Underwater microphones can identify the unique sounds made by fish species. These sounds can be useful in locating fish, making abundance estimates, and directing habitat management. To date, however, this technology is uncommonly used in Australian rivers. The specific objectives of this project were to:
- trial bioacoustic (fish noises) technology to determine whether captive large-bodied native fish – Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii), Golden perch (Macquaria ambigua ambigua), and Silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus) – produce sounds associated with artificial or pond spawning, and whether spawning population counts can be obtained.
- isolate individual spawning sounds produced by each fish species and its associated behaviours, for example, do individual species produce unique, distinguishable sounds for male dominance, courtship, spawning or distress?
- test for soniferous sounds in wild collected adult Carp (Cyprinus carpio) spawned in captive conditions.
- scope passive bioacoustics as a tool for measuring the relative abundance of fish in key habitats and potentially in fishways.
Several acoustic noises were isolated during the project, and although these were absent from the controls, they could not specifically be attributed to the fish.
These results demonstrate that some Murray-Darling Basin native fish potentially produce noises. Further research and replication is needed to clarify the mechanism of fish sound production, individual variation in vocalisation, and the utility for research and management. The sonogram data did appear to include biological noise, but the DIDSON camera proved unsuitable in hatchery tanks and further work with fixed video cameras is needed to link sound production with fish behaviour.
Murray cod appear to provide a model species for further acoustic trials as these fish have complex social behaviour that can be observed in the semi-natural conditions of a hatchery pond. The suggested protocol is to set up a DIDSON camera or video recorder and hydrophones within the spawning drum (used by fish as a laying site). This method would allow visual confirmation of fish making noises, and the hydrophone would be placed in an optimal position to capture any vocalisations.
Implications for native fish
The preliminary results of this project suggest that using a hydrophone to detect native fish is plausible, but requires further work. If further trials are successful this technology may be useful for detecting native fish spawning which would assist in determining fish habitat preferences for both conservation and rehabilitation.
Project MD1022: Soniferous fish
Stuart, I., Smith, M. & Baumgartner, L. 2008. Counting Murray-Darling fishes by validating sounds associated with spawning. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.
Aalbers, S.A., and Drawbridge, M.A. (2008). White seabass spawning behaviour and sound production. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137: 542-550.
Anderson, K.A., Rountree, R.A., and Juanes, F. (2008). Soniferous fishes in the Hudson River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137: 616-626.
Connaughton, M.A., Fine, M.L., and Taylor, M.H. (2002). Weakfish sonic muscle: influence of size, temperature and season. The Journal of Experimental Biology 205: 2183-2188.
Cruz, A. and Lombarte, A. (2004). Otolith size and its relationship with color patterns and sound production. Journal of Fish Biology 65: 1512-1525.
Ferreira, M. and Ferguson, J.W.H.. (2002). Geographic variation in the calling song of the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) and its relevance to mate recognition and mate choice. Journal of Zoology 257: 163-170.
Gannon, D.P. (2008). Passive acoustic techniques in fisheries science: a review and prospectus. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137: 638-656.
Holt, S.A. (2008). Distribution of red drum spawning sites identified by a towed hydrophone array. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137: 551-561.
Katz, I.M. (2002). Multiple sound producing mechanisms in teleost fishes and hypotheses regarding their behavioural significance. Bioacoustics 12: 230-233.
Luczkovich, J.J., Sprague, M.W., Johnson, S.E. and Pullinger, R.C. (1999). Delimiting spawning areas of weakfish in Pamlico Sound, North Carolina using passive hydroacoustic surveys. Bioacoustics 9: 143-160.
Luczkovich, J.J., Hall, J.D., Hutchinson, M., Jenkins, T., Johnson, S.E., Pullinger, R.C. and Sprague, M.W. (2000). Sounds of sex and death in the sea: bottlenose dolphin whistles suppress mating choruses of silver perch. Bioacoustics 10: 323-334.
Luczkovich, J.J., Mann, D.A., and Rountree, R.A. (2008). Passive acoustics as a tool in fisheries science. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137: 533-541.
Hawkins, A.D., Casaretto, L., Picciulin, M. and Olsen, K. (2002). Locating spawning haddock by means of sound. Bioacoustics 12: 284-286.
Rountree, R.A., Gilmore, R.G., Goudey, C.A., Hawkins, A.D., Luczkovich, J.J. and Mann, D.A. (2006). Listening to fish: applications of passive acoustics to fisheries science. Fisheries 31: 433-446.
Latest posts by Finterest (see all)
- Population models help assess risk for a threatened species - December 3, 2018
- Zeb Hogan presents Monsterfish Free Public Lecture - November 22, 2018
- Climate change, stream flows and recruitment – is there a connection for Australian Bass? - November 19, 2018