QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online February 1, 2008
Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 502-509 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
doi: 10.1242/jeb.008474

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JEB Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Vasconcelos, R. O. Articles by Ladich, F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Vasconcelos, R. O. Articles by Ladich, F. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Development of vocalization, auditory sensitivity and acoustic communication in the Lusitanian toadfish Halobatrachus didactylus

Raquel O. Vasconcelos^1,2,3,* and Friedrich Ladich²

¹ Departamento de Biologia Animal e Centro de Biologia Ambiental, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa. Bloco C2 Campo Grande, 1749-0161 Lisbon, Portugal
² Unidade de Investigação em Eco-Etologia, I.S.P.A. Rua Jardim do Tabaco 34, 1149-041 Lisbon, Portugal
³ Department of Behavioural Biology, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria

View larger version (4K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Oscillogram of a single grunt of a juvenile H. didactylus showing temporal sound characteristics analyzed (PP, pulse period).

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Sonogram and oscillogram of a grunt call produced by a representative H. didactylus of (A) group G2 (6.1 cm SL) and (B) group G5 (28.5 cm SL), showing two single grunts (A) and a part of a grunt train (B). Note the shorter grunt duration and lower dominant frequency in B. Sampling frequency 6 kHz, filter bandwidth 15 Hz, 70% overlap, Blackman–Harris window.

View larger version (5K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Log–log plot of mean number of pulses against standard length (SL, in cm). Regression equation: log number of pulses=–0.72xlog(SL)+1.47. N=44, P<0.001, r2=0.579.

View larger version (4K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Correlation between mean pulse period and standard length (SL). Regression equation: pulse period=0.12xSL+6.08. N=44, P<0.001, r2=0.480.

View larger version (5K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Correlation between mean sound pressure level and log standard length (SL, in cm). Regression equation: sound pressure level=34.70xlog(SL)+92.56. N=38, P<0.001, r2=0.903.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Cepstrum-smoothed sound power spectra (mean) of the Lusitanian toadfish grunt call from groups G1 (3.8 cm SL, N=1); G2 (5.4–6.6 cm SL, N=5); G3 (8.0–10.2 cm SL, N=9); G4 (12.4–15.3 cm SL, N=6); and G5 (20.2–31.8 cm SL, N=8). Sampling frequency 6 kHz, filter bandwidth 1 Hz, 75% overlap, Blackman–Harris window.

View larger version (10K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Auditory thresholds of juveniles from the five different size groups. G1, 2.8–3.8 cm SL (N=6); G2, 5.4–6.6 cm SL (N=6); G3, 8.0–10.2 cm SL (N=7); G4, 12.4–15.3 cm SL (N=6); and G5, 20.2–31.8 cm SL (N=9). Values are mean ± s.e.m. Asterisks indicate highly statistically significant differences between groups (one-way ANOVA); **P<0.001.

View larger version (24K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Relation between auditory sensitivities and cepstrum-smoothed sound power spectra of grunt calls in the five size groups calculated for a distance of 10 cm. For size ranges see Figs 6 and 7.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

Twitter