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.
Acoustic Signal Song Type Acoustic Performance Song Repertoire Song Performance
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.
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 141:935–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumstein DT, Turner AC (2005) Can the acoustic adaptation hypothesis predict the structure of Australian birdsong? Acta Ethol 15:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckle M, Preninger D, Hödl W (2009) Communication in noisy environments. I: Acoustic signals of Staurois latopalmatus Boulenger 1887. Herpetologica 65(2):154–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 21:134–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 8:714–716PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naguib M (2003) Reverberation of rapid and slow trills: implications for signal adaptations to long-range communication. J Acoust Soc Am 113:1749–1756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naguib M, Mennill DJ (2010) The signal value of birdsong: empirical evidence suggests song overlapping is a signal. Anim Behav 80:e11–e15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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):620–626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patten MA, Rotemberry JT, Zuk M (2004) Habitat selection, acoustic adaptation, and the evolution of reproductive isolation. Evolution 58(10):2144–2155PubMedGoogle Scholar
Planquè R, Slabbekoorn H (2008) Spectral overlap in songs and temporal avoidance in a Peruvian bird assemblage. Ethology 114:262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podos J (1997) A performance constraint on the evolution of trilled vocalizations in songbird family (Passerifomes: Emberizidae). Evolution 51:537–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz JJ (1993) Male calling behavior, female discrimination and acoustic interference in the neotropical treefrog Hyla microcephala under realistic acoustic conditions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:401–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seddon N (2005) Ecological adaptation and species recognition drives vocal evolution in neotropical suboscine birds. Evolution 59(1):200–215PubMedGoogle Scholar
Sinsch U, Lumkemann K, Rosar K (2012) Acoustic niche partitioning in an anuran community inhabiting an Afromontane wetland (Butare, Rwanda). Afr Zool 47(1):60–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sueur J (2002) Cicada acoustic communication: potential sound partitioning in a multispecies community from Mexico (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Cicadidae). Biol J Linn Soc 75:379–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasconcelos TS, Rossa-Feres DC (2008) Habitat heterogeneity and use of physical and acoustic space in anuran communities in Southeastern Brazil. Phyllomedusa 7(2):127–142Google Scholar
Wallschlager D (1980) Correlation of song frequency and body weight in passerine birds. Experientia (Basel) 36:412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelick R, Narins PM (1985) Characterization of the advertisement call oscillator in the frog Elutherodactylus coqui. J Comp Physiol A 156:223–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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):520–526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar