Acoustic Communication in Pomatoschistus spp.: A Comparison Between Closely Related Species

  • Silvia S. Pedroso
  • Marta Bolgan
  • Joana M. Jordão
  • Paulo J. Fonseca
  • M. Clara P. Amorim
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 730)

Abstract

Many vertebrates, including teleosts, rely on acoustic signals for communication (Myrberg and Lugli 2006). Sound production has been documented in four species of sand gobies (Pomatoschistus). Males of the sand (P. minutus), marbled (P. marmoratus), and canestrini (P. canestrinii) gobies produce low-frequency pulsed sounds when females enter the nest (Lugli and Torricelli 1999). The male painted goby (P. pictus) also produces similar drumming sounds outside the nest during courtship (Amorim and Neves 2007). These drumming sounds present interspecific differences, suggesting that they could potentially be used in species-specific recognition (see Table 1).

Keywords

Lateral Compartment Gravid Female Territorial Male Sound Production Acoustic Communication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Amorim MCP, Neves ASM (2007) Acoustic signaling during courtship in the painted goby, Pomatochistus pictus. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 87:1017–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amoser S, Wysocki LE, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Lugli M, Torricelli P (1999) Pre-spawning sound production in mediterranean sand-gobies. J Fish Biol 54:691–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Malavasi S, Collatuzzo S, Torricelli P (2008) Interspecific variation of acoustic signals in Mediterranean gobies (Perciformes, Gobiidae): Comparative analysis and evolutionary outlook. Biol J Linn Soc 93:763–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Myrberg AA Jr, Lugli M (2006) Diversity of sound production in fish. In: Ladich F, Collin SP, Moller P, Kapoor BG (eds) Communication in fishes, vol. 1, Science Publishers, Enfield, NH, pp 149–176.Google Scholar
  6. Smith ME, Coffin AB, Miller DL, Popper AN (2006) Anatomical and functional recovery of the goldfish (Carassius auratus) ear following noise exposure. J Exp Biol 209: 4193–4202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silvia S. Pedroso
    • 1
  • Marta Bolgan
    • 2
  • Joana M. Jordão
    • 3
  • Paulo J. Fonseca
    • 3
  • M. Clara P. Amorim
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto Superior de Psicologia AplicadaUnidade de Investigação em Eco-EtologiaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Facoltà di Scienze Matematiche, Fisiche e Naturali, Dipartimento di Scienze della Vita-CSEEUniversity of TriesteTriesteItaly
  3. 3.Centro de Biologia Ambiental, Departamento de Biologia AnimalFaculdade de Ciências da Universidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations