Abstract

Background. Syngnathid fishes produce three kinds of sounds, named click, growl and purr. These sounds are generated by different mechanisms to give a consistent signal pattern or signature which is believed to play a role in intraspecific and interspecific communication. Commonly known sounds are produced when the fish feeds (click, purr) or is under duress (growl). While there are more acoustic studies on seahorses, pipefishes have not received much attention. Here we document the differences in feeding click signals between three species of pipefishes and relate them to cranial morphology and kinesis, or the sound-producing mechanism.Methods. The feeding clicks of two species of freshwater pipefishes, Doryichthys martensii and Doryichthys deokhathoides and one species of estuarine pipefish, Syngnathoides biaculeatus, were recorded by a hydrophone in acoustic dampened tanks. The acoustic signals were analysed using time-scale distribution (or scalogram) based on wavelet transform. A detailed time-varying analysis of the spectral contents of the localized acoustic signal was obtained by jointly interpreting the oscillogram, scalogram and power spectrum. The heads of both Doryichthys species were prepared for microtomographical scans which were analysed using a 3D imaging software. Additionally, the cranial bones of all three species were examined using a clearing and double-staining method for histological studies.Results. The sound characteristics of the feeding click of the pipefish is species-specific, appearing to be dependent on three bones: the supraoccipital, 1st postcranial plate and 2nd postcranial plate. The sounds are generated when the head of the Dorichthyes pipefishes flexes backward during the feeding strike, as the supraoccipital slides backwards, striking and pushing the 1st postcranial plate against (and striking) the 2nd postcranial plate. In the Syngnathoides pipefish, in the absence of the 1st postcranial plate, the supraoccipital rubs against the 2nd postcranial plate twice as it is pulled backward and released on the return. Cranial morphology and kinesis produce acoustic signals consistent with the bone strikes that produce sharp energy spikes (discrete or merged), or stridulations between bones that produce repeated or multimodal sinusoidal waveforms.Discussion. The variable structure of the sound-producing mechanism explains the unique acoustic signatures of the three species of pipefish. The differences in cranial bone morphology, cranial kinesis and acoustic signatures among pipefishes (and seahorses) could be attributed to independent evolution within the Syngnathidae, which warrants further investigation.

Highlights

  • Teleost fishes are known to produce acoustic signals for intraspecific and interspecific communication (Fish & Mowbray, 1970; Kasumyan, 2008)

  • Acoustic signals in fishes are mainly produced by stridulation, swim bladder pulsation, hydrodynamic movement, tendon vibration and air release, a consistent sound pattern (Fine et al, 1997; Kaatz, 2002; Fine & Parmentier, 2015)

  • The feeding strikes and sound clicks produced in Syngnathus fuscus and Syngnathus floridae was described by Ripley & Foran (2007)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Teleost fishes are known to produce acoustic signals for intraspecific and interspecific communication (Fish & Mowbray, 1970; Kasumyan, 2008). Syngnathid fishes produce three kinds of sounds, named click, growl and purr These sounds are generated by different mechanisms to give a consistent signal pattern or signature which is believed to play a role in intraspecific and interspecific communication. We document the differences in feeding click signals between three species of pipefishes and relate them to cranial morphology and kinesis, or the sound-producing mechanism. A detailed time-varying analysis of the spectral contents of the localized acoustic signal was obtained by jointly interpreting the oscillogram, scalogram and power spectrum The heads of both Doryichthys species were prepared for microtomographical scans which were analysed using a 3D imaging software. The differences in cranial bone morphology, cranial kinesis and acoustic signatures among pipefishes

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.