From Sender to Receiver: Propagation and Environmental Effects on Acoustic Signals

SYNOPSIS. Acoustic signals transmitted over large distances differ significantly from those emitted by the signaler. Acoustic signals degrade in amplitude, spectral and temporal structure as they propagate through theenvironment. A great deal of work on acoustic communication is aimed at understanding the selective forces imposed by the environment on animal signals. I will discuss the physical constraints the environment puts on acoustic communication, and then discuss similarities in communication by anurans and insects that relate these environmental constraints to their signaling systems. Lastly, I show how changes in signals during propagation relate to changes in signal perception during phonotaxis, and thus, how propagation relates to mate choice and sexual selection

[1]  Eliot A. Brenowitz,et al.  The Role of Body Size, Phylogeny, and Ambient Noise in the Evolution of Bird Song , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[2]  A. Michelsen.  Sound Reception in Different Environments , 1978 .

[3]  Axel Michelsen,et al.  Strategies for Acoustic Communication in Complex Environments , 1983 .

[4]  T. G. Forrest,et al.  SOUND PROPAGATION IN SHALLOW WATER: IMPLICATIONS FOR ACOUSTIC COMMUNICATION BY AQUATIC ANIMALS , 1993 .

[5]  Acoustic competition in bush crickets , 1981 .

[6]  T. J. Walker,et al.  MOLE CRICKET PHONOTAXIS: EFFECTS OF INTENSITY OF SYNTHETIC CALLING SONG (ORTHOPTERA: GRYLLOTALPIDAE: SCAPTERISCUS ACLETUS) , 1989 .

[7]  E. Morton.  Ecological Sources of Selection on Avian Sounds , 1975, The American Naturalist.

[8]  Ronald B. Aiken,et al.  SOUND PRODUCTION BY AQUATIC INSECTS , 1985 .

[9]  K. Wells,et al.  Intra- and Interspecific Vocal Behavior of the Neotropical Treefrog Hyla microcephala , 1985 .

[10]  Michael D Greenfield,et al.  Synchronous and Alternating Choruses in Insects and Anurans: Common Mechanisms and Diverse Functions , 1994 .

[11]  Bernhard Ronacher,et al.  Neurophysiological Aspects of Song Pattern Recognition and Sound Localization in Grasshoppers , 1994 .

[12]  Peter H. Rogers,et al.  Underwater Sound as a Biological Stimulus , 1988 .

[13]  J. E. Piercy,et al.  Effective flow resistivity of ground surfaces determined by acoustical measurements , 1983 .

[14]  J. Endler.  Signals, Signal Conditions, and the Direction of Evolution , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[15]  H. Carl Gerhardt,et al.  Evolutionary and neurobiological implications of selective phonotaxis in the green treefrog, Hyla cinerea , 1987, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  L. W. Simmons,et al.  The calling song of the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (de geer): constraints on transmission and its role in intermale competition and female choice , 1988, Animal Behaviour.

[17]  J. Schwartz.  The importance of spectral and temporal properties in species and call recognition in a neotropical treefrog with a complex vocal repertoire , 1987, Animal Behaviour.

[18]  H. Römer.  Ecological Constraints for the Evolution of Hearing and Sound Communication in Insects , 1992 .

[19]  Eliot A. Brenowitz.  Environmental influences on acoustic and electric animal communication. , 1986, Brain, behavior and evolution.

[20]  J. Schwartz.  Male Advertisement and Female Choice in Frogs: Recent Findings and New Approaches to the Study of Communication in a Dynamic Acoustic Environment , 1994 .

[21]  K. Wells,et al.  THE EFFECT OF VEGETATION ON THE PROPAGATION OF CALLS IN THE NEOTROPICAL FROG CENTROLENELLA FLEISCHMANNI , 1982 .

[22]  H. Gerhardt.  Selective Responsiveness to Long-Range Acoustic Signals in Insects and Anurans , 1994 .