ArticlePDF Available

The influence of various reef sounds on coral-fish larvae behaviour



The swimming behaviour of coral-reef fish larvae from 20 species of 10 different families was tested under natural and artificial sound conditions. Underwater sounds from reef habitats (barrier reef, fringing reef and mangrove) as well as a white noise were broadcasted in a choice chamber experiment. Sixteen of the 20 species tested significantly reacted to at least one of the habitat playback conditions, and a range of responses was observed: fishes were (1) attracted by a single sound but repelled by none (e.g. white-banded triggerfish Rhinecanthus aculeatus was attracted by the barrier-reef sound), (2) repelled by one or more sounds but attracted by none (e.g. bridled cardinalfish Pristiapogon fraenatus was repelled by the mangrove and the bay sounds), (3) attracted by all sounds (e.g. striated surgeonfish Ctenochaetus striatus), (4) attracted and repelled by several sounds (e.g. whitetail dascyllus Dascyllus aruanus was attracted by the barrier-reef sound and repelled by the mangrove sound) and (5) not influenced by any sound (e.g. convict surgeonfish Acanthurus triostegus). Overall, these results highlight two settlement strategies: a direct selection of habitats using sound (45% of the species), or a by-default selection by avoidance of certain sound habitats (35%). These results also clearly demonstrated the need to analyse the influence of sounds at the species-specific level since congeneric and confamilial species can express different behaviours when exposed to the same sounds. © 2015 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles.
Journal of Fish Biology (2015)
doi:10.1111/jfb.12651, available online at
The inuence of various reef sounds on coral-sh larvae
E. Parmentier*, L. Berten*, P. Rigo*, F. Aubrun, S. Nedelec§, S.
D. Simpson§and D. Lecchini
*Laboratoire de Morphologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, AFFISH-RC, Institut de chimie, Bât.
B6c, Université de Liège, B-4000 Liège, Belgium, USR 3278 CNRS-EPHE, CRIOBE, 97829
Moorea, French Polynesia, §School of Biological Sciences & Cabot Institute, University of
Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol, BS8 1UG, U.K., Biosciences, College of Life &
Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, EX4 4QD, U.K. and Laboratoire d’Excellence
"CORAIL", 97829 Moorea, French Polynesia
(Received 7 October 2014, Accepted 28 January 2015)
The swimming behaviour of coral-reef sh larvae from 20 species of 10 different families was tested
under natural and articial sound conditions. Underwater sounds from reef habitats (barrier reef, fring-
ing reef and mangrove) as well as a white noise were broadcasted in a choice chamber experiment.
Sixteen of the 20 species tested signicantly reacted to at least one of the habitat playback conditions,
and a range of responses was observed: shes were (1) attracted by a single sound but repelled by
none (e.g. white-banded triggersh Rhinecanthus aculeatus was attracted by the barrier-reef sound),
(2) repelled by one or more sounds but attracted by none (e.g. bridled cardinalsh Pristiapogon frae-
natus was repelled by the mangrove and the bay sounds), (3) attracted by all sounds (e.g.striated
surgeonsh Ctenochaetus striatus), (4) attracted and repelled by several sounds (e.g.whitetaildascyl-
lus Dascyllus aruanus was attracted by the barrier-reef sound and repelled by the mangrove sound) and
(5) not inuenced by any sound (e.g.convictsurgeonshAcanthurus triostegus). Overall, these results
highlight two settlement strategies: a direct selection of habitats using sound (45% of the species), or
strated the need to analyse the inuence of sounds at the species-specic level since congeneric and
confamilial species can express different behaviours when exposed to the same sounds.
© 2015 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles
Key words: acoustic cues; coral reef; habitat; orientation; settlement; teleosts.
Coral-reef shes have a complex life cycle, characterized by a pelagic larval stage,
followed by benthic juvenile and adult stages (Leis & McCormick, 2002). Reef col-
onization takes place mainly during the night and corresponds to the passage of the
larvae from the ocean to a reef (Dufour & Galzin, 1993), quickly followed by the set-
tlement in an adequate habitat (Lecchini, 2005). These steps are generally related to
morphological and physiological modications to adapt to important environmental
changes related to the transition from pelagic life in open sea to benthic life on the reef
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.: +3243665024; email:
(McCormick et al., 2002; Parmentier et al., 2004). During the rst few hours following
the colonization and settlement, the mortality rate is high, with up to 60% mortality
on the rst day post-colonization (Doherty et al.,2004),implyingthattheabilityto
quickly nd and settle in an appropriate habitat is highly important for larval survival
(Kaufman et al.,1992;Lecchini,2005).
The settlement habitat is known to be chosen according to various characteristics,
such as conspecic presence, quality of habitat or absence of predators (Öhman et al.,
1998; Lecchini et al., 2007a;Ben-Tzviet al., 2009). Orientation towards suitable habi-
tats appears possible with the use of chemical (Atema et al.,2002;Lecchiniet al.,2005;
Arvedlund & Takemura, 2006; Dixson et al.,2008),visual(Leis&Carson-Ewart,
2003; Lecchini et al.,2007b; Igulu et al.,2011)andacousticcues(Tolimieriet al.,
2000; Leis et al.,2003;Simpsonet al.,2004;Holleset al.,2013).
The inuence of reef sound on settling shes has become a subject of particular inter-
est in the past few years, since Stobutzki & Bellwood (1998) showed that sh larvae
could use sound as a cue for orientation. Several experiments using choice chambers
have been used in recent years and highlighted an attractive effect of broadcasted reef
noise (Tolimieri et al.,2004)andtheinuenceofarticialtonenoiseonshbehaviour
(Simpson et al.,2010;Holleset al.,2013).Theuseofsoundtolocatehabitathasalso
been recently shown at Lizard Island (Australia) where juveniles are signicantly more
attracted to patch reefs with lagoon or fringing-reef sound broadcast than to patch reefs
with no playback sound (Radford et al.,2011).
In all these studies, differences were observed at the family level. For example, Poma-
centridae were preferentially found on patch reefs broadcasting fringing-reef sound
than on other treatments (Radford et al.,2011).Thestudyofresponsesatthefamily
level, however, is potentially oversimplied. The number of species studied in the same
taxa can considerably modify the results when they are all pooled to consider the fam-
ily level. In the above studies, Pomacentridae were, overall, signicantly attracted by
the same kind of behaviour because species have different ecological niches, meaning
that they may not be sensitive in the same way to different cues. This remark is par-
ticularly important as the sounds emitted from different locations (fringing reef, back
reef and lagoon) have revealed differences in the temporal and frequency composition
and in sound levels (Radford et al., 2014). At this stage, species-specic reactions to
different kinds of reef sounds are not known. In this study, the inuence of broadcasted
natural sounds (fringing-reef, barrier-reef and mangrove sounds) and articial white
noise on the sh behaviour during their settlement stage was tested. In particular, the
ability of 21 sh species from 10 families to use the sounds of three specic habitats as
that the study at the family level can mask behaviour at the species-specic level.
This study was conducted at Moorea (French Polynesia; 1731S; 14951W) from Febru-
ary to April 2011 and 2012 using sh larvae captured in crest nets (Lecchini et al.,2006).A
total of 1449 sh larvae belonging to 21 species and 10 families were tested (see Table I), with
a sample size of six to 25 shes per species for each sound treatment. Due to a lack of lar-
vae, one test (the white-noise test) was not conducted on whitetail dascyllus Dascyllus aruanus
(L. 1758) and Bennet’s sharpnose buffer Canthigaster bennetti (Bleeker 1854). The total lengths
© 2015 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles, Journa l of Fish Biol ogy 2015, doi:10.1111/jfb.12651
Table I. Experimental results from choice-chamber tests on several species of coral-reef sh larvae, showing habitats signicantly selected by each
sh species (𝜒2homogeneity test and P-value), with putative strategy and comparison with eld observations (Lecchini, 2005; Lecchini & Galzin, 2005)
Experimental results Theory Field observations
Attracted by (P-value) Deterred by (P-value) Selected habitat Strategy Settlement habitat
Acanthuridae Acanthurus triostegus None None X X FR
Ctenochaetus striatus All None All A BR, FR
Apogon doryssa ––
Apogon sp. BR (<005) None BR A BR, FR
Apogonidae Ostorhinchus angustatus B(<005) None B A BR, FR
Pristiapogon exostigma None MG (<0001) BR, FR B BR, FR
Pristiapogon fraenatus None MG (0033), B (<005) BR, FR B BR
Balistidae Rhinecanthus aculeatus BR (<005) None BR A BR, FR
Chaetodontidae Chaetodon citrinellus MG (<005) BR (<005) MG ABR
Gobiidae Valenciennea strigata None None X X BR
Myripristis kuntee FR (<001) None FR A FR
Holocentridae Neoniphon argenteus None BR (<005), MG (<0001) FR B FR
Sargocentron microstoma BR (<005) None BR A BR
Sargocentron spiniferum B(<005) None B A BR
Microdesmidae Ptereleotris microlepsis None BR (<005) FR, MG B BR, FR
Abudefduf sexfasciatus None FR (0028), MG (0028) BR B BR, FR
Pomacentridae Chromis viridis None None X X FR
Chrysiptera leucopoma None B (<001) BR, FR, MG B BR
Dascyllus aruanus BR (<005) MG (<001) BR A BR, FR
Scorpaenidae Scorpaenodes guamensis None None X X BR, FR
Tetraodontidae Canthigaster bennetti None FR (<005), B (<005) BR, MG B BR
, no reaction to tested sounds; , total or partial correspondence between eld observations and predicted habitat choice; , eld observations and predicted habitat
choice do not correspond; B, bay; BR, barrier reef; FR, fringing reef; MG, mangrove; strategy A, direct selection of sound habitat; strategy B, by-default selection of
remaining sound habitat; X, no strategy given due to no reaction to tested sounds. Habitat sounds were not tested on A. doryssa due to environmental bias highlighted by
the side bias experiment. White noise was not tested on D. aruanus and C. bennetti due to the lack of larvae.
© 2015 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles, Journa l of Fish Bio logy 2015, doi:10.1111/jfb.12651
(LT) of the tested shes varied with species, ranging from c.05cmfor thesmallest, e.g. blue
green damselsh Chromis viridis (Cuvier 1830) and D.aruanus,toc.7cmforsmallmouth
squirrelsh Sargocentron microstoma (Günther 1859).
Playback sounds of fringing reef, barrier reef and mangrove were recorded at dusk between
February and April 2010 on the north coast of Moorea. Sounds were recorded with a calibrated
broadband hydrophone (High Tech HTI-96-MIN, with in-built preamplier, sensitivity 164 dB
re 1 V μPa1, frequency range 2 Hz to 30kHz. High Tech Inc.;, con-
nected to a solid-state calibrated recorder (Edirol R-09HR, 24 bit, sample rate 441kHz.Roland
System Group; For each habitat, ve GPS locations were cho-
sen. Locations within each habitat were separated by 10100 m, and present similar charac-
teristics (i.e. depth, coral structures and biotic community). Recordings of 1 min duration were
taken at each point, with replications on three different days. A control sound was recorded at
5 m depth in the middle of Opunohu Bay, a natural biotope of low interest for reef-sh larvae
(Lecchini & Galzin, 2005). In order to avoid the sound of waves slapping on a boat or other
boat-related noise, recordings were taken from a plastic kayak. Sound les were cleaned of any
unnatural sound (e.g. boats passing away, paddle sounds and cable rubbing) using the Avisoft
SASLab Pro (Avisoft Bioacoustics; Small sections (3 s duration) of each
le were randomly rearranged to create a typical 5 min duration sample of each habitat sound
(Fig. 1). The bay sound was a natural sound similar to white noise up to 1000 Hz, with a slight
increase at higher frequencies. Fringing-reef and barrier-reef sound express similar spectrogram
patterns to one another, although intensity around 300Hz is 10 dB higher for barrier reef than
for fringing reef, while it is lower for frequencies around 1200 Hz. As mangrove sound is mainly
silent but with sparse clicks of high frequency (10 kHz and higher), and to avoid any background
noise effect of the experimental site, silences were removed to increase the rate of clicks on the
soundtrack. Thus, this sound could not completely correspond to the natural sound from the
mangrove. Due to the use of a loudspeaker at 10m from the choice chamber, a high pass lter of
100 Hz was applied on all playback sound to avoid near-eld effects (Mann, 2006). An articial
white noise (100 Hz22 kHz) was created with Avisoft SasLab Pro.
Fish larvae collected from the crest nets (Lecchini et al., 2004) at sunrise were transferred to
a laboratory aquarium (59 cm ×39 cm, water depth: 14 cm, CRIOBE station) that was placed
on sound insulating material (5 mm thick polystyrene), away from passing researchers and with
a constant supply of oxygenated seawater piped in below the surface to keep aquarium noise
to a minimum [background noise =783 peak sound pressure spectrum level (SPL) in dB re 1
μPa2Hz1between 200 and 3000 Hz from a 30 s sample, fast Fourier transform (FFT) length
1024, geometric mean across all frequency bands between 200 and 3000 Hz=649dBre1μPa2
Hz1](Holleset al., 2013). As most larval coral-reef shes colonize at night (Lecchini et al.,
2004; Simpson et al., 2005, 2008), shes were used in choice-chamber experiments (Fig. 2) in
the lagoon adjacent to the CRIOBE research station ( the
following night.
Experiments took place on a quiet and sandy lagoon on the north coast of Moorea. Larvae
were tested in a choice chamber experiment (Simpson et al., 2010; Holles et al.,2013)made
of three parallel cylindrical plastic polythene tubes (360 cm length ×30 cm diameter), sepa-
rated from each other by 060 m. In the middle of the chamber, a sealable opening allowed
introduction of larvae to the centre of each chamber, while the chamber ends were closed by
1 mm mesh (Fig. 2). The experimental chambers were suspended beneath the water surface,
parallel to the shore and the barrier reef to control for potential natural directional cues. The
experiments were conducted in a water depth that varied between 12and15m withthe tide.
Underwater loudspeakers (Lubell UW30, frequency response from 01Hz to 10kHz. Univer-
sity Sound; were placed at 10m from both ends of the experimental chambers
extremities. Speakers were connected to audio ampliers (Formula F-102), powered by a 12V
216 Ah battery, and linked to a music player (MpMan Mpub330;,
© 2015 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles, Journa l of Fish Biol ogy 2015, doi:10.1111/jfb.12651
110 (a) (b)
100 1000
100 1000
dB re 1 µPa2 Hz–1
Fig. 1. Power spectrum of tested sounds (a) barrier reef, (b) fringing reef, (c) mangrove, (d) white noise and (e)
bay, played in the experimental choice chamber device [hamming window, fast Fourier transform (FFT)
size 512, applied on a 5 s selection].
containing the sound les in WAV format. The whole electronic device was in a oating water-
proof box, moored on the sandy bottom. The intensity of playback was at least 90 dB re 1μPa
RMS (root mean square) to ensure that it was above the local ambient noise oor (recorded at
maximum 80 dB re 1μPa RMS).
One larva at a time was used per chamber, and each sh was used only once. Six dual sound
treatments were applied (Table II). As the control sound (bay sound) was used for every treat-
ment, and to avoid as much as possible any environmental bias, the side of the chamber where
the control sound was played was balanced from test to test. The order of treatments was ran-
domized each night, as well as sh species position in the three chambers (nearest to the shore,
in the middle and farthest from the shore).
After sh larvae were placed in the chambers, a settling period of 2min silence was observed
before 3 min of playback sound. At the end of each trial, the experimental chambers were divided
and closed into three sections of equal length, after which the position of the larva in the cham-
ber was established by snorkellers using underwater torches. The location of the shes in the
© 2015 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles, Journa l of Fish Bio logy 2015, doi:10.1111/jfb.12651
10 m
Sound speaker
Proof box with music
player and amplier
Choice chambers
360 cm
Fig. 2. Experimental choice chamber used to test the attractiveness and repelling effect of playback sounds on
coral-reef larvae. Choice chamber was made of three parallel cylindrical plastic tubes (30cm diameter),
separated from each other by 060 m. They were suspended in a water depth between 12and15 m. Under-
water loudspeakers were placed at 10 m from both ends of the experimental chamber extremities. Music
player and amplier were placed in a oating waterproof box, moored on the bottom.
chamber was recorded as near, middle and far from the speaker playing the sound of interest
(i.e. the sound played against the control sound). After being tested, the larvae were released
into the lagoon.
Fish distributions in the chambers at the end of the experiments were analysed using 𝜒2tests.
The control for side bias (bay sound v. bay sound) assessed whether larvae had a directional bias
when same sound was played on both sides. If shes were statistically more present on one side
than the other, it was assumed the experimental environment had a bias effect on larvae due to
other cues than sound (e.g. wave, celestial or magnetic cues) and the species was discarded from
the experiment. For the 21 species tested, this situation occurred only for longspine cardinalsh
Apogon doryssa (Jordan & Seale 1906). The control sound test (bay sound v. no playback)
aimed to test the inuence of bay sound on larvae behaviour. The inuence of bay sound, if
any, was considered for subsequent analysis of white noise and habitat sounds. The white-noise
test (bay sound v.whitenoise),BRtest(baysoundv. barrier-reef sound), FR test (bay sound v.
fringing-reef sound) and MG test (bay sound v. mangrove sound) aimed to test the inuence of
an articial noise and natural habitat sounds on reef sh larvae behaviour.
The analysis of the species distribution in the chamber was conducted according to the distri-
bution observed in the side-bias test. Firstly, for species evenly distributed in all three compart-
ments of the chamber during the side-bias test, the compartment in which the sh was found at
the end of the white-noise test or habitat-sound test was recorded (far from or near to the speaker
broadcasting the tested sound, or in the middle). To test the attractiveness of habitat sound in
this compartment, the number of shes in it was compared (𝜒2homogeneity test) to a theoret-
ical distribution of 033:066 (the sum of shes in the unselected compartments). Secondly, for
Table II. The six experimental sound treatments applied to several species of coral-reef sh
larvae in the choice chambers
Test Dual sound treatment Purpose
Side bias Bay sound v. bay sound To test environmental bias
Control sound Bay sound v. no playback To test inuence of the control sound
White noise Bay sound v. white noise To test the inuence of articial noise
FR Bay sound v. fringing-reef sound To test the inuence of habitat sounds
BR Bay sound v. barrier-reef sound To test the inuence of habitat sounds
MG Bay sound v. mangrove sound To test the inuence of habitat sounds
FR, fringing reef; BR, barrier reef; MG, mangrove.
© 2015 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles, Journa l of Fish Biol ogy 2015, doi:10.1111/jfb.12651
species with a half and half distribution in the extremities during the side-bias test, the shes
found in the centre compartment at the end of the sound test were not taken in account, and the
distribution of shes in extremities was compared (𝜒2homogeneity test) to a 05:05 theoretical
A sound was said to have an attractive or deterrent effect on sh behaviour if the species did
not show a preference for one side or the other during the control-sound test, but was found
signicantly more often in the compartment nearest to the loudspeaker broadcasting the test
sound (attractive effect) or in the farthest compartment (deterrent effect). If the species showed
a preference for the compartment near the bay loudspeaker during the control-sound test, the
attractive effect of tested sound was dened the same way, but the deterrent effect would not be
differentiated from an inherent attractiveness of bay sound. Also, if the species was found signif-
icantly more often in the compartment near the silent loudspeaker during the control-sound test,
an attractive effect of the tested sound would notbe differentiated from an inherent repulsiveness
of bay sound.
When the same sound was played at both ends of the choice chambers, 16 species
showed an even distribution (033:033:033), suggesting that they did not have prefer-
ence for a specic compartment. This was not the case, however, for convict surgeon-
sh Acanthurus triostegus (L. 1758), A.doryssa,C.viridis,white-bandedtriggersh
Rhinecanthus aculeatus (L. 1758) and S.microstoma (𝜒2homogeneity test, d.f. =2,
P<005). The larvae of these species (except A.doryssa)weredistributedequally
between both extremities (05:0:05) (𝜒2homogeneity test, d.f. =1, P<005). Because
A.doryssa did not display a symmetrical distribution, this species may have poten-
tially been affected by an environmental bias. Consequently, it was discarded in further
Six species statistically reacted (𝜒2homogeneity test, d.f. =1, P<005) under
the inuence of bay sound, tested against no playback (meaning natural sound
background). Striated surgeonsh Ctenochaetus striatus (Quoy & Gaimard 1825),
broadstriped cardinalsh Ostorhinchus angustatus (Smith & Radcliffe 1911) and sabre
squirrelish Sargocentron spiniferum (Forsskål 1775) were attracted by bay sound,
while bridled cardinalsh Pristiapogon fraenatus (Valenciennes 1832), surge dam-
selsh Chrysiptera brownriggii (Bennett 1828) and C.bennetti were repelled by it. The
remaining 14 species were neither signicantly attracted nor deterred by the bay sound.
Four of the 18 species tested showed a signicant response to white-noise (𝜒2
homogeneity test, d.f. =1, P<005). Ctenochaetus striatus,speckledbutterysh
Chaetodon citrinellus Cuvier 1831 and Guam scorpionsh Scorpaenodes guamensis
(Quoy & Gaimard 1824) were more likely to be found in the section of the chamber
closest to the loudspeaker playing white noise, while O.angustatus was found more
frequently on the bay sound side, conrming the attractive effect of bay previously
highlighted by the control-sound test.
© 2015 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles, Journa l of Fish Bio logy 2015, doi:10.1111/jfb.12651
The fringing-reef sound signicantly attracted C.striatus and shoulderbar soldiersh
Myripristis kuntee Val enc ie nn es 18 31 , but h ad a d et e rr en t eff ec t o n sc is sor ta il s erg ea n t
Abudefduf sexfasciatus (Lacépède 1831) and C.bennetti.
The barrier-reef sound attracted ve species (Apogon sp., C.striatus,D.aruanus,
R.aculeatus and S.microstoma) and repelled three others: C.citrinellus,clearn
squirrelsh Neoniphon argenteus (Valenciennes 1831) and blue gudgeon Ptereleotris
microlepsis (Bleeker 1856). Uncertainty on the attractive effect on C.brownriggii
remains as sh were found on the side where barrier-reef noise was played, but the
bay had repelled this species during the control-sound test.
The mangrove sound inuenced the distribution of seven species. Ctenochaetus stria-
tus and C.citrinellus were attracted, whereas narrowstripe cardinalsh Pristiapogon
exostigma (John & Starks 1906), P.fraenatus,N.argenteus,A.sexfasciatus and D.
aruanus were mainly found on the bay-sound side. As no attractive effect of bay sound
was previously shown by the control-sound test, the mangrove sound should deter them.
Among the 20 species tested with white noise and habitats sounds, 16 reacted to at
least one sound, by being either attracted or repelled. Acanthurus triostegus,S.gua-
mensis,C.viridis and blueband goby Val en c i e nn ea s t r i g a ta (Broussonet 1782) did not
show any preferences or aversion for tested sounds.
The analysis of responses of individual species highlighted two selective strategies
in the choice of reef habitat: a directed selection of sound habitats (strategy A), or
the avoidance of some sound habitats (strategy B). In the avoidance choice, the sh
is repelled by a given sound and takes by default the remaining choice, whatever the
proposed sound. According to the behaviour observed during experiments, the strategy
was attributed to each species and its preferred habitat was rst putatively inferred
(Table I). This putative habitat was then compared with data from previous studies on
larval settlement in Moorea lagoon habitats (Lecchini & Galzin, 2003, 2005; Lecchini,
2005). Thirteen species have been found in at least one of the habitats predicted by
the analysis, suggesting the effective role of the sound in habitat selection. Predictions
could not be veried for three species (O.angustatus,S.spiniferum and C.citrinellus)
because their putative settlement habitats would be the bay and the mangrove, for which
surveys are currently lacking in Moorea.
Species from the same family did not most often react in the same way to the different
sounds. In other words, it is not possible to predict the choice of the family on the basis
of the behaviour of their species (Table I).
This study clearly demonstrates that different species within the same family respond
differently to broadcasted sounds. It highlights that studies dealing with the behaviour
of populations should consider the species level. Moreover, it is consistent with studies
showing that species within the same family settle in various habitats to decrease com-
petition (Sale, 1991; Rocha & Bowen, 2008; Lucy, 2010; Litsios et al.,2012;Bowen
et al.,2013).
© 2015 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles, Journa l of Fish Biol ogy 2015, doi:10.1111/jfb.12651
Three kinds of behaviour were observed. Firstly, four species (A.triostegus,V.stri-
gata,C.viridis and S.guamensis)didnotsignicantlyreacttoanysoundhabitat,
suggesting that sound may be an unimportant settlement cue for these species. Sec-
ondly, C.striatus was attracted by all the sounds, including the articial one, supporting
that this species may be attracted by any noisy areas. Thirdly, 15 other species were
either signicantly attracted by a single habitat sound (six species), repelled by one
or more sounds (seven species) or showed a combination (attraction and repulsion) of
both effects (two species).
Using different strategies for sound-based habitat selection support the initial ndings
of Radford et al. (2011) and Huijbers et al. (2012) concerning the effect of attrac-
tion. The shes use the acoustic cues to orientate during the settlement and are also
able to interpret the characteristics of the acoustic signals of the different habitats.
Avoidance of reef noise by pelagic crustacean larvae was described by (Simpson et al.,
2011), while a similar effect was described by Vail & McCormick (2011) for chemical
signatures of coral patches in Pomacentridae larvae. Here, sound will not only give
information on the attractiveness of a habitat, but also on appropriateness as a site for
settlement. Avoidance of inappropriate habitat sounds should consequently be included
in future studies.
On the basis of the experimental results, 65% of the tested species would select habi-
tats where they are usually found, validating the hypothesis that sound is used to select
their settlement habitats. Moreover, this percentage could be underestimated; the pre-
dicted habitat of O.angustatus,S.spiniferum and C.citrinellus were either the bay
or the mangrove but it is impossible to conrm it as these habitats were not surveyed
(Lecchini, 2005; Lecchini & Galzin, 2005). In the eld, some species are, however, also
found in habitats they would not select according to the present experiments. As shes
can also be attracted by visual (Lecchini, 2004; Igulu et al.,2011)andchemicalcues
(Sweatman, 1988; Atema et al.,2002;Lecchiniet al.,2005,2013;Vail&McCormick,
2011), the settlement choice is likely to be the result of the integration of all of these
signals over different spatial scales (Kingsford et al.,2002;Huijberset al.,2012).This
might explain why C.citrinellus and P.microlepsis are found on the barrier reefs in the
wild, although the sound of this habitat had a deterring effect on those species in this
study. It should also be borne in mind that the barrier reef has to be crossed to reach
other habitats (Irisson & Lecchini, 2008). Fishes might be found in this habitat because
they have not ended their settlement phase. It has been shown that coral-reef shes can
adopt a different set of settlement sequences: some can use a pre-settlement habitat or
can show a cryptic lifestyle, because larval morphology, physiology and diet are not
yet adapted to a reef habitat (Lecchini & Galzin, 2005).
Responses varied according to the type of sound, which clearly demonstrates the sen-
sory ability of larvae to select sounds that contain relevant information about habitat
types. This nding is corroborated by the fact that white noise had no effect on the
majority of the tested species, suggesting that noise per se is insufcient to elicit direc-
tional behaviour, as already shown in megalopae and cardinal shes larvae (Stanley
et al.,2011,2012;Holleset al.,2013).Thisstudydemonstratesthatthespectraland
temporal signature is important in elicited directional choices. Ostorhinchus angusta-
tus and S.spiniferum were attracted by bay sound, although the frequency richness of
this biotope is clearly not similar to that of other habitats (Fig. 1). The lack of spectral
complexity in the frequency range 1– 5 kHz may explain why the mangrove sounds
repelled ve species and attracted only one (C.citrinellus). These results are, however,
© 2015 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles, Journa l of Fish Bio logy 2015, doi:10.1111/jfb.12651
intriguing as mangroves are known to be nursery areas for many species (Parrish, 1989;
Nagelkerken et al.,2000;CocheretdelaMorinièreet al.,2002;Nagelkerkenet al.,
2002). The mangrove habitat in Moorea is almost silent, with sparse clicks. The mod-
ications applied to the mangrove soundtracks (increasing the click rate by skipping
the silent parts) might have altered the sonic information of this habitat.
This study showed that most of the coral-reef sh species tested use sounds to detect
and orientate towards appropriate habitats at settlement. Based on observations, two
kinds of strategies can be attributed to larva behaviour: a direct selection for sound
of appropriate habitats, or avoidance of inappropriate habitats, and thus preference by
default for the other ones. Moreover, the strategy used and the habitat chosen varied
between species within families, highlighting the importance of conducting studies on
sound inuences on behaviour at the species level. Coastal habitat noise heterogeneity
appears to be used adaptively by the different sh species.
The authors thank the team of the Centre de Recherches Insulaires et Observatoire de
l’Environement (CRIOBE) for their assistance and logistical support during the study. E. Fors-
gren and anonymous referees made constructive comments on the manuscript. This research
was supported by the Fonds de la Recherche Scientique (FNRS), an EPSRC studentship
and Subacoustech funding to S.N., and Defra (Contract ME5207) and NERC (KE Fellowship
NE/J500616/1) to S.D.S.
Arvedlund, M. & Takemura, A. (2006). The importance of chemical environmental cues for
juvenile Lethrinus nebulosus Forsskål (Lethrinidae, Teleostei) when settling into their
rst benthic habitat. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 338, 112–122.
Atema, J., Kingsford, M. J. & Gerlach, G. (2002). Larval reef sh could use odour for detection,
retention and orientation to reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 241, 151 160.
Ben-Tzvi, O., Kiawi, M., Polak, O. & Abelson, A. (2009). The effect of adult aggression on
habitat selection by settlers of two coral-dwelling damselshes. PLoS One 4, e5511.
Bowen, B. W., Rocha, L. A., Toonen, R. J., Karl, S. A. & Laboratory, T. (2013). The origins of
tropical marine biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 28, 350366.
Cocheret de la Morinière, E. C., Pollux, B. J. A., Nagelkerken, I. & Van der Velde, G. (2002).
Post-settlement life cycle migration patterns and habitat preference of coral reef sh that
use seagrass and mangrove habitats as nurseries. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
55, 309321.
Dixson, D. L., Jones, G. P., Munday, P. L., Planes, S., Pratchett, M. S., Srinivasan, M., Syms, C.
& Thorrold, S. R. (2008). Coral reef sh smell leaves to nd island homes. Proceedings
of the Royal Society B 275, 28312839.
Doherty, P. J., Dufour, V., Galzin, R., Hixon, M. A., Meekan, M. G. & Planes, S. (2004). High
mortality during settlement is a population bottleneck for a tropical surgeonsh. Ecology
85, 24222428.
Dufour, V. & Galzin, R. (1993). Colonization patterns of reef sh larvae to the lagoon at Moorea
Island, French Polynesia. Marine Ecology Progress Series 102, 143 –152.
Holles, S., Simpson, S. D., Radford, A. N., Berten, L. & Lecchini, D. (2013). Boat noise disrupts
orientation behaviour in coral reef sh. Marine Ecology Progress Series 485, 295– 300.
Huijbers, C. M., Nagelkerken, I., Lossbroek, P. A. C., Schulten, I. E., Siegenthaler, A.,
Holderied, M. W. & Simpson, S. D. (2012). A test of the senses: sh select novel habitats
by responding to multiple cues. Ecology 93, 46– 55.
Igulu, M. M., Nagelkerken, I., Fraaije, R., van Hintum, R., Ligtenberg, H. & Mgaya, Y. D.
(2011). The potential role of visual cues for microhabitat selection during the early life
phase of a coral reef sh (Lutjanus fulviamma). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology
and Ecology 401, 118125.
Irisson, J. O. & Lecchini, D. (2008). In situ observation of settlement behaviour in larvae of
coral reef shes at night. Journal of Fish Biology 72, 27072713.
© 2015 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles, Journa l of Fish Biol ogy 2015, doi:10.1111/jfb.12651
Kaufman, L., Ebersole, J., Beets, J. & McIvor, C. C. (1992). A key phase in the recruitment
dynamics of coral reef shes: post-settlement transition. Environmental Biology of Fishes
34, 109118.
Kingsford, M. J., Leis, J. M., Shanks, A., Lindeman, K. C., Morgan, S. G. & Pineda, J. (2002).
Sensory environments, larval abilities and local self-recruitment. Bulletin of Marine Sci-
ence 70, 309340.
Lecchini, D. (2004). Étude expérimentale sur les capacités sensorielles des larves de poissons
coralliens dans la détection de leur lieu d’installation. Comptes Rendus Biologies 327,
Lecchini, D. (2005). Spatial and behavioural patterns of reef habitat settlement by sh larvae.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 301, 247 252.
Lecchini, D. & Galzin, R. (2003). Synthèse sur l’inuence des processus pélagiques et ben-
thiques, biotiques et abiotiques, stochastiques et déterministes, sur la dynamique de
l’autorecrutement des poissons coralliens. Cybium 27, 167184.
Lecchini, D. & Galzin, R. (2005). Spatial repartition and ontogenetic shifts in habitat use by
coral reef shes (Moorea, French Polynesia). Marine Biology 147, 4758.
Lecchini, D., Dufour, V., Carleton, J., Strand, S. & Galzin, R. (2004). Estimating the patch size of
larval shes during colonization on coral reefs. Journal of Fish Biology 65, 1142 1146.
Lecchini, D., Shima, J., Banaigs, B. & Galzin, R. (2005). Larval sensory abilities and mecha-
nisms of habitat selection of a coral reef sh during settlement. Oecologia 143, 326334.
Lecchini, D., Polti, S., Nakamura, Y., Mosconi, P., Tsuchiya, M., Remoissenet, G. & Planes, S.
(2006). New perspectives on aquarium sh trade. Fisheries Science 72, 40 47.
Lecchini, D., Planes, S. & Galzin, R. (2007a). The inuence of habitat characteristics and con-
specics on attraction and survival of coral reef sh juveniles. Journal of Experimental
Marine Biology and Ecology 341, 85– 90.
Lecchini, D., Osenberg, C. W., Shima, J. S., St Mary, C. M. & Galzin, R. (2007b). Ontogenetic
changes in habitat selection during settlement in a coral reef sh: ecological determinants
and sensory mechanisms. Coral Reefs 26, 423432.
Lecchini, D., Waqalevu, V. P., Parmentier, E., Radford, C. A. & Banaigs, B. (2013). Fish larvae
prefer coral over algal water cues: implications of coral reef degradation. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 475, 303307.
Leis, J. M. & Carson-Ewart, B. M. (2003). Orientation of pelagic larvae of coral-reef shes in
the ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series 252, 239 253.
Leis, J. M. & McCormick, M. I. (2002). The biology, behavior, and ecology of the pelagic, larval
stage of coral reef shes. In Coral Reef Fishes – Dynamics and Diversity in a Complex
Ecosystem (Sale, P. F., ed.), pp. 171– 199. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Leis, J. M., Carson-Ewart, B. M., Hay, A. C. & Cato, D. H. (2003). Coral-reef sounds enable
nocturnal navigation by some reef-sh larvae in some places and at some times. Journal
of Fish Biology 63, 724–737.
Litsios, G., Pellissier, L., Forest, F., Lexer, C., Pearman, P. B., Zimmermann, N. E. & Salamin,
N. (2012). Trophic specialization inuences the rate of environmental niche evolution in
damselshes (Pomacentridae). Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279, 3662–3669.
Lucy, K. (2010). Methods of speciation in tropical reef sh. Rollins Undergraduate Research
Journal 2, article 8.
Mann, D. A. (2006). Propagation of sh sounds. In Communication in Fishes (Ladich, F., Collin,
S. P., Moller, P. & Kapoor, B. G., eds), pp. 107–120. Eneld, NH: Science Publishers.
McCormick, M. I., Makey, L. & Dufour, V. (2002). Comparative study of metamorphosis in
tropical reef shes. Marine Biology 141, 841853.
Nagelkerken, I., Van der Velde, G., Gorissen, M. W., Meijer, G. J., Van’t Hof, T. & Den Hartog,
C. (2000). Importance of mangroves, seagrass beds and the shallow coral reef as a nursery
for important coral reef shes, using a visual census technique. Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science 51, 3144.
Nagelkerken, I., Roberts, C. M., Van der Velde, G., Dorenbosch, M., VanRiel, M. C., Cocheret de
la Morinière, E. C. & Nienhuis, P. H. (2002). How important are mangroves and seagrass
beds for coral-reef sh? The nursery hypothesis tested on an island scale. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 244, 299305.
© 2015 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles, Journa l of Fish Bio logy 2015, doi:10.1111/jfb.12651
Öhman, M. C., Munday, P. L., Jones, G. P. & Caley, M. J. (1998). Settlement strategies and
distribution patterns of coral-reef shes. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology 225, 219238.
Parmentier, E., Lecchini, D. & Vandewalle, P. (2004). Remodelling of the vertebral axis during
metamorphic shrinkage in the pearlsh. Journal of Fish Biology 64, 159169.
Parrish, J. D. (1989). Fish community of interacting shallow-water habitats in tropical oceanic
regions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 58, 143 160.
Radford, C. A., Stanley, J. A., Simpson, S. D. & Jeffs, A. G. (2011). Juvenile coral reef sh use
sound to locate habitats. Coral Reefs 30, 295– 305.
Radford, C. A., Stanley, J. A. & Jeffs, A. G. (2014). Adjacent coral reef habitats produce different
underwater sound signatures. Marine Ecology Progress Series 505, 19 28.
Rocha, L. A. & Bowen, B. W. (2008). Speciation in coral-reef shes. Journal of Fish Biology
72, 11011121.
Sale, P. F. (1991). The Ecology of Fishes on Coral Reefs. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Simpson, S. D., Meekan, M. G., McCauley, R. D. & Jeffs, A. (2004). Attraction of
settlement-stage coral reef shes to reef noise. Marine Ecology Progress Series
276, 263268.
Simpson, S. D., Meekan, M., Montgomery, J., McCauley, R. & Jeffs, A. (2005). Homeward
sound. Science 308, 221.
Simpson, S. D., Jeffs, A., Montgomery, J. C., McCauley, R. D. & Meekan, M. G. (2008). Noc-
turnal relocation of adult and juvenile coral reef shes in response to reef noise. Coral
Reefs 27, 97104.
Simpson, S. D., Meekan, M. G., Larsen, N. J., McCauley, R. D. & Jeffs, A. (2010). Behav-
ioral plasticity in larval reef sh: orientation is inuenced by recent acoustic experiences.
Behavioral Ecology 21, 1098– 1105.
Simpson, S. D., Radford, A. N., Tickle, E. J., Meekan, M. J. & Jeffs, A. (2011). Adaptive avoid-
ance of reef noise. PLoS One 6, e16625.
Stanley, J. A., Radford, C. A. & Jeffs, A. G. (2011). Behavioural response thresholds in New
Zealand crab megalopae to ambient underwater sound. PLoS One 6, e28572.
Stanley, J. A., Radford, C. A. & Jeffs, A. G. (2012). Location, location, location: nding a
suitable home among the noise. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279, 3622–3631.
Stobutzki, I. C. & Bellwood, D. R. (1998). Nocturnal orientation to reefs by late pelagic stage
coral reef shes. Coral Reefs 17, 103– 110.
Sweatman, H. P. A. (1988). Field evidence that settling coral reef sh larvae detect resident shes
using dissolved chemical cues. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
124, 163174.
Toli m i e ri, N., Jeffs, A. & M o n t g omery, J. C. (2000). Amb i e n t sound as a cue for nav i g a t ion by
the pelagic larvae of reef shes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 207, 219–224.
Tolimieri, N., Haine, O., Jeffs, A., McCauley, R. & Montgomery, J. (2004). Directional orien-
tation of pomacentrid larvae to ambient reef sound. Coral Reefs 23, 184–191.
Vail, A. L. & McCormick, M. I. (2011). Metamorphosing reef shes avoid predator scent when
choosing a home. Biology Letters 7, 921– 924.
© 2015 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles, Journa l of Fish Biol ogy 2015, doi:10.1111/jfb.12651
... To our knowledge, there is no information on the effects of noise exposure on the inner ear and associated hearing loss in larval fish. This is a particularly important issue to address given that increasing evidence shows that fish rely on acoustic cues from the soundscape to localize suitable habitats for settlement (Simpson et al., 2004;Leis and Lockett, 2005;Montgomery et al., 2006;Vermeij et al., 2010;Parmentier et al., 2015) and that anthropogenic noise may disrupt habitat identification and impair orientation at early life stages (Simpson et al., 2005;Caiger et al., 2012;Holles et al., 2013;Holmes et al., 2017). ...
... By listening to the aquatic background noise, fish can extract critical biotic information about the presence of conspecifics and heterospecifics, and perceive important abiotic information for orientation (Popper and Fay, 1993;Lagardere et al., 1994;Ladich and Schulz-mirbach, 2013). More specifically, larval fish undergo auditory sensitivity improvements during growth (Vasconcelos et al., 2015) and rely on acoustic cues to detect suitable habitats for settlement, and the presence of anthropogenic noise may interfere with their hearing sense, habitat identification and impair orientation (Simpson et al., 2004;Leis and Lockett, 2005;Montgomery et al., 2006;Parmentier et al., 2015). ...
Full-text available
Anthropogenic noise can be hazardous for the auditory system and wellbeing of animals, including humans. However, very limited information is known on how this global environmental pollutant affects auditory function and inner ear sensory receptors in early ontogeny. The zebrafish (Danio rerio) is a valuable model in hearing research, including to investigate developmental processes of the vertebrate inner ear. We tested the effects of chronic exposure to white noise in larval zebrafish on inner ear saccular sensitivity and morphology at 3 and 5 days post fertilization (dpf), as well as on auditory-evoked swimming responses using the prepulse inhibition paradigm (PPI) at 5 dpf. Noise-exposed larvae showed significant increase in microphonic potential thresholds at low frequencies, 100 and 200 Hz, while PPI revealed a hypersensitisation effect and similar threshold shift at 200 Hz. Auditory sensitivity changes were accompanied by a decrease in saccular hair cell number and epithelium area. In aggregate, the results reveal noise-induced effects on inner ear structure-function in a larval fish paralleled by a decrease in auditory-evoked sensorimotor responses. More broadly, this study highlights the importance of investigating the impact of environmental noise on early development of sensory and behavioural responsiveness to acoustic stimuli.
... Larval fish can use acoustic cues when selecting habitats in which to recruit (Parmentier et al. 2015). Gordon and colleagues (2019) recorded noises from a healthy reef at night and evaluated the effects of playing these recordings on attracting fish to degraded reefs (figure 3e). ...
Full-text available
As efforts to restore coastal habitats accelerate, it is critical that investments are targeted to most effectively mitigate and reverse habitat loss and its impacts on biodiversity. One likely but largely overlooked impediment to effective restoration of habitat-forming organisms is failing to explicitly consider non-habitat-forming animals in restoration planning, implementation, and monitoring. These animals can greatly enhance or degrade ecosystem function, persistence, and resilience. Bivalves, for instance, can reduce sulfide stress in seagrass habitats and increase drought tolerance of saltmarsh vegetation, whereas megaherbivores can detrimentally overgraze seagrass or improve seagrass seed germination, depending on the context. Therefore, understanding when, why, and how to directly manipulate or support animals can enhance coastal restoration outcomes. In support of this expanded restoration approach, we provide a conceptual framework, incorporating lessons from structured decision-making, and describe potential actions that could lead to better restoration outcomes using case studies to illustrate practical approaches.
... Sound frequency distribution 5 Laboratory conditions 16 Temporal and spatial distribution 6 Natural habitats 17 Individual level 7 Aquatic environments 18 Species communities 8 Terrestrial environments 19 Foraging behaviour 9 Abiotic factors 20 Swimming behaviour 10 Biotic and abiotic 21 ...
There are growing concerns about monitoring scientific developments, building scientific capacity, providing an introduction and overview of a new field of science for academia worldwide. The aim of this paper is to enhance promotion of science, steering undergraduate students and researchers in the field of behavioural studies, bioacoustics also cultivation of a new area of research. Although the technology to monitor acoustic changes and sound components is complex and limited, international scientific communications may play an important role and create the opportunity to overcome the limitations of this filed of research in Iran. In the other hand, cognitive processes and concepts such as perception, learning, memory and decision making play an important role in mate choice, foraging and many other behaviours of aquatic animals. Here, we classify underwater sound sources and describe underwater bioacoustics. Moreover, we review some of our recent behavioural study publications in the field of research; give an overview of other relevant research contributions also compare laboratory-based studies with field-based behavioural studies. The authors suggest sound-related behavioural studies and a series of continuous monitoring of underwater acoustics in real field conditions and habitats but also acoustic measurements under laboratory conditions.
... Continuous sound sources, both natural and of anthropic nature, can be used by animals to orient, navigate, or acquire knowledge about an unknown environment (Griffin, 1958;Au, 1993;Radford et al., 2014;Parmentier et al., 2015;Farina, 2019). Bird communities change their daily cycles in the presence of a protracted source of sounds produced in urban settlements. ...
Full-text available
We investigate the possible presence of ‘long time’ memory in the auto-correlations of biophonic activity of environment sound. The study is based on recordings taken at two sites located in the Parco Nord of Milan (Italy), characterized by a wooded land, rich in biodiversity and exposed to different sources and degrees of anthropogenic disturbances. The audio files correspond to a three-day recording campaign (1-min recording followed by 5-min pause), from (17:00) April 30 to (17:00) May 3, 2019, which have been transformed into ecoacoustic indices time series. The following eight indices have been computed: Acoustic Complexity Index (ACI), Acoustic Diversity Index (ADI), Acoustic Evenness Index (AEI), Bio-acoustic Index (BI), Acoustic Entropy Index (H), Acoustic Richness index (AR), Normalized Difference Soundscape Index (NSDI) and Dynamic Spectral Centroid (DSC). We have grouped the indices carrying similar sound information by performing a principal component analysis (PCA). This allows us to reduce the number of variables from eight to three by retaining a large (≳80%) variance of the original variables. The time series corresponding to the reduced set of new variables have been analyzed, and both seasonal and possible long term trend components have been extracted. We find that no trends are present, i.e. the resulting time series are stationary, and the auto-correlations of the three selected PCA dimensions and associated residuals (obtained after extracting the seasonal components) can be determined. The calculations reveal the presence of a “memory” of few (≲5) hours long in the environment sound, for the two sites considered, which is quantified by the Hurst exponent, H. For Site 1, we find an overall effective Hurst exponent, Hdim≃0.88, for all three dimensions, and Hres≃0.75 for the residuals. For Site 2, the exponents are slightly smaller, amounting to 0.80 and 0.60, respectively. We attempt to correlate the Hurst exponents with a quality index obtained from an aural survey, aimed at determining the sound components, such as biophonies, technophonies and geophonies, at the two sites. We conclude that the higher the Hurst exponents, the higher are the periodic-structured sounds, corresponding to stronger long-term biophonic activity. We find that Site 1 has a more structured environment sound than Site 2, also consistent with the major presence of tall trees surrounding the location of the acoustic sensor at the former.
... Marine soundscapes are correlated with environmental (e.g., sea state, habitat depth) and biological parameters (e.g., coral cover, fish diversity and biomass; Piercy et al., 2014;Kaplan et al., 2017), and those acoustic signals are used by pelagic larvae to locate nursery habitats. Larvae that are attracted to soundscapes associated with settlement habitats include mobile species such as fish (Simpson et al., 2004;Parmentier et al., 2015) and decapod crustaceans (Stanley et al., 2012;Hinojosa et al., 2016), as well as sessile species like bivalves (Lillis et al., 2013(Lillis et al., , 2015 and corals (Lillis et al., 2016(Lillis et al., , 2018. Sound is different from other settlement cues (i.e., visual or olfactory cues) because it can carry information over long distances and is not affected by currents, turbidity, or light. ...
Full-text available
Underwater sound is used by many marine larvae to orient to coastal habitats including backreef, sponge-dominated hardbottom habitat in the Florida Keys (FL, United States)—a particularly “noisy” coastal habitat. However, the distance over which acoustic cues are attractive to settlement-stage larvae is generally unknown. We examined this phenomenon in a region of the Florida Keys where mass sponge die-offs have diminished both underwater soundscapes and larval settlement. The absence of pronounced hardbottom-associated sound over such a large area allowed us to experimentally test in situ the response of fish and invertebrate larvae to broadcasted sounds at different distances from their source. We first measured the signal-to-noise ratio of healthy hardbottom habitat soundscapes broadcast from an underwater speaker at seven distances to determine the maximum range of the signal. Based on those results, larval collectors were then deployed at 10, 100, 500, and 1,000 m from speakers broadcasting sounds recorded at either degraded or healthy hardbottom sites for five consecutive nights during each of three new and full moon periods in summer/fall 2019. Larval settlement onto those collectors was affected by lunar phase and soundscape type, but varied among species. In most cases, the effect was small and not likely to be ecologically significant. The absence of a strong larval settlement response to a sound cue lies in contrast to results from other studies. We suspect that the small (<500 m) radius of the broadcasted soundscapes may have limited the magnitude of the larval response to locally available larvae whose abundance may have been low because the experiment was conducted within a large, relatively quiet seascape. If true, it is possible that planktonic larvae may require a series of acoustic “sign-posts,” perhaps in combination with other cues (e.g., chemical), to successfully orient to distant nursery habitats. Although habitat restoration efforts may be able to restore healthy soundscapes, the typically small size and number of restoration sites may limit the range of the acoustic cue and thus larval attraction to restored habitats.
Full-text available
Virtual Reality (VR) enables standardised stimuli to invoke behavioural responses in animals, however, in fish studies VR has been limited to either basic 2D visual stimuli for freely-moving individuals or simple 3D stimuli for head-restrained individuals. We developed a novel fully immersive VR setup with 3D scenarios, validated in a proof of concept study on the behaviour of coral reef post-larvae. Larval fish use a variety of cues to select a habitat during recruitment, and to recognize conspecifics and predators, but which visual cues are used remains unknown. We measured behavioural responses of groups of five convict surgeonfish (Acanthurus triostegus) to simulations of habitats, static or moving shoals of conspecifics, predators, and non-aggressive heterospecifics. Post-larvae were consistently attracted to virtual corals and conspecifics, but repulsed by their predators. Post-larvae also discriminated between species of similar sizes: they were attracted more to conspecifics than butterflyfish, and repulsed more by predators than parrotfish. The quality of visual simulations was high enough to identify between visual cues - size, body shape, colour pattern - used by post-larval fish in species recognition. Our VR and tracking technologies offer new possibilities to investigate fish behaviour through the quantitative analysis of their physical reactions to highly-controlled scenarios.
Full-text available
The mechanisms that link reef soundscapes to larval fish settlement behaviors are poorly understood, yet the management of threatened reef communities requires we maintain the recruitment processes that recover and sustain populations. Using a field-calibrated sound propagation model, we predicted the transmission loss in the relevant frequency band as a function of range, depth, and azimuth to estimate the spatial heterogeneity in the acoustic cuescape. The model highlighted the frequency- and depth-dependence of the sound fields fishes may encounter, and we predict these complex spatial patterns influence how sounds function as settlement cues. Both modeling and field measurements supported a non-monotonic decline in amplitude with distance from the reef. We modeled acoustic fields created by sounds at frequencies from 2 common soniferous reef-based animals (snapping shrimps and toadfish) and estimated detection spaces of these sounds for larvae of 2 reef fish species. Results demonstrated that larval depth will influence cue availability and amplitude, and these spatial patterns of detection depend on cue frequency and the larval receiver’s auditory sensitivity. Estimated spatial scales of detection coupled with field measurements suggest cue amplitudes might allow some larvae to detect reef-based sounds at a range exposing them to the predicted spatial variation in the acoustic cuescape. In an individual-based model, cues available to even the shortest modeled distances improved settlement success. Our results emphasize the need to consider the frequency- and depth-dependence of the acoustic cues larval fishes encounter to increase understanding of the role of soundscapes in larval settlement.
Coral reef soundscapes are increasingly studied for their ecological uses by invertebrates and fishes, for monitoring habitat quality, and to investigate effects of anthropogenic noise pollution. Few examinations of aquatic soundscapes have reported particle motion levels and variability, despite their relevance to invertebrates and fishes. In this study, ambient particle acceleration was quantified from orthogonal hydrophone arrays over several months at four coral reef sites, which varied in benthic habitat and fish communities. Time-averaged particle acceleration magnitudes were similar across axes, within 3 dB. Temporal trends of particle acceleration corresponded with those of sound pressure, and the strength of diel trends in both metrics significantly correlated with percent coral cover. Higher magnitude particle accelerations diverged further from pressure values, potentially representing sounds recorded in the near field. Particle acceleration levels were also reported for boat and example fish sounds. Comparisons with particle acceleration derived audiograms suggest the greatest capacity of invertebrates and fishes to detect soundscape components below 100 Hz, and poorer detectability of soundscapes by invertebrates compared to fishes. Based on these results, research foci are discussed for which reporting of particle motion is essential, versus those for which sound pressure may suffice.
Environmental fundamentals like time, senses, and signs originate as many ecoscapes (timing-scapes, sensory-scapes, semio-scapes) species specific. Timing-scape is represented by a mosaic of patches shaped by phenomena that occur at a geological, biological, ecological, cultural, and semiotic time.
Full-text available
The term recruitment is widely used by marine ecologists because it allows to gather together biologists, chemical and physical oceanographers on a common problem. Various definitions are given for recruitment (halieutic, physiologic, ecologic definitions). In this review, recruitment is defined as the integration of juveniles into adult populations. Today, it is accepted that the size of adult populations of benthic marine organisms at oceanic larval phase is determined almost entirely by the intensity of recruitment. Its spatio-temporal variability is responsible for the variability of adult populations. However, a few studies have examined mechanisms responsible for this variability to know whether it depends on pelagic or benthic, stochastic or deterministic, biotic or abiotic processes. This review provides information about the determinism of recruitment by studying the influence of these processes at a coral island scale and under the hypothesis of an autochthonous origin of larvae. Thus, we try to answer the following questions: what is the (i) temporal, (ii) spatial and (iii) intensity relationship between (a) the patterns of reproduction and of colonisation (pelagic phase), and between (b) the patterns of colonisation and of recruitment (benthic phase)? The relative influence of different processes studied such as oceanic currents, larval growth, density-dependent or independent of benthic predation on fish dynamics is specific of each studied question. But, all these processes act with a more or less important impact on one stage of life cycle of coral reef fish (pelagic or benthic phase, reproduction, colonisation or settlement phase) to finally influence the dynamic of adult populations. Nevertheless, it is difficult to propose which process influences the more the dynamic of recruitment. Indeed, studies suggested that 105 eggs give 100 larvae at colonisation and 10 juveniles at recruitment. The pelagic processes such as currents or larval growth have probably a more important impact than the benthic processes such as metamorphosis or reef predation. Nevertheless, the benthic processes are the last to act on adult stocks. A density-dependent benthic process such as competition for space could inhibit the influence of pelagic processes on the dynamic of recruitment. Finally, we suggest that the number of juveniles integrating adult populations depends mainly on three benthic processes: larval flux, density-dependent mortality and density-independent mortality. Their influence depends on the success of colonisation, itself depending on oceanic processes and on success of reproduction. Yet, the success of reproduction is influenced by environmental conditions. If a stress happens during the reproduction, then the level of cortisol (hormone) increases in eggs. A too high concentration of cortisol induces a malformation of eggs and therefore of larvae. This will induce a less recruitment rate. Overall, the success of one ontogenic stage depends on the success of the others.
Full-text available
ABSTRACT: The underwater sound generated by the organisms on a reef has been shown to provide an important orientation cue for a wide range of larval, juvenile and adult marine organisms. There is some preliminary evidence that some organisms can discriminate among different benthic habitats using sound cues over relatively short spatial ranges (i.e. within hundreds of metres); however, the divergence in the sound emitted from different habitats, often in close proximity to one another, is poorly described. Therefore, the sound emitted from single locations within 3 adjacent habitats, Fringing Reef, Back Reef and Lagoon, at Lizard Island on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, were recorded during the new moon phase in early summer. Analyses of the sound recordings revealed differences among these 3 habitats in the temporal and frequency composition and in sound levels. Most of the spectral variability among the 3 habitats was observed below 800 Hz, where the duration of the dusk chorus differed between the 3 habitats. Some of these observed differences were due to the acoustic output of some key soniferous organisms dwelling in these habitats, especially snapping shrimp and fish species producing a pop sound. It is possible that these habitat-related differences in underwater sound are being used to remotely guide the movement of coastal organisms in relation to these habitats.
Full-text available
Coral reef fish larvae use sound to find suitable habitat during their vital settlement stage. Yet boat noise, which can cause stress and avoidance behaviour, and may cause masking via reduction of perceptual space, is common around coral islands and continental shelf habitats due to boat activity associated with fishing, tourism and transport of passengers and cargo. In a choice chamber experiment with settlement-stage coral reef fish larvae of the species Apogon doryssa, the directional responses of larvae were tested to 5 different noise types: Reef, Reef+Boat, Ocean, Ocean+Boat and White noise. The results showed that 69% of fish swam towards Reef playback compared with only 56% during Reef+Boat playback, while 44% of fish larvae moved away from Reef+Boat playback compared to only 8% during Reef playback. Significant directional responses were not observed during White noise, Ocean noise or Ocean+Boat noise playback. Overall, this study suggests that anthropogenic noise could have a disruptive effect on the response of fish larvae to natural reef sound, with implications for settlement and population dynamics in coral reef habitats disturbed by boat traffic.
Full-text available
During the day, we used settlement-stage reef-fish larvae from light-traps to study in situ orientation, 100 to 1000 m from coral reefs in water 10 to 40 m deep, at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef. Seven species were observed off leeward Lizard Island, and 4 species off the windward side. All but 1 species swam faster than average ambient currents. Depending on area, time, and species, 80 to 100% of larvae swam directionally. Two species of butterflyfishes Chaetodon plebeius and Chaetodon aureofasciatus swam away from the island, indicating that they could detect the island's reefs. Swimming of 4 species of damselfishes Chromis atripectoralis, Chrysiptera rollandi, Neopomacentrus cyanomos and Pomacentrus lepidogenys ranged from highly directional to non-directional Only in N. cyanomos did swimming direction differ between windward and leeward areas. Three species (C. atripectoralis, N. cyanornos and P. lepidogenys) were observed in morning and late afternoon at the leeward area, and all swam in a more westerly direction in the late afternoon. In the afternoon, C. atripectoralis larvae were highly directional in sunny conditions, but non-directional and individually more variable in cloudy conditions. All these observations imply that damselfish larvae utilized a solar compass. Caesio cuning and P. lepidogenys were non-directional overall, but their swimming direction differed with distance from the reef, implying the reef was detected by these species. Larvae of different species of reef fishes have differing orientations and apparently use different cues for orientation while in open, pelagic waters. Current direction did not influence swimming direction. Net movement by larvae of 6 of the 7 species differed from that of currents in either direction or speed, demonstrating that larval behaviour can result in non-passive dispersal, at least near the end of the pelagic phase.
Replenishment of benthic marine populations typically involves ''settle-ment'' from pelagic larval to benthic juvenile habitats. Mortality during this transition has been unknown because of the difficulty of measuring propagule supply in open water. For three weeks, we compared the nocturnal passage of presettlement fishes across the barrier reef encircling Moorea Island (French Polynesia) with the abundance of benthic recruits in the back-reef lagoon on the following morning. During this time, 40,000 presettlement unicornfish, Naso unicornis entered our study area of 1 km 2 with half arriving on just two nights. Using coupled Beverton-Holt functions to describe the decay of each cohort, we were able to predict the daily abundance of recruits and their final age structure from the presettlement inputs. The best model estimated that 61% of the potential settlers were lost between their nocturnal arrival and the following morning, independent of cohort size. Postsettlement mortality was density dependent, varying between 9% and 20% per day. We attribute all mortality to predation and suggest that high risk associated with settlement has shaped colonization strategies. Because fishing targets the survivors of this population bottleneck, aquarium fisheries may be more sustainable when sourced from pelagic juveniles .
The transition from a pelagic oceanic environment to a benthic reef environment, during which the relationship between the organism and its environment changes radically, is a particularly dangerous phase of the life cycle of marine organisms. To explore this transition phase in coral reef fish, I worked in Moorea Island lagoon, where oceanic larvae enter the lagoon across the reef crest by night. The fish larvae were captured by night with crest nets, then tagged and released in the lagoon. The day following the night of 'capture-tag-release', I surveyed the lagoon to determine the first benthic habitat of tagged fish. Based on spatial and behavioural components, 4 settlement patterns were highlighted: larvae settled either into the benthic habitat occupied by juveniles of their species (Pattern 1) or into a pre-settlement habitat (Pattern 2) on the first day after reef colonisation, and larvae had either similar behaviour to juveniles (Pattern A), or a cryptic lifestyle (Pattern B). Among the 25 species studied, 13 had settlement Pattern 1A (e.g. Chromis viridis, Acanthurus triostegus), 5 had Pattern 1 B (e. g. Lutjanus fulvus, Centropyge flavissimus), 4 had Pattern 2A (e. g. Apogon frenatus, Stegastes nigricans) and 3 had Pattern 2B (e.g. Gymnothorax sp., Scorpaenodes guamensis). Overall, the present study is the first to explore the use of the first larval benthic habitat by a broad range of fish taxa. The most widespread settlement pattern observed (13 out of 25 species) was that which minimises the transition time between pelagic life and life on the reef, namely, larvae going directly to their settlement habitat and immediately acquiring the lifestyle of juveniles.
We compared catches of settlement-stage reef fishes in light traps attached to underwater speakers playing reef sounds with those of silent traps during a summer recruitment season at Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Of the total 40191 reef fishes we collected, significantly more (67%; Wilcoxon and Binomial tests: p<0.001) appeared in the traps with broadcast reef noise. Traps deployed with speakers consistently caught a greater diversity of species (Wilcoxon test: p<0.001, total 81 vs 68) than did silent traps. This study provides a clear demonstration that the settlement-stages of a broad range of families of coral reef fishes are attracted to reef sounds.
Colonization of the lagoon at Moorea Island, French Polynesia, by fish larvae was studied with a net fixed on the outer reef crest in order to observe diel and lunar cycles. Fish larvae entered the lagoon at dusk and at night, mainly during moonless periods. Colonization was closely related to decreasing light intensity; it was 4 times greater during new moon than during full moon. Other environmental factors such as hydrodynamic features of the water mass above and in front of the reef crest may have also influenced this colonization. More than 97 % of the larvae that colonized the lagoon were postflexion or later stage larvae and were probably competent to settle in the lagoon. Gobiidae were the most numerous with 60.5 % of the catches. Scaridae and Labridae were the second and the third most important families with 10.3 and 6.2 % of the catches respectively.