02089nas a2200145 4500008004100000245010700041210006900148520147500217653001501692653002101707653002901728653002801757100002201785856013601807 2020 eng d00aObservations on mechanisms and phenomena underlying underwater and surface vocalisations of grey seals0 aObservations on mechanisms and phenomena underlying underwater a3 a

Air and water constitute acoustic propagation media with very different physical properties. Consequently, mechanisms for air- and water-borne sound generation observed in terrestrial and aquatic animals are also significantly different. Notwithstanding, some amphibious species are capable of making efficient use of their vocal tracts in both environments. The present study investi- gates such a phenomenon on the example of grey seals Halichoerus grypus. Grey seals vocalise both underwater and above the water surface emitting variety of sounds. Both kinds of vocalisations were recorded using microphones and hydrophones, and analysed for their acoustic parameters which could be related to the underlying generation mechanisms. Also, video with synchronised underwater audio recordings were captured, allowing to link the acoustic phe- nomena with specific behaviour of the animals. The vocalisations are categorised into three groups based on differences in acoustic characteristics. Temporal and spectral parameters of the sounds belonging to each group are determined and discussed in terms of potential underlying generation mechanisms. Based on the adopted criteria surface vocalisations do not constitute a separate group but are categorised together with other tonal sounds pro- duced underwater. Other two vocalisation groups include pulsed sounds with different bandwidths, duration times, repetition rates and associated behavioural signatures.

10aGrey seals10asound production10aunderwater vocalisations10avocalisation mechanisms1 aNowak, Lukasz, J. uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09524622.2020.1851298https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09524622.2020.185129802419nas a2200229 4500008004100000022001400041245017100055210006900226260001600295300001400311490000900325520150400334653001701838653001701855653001501872653002401887653002101911100002901932700001901961700002601980856018302006 2020 eng d a1175-532600aBioacoustics of poorly known Poecilimon taxa (Insecta: Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) with redescriptions of P. pechevi and P. stschelkanovzevi0 aBioacoustics of poorly known emPoecilimonem taxa Insecta Orthopt cApr-12-2020 a535 - 5530 v48903 a

The genus Poecilimon has been object of several studies dealing with its systematics, sound communication and evolution. Yet, published data contradict in the classification, while many taxa are still insufficiently known. In the present study we supplement the knowledge of 13 poorly known species and one additional subspecies with data on their sound communication and/or morphology. Most species concerned here are classified within two acoustic groups. First group includes P. celebi, P. obtusicercus and P. toros, showing typical characteristics of the P. syriacus group. Second group is more heterogeneous. Among that, P. pechevi, P. armeniacus, P. harveyi, P. guichardi, P. haydari, P. doga, P. davisi and P. excisus present a song pattern similar to that of P. ampliatus. In addition, P. ataturki is also quite similar in basic song structure to the latter but differs in its fine song structure. Poecilimon stschelkanovzevi, with unclear relationships, is described morphologically in detail. The present study provides hints for solving some disagreement between recent revisions, proposing unification of the Poecilimon celebi with P. syriacus group and opening discussion based on close relationships of the groups ampliatus, armeniacus, davisi, luschani and the species P. guichardi on one hand, while the complex P. ataturki/glandifer shows significant differences on the other. The acoustic peculiarities of the ampliatus group allies are discussed in an evolutionary light.

10aBarbitistini10abush-cricket10amorphology10asound communication10asound production1 aChobanov, Dragan, Petrov1 aSevgili, Hasan1 aHeller, Klaus-Gerhard uhttps://www.biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/issue/view/zootaxa.4890.4https://www.biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.4890.4.6https://www.biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/viewFile/65904/6434602528nas a2200217 4500008004100000245010300041210006900144520177600213653002701989653002202016653001602038653001202054653002102066653001202087653001902099100001702118700001902135700001902154700001702173856012002190 2011 eng d00aWhistling in caterpillars (Amorpha juglandis, Bombycoidea): sound-producing mechanism and function0 aWhistling in caterpillars Amorpha juglandis Bombycoidea soundpro3 a

Caterpillar defenses have been researched extensively, and, although most studies focus on visually communicated signals, little is known about the role that sounds play in defense. We report on whistling, a novel form of sound production for caterpillars and rare for insects in general. The North American walnut sphinx (Amorpha juglandis) produces whistle ‘trains’ ranging from 44 to 2060ms in duration and comprising one to eight whistles. Sounds were categorized into three types: broadband, pure whistles and multi-harmonic plus broadband, with mean dominant frequencies at 15kHz, 9kHz and 22kHz, respectively. The mechanism of sound production was determined by selectively obstructing abdominal spiracles, monitoring air flow at different spiracles using a laser vibrometer and recording body movements associated with sound production using high-speed video. Contractions of the anterior body segments always accompanied sound production, forcing air through a pair of enlarged spiracles on the eighth abdominal segment. We tested the hypothesis that sounds function in defense using simulated attacks with blunt forceps and natural attacks with an avian predator – the yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia). In simulated attacks, 94% of caterpillars responded with whistle trains that were frequently accompanied by directed thrashing but no obvious chemical defense. In predator trials, all birds readily attacked the caterpillar, eliciting whistle trains each time. Birds responded to whistling by hesitating, jumping back or diving away from the sound source. We conclude that caterpillar whistles are defensive and propose
that they function specifically as acoustic ‘eye spots’ to startle predators.

10aacoustic communication10aAmorpha juglandis10acaterpillar10adefense10asound production10awhistle10ayellow warbler1 aBura, V., L.1 aRohwer, V., G.1 aMartin, P., R.1 aYack, J., E. uhttp://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/doi/10.1242/jeb.046805https://syndication.highwire.org/content/doi/10.1242/jeb.04680502019nas a2200193 4500008004100000022001400041245008400055210006900139260001600208300001600224490000800240520141400248653002301662653002001685653001701705653002101722100002601743856005601769 2019 eng d a0378-190900aThe acoustic behavior of Southern King Weakfish (Macrodon atricauda-Sciaenidae)0 aacoustic behavior of Southern King Weakfish Macrodon atricaudaSc cJan-10-2019 a1253 - 12640 v1023 a

Many species of fishes use acoustic signals for a variety of purposes, and sciaenid are well-known producers of sound. The Southern King Weakfish (Macrodon atricuada- Sciaenidae) possesses sexually dimorphic bilateral sonic muscles used for sound production. The bilaterally paired muscles lie on the inner body wall of the male, surrounding the swimbladder. The Southern King Weakfish produces three different sounds: advertisement calls, disturbance calls and dual-knocks, these sounds were recorded from Rio de la Plata estuary, Uruguayan coastal waters and laboratory. The advertisement call, related to courtship, was recorded in the field and from spawning males in the laboratory. Disturbance calls were produced when captive M. atricauda were startled, chased with a net or grabbed by the tail. Disturbance calls consist of a burst of pulses produced at short intervals. In disturbance call interpulse interval increased and dominant frequency decreased linearly (P < 0.05), pulse duration did not change with fish size. M. atricauda start producing disturbance call at 14 cm LT (Total Length), but only individuals over than 25 cm LT were who produced the advertisement call. Dual-knocks, call compose of only two pulses together, was recorder only in captivity. Sounds are a valuable non-invasive tool for fisheries biologists can used to monitor on males in spawning populations.

10aMacrodon atricauda10aRio de la Plata10aSonic muscle10asound production1 aTellechea, Javier, S. uhttp://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10641-019-00902-602124nas a2200205 4500008004100000022001400041245009000055210006900145260001600214300001400230490000700244520149600251653002301747653001201770653001301782653002101795653002401816100002101840856005701861 2003 eng d a0033-577000aSnake Bioacoustics: Toward a Richer Understanding of the Behavioral Ecology of Snakes0 aSnake Bioacoustics Toward a Richer Understanding of the Behavior cJan-09-2003 a303 - 3250 v783 a

Snakes are frequently described in both popular and technical literature as either deaf or able to perceive only groundborne vibrations. Physiological studies have shown that snakes are actually most sensitive to airborne vibrations. Snakes are able to detect both airborne and groundborne vibrations using their body surface (termed somatic hearing) as well as from their inner ears. The central auditory pathways for these two modes of “hearing” remain unknown. Recent experimental evidence has shown that snakes can respond behaviorally to both airborne and groundborne vibrations. The ability of snakes to contextualize the sounds and respond with consistent predatory or defensive behaviors suggests that auditory stimuli may play a larger role in the behavioral ecology of snakes than was previously realized. Snakes produce sounds in a variety of ways, and there appear to be multiple acoustic Batesian mimicry complexes among snakes. Analyses of the proclivity for sound production and the acoustics of the sounds produced within a habitat or phylogeny specific context may provide insights into the behavioral ecology of snakes. The relatively low information content in the sounds produced by snakes suggests that these sounds are not suitable for intraspecific communication. Nevertheless, given the diversity of habitats in which snakes are found, and their dual auditory pathways, some form of intraspecific acoustic communication may exist in some species.

10adefensive behavior10ahearing10areptiles10asound production10avibration detection1 aYoung, Bruce, A. uhttps://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/37705202798nas a2200241 4500008004100000022001400041245006300055210005900118260001600177300001300193490000600206520211400212653001702326653001102343653001602354653001802370653001502388653002102403100001702424700002502441700002102466856006902487 1996 eng d a0952-462200aTHE MECHANISM OF TUNING OF THE MOLE CRICKET SINGING BURROW0 aMECHANISM OF TUNING OF THE MOLE CRICKET SINGING BURROW cJan-01-1996 a81 - 1170 v73 a

1. Experimental and theoretical studies on the acoustics of the singing burrow of the mole cricket Gryllotalpa australis are reported.


2. The burrow typically consists of a bulb about 26 mm long and 20 mm in diameter, connected through a constriction of diameter about 10 mm to a flaring horn with length about 40 mm and equivalent mouth diameter about 34 mm. The mouth geometry of the burrow differs from one species to another, and the aperture may be either single, double or even multiple. The end of the bulb opposite the horn connects to a narrow exit tunnei of diameter about 8 mm and length up to 1 m. The singing cricket positions itself close to the constriction between the bulb and the horn and produces a song with a frequency around 2.5 kHz.


3. Measurements of sound pressure within the burrow when it is excited by an external sound source at the song frequency show a pressure minimum at the constriction and an amplitude and phase distribution that is consistent with resonance of the burrow at its second modal frequency. The burrow is approximately three-quarters of a wavelength long at this frequency. The same result is obtained when the burrow is excited by a dipole source located near the constriction.


4. Non-parametric model calculations confirm this conclusion and also give broad agreement with the measured response curves over a frequency range from about 1.5 to 5 kHz. The calculated curves indicate an additional resonance at about 1.2 kHz associated with the first mode of the burrow—the Helmholtz or Klipsch resonance—which is apparently not utilised by the insect. This detail is consistent with earlier measurements, and is also supported by measured responses reported here that show an increase in sound pressure with decreasing frequency below 2 kHz as predicted by the model.


5. The measured performance of the burrow is broadly consistent with the model. According to the model, the burrow geometry is close to optimal for maximal sound power radiation.

10abioacoustics10aburrow10aGryllotalpa10amole crickets10aresonators10asound production1 aDAWS, A., G.1 aBennet-Clark, H., C.1 aFLETCHER, N., H. uhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09524622.1996.975332101258nas a2200181 4500008004100000245002800041210002800069260001600097520077500113653002400888653001700912653002000929653002100949100002000970700002300990700002001013856004301033 2018 eng d00aEcology of fish hearing0 aEcology of fish hearing cMay-11-20193 a

Underwater sound is directional and can convey important information about the surrounding environment or the animal emitting the sound. Therefore, sound is a major sensory channel for fishes and plays a key role in many life‐history strategies. The effect of anthropogenic noise on aquatic life, which may be causing homogenisation or fragmentation of biologically important signals underwater is of growing concern. In this review we discuss the role sound plays in the ecology of fishes, basic anatomical and physiological adaptations for sound reception and production, the effects of anthropogenic noise and how fishes may be coping to changes in their environment, to put the ecology of fish hearing into the context of the modern underwater soundscape.

10aanthropogenic noise10afish hearing10asound detection10asound production1 aPutland, R., L.1 aMontgomery, J., C.1 aRadford, C., A. uhttp://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/jfb.1386702700nas a2200253 4500008004100000022001300041245016900054210006900223260001600292300001400308490000800322520184800330653001702178653001902195653001602214653002102230653001702251100002102268700002202289700002302311700001902334700002402353856006902377 2013 eng d a0013874600aDescription of Acoustic Characters and Stridulatory Pars Stridens of Nicrophorus (Coleoptera: Silphidae): A Comparison of Eight North American Species0 aDescription of Acoustic Characters and Stridulatory iPars Stride cJan-09-2013 a661 - 6690 v1063 a

Insects make use of sound in a variety of behavioral and reproductive contexts. Acoustic signals are known to serve in defense, sexual advertisement, prey location, and in cooperative activities such as offspring care and group foraging. In airborne signals produced by insects, information associated with species identiÞcation is often related to the temporal structure of the sound, while spectral quality is more closely associated with intraspeciÞc variation. The Nicrophorine burying beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera: Silphidae) are a group known to produce sound through dorso-ventro stridulation, but the bioacoustics of this group remains understudied. Here, we examine the stridu- latory sound produced by eight North American species of Nicrophorus burying beetles, testing the hypothesis that interspeciÞc differences will be encoded in temporal characteristics of the sound, and that signal divergence will be explained by one of three mechanisms: selection as an intraspeciÞc signal, selection for interspeciÞc aposematism, or random divergence through drift. We digitally recorded stridulation in each species, and analyzed recordings to describe each in respect to four spectral and eight temporal acoustic characters. All species produced a low amplitude biphastic sound pulse consisting of from 58 to 126 syllables, and exhibiting weak dominant frequencies (5.8Ð12.7 kHz). Collapsing the 12 variables into three rotated factors using principal component analysis, we found no sex-related differences in sound, but signiÞcant interspecies divergence in respect to all three factors. We constructed a phylogeny for the group based on the morphology of the stridulatory structures and the acoustic characters, and found weak support for an intraspeciÞc signal divergence model.

10abioacoustics10aburying beetle10aNicrophorus10asound production10astridulation1 aHall, Carrie, L.1 aMason, Andrew, C.1 aHoward, Daniel, R.1 aPadhi, Abinash1 aSmith, Rosemary, J. uhttps://academic.oup.com/aesa/article-lookup/doi/10.1603/AN1300101759nas a2200241 4500008004100000022001400041245018500055210006900240260001600309300001400325490000700339520095800346653001401304653001601318653001701334653001601351653001501367653002101382100001601403700001501419700001801434856006501452 2010 eng d a1125-000300aSound production of two endemic Oedipodinae grasshoppers from the Iberian Peninsula: Jacobsiella imitans and Leptopternis candidus lusitanicus (Orthoptera: Acrididae)0 aSound production of two endemic Oedipodinae grasshoppers from th cSep-12-2010 a443 - 4520 v773 a

In this study, which was conducted with captive specimens kept in wooden cages and separated by sex, the sounds produced by Jacobsiella imitans (Brunner, 1882) and Leptopternis candidus lusitanicus (Ebner, 1941) (Orthoptera, Acrididae) are described. Sounds were recorded with a digital audio tape recorder; the signal was digitized and then analysed with the Avisoft® software. Two types of sound, both produced by stridulation, were recorded in these species: an interaction song, produced when specimens are disturbed by others, and a courtship song, emitted by males when mounting another individual in trying to copulate. In both species, females are mute. Data concerning the time and frequency domains of these sounds are presented. The behaviour observed by both species in nature and that displayed when interacting with other individuals and during courtship are described. The role of song as an isolation mechanism is discussed.

10abehaviour10aJacobsiella10aLeptopternis10aOedipodinae10aOrthoptera10asound production1 aLarrosa, E.1 aGarcia, M.1 aPresa, J., J. uhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1125000090345783001061nas a2200205 4500008004100000022001400041245010200055210006900157260002000226300001600246490000700262520034200269653001200611653001400623653002100637653001700658653001800675100002600693856013600719 2017 eng d a0022-293300aDo small ermine moths sing? Possible stridulatory sound production in Yponomeutidae (Lepidoptera)0 aDo small ermine moths sing Possible stridulatory sound productio cFeb-26-20172086 a1229 - 12360 v513 a

In the hind wings of Yponomeuta and related genera there are transparent patches without scales; within these are arrays of ridges and it is suggested these may be used to produce sounds, with the adjacent membrane acting as a resonator. Avenues for further research are explored, together with potential taxonomic implications.

10ahearing10ahind wing10asound production10astridulation10aYponomeutidae1 aAgassiz, David, J. L. uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00222933.2017.1324063https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00222933.2017.132406303050nas a2200325 4500008004100000022001400041245014400055210006900199260001600268300000600284490000900290520201400299653002102313653001302334653001302347653001202360653001902372653001402391653001102405653001502416653002102431653002002452100002402472700002402496700002102520700002102541700002502562700002202587856011502609 2017 eng d a1175-532600aTackling an intractable problem: Can greater taxon sampling help resolve relationships within the Stenopelmatoidea (Orthoptera: Ensifera)?0 aTackling an intractable problem Can greater taxon sampling help  cNov-07-2017 a10 v42913 a

The relationships among and within the families that comprise the orthopteran superfamily Stenopelmatoidea (suborder Ensifera) remain poorly understood. We developed a phylogenetic hypothesis based on Bayesian analysis of two nuclear ribosomal and one mitochondrial gene for 118 individuals (84 de novo and 34 from GenBank). These included Gryllacrididae from North, Central, and South America, South Africa and Madagascar, Australia and Papua New Guinea; Stenopelmatidae from North and Central America and South Africa; Anostostomatidae from North and Central America, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa; members of the Australian endemic Cooloola (three species); and a representative of Lezina from the Middle East. We also included representatives of all other major ensiferan families: Prophalangopsidae, Rhaphidophoridae, Schizodactylidae, Tettigoniidae, Gryllidae, Gryllotalpidae and Myrmecophilidae and representatives of the suborder Caelifera as outgroups. Bayesian analyses of concatenated sequence data supported a clade of Stenopelmatoidea inclusive of all analyzed members of Gryllacrididae, Stenopelmatidae, Anostostomatidae, Lezina and Cooloola. We found Gryllacrididae worldwide to be monophyletic, while we did not recover a monophyletic Stenopelmatidae nor Anostostomatidae. Australian Cooloola clustered in a clade composed of Australian, New Zealand, and some (but not all) North American Anostostomatidae. Lezina was included in a clade of New World Anostostomatidae. Finally, we compiled and compared karyotypes and sound production characteristics for each supported group. Chromosome number, centromere position, drumming, and stridulation differed among some groups, but also show variation within groups. This preliminary trait information may contribute toward future studies of trait evolution. Despite greater taxon sampling within Stenopelmatoidea than previous efforts, some relationships among the families examined continue to remain elusive.

10aAnostostomatidae10aCooloola10adrumming10agenetic10aGryllacrididae10akaryotype10aLezina10aOrthoptera10asound production10aStenopelmatidae1 aVandergast, Amy, G.1 aWeissman, David, B.1 aWood, Dustin, A.1 aRentz, D., C. F.1 aBazelet, Corinna, S.1 aUeshima, Norihiro uhttps://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/issue/view/zootaxa.4291.1https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.4291.1.101859nas a2200193 4500008004100000022001400041245010200055210006900157260002000226300001400246490000700260520123300267653002301500653001601523653002101539100001501560700002201575856006801597 2014 eng d a1125-000300aSound production in the genus Acinipe Rambur, 1832 (Orthoptera: Pamphagidae)0 aSound production in the genus iAcinipei Rambur 1832 Orthoptera P cOct-25-20142265 a264 - 2700 v813 a

The family Pamphagidae, within Orthoptera, is very diverse with regards to its sound production mechanisms. Its genus Acinipe, a Mediterranean element, is composed of several species with a quite restricted distribution, but there is limited knowledge on their sound production. Acinipe segurensis (Bolívar, 1908) is an endemic species from the Mediterranean area of the Iberian Peninsula, and there is no information on its sound production. The sounds produced by this species have been recorded and studied at the time and frequency domains, allowing their description for the first time. The sound is composed of echemes of single or double syllables, emitted by females when isolated from males. Both tegmina and wings are involved in the sound production through a ridge located at the basal third of the tegminal inner face and the costal vein of the wing. The sound and sound production mechanism are discussed in relation to data available from other Pamphagidae species. The results of the present study illustrate the interest in studying sound production in this family, which has secondarily adapted some structures for its function, causing diversity in both sounds and sound production mechanisms.

10aAcinipe segurensis10aPamphagidae10asound production1 aGómez, R.1 aPresa, Juan José uhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/11250003.2014.89505901974nas a2200217 4500008004100000022001400041245022700055210006900282260001600351300001600367490000700383520116600390653001201556653001301568653002501581653002101606653002401627100001601651700002401667856006501691 1997 eng d a0022-293300aSound production in primitive Orthoptera from Western Australia: sounds used in defence and social communication in Ametrus sp. and Hadrogryllacris sp. (Gryllacrididae: Orthoptera)0 aSound production in primitive Orthoptera from Western Australia  cJan-07-1997 a1127 - 11410 v313 a

Sound production in two undescribed species of Gryllacrididae belonging to the genus Ametrus sp. and Hadrogryllacris sp. takes the form of defensive stridulation and intra-specific signalling by drumming on the substrate. Defensive stridulation is produced as part of an elaborate visual display, by femoro-tergal stridulation. Two rows of spines on abdominal tergites II and III of both species are rubbed by an elongate area of tubercules on the inner femoral surface of the hind legs. Analysis showed that the motion of the leg relative to the abdomen involves a complex counter-rotation of the leg between leg and abdomen. The defensive display may be performed in day light. Social signalling in both species occurs after dark, and involves drumming on the substrate by both hind legs in loose synchrony. Drumming is rhythmic and species' specific. Males respond to playback calls and females duet with males. The evolution of this calling behaviour is discussed and comparisons are made with the other primitive ensiferan family known to produce both tergo-abdominal defensive stridulation and femoral drumming behaviour, the Stenopelmatidae.

10adefence10aduetting10asocial communication10asound production10asubstrate vibration1 aField, L.H.1 aBailey, Winston, J. uhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00222939700770591