Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transmission loss of Fish Spawning Vocalizations and the Detection Range of Passive Acoustic Sampling in Very Shallow Estuarine Environments

  • Published:
Estuaries and Coasts Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Acoustic signaling in fish is commonly associated with spawning and sound production has been used to identify spawning sites for multiple species. However, the transmission loss of those signals and subsequent ranges at which those sounds can be detected are often not accounted for, confounding the spatial resolution of those studies. We examined transmission loss of spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus) vocalizations in four habitat types (mud, seagrass, channel edges, and structures) within the very shallow (< 10 m) environment of an estuary. Recorded C. nebulosus vocalizations were projected through an underwater speaker while hydrophones measured the sound pressure levels along transects at doubling distances 2–512 m from the source. A linear-log regression was used to compare transmission loss across sites as a function of distance, and a mixed effects model was used to estimate the impact of distance, water depth, temperature, and salinity on the rate of transmission loss. Sounds were rapidly attenuated as the slopes of the regression lines ranged from − 14.9 to − 22.9 and were significantly different among sites. After distance from the source, water depth had the greatest effect on transmission loss in the mixed effects model, although sound is likely propagating through the sediment at all sites. Sound was most quickly attenuated in the channel edge habitat and least attenuated in the mud habitat. Considering the rate of transmission loss, the estimated source level of C. nebulosus sounds, and the background noise level during spawning, the detection range of passive acoustic sampling varied between 44 and 281 m from the source. These results indicate that the spatial precision of passive acoustic sampling of fish within the estuary is < 281 m, but that habitat type and water depth should also be considered when designing sampling protocols and estimating the location of vocalizing fish.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amorim, M.C.P., R.O. Vasconcelos, and P.J. Fonseca. 2015. Fish sounds and mate choice. In Sound Communication in Fishes, ed. F. Ladich, 1–33. Wien Heidlberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Au, W.L., and M.C. Hastings. 2008. Principles of marine bioacoustics modern acoustics and signal processing, 688. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baltz, D.M. 2002. Spotted seatrout spawning requirements and essential fish habitat: a micro habitat approach using hydrophones. 24. An international workshop on the application of passive acoustics in fisheries. MIT Seagrant, Massachusetts.

  • Bates, D., M. Mächler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67 (1): 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, C.R. 2019. Relationships between the behavioral dynamics of fish spawning aggregations and reproductive resilience. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Texas at Austin. 170.

  • Biggs, C.R., S. Lowerre-Barbieri, and B. Erisman. 2018. Reproductive resilience of an estuarine fish in the eye of a hurricane. Biology Letters 14: 10–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham, M.J. 1992. Ocean-acoustic propagation models. Journal Acoutique 3: 223–287.

  • Buczkowski, B.J. 2020. Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands) offshore surficial sediment data release, version 1.0. Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin. https://cgis.glo.texas.gov/txsed/index.html. Accessed November 10, 2020.

  • Clay, C.S., and H. Medwin. 1977. Acoustical oceanography: principles and applications. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Codarin, A., L.E. Wysocki, F. Ladich, and M. Picciulin. 2009. Effects of ambient and boat noise on hearing and communication in three fish species living in a marine protected area (Miramare, Italy). Marine Pollution Bulletin 58 (12): 1880–1887.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, M.R., B.M. Callahan, and W.C. Post. 2001. Spawning aggregations of recreationally important Sciaenid species in the Savannah Harbor: spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus, red drum Sciaenops ocellatus, weakfish Cynoscion regalis, and black drum Pogonias cromis. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, South Carolina.

  • Collins, M.R., B. Callahan, B. Post, and A. Avildsen. 2003. Locating sciaenid spawning aggregations in anticipation of harbor modifications, and reactions of spotted seatrout spawners to acoustic disturbance. In Listening to Fish, Passive acoustic applications to marine fisheries, 11–14. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congdon, V.M., S.S. Wilson, and K.H. Dunton. 2017. Evaluation of relationships between cover estimates and biomass in subtropical seagrass meadows and application to landscape estimates of carbon storage. Southeastern Geographer 57 (3): 231–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connaughton, M.A., and M.H. Taylor. 1995. Seasonal and daily cycles in sound production associated with spawning in the weakfish, Cynoscion regalis. Environmental Biology of Fishes 42 (3): 233–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deyanova, D., M. Gullströ, L.D. Lyimo, M. Dahl, M.I. Hamisi, and M.S.P. Mtolera. 2017. Contribution of seagrass plants to CO2 capture in a tropical seagrass meadow under experimental disturbance. PLOS ONE 12: 1–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, A.J., and A.L. Maggi. 2006. A consistent, user friendly interface for running a variety of underwater acoustic propagation codes. Proceedings of Acoustics 2006: 471–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erisman, B.E., and T.J. Rowell. 2017. A sound worth saving: acoustic characteristics of a massive fish spawning aggregation. Biology Letters 13 (12): 20170656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, A., K. Madden, and S. Morehead-Palmer. 2005. The ecology and sociology of the Mission-Aransas estuary; an estuarine and watershed profile. Mission-Aransas National Estuarine Research Reserve. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.38.1.145.

  • Fine, M.L., and M.L. Lenhardt. 1983. Shallow-water propagation of the toadfish mating call. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology -- Part A: Physiology 76 (2): 225–231.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, M.L., H.E. Winn, L. Joest, and P.J. Perkins. 1977. Communication in fishes. In How Animals Communicate, ed. T.A. Sebeok, 472–518. Bloomington: University of Indian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, M.P., and W.H. Mowbray. 1970. Sounds of western North Atlantic fishes; a reference file of biological underwater sounds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, T.G., G.L. Miller, and J.R. Zagar. 1993. Sound propagation in shallow water: Implications for acoustic communication by aquatic animals. Bioacoustics 4 (4): 259–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmore, R.G. 2003. Sound production and communication in the spotted seatrout. In Biology of the spotted seatrout, ed. S.A. Bortone, 1st ed., 177–195. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

  • Gray, G.A., and H.E. Winn. 1961. Reproductive ecology and sound production of the Toadfish, Opsanus tau. Ecology 28: 274–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, C.H. 1989. Ocean propagation models. Applied Acoustics 27 (3): 163–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastings, P.A., and A. Širović. 2015. Soundscapes offer unique opportunities for studies of fish communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (19): 5866–5867.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, A.D., and A.A. Myrberg. 1983. Hearing and sound communication under water. In Bioacoustics, a comparative approach, 347–405. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, A.D., and A.N. Popper. 2018. Directional hearing and sound source localization by fishes. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 144 (6): 3329–3350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermand, J.P., P. Nascetti, and F. Cinelli. 1998. Inversion of acoustic waveguide propagation features to measure oxygen synthesis by Posidonia oceanica, 919–926 IEEE Oceanic Engineering Society. OCEANS’98. Conference Proceedings. IEEE, Nice, France.

  • Holt, G.J., S.A. Holt, and C.R. Arnold. 1985. Diel periodicity of spawning in sciaenids. Marine Ecology Progress Series 27: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps027001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horodysky, A.Z., R.W. Brill, M.L. Fine, J.A. Musick, and R.J. Latour. 2008. Acoustic pressure and particle motion thresholds in six sciaenid fishes. Journal of Experimental Biology 211 (9): 1504–1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, F.B., and W.A. Kuperman. 1983. Optimum frequency of propagation in shallow water environments. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 73 (3): 813–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J.R., G.R. Venegas, P.S. Wilson, and J.-P. Hermand. 2017. Low frequency acoustic properties of Posidonia oceanica seagrass leaf blades. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 141 (6): EL555–EL560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kibblewhite, A.C. 1989. Attenuation of sound in marine sediments: a review with emphasis on new low-frequency data. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 86 (2): 716–738. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.398195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krahforst, C.S., J.P. Walsh, M.W. Sprague, D.O. Eulie, D.R. Corbett, and J.J. Luczkovich. 2012. Influence of turbidity on the incidence of sound production in Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) in Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. In The effects of noise on aquatic life, ed. Arthur N. Popper and Anthony Hawkins, 169–171. New York: Springer New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ladich, F. 1997. Agonistic behaviour and significance of sounds in vocalizing fish. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 29 (1-4): 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenth, R., H. Singmann, J. Love, P. Buerkner, and M. Herve. 2020. Emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1 (1): 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobel, P.S. 1992. Sounds produced by spawning fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 33 (4): 351–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobel, P.S., I.M. Kaatz, and A.N. Rice. 2010. Acoustical behavior of coral reef fishes. In Reproduction and sexuality in marine fishes, ed. K.S. Cole, 307–386. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520264335.003.0010.

  • Locascio, J.V., and D.A. Mann. 2011. Localization and source level estimates of black drum (Pogonias cromis) calls. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 130 (4): 1868–1879. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3621514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowerre-Barbieri, S., G. DeCelles, P. Pepin, I.A. Catalán, B. Muhling, B. Erisman, S.X. Cadrin, J. Alós, A. Ospina-Alvarez, M.M. Stachura, M.D. Tringali, S.W. Burnsed, and C.B. Paris. 2017. Reproductive resilience: a paradigm shift in understanding spawner-recruit systems in exploited marine fish. Fish and Fisheries 18 (2): 285–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luczkovich, J.J., and M.W. Sprague. 2011. Speciation and sounds of fishes: dividing up the bandwidth, 1–11 Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics. Seattle, WA.

  • Luczkovich, J.J., H.J. Daniel, and M.W. Sprague. 1999. Characterization of critical spawning habitats of weakfish, spotted seatrout and red drum in Pamlico Sound using hydrophone surveys. Final Report and Annual Performance Report:1–128.

  • Luczkovich, J.J., D.A. Mann, and R.A. Rountree. 2008. Passive acoustics as a tool in fisheries science. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137 (2): 533–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luczkovich, J.J., R.C. Pullinger, S.E. Johnson, and M.W. Sprague. 2008b. Identifying Sciaenid critical spawning habitats by the use of passive acoustics. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137: 576–605. https://doi.org/10.1577/T05-290.1

  • Luczkovich, J.J., C.S. Krahforst, K.E. Kelly, and M.W. Sprague. 2017. The Lombard effect in fishes: how boat noise impacts oyster toadfish vocalization amplitudes in natural experiments. Procedings of Meetings on Acoustics 27. https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000340.

  • Lugli, M. 2015. Habitat acoustics and the low-frequency communication of shallow water fishes. In Sound Communication in Fishes, 175–206. Verlag Wien. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-1846-7.

  • Lugli, M., and M.L. Fine. 2003. Acoustic communication in two freshwater gobies: ambient noise and short-range propagation in shallow streams. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 114 (1): 512–521.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lurton, X. 2010. An introduction to underwater acoustics: principles and applications. Verlag Wien: Springer

  • Mann, D.A. 2016. Acoustic communication in fishes and potential effects of noise. In The effects of noise on aquatic life II, ed. Art Popper and A. Hawkins, 673–678. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2981-8.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, D.A., and P.S. Lobel. 1997. Propagation of damselfish (Pomacentridae) courtship sounds. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101 (6): 3783–3791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, D.A., A.D. Hawkins, and J.M. Jech. 2008. Active and passive acoustics to locate and study fish. In Fish Bioacoustics, ed. J.F. Webb, A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay, 319. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mantouka, A., H. Dogan, P.R. White, and T.G. Leighton. 2016. Modelling acoustic scattering, sound speed, and attenuation in gassy soft marine sediments. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 140 (1): 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4954753.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mok, H., and R.G. Gilmore. 1983. Analysis of sound production in estuarine aggregations of Pogonia cromis, Bairdiella chrysoura, and Cynoscion nebulosus (Sciaenidae). Bulletin Institute Zoology, Academia Sinica 22: 157–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montie, E.W., S. Vega, and M. Powell. 2015. Seasonal and spatial patterns of fish sound production in the May River, South Carolina. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 144 (4): 705–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montie, E.W., M. Hoover, C. Kehrer, J. Yost, K. Brenkert, T. O’Donnell, and M.R. Denson. 2017. Acoustic monitoring indicates a correlation between calling and spawning in captive spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus). PeerJ 5: e2944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myrberg, A.A. 1981. Sound communication and interception in fishes. In Hearing and sound communication in fishes, ed. W.N. Tavolga, A.N. Popper, and R.R. Fay, 395–426. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Officier, C.B. 1958. Introduction to the theory of sound transmission with application to the ocean. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, A.D. 1981. Acoustics: an introduction to its physical principles and applications. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pijanowski, B.C., L.J. Villanueva-Rivera, S.L. Dumyahn, A. Farina, B.L. Krause, B.M. Napoletano, S.H. Gage, and N. Pieretti. 2011. Soundscape ecology: the science of sound in the landscape. BioScience 61 (3): 203–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, A.N., and A.D. Hawkins. 2018. The importance of particle motion to fishes and invertebrates. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 143 (1): 470–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radford, A.N., E. Kerridge, and S.D. Simpson. 2014. Acoustic communication in a noisy world: can fish compete with anthropogenic noise? Behavioral Ecology 25 (5): 1022–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramcharitar, J., and A.N. Popper. 2004. Masked auditory thresholds in sciaenid fishes: a comparative study. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116 (3): 1687–1691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramcharitar, J., D.P. Gannon, and A.N. Popper. 2006a. Bioacoustics of fishes of the family Sciaenidae (croakers and drums). Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135 (5): 1409–1431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramcharitar, J., D. Higgs, and A.N. Popper. 2006b. Audition in sciaenid fishes with different swim bladder-inner ear configurations. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119: 66–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos, A., M.C.P. Amorim, and P.J. Fonseca. 2012. Propagation of Lusitanian toadfish sounds in estuarine shallow waters. In The effects of noise on aquatic life, ed. Arthur N. Popper and Anthony Hawkins, 173–175. New York: Springer New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ricci, S.W., D.B. Eggleston, and D.R. Bohnenstiehl. 2017. Use of passive acoustic monitoring to characterize fish spawning behavior and habitat use within a complex mosaic of estuarine habitats. Bulletin of Marine Science 93 (2): 439–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, P.H., and M. Cox. 1988. Underwater sounds as a biological stimulus. In Sensory Biology of Aquatic Animals, ed. J. Atema, R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper, and W.N. Tavolga, 131–149. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rowell, T.J., D.A. Demer, O. Aburto-Oropeza, J.J. Cota-Nieto, J.R. Hyde, and B.E. Erisman. 2017. Estimating fish abundance at spawning aggregations from courtship sound levels. Scientific Reports 7 (1): 3340.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rowell, T.J., G.L. D’spain, O. Aburto-Oropeza, and B.E. Erisman. 2020. Drivers of male sound production and effective communication distances at fish spawning aggregation sites. ICES Journal of Marine Science 77 (2): 730–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, M.H., and D.M. Baltz. 1993. Spawning site selection by spotted seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus, and black drum, Pogonias cromis, in Louisiana. Environmental Biology of Fishes 36 (3): 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slabbekoorn, H., N. Bouton, I. Van Opzeeland, A. Coers, C. Ten Cate, and A.N. Popper. 2010. A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25 (7): 419–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urick, R.J. 1975. Principles of underwater sound, 384. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasconcelos, R.O., R. Carriço, A. Ramos, T. Modesto, P.J. Fonseca, and M.C.P. Amorim. 2012. Vocal behavior predicts reproductive success in a teleost fish. Behavioral Ecology 23 (2): 375–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, S., S. Lowerre-Barbieri, J. Bickford, and D.A. Mann. 2009. Using a passive acoustic survey to identify spotted seatrout spawning sites and associated habitat in Tampa Bay, Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138 (1): 88–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, W.A., R.A. Calnan, R.A. Morton, R.S. Kimble, T.G. Littleton, J.H. McGowen, H.S. Nance, and K.E. Schmedes. 1983. Submerged lands of Texas, Corpus Christi area: sediments, geochemistry, benthic macroinvertebrates, and associated wetlands. Austin, Texas.

  • Williams, R., A.J. Wright, E. Ashe, L.K. Blight, R. Bruintjes, R. Canessa, C.W. Clark, S. Cullis-Suzuki, D.T. Dakin, C. Erbe, P.S. Hammond, N.D. Merchant, P.D. O’Hara, J. Purser, A.N. Radford, S.D. Simpson, L. Thomas, and M.A. Wale. 2015. Impacts of anthropogenic noise on marine life: publication patterns, new discoveries, and future directions in research and management. Ocean & Coastal Managment 115: 17–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, P.S., and K.H. Dunton. 2009. Laboratory investigation of the acoustic response of seagrass tissue in the frequency band 0.5–2.5 kHz. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125 (4): 1951–1959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, C.J., P.S. Wilson, C.A. Greene, and K.H. Dunton. 2013. Seagrass meadows provide an acoustic refuge for estuarine fish. Marine Ecology Progress Series 472: 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Preston Wilson, Tyler Loughran, Derek Bolser, Arley Muth, and Caitlin Young for their help and input during the study, and Tim Rowell and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on the manuscript.

Funding

Work was funded by the Coastal Conservation Association, Barton Regents Endowed Scholarship, E.J. Lund Scholarship, Abell Family Fund, and the Port Aransas Rod and Reel Club Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marine Science, The University of Texas at Austin, 750 Channel View Drive, Port Aransas, TX, 78373, USA

    Christopher R. Biggs & Brad E. Erisman

Authors
  1. Christopher R. Biggs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brad E. Erisman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher R. Biggs.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Communicated by David G. Kimmel

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 382 kb).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Biggs, C.R., Erisman, B.E. Transmission loss of Fish Spawning Vocalizations and the Detection Range of Passive Acoustic Sampling in Very Shallow Estuarine Environments. Estuaries and Coasts 44, 2026–2038 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-021-00914-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-021-00914-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation