Limits...
Hearing in cichlid fishes under noise conditions.

Ladich F, Schulz-Mirbach T - PLoS ONE (2013)

Bottom Line: This does not reflect the situation in natural habitats, where ambient noise may mask their hearing sensitivities.Our data showed for the first time for SPL and PAL thresholds that the specialized species was masked by different noise regimes at almost all frequencies, whereas the non-specialized species was much less affected.This indicates that noise can limit sound detection and acoustic orientation differently within a single fish family.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Behavioural Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. friedrich.ladich@univie.ac.at

ABSTRACT

Background: Hearing thresholds of fishes are typically acquired under laboratory conditions. This does not reflect the situation in natural habitats, where ambient noise may mask their hearing sensitivities. In the current study we investigate hearing in terms of sound pressure (SPL) and particle acceleration levels (PAL) of two cichlid species within the naturally occurring range of noise levels. This enabled us to determine whether species with and without hearing specializations are differently affected by noise.

Methodology/principal findings: We investigated auditory sensitivities in the orange chromide Etroplus maculatus, which possesses anterior swim bladder extensions, and the slender lionhead cichlid Steatocranus tinanti, in which the swim bladder is much smaller and lacks extensions. E. maculatus was tested between 0.2 and 3kHz and S. tinanti between 0.1 and 0.5 kHz using the auditory evoked potential (AEP) recording technique. In both species, SPL and PAL audiograms were determined in the presence of quiet laboratory conditions (baseline) and continuous white noise of 110 and 130 dB RMS. Baseline thresholds showed greatest hearing sensitivity around 0.5 kHz (SPL) and 0.2 kHz (PAL) in E. maculatus and 0.2 kHz in S. tinanti. White noise of 110 dB elevated the thresholds by 0-11 dB (SPL) and 7-11 dB (PAL) in E. maculatus and by 1-2 dB (SPL) and by 1-4 dB (PAL) in S. tinanti. White noise of 130 dB elevated hearing thresholds by 13-29 dB (SPL) and 26-32 dB (PAL) in E. maculatus and 6-16 dB (SPL) and 6-19 dB (PAL) in S. tinanti.

Conclusions: Our data showed for the first time for SPL and PAL thresholds that the specialized species was masked by different noise regimes at almost all frequencies, whereas the non-specialized species was much less affected. This indicates that noise can limit sound detection and acoustic orientation differently within a single fish family.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Mean (± S.E.) hearing thresholds of Steatocranus tinanti obtained under quiet laboratory and different masking noise conditions (white noise of 110 and 130 dB).A) SPL and B) PAL audiograms. Dotted lines show cepstrum-smoothed spectra at different noise conditions.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3585214&req=5

pone-0057588-g004: Mean (± S.E.) hearing thresholds of Steatocranus tinanti obtained under quiet laboratory and different masking noise conditions (white noise of 110 and 130 dB).A) SPL and B) PAL audiograms. Dotted lines show cepstrum-smoothed spectra at different noise conditions.

Mentions: The cichlid S. tinanti had lower auditory sensitivities than E. maculatus, with the maximum sensitivity at 0.2 kHz (SPL: 92 dB re 1 µPa) (Fig. 4A). In contrast to E. maculatus, white noise of 110 dB did not affect the auditory sensitivity at any frequency. When animals were exposed to the 130 dB noise level, the sensitivity shifted significantly at 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 kHz by maximally 16 dB (Fig. 4A, 5A) (Table 1).


Hearing in cichlid fishes under noise conditions.

Ladich F, Schulz-Mirbach T - PLoS ONE (2013)

Mean (± S.E.) hearing thresholds of Steatocranus tinanti obtained under quiet laboratory and different masking noise conditions (white noise of 110 and 130 dB).A) SPL and B) PAL audiograms. Dotted lines show cepstrum-smoothed spectra at different noise conditions.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3585214&req=5

pone-0057588-g004: Mean (± S.E.) hearing thresholds of Steatocranus tinanti obtained under quiet laboratory and different masking noise conditions (white noise of 110 and 130 dB).A) SPL and B) PAL audiograms. Dotted lines show cepstrum-smoothed spectra at different noise conditions.
Mentions: The cichlid S. tinanti had lower auditory sensitivities than E. maculatus, with the maximum sensitivity at 0.2 kHz (SPL: 92 dB re 1 µPa) (Fig. 4A). In contrast to E. maculatus, white noise of 110 dB did not affect the auditory sensitivity at any frequency. When animals were exposed to the 130 dB noise level, the sensitivity shifted significantly at 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 kHz by maximally 16 dB (Fig. 4A, 5A) (Table 1).

Bottom Line: This does not reflect the situation in natural habitats, where ambient noise may mask their hearing sensitivities.Our data showed for the first time for SPL and PAL thresholds that the specialized species was masked by different noise regimes at almost all frequencies, whereas the non-specialized species was much less affected.This indicates that noise can limit sound detection and acoustic orientation differently within a single fish family.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Behavioural Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. friedrich.ladich@univie.ac.at

ABSTRACT

Background: Hearing thresholds of fishes are typically acquired under laboratory conditions. This does not reflect the situation in natural habitats, where ambient noise may mask their hearing sensitivities. In the current study we investigate hearing in terms of sound pressure (SPL) and particle acceleration levels (PAL) of two cichlid species within the naturally occurring range of noise levels. This enabled us to determine whether species with and without hearing specializations are differently affected by noise.

Methodology/principal findings: We investigated auditory sensitivities in the orange chromide Etroplus maculatus, which possesses anterior swim bladder extensions, and the slender lionhead cichlid Steatocranus tinanti, in which the swim bladder is much smaller and lacks extensions. E. maculatus was tested between 0.2 and 3kHz and S. tinanti between 0.1 and 0.5 kHz using the auditory evoked potential (AEP) recording technique. In both species, SPL and PAL audiograms were determined in the presence of quiet laboratory conditions (baseline) and continuous white noise of 110 and 130 dB RMS. Baseline thresholds showed greatest hearing sensitivity around 0.5 kHz (SPL) and 0.2 kHz (PAL) in E. maculatus and 0.2 kHz in S. tinanti. White noise of 110 dB elevated the thresholds by 0-11 dB (SPL) and 7-11 dB (PAL) in E. maculatus and by 1-2 dB (SPL) and by 1-4 dB (PAL) in S. tinanti. White noise of 130 dB elevated hearing thresholds by 13-29 dB (SPL) and 26-32 dB (PAL) in E. maculatus and 6-16 dB (SPL) and 6-19 dB (PAL) in S. tinanti.

Conclusions: Our data showed for the first time for SPL and PAL thresholds that the specialized species was masked by different noise regimes at almost all frequencies, whereas the non-specialized species was much less affected. This indicates that noise can limit sound detection and acoustic orientation differently within a single fish family.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus