Abstract
Four major hypotheses are considered relevant in the perceiving and communicating processes common to all animal species: the morphological adaptation hypothesis (MAH), acoustic adaptation hypothesis (AAH), acoustic niche hypothesis (ANH), and species recognition hypothesis (SRH).
The morphological adaptation hypothesis (MAH) refers to the role of body size as a biological constraint of the vocalization organs and their acoustic performances, confirming an inverse relationship between acoustic frequencies and body size.
The acoustic adaptation hypothesis (AAH) states that the environment is an important cause of modification and alteration of the acoustic signals. Dominant frequencies and other long-distance calls are the result of an interaction between the animals and the environment to maximize the efficiency of the emitted sounds. Frequency and structure of the acoustic repertoire are plastic traits that can be modified according to the environmental constraint.
The acoustic niche hypothesis (ANH) states that every species has a unique acoustic space in which to structure the sonic species-specific signature to reduce interspecific competition and to optimize intraspecific communication mechanisms.
The species recognition hypothesis (SRH) supposes that species living in sympatry try to reduce the risk of utilizing similar sonic traits that could confound species in reproduction and create the risk of hybridizations. This set of hypotheses has epistemic relationships to form a meta-bioacoustic theory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Blumenrath SH, Dabelsteen T (2004) Degradation of great tit (Parus major) song before and after foliation: implications for vocal communication in a deciduous forest. Behaviour 141:935–958
Blumstein DT, Turner AC (2005) Can the acoustic adaptation hypothesis predict the structure of Australian birdsong? Acta Ethol 15:35–44
Boeckle M, Preninger D, Hödl W (2009) Communication in noisy environments. I: Acoustic signals of Staurois latopalmatus Boulenger 1887. Herpetologica 65(2):154–165
Boncoraglio G, Saino N (2007) Habitat structure and the evolution of bird song: a meta-analysis of the evidence for the acoustic adaptation hypothesis. Funct Ecol 21:134–142
Both C, Grant T (2012) Biological invasions and the acoustic niche: the effect of bullfrog calls on the acoustic signals of white-banded tree frog. Biol Lett 8:714–716
Brandley N, Burns M (2007) Effects of habitat and location on chipping sparrow song characteristics. http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/57457
Brown TJ, Handford P (1996) Acoustical signal amplitude patterns: a computer simulation investigation of the acoustic adaptation hypothesis. The Condor 98:608–623
Brown TJ, Handford P (2000) Sound design for vocalizations: quality in the woods, consistency in the fields. The Condor 102:81–92
Brumm H (2006) Signaling through acoustic windows: nightingales avoid interspecific competition by short-term adjustment of song timing. J Comp Physiol A 192:1279–1285
Burns M (2007) Song divergence of chipping sparrow in mixed forest and open habitats: testing the Acoustic Adaptation Hypothesis. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/57458/1/Burns_Melissa_2007.pdf
Daniel JC, Blumstein DT (1998) A test of the acoustic adaptation hypothesis in four species of marmots. Anim Behav 56:1517–1528
Derryberry EP (2009) Ecology shapes birdsong evolution: variation in morphology and habitat explains variation in white-crowned sparrow song. Am Nat 174:24–33
Dubois A, Martens J (1984) A case of possible vocal convergence between frogs and a bird in Himalayan torrents. J Ornithol 125:455–463
Ey E, Fischer J (2009) The “acoustic adaptation hypothesis:” a review of the evidence from birds, anurans and mammals. Bioacoustics 19:21–48
Feng AS, Narins PM, Xu C-H, Lin W-Y, Yu Z-L, Qiu Q, Xu Z-M (2006) Ultrasonic communication in frogs. Nature 440:333–336
Fletcher NH (2004) A simple frequency-scaling rule for animal communication. J Acoust Soc Am 115:2334–2338
Fletcher NH (2007) Animal bioacoustics. In: Rossing TD (ed) Springer handbook of acoustics. Springer, New York, pp 785–802
Henry CS, Wells MM (2010) Acoustic niche partitioning in two cryptic sibling species of Chrysoperla green lacewing that must duet before mating. Anim Behav 80:991–1003
Hutchinson GE (1959) Homage to Santa Rosalia, or why are there so many kinds of animals? Am Nat 93:145–159
Kingery H (1996) American dipper: Cinclus mexicanus. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia
Krause B (1993) The niche hypothesis. Soundsc Newsl 6:6–10
Krause B (2012) The great animal orchestra. Little, Brown, New York
Malavasi R, Farina A (2013) Neighbours’ talk: interspecific choruses among songbirds. Bioacoustics 22(1):33–48
Marten K, Marler P (1977) Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalization. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2:271–290
Morton E (1975) Ecological sources of selection on avian sounds. Am Nat 109:17–34
Naguib M (2003) Reverberation of rapid and slow trills: implications for signal adaptations to long-range communication. J Acoust Soc Am 113:1749–1756
Naguib M, Mennill DJ (2010) The signal value of birdsong: empirical evidence suggests song overlapping is a signal. Anim Behav 80:e11–e15
Nemeth E, Dabelsteen T, Pedersen SB, Winkler H (2006) Rainforests as concert halls for birds: are reverberations improving sound transmission of long song elements? J Acoust Soc Am 119(1):620–626
Patten MA, Rotemberry JT, Zuk M (2004) Habitat selection, acoustic adaptation, and the evolution of reproductive isolation. Evolution 58(10):2144–2155
Planquè R, Slabbekoorn H (2008) Spectral overlap in songs and temporal avoidance in a Peruvian bird assemblage. Ethology 114:262–271
Podos J (1997) A performance constraint on the evolution of trilled vocalizations in songbird family (Passerifomes: Emberizidae). Evolution 51:537–551
Schwartz JJ (1993) Male calling behavior, female discrimination and acoustic interference in the neotropical treefrog Hyla microcephala under realistic acoustic conditions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:401–414
Seddon N (2005) Ecological adaptation and species recognition drives vocal evolution in neotropical suboscine birds. Evolution 59(1):200–215
Sinsch U, Lumkemann K, Rosar K (2012) Acoustic niche partitioning in an anuran community inhabiting an Afromontane wetland (Butare, Rwanda). Afr Zool 47(1):60–73
Slabbekoorn H, den Boer-Visser A (2006) Cities change the songs of birds. Curr Biol 16:2326–2331
Slabbekoorn H, Ellers J, Smith TB (2002) Birdsong and sound transmission: the benefits of reverberations. Condor 104:564–573
Slagsvold T, Wiebe KL (2007) Learning the ecological niche. Proc R Soc B 274:19–23
Sueur J (2002) Cicada acoustic communication: potential sound partitioning in a multispecies community from Mexico (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Cicadidae). Biol J Linn Soc 75:379–394
Vasconcelos TS, Rossa-Feres DC (2008) Habitat heterogeneity and use of physical and acoustic space in anuran communities in Southeastern Brazil. Phyllomedusa 7(2):127–142
Wallschlager D (1980) Correlation of song frequency and body weight in passerine birds. Experientia (Basel) 36:412
Zelick R, Narins PM (1985) Characterization of the advertisement call oscillator in the frog Elutherodactylus coqui. J Comp Physiol A 156:223–229
Ziegler L, Arim M, Narins PM (2011) Linking amphibian call structure to the environment: the interplay between phenotypic flexibility and individual attributes. Behav Ecol 22(3):520–526
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Farina, A. (2014). Bioacoustics Theories. In: Soundscape Ecology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7374-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7374-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7373-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7374-5
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)