Interspecific variation of warning calls in piranhas ... Geoffrey Mélot… · Interspecific...

of 1 /1
Interspecific variation of warning calls in piranhas: comparative analysis Geoffrey Mélotte 1,* , Régis Vigouroux 2 , Christian Michel 3 and Eric Parmentier 1 1 Laboratory of Functional and Evolutionary Morphology, AFFISH Research Center, University of Liège, Institut de chimie (B6c), B-4000 Liège, Belgium 2 HYDRECO Guyane, Laboratoire Environnement de Petit Saut, B.P. 823 - 97388 Kourou Cedex, French Guiana 3 Department of Biology, Ecology and Evolution, AFFISH Research Center, University of Liège, Aquarium-Museum, Institute of Zoology, 22 quai Van Beneden, B-4020 Liège, Belgium * [email protected] Sounds were recorded and compared in eight piranha species in order to evaluate the potential role of acoustic communication as a driving force in the diversification of piranhas. Recording of sounds by means of a hydrophone connected to a stereo recorder Tascam DR-07, when the fishes were hand-held Sound analysis with Avisoft- SASLab Pro Dissection and observation with a binocular microscope Poster presented in Vienna for the 8th European Conference on Behavioural Biology - July 2016 Fish sounds are often considered as species-specific with unique temporal and spectral features. Differences between acoustic signals of closely related species could be considered as pre-zygotic barrier and could be related to the evolutionary history of the species. Objective Introduction Material & methods Results & Discussion Conclusion : In the framework of this study, acoustic communication cannot be considered as the main driving force in the diversification process of piranhas. However, this channel could play an important role in some species. Modifications of the calls seem related to modifications at the level of the neural system. Figure 1. Waveform (above), spectrogram (below) and acoustic characteristics of the sounds produced by (A) Serrasalmus elongatus (n = 9); (B) Serrasalmus marginatus (n = 6); (C) Serrasalmus compressus (n = 7); (D) Serrasalmus manueli (n = 4); (E) Serrasalmus spilopleura (n = 7); (F) Serrasalmus rhombeus (n = 8); (G) Serrasalmus eigenmanni (n = 10); (H) Pygocentrus nattereri (n = 12). SD, Sound Duration; NP, Number of Pulses;PP1, First Pulse Period; PP, Pulse Period; FF, Fundamental Frequency; n, number of recorded individuals per species 1) Interspecific variation of acoustic signals 2) Sound-producing mechanisms The same kind of sound-producing mechanism was found in all the species: sonic muscles originate on vertebrae and attach to a tendon surrounding ventrally the bladder (Fig.3). Contractions of the sound-producing muscles force swimbladder vibration. Having the same kind of sound-producing mechanism, the calling features of the eight piranha species show logically many common characteristics. In all the species, the calls are harmonic sounds composed of several pulses without inter-pulse interval (Fig.1). It was possible to discern species-specific sounds, but the differences among species could be, in part, explained by the size. Only the sounds of Serrasalmus elongatus and S. manueli are really distinguishable from the other species (Fig.2). Serrasalmus elongatus differed by having a higher number of pulses and high-pitched fundamental frequency, whereas S. manueli differed by having long pulse periods and a low fundamental frequency. SD = 123.7 ± 29.7 ms NP = 18.6 ± 5.1 PP1 = 11.4 ± 2.1 ms PP = 5.9 ± 0.5 ms FF = 172 ± 14 Hz SD = 70.5 ± 13.9 ms NP = 10.1 ± 2.0 PP1 = 9.1 ± 1.0 ms PP = 6.9 ± 0.4 ms FF = 146 ± 8 Hz SD = 71.8 ± 12.0 ms NP = 10.0 ± 1.5 PP1 = 10.4 ± 1.7 ms PP = 6.6 ± 0.4 ms FF = 149 ± 8 Hz SD = 89.8 ± 14.8 ms NP = 8.3 ± 1.3 PP1 = 15.2 ± 2.1 ms PP = 8.6 ± 0.6 ms FF = 104 ± 12 Hz SD = 73.1 ± 17.8 ms NP = 10.1± 2.3 PP1 = 9.2 ± 1.5 ms PP = 6.2 ± 0.4 ms FF = 149 ± 12 Hz SD = 62.6 ± 8.8 ms NP = 7.2 ± 1.1 PP1 = 10.6 ± 1.0 ms PP = 7.7 ± 0.6 ms FF = 125 ± 9 Hz SD = 74.9 ± 13.7 ms NP = 8.4 ± 1.4 PP1 = 11.2 ± 1.5 ms PP = 7.9 ± 0.6 ms FF = 124 ± 10 Hz SD = 86.4 ± 27.6 ms NP = 11.7 ± 3.0 PP1 = 9.5 ± 1.7 ms PP = 6.8 ± 0.6 ms FF = 144 ± 12 Hz -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 PC1 (48.21%) PC2 (47.82%) PC1 PC2 Sound duration -0.453 0.869 First pulse period 0.532 0.823 Fundamental frequency -0.979 0.045 Serrasalmus elongatus Serrasalmus marginatus Serrasalmus compressus Serrasalmus manueli Serrasalmus spilopleura Serrasalmus rhombeus Serrasalmus eigenmanni Pygocentrus nattereri Figure 2. Scatterplot of principal component (PC) 1 versus PC2, performed with individual mean values of the three acoustic properties. PCA loadings for the two axes extracted from the three acoustic properties are presented in the table at the top right. Figure 3. Schematic left lateral view of the sound-producing apparatus in (A) Pygocentrus nattereri and (B) Serrasalmus compressus. Note that the same sonic mechanism as in (A) is found in S. eigenmanni, whereas S. elongatus, S. marginatus and S. rhombeus possess the same mechanism as in (B). A. B.

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Interspecific variation of warning calls in piranhas ... Geoffrey Mélot… · Interspecific...

  • Interspecific variation of warning calls in

    piranhas: comparative analysisGeoffrey Mélotte1,*, Régis Vigouroux2, Christian Michel3 and Eric Parmentier1

    1 Laboratory of Functional and Evolutionary Morphology, AFFISH Research Center, University of Liège, Institut de chimie (B6c), B-4000

    Liège, Belgium2 HYDRECO Guyane, Laboratoire Environnement de Petit Saut, B.P. 823 - 97388 Kourou Cedex, French Guiana

    3 Department of Biology, Ecology and Evolution, AFFISH Research Center, University of Liège, Aquarium-Museum, Institute of Zoology,

    22 quai Van Beneden, B-4020 Liège, Belgium

    *[email protected]

    Sounds were recorded and compared in eight piranha species in order to evaluate the

    potential role of acoustic communication as a driving force in the diversification of

    piranhas.

    • Recording of sounds by means of a

    hydrophone connected to a stereo

    recorder Tascam DR-07, when the

    fishes were hand-held

    • Sound analysis with Avisoft-

    SASLab Pro

    • Dissection and observation with a

    binocular microscope

    Poster presented in Vienna for the 8th European Conference on Behavioural Biology - July 2016

    Fish sounds are often considered as species-specific with unique temporal and spectral

    features. Differences between acoustic signals of closely related species could be

    considered as pre-zygotic barrier and could be related to the evolutionary history of the

    species.

    Objective

    Introduction Material & methods

    Results & Discussion

    Conclusion:

    In the framework of this study, acoustic communication cannot be considered as the main driving force in the diversification

    process of piranhas. However, this channel could play an important role in some species. Modifications of the calls seem

    related to modifications at the level of the neural system.

    Figure 1. Waveform (above), spectrogram (below) and acoustic characteristics of the sounds produced by (A) Serrasalmus elongatus (n = 9); (B) Serrasalmus marginatus (n = 6); (C) Serrasalmus compressus (n = 7); (D)

    Serrasalmus manueli (n = 4); (E) Serrasalmus spilopleura (n = 7); (F) Serrasalmus rhombeus (n = 8); (G) Serrasalmus eigenmanni (n = 10); (H) Pygocentrus nattereri (n = 12).

    SD, Sound Duration; NP, Number of Pulses; PP1, First Pulse Period; PP, Pulse Period; FF, Fundamental Frequency; n, number of recorded individuals per species

    1) Interspecific variation of acoustic signals

    2) Sound-producing mechanisms

    The same kind of sound-producing mechanism was found in all the species: sonic muscles originate on vertebrae and attach to a tendon surrounding ventrally thebladder (Fig.3). Contractions of the sound-producing muscles force swimbladder vibration. Having the same kind of sound-producing mechanism, the calling features ofthe eight piranha species show logically many common characteristics. In all the species, the calls are harmonic sounds composed of several pulses without inter-pulseinterval (Fig.1). It was possible to discern species-specific sounds, but the differences among species could be, in part, explained by the size. Only the sounds ofSerrasalmus elongatus and S. manueli are really distinguishable from the other species (Fig.2). Serrasalmus elongatus differed by having a higher number of pulses andhigh-pitched fundamental frequency, whereas S. manueli differed by having long pulse periods and a low fundamental frequency.

    SD = 123.7 ± 29.7 msNP = 18.6 ± 5.1PP1 = 11.4 ± 2.1 msPP = 5.9 ± 0.5 msFF = 172 ± 14 Hz

    SD = 70.5 ± 13.9 msNP = 10.1 ± 2.0PP1 = 9.1 ± 1.0 msPP = 6.9 ± 0.4 msFF = 146 ± 8 Hz

    SD = 71.8 ± 12.0 msNP = 10.0 ± 1.5PP1 = 10.4 ± 1.7 msPP = 6.6 ± 0.4 msFF = 149 ± 8 Hz

    SD = 89.8 ± 14.8 msNP = 8.3 ± 1.3PP1 = 15.2 ± 2.1 msPP = 8.6 ± 0.6 msFF = 104 ± 12 Hz

    SD = 73.1 ± 17.8 msNP = 10.1± 2.3PP1 = 9.2 ± 1.5 msPP = 6.2 ± 0.4 msFF = 149 ± 12 Hz

    SD = 62.6 ± 8.8 msNP = 7.2 ± 1.1PP1 = 10.6 ± 1.0 msPP = 7.7 ± 0.6 msFF = 125 ± 9 Hz

    SD = 74.9 ± 13.7 msNP = 8.4 ± 1.4PP1 = 11.2 ± 1.5 msPP = 7.9 ± 0.6 msFF = 124 ± 10 Hz

    SD = 86.4 ± 27.6 msNP = 11.7 ± 3.0PP1 = 9.5 ± 1.7 msPP = 6.8 ± 0.6 msFF = 144 ± 12 Hz

    -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

    -3

    -2

    -1

    0

    1

    2

    3

    4

    PC1 (48.21%)

    PC

    2 (

    47

    .82

    %)

    PC1 PC2

    Sound duration

    -0.453 0.869

    First pulse period

    0.532 0.823

    Fundamentalfrequency

    -0.979 0.045

    Serrasalmus elongatus Serrasalmus marginatus Serrasalmus compressus Serrasalmus manueli Serrasalmus spilopleura Serrasalmus rhombeus Serrasalmus eigenmanni Pygocentrus nattereri

    Figure 2. Scatterplot of principal component (PC) 1 versus PC2, performed with individual mean

    values of the three acoustic properties. PCA loadings for the two axes extracted from the three

    acoustic properties are presented in the table at the top right.

    Figure 3. Schematic left lateral view of the sound-producing apparatus in (A) Pygocentrus nattereri and (B) Serrasalmus

    compressus. Note that the same sonic mechanism as in (A) is found in S. eigenmanni, whereas S. elongatus, S. marginatus

    and S. rhombeus possess the same mechanism as in (B).

    A. B.