speculated that the enhanced sensitivities of these so-called hearing specialists have evolved in quiet habitats such as lakes, backwaters of rivers, slowly flowing streams or the deep sea. To test this hypothesis, noise levels and frequency spectra of four different freshwater habitats near Vienna, Austria (Danube River, Triesting stream, Lake Neusiedl, backwaters of the Danube River), were recorded and played back to native fish species while simultaneously measuring their auditory thresholds using the auditory evoked potential (AEP) recording technique. As a representative of hearing specialists, we chose the common carp (Cyprinus carpio, Cyprinidae) and for the hearing generalists the European perch (Perca fluviatilis, Percidae). Data show that the carp's hearing is only moderately masked by the quiet habitat noise level of standing waters (mean threshold shift 9 dB) but is heavily affected by stream and river noise by up to 49 dB in its best hearing range (0.5-1.0 kHz). In contrast, the perch's hearing thresholds were only slightly affected (mean up to 12 dB, at 0.1 kHz) by the highest noise levels presented. Our results indicate that hearing abilities of specialists such as carp are well adapted to the lowest noise levels encountered in freshwater habitats and that their hearing is considerably masked in some parts of their distribution range. Hearing in non-specialists such as perch, on the other hand, is only slightly or not at all impaired in all habitats.
Publisher
The Company of Biologists
Subject
Insect Science,Molecular Biology,Animal Science and Zoology,Aquatic Science,Physiology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference67 articles.
1. Amoser, S., Wysocki, L. E. and Ladich, F.(2004). Noise emission during the first powerboat race in an Alpine lake and potential impact on fish communities. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.116,3789-3797.
2. Bass, A. H. and Clark, C. W. (2003). The physical acoustics of underwater sound communication. In Acoustic Communication (ed. A. M. Simmons, A. N. Popper and R. R. Fay),pp. 15-64. New York: Springer.
3. Bom, N. (1969). Effect of rain on underwater noise level. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.45,150-156.
4. Boussard, A. (1981). The reactions of roach(Rutilus rutilus) and rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus) to noises produced by high speed boating. Proc. 2nd Brit. Freshw. Fish. Conf.188-200.
5. Bregman, A. S. (1990). Auditory Scene Analysis. The Perceptual Organisation of Sound. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Cited by
101 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献