Comparison between the energetic cost of the electric signal of the gymnotiform B. pinnicaudatus and the Acoustic signals of various representative taxa
| Species name . | Common name . | N . | Mean mass (g) . | Signal type . | V̇O2 signal (ml O2 g–1 h–1) . | V̇O2 resting (ml O2 g–1 h–1) . | Factorial scope(V̇O2,signal/V̇O2,resting) . | Ref. . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insecta – Orthoptera | ||||||||
| Anurogryllus arboreus | Trilling short-tailed cricket | 12, 8 | 0.40 | Acoustic call | 3.576 | 0.315 | 11.35 | 8 |
| Anurogryllus muticus | Trilling cricket | 9 | 0.40 | Acoustic call | 9.06 | 1.7 | 5.33 | 7 |
| Gryllotalpa australis | Trilling cricket | ? | 0.87 | Acoustic call | 4.883 | 0.42 | 11.63 | 6 |
| Oecanthus celerinictus | Trilling tree cricket | 5, 12 | 0.05 | Acoustic call | 2.931 | 0.437 | 6.71 | 8 |
| Oecanthus quadripunctatus | Trilling tree cricket | 9, 12 | 0.05 | Acoustic call | 3.342 | 0.476 | 7.02 | 8 |
| Teleogryllus commodus | Chirping cricket | ? | Acoustic call | 1.17 | 0.85 | 1.38 | 7 | |
| Teleogryllus oceanicus | Chirping cricket | ? | Acoustic call | 0.27 | 1.25 | 0.22 | 7 | |
| Gryllus lineaticeps | Chirping variable field cricket | 16 | 0.53 | Acoustic call | 0.774 | 0.464 | 1.67 | 4 |
| Euconocephalus nasutus | Trilling katydid | 12 | 0.68 | Acoustic call | 15.79 | 2.61 | 6.05 | 11 |
| Neoconocephalus robustus | Trilling katydid | 8 | 0.88 | Acoustic call | 13.88 | 1.92 | 7.23 | 11 |
| Insecta – Lepidoptera | ||||||||
| Achroia grisella | Lesser wax moth | 108 | 0.01 | Ultrasonic call | 2.32 | 1.34 | 1.73 | 10 |
| Osteichthyes–Gymnotiformes | ||||||||
| Brachyhypopomus pinnicaudatus | Gymnotiform fish | 10 | 14.1 | EOD | 0.074 | 0.014 | 5.29 | This study |
| Amphibia – Anura | ||||||||
| Hyla cinerea | Green treefrog | 10 | 5.1 | Acoustic call | 0.77 | 0.135 | 5.70 | 9 |
| Hyla gratiosa | Barking treefrog | 10 | 12.5 | Acoustic call | 1.12 | 0.105 | 10.67 | 9 |
| Hyla squirella | Squirrel treefrog | 9 | 2.6 | Acoustic call | 2.11 | 0.14 | 15.07 | 9 |
| Hyla versicolor | Gray treefrog | 13 | 8.62 | Acoustic call | 0.96 | 0.08 | 12.00 | 12 |
| Hyperolius viridiflavus ommatostictus | Reed frog | 18 | 1.4 | Acoustic call | 1.11 | 0.29 | 3.83 | 3 |
| Physalaemus pustulosus | Túngara frog | 10, 9 | 1.7 | Acoustic call | 0.35 | 0.31 | 1.13 | 1 |
| Aves | ||||||||
| Thryothorus ludovicianus | Carolina wren | 4 | 21 | Song | 9.3 | 3.56 | 2.61 | 2 |
| Gallus gallus domesticus | Domestic rooster | 13 | 1930 | Crowing | 0.15 | 1.02 | 0.15 | 5 |
| Species name . | Common name . | N . | Mean mass (g) . | Signal type . | V̇O2 signal (ml O2 g–1 h–1) . | V̇O2 resting (ml O2 g–1 h–1) . | Factorial scope(V̇O2,signal/V̇O2,resting) . | Ref. . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insecta – Orthoptera | ||||||||
| Anurogryllus arboreus | Trilling short-tailed cricket | 12, 8 | 0.40 | Acoustic call | 3.576 | 0.315 | 11.35 | 8 |
| Anurogryllus muticus | Trilling cricket | 9 | 0.40 | Acoustic call | 9.06 | 1.7 | 5.33 | 7 |
| Gryllotalpa australis | Trilling cricket | ? | 0.87 | Acoustic call | 4.883 | 0.42 | 11.63 | 6 |
| Oecanthus celerinictus | Trilling tree cricket | 5, 12 | 0.05 | Acoustic call | 2.931 | 0.437 | 6.71 | 8 |
| Oecanthus quadripunctatus | Trilling tree cricket | 9, 12 | 0.05 | Acoustic call | 3.342 | 0.476 | 7.02 | 8 |
| Teleogryllus commodus | Chirping cricket | ? | Acoustic call | 1.17 | 0.85 | 1.38 | 7 | |
| Teleogryllus oceanicus | Chirping cricket | ? | Acoustic call | 0.27 | 1.25 | 0.22 | 7 | |
| Gryllus lineaticeps | Chirping variable field cricket | 16 | 0.53 | Acoustic call | 0.774 | 0.464 | 1.67 | 4 |
| Euconocephalus nasutus | Trilling katydid | 12 | 0.68 | Acoustic call | 15.79 | 2.61 | 6.05 | 11 |
| Neoconocephalus robustus | Trilling katydid | 8 | 0.88 | Acoustic call | 13.88 | 1.92 | 7.23 | 11 |
| Insecta – Lepidoptera | ||||||||
| Achroia grisella | Lesser wax moth | 108 | 0.01 | Ultrasonic call | 2.32 | 1.34 | 1.73 | 10 |
| Osteichthyes–Gymnotiformes | ||||||||
| Brachyhypopomus pinnicaudatus | Gymnotiform fish | 10 | 14.1 | EOD | 0.074 | 0.014 | 5.29 | This study |
| Amphibia – Anura | ||||||||
| Hyla cinerea | Green treefrog | 10 | 5.1 | Acoustic call | 0.77 | 0.135 | 5.70 | 9 |
| Hyla gratiosa | Barking treefrog | 10 | 12.5 | Acoustic call | 1.12 | 0.105 | 10.67 | 9 |
| Hyla squirella | Squirrel treefrog | 9 | 2.6 | Acoustic call | 2.11 | 0.14 | 15.07 | 9 |
| Hyla versicolor | Gray treefrog | 13 | 8.62 | Acoustic call | 0.96 | 0.08 | 12.00 | 12 |
| Hyperolius viridiflavus ommatostictus | Reed frog | 18 | 1.4 | Acoustic call | 1.11 | 0.29 | 3.83 | 3 |
| Physalaemus pustulosus | Túngara frog | 10, 9 | 1.7 | Acoustic call | 0.35 | 0.31 | 1.13 | 1 |
| Aves | ||||||||
| Thryothorus ludovicianus | Carolina wren | 4 | 21 | Song | 9.3 | 3.56 | 2.61 | 2 |
| Gallus gallus domesticus | Domestic rooster | 13 | 1930 | Crowing | 0.15 | 1.02 | 0.15 | 5 |
V̇O2,signal,signaling cost, i.e. metabolic rate during signalling; V̇O2,resting,metabolic rate during resting; EOD, electric organ discharge; N,number of subjects tested. Whenever more than one N value is provided, the first N value corresponds to V̇O2,signal and the second to V̇O2,resting. Signaling factorial scope(V̇O2,signal/V̇O2,resting)was calculated to determine how much metabolism had increased during calling when compared with rest. For poikilotherms, V̇O2 data were obtained at a mean temperature of 25°C across all studies included here. References (Ref.): 1 (Bucher et al.,1982), 2 (Eberhardt,1994), 3 (Grafe et al.,1992), 4 (Hoback and Wagner,1997), 5 (Horn et al.,1995), 6 (Kavanagh,1987), 7 (Lee and Loher,1993), 8 (Prestwich and Walker, 1981), 9 (Prestwich et al., 1989), 10 (Reinhold et al., 1998), 11 (Stevens and Josephson, 1977), 12 (Taigen and Wells, 1985)