Literature DB >> 22891747

Quantifying loss of acoustic communication space for right whales in and around a U.S. National Marine Sanctuary.

Leila T Hatch1, Christopher W Clark, Sofie M Van Parijs, Adam S Frankel, Dimitri W Ponirakis.   

Abstract

The effects of chronic exposure to increasing levels of human-induced underwater noise on marine animal populations reliant on sound for communication are poorly understood. We sought to further develop methods of quantifying the effects of communication masking associated with human-induced sound on contact-calling North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in an ecologically relevant area (~10,000 km(2) ) and time period (peak feeding time). We used an array of temporary, bottom-mounted, autonomous acoustic recorders in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary to monitor ambient noise levels, measure levels of sound associated with vessels, and detect and locate calling whales. We related wind speed, as recorded by regional oceanographic buoys, to ambient noise levels. We used vessel-tracking data from the Automatic Identification System to quantify acoustic signatures of large commercial vessels. On the basis of these integrated sound fields, median signal excess (the difference between the signal-to-noise ratio and the assumed recognition differential) for contact-calling right whales was negative (-1 dB) under current ambient noise levels and was further reduced (-2 dB) by the addition of noise from ships. Compared with potential communication space available under historically lower noise conditions, calling right whales may have lost, on average, 63-67% of their communication space. One or more of the 89 calling whales in the study area was exposed to noise levels ≥120 dB re 1 μPa by ships for 20% of the month, and a maximum of 11 whales were exposed to noise at or above this level during a single 10-min period. These results highlight the limitations of exposure-threshold (i.e., dose-response) metrics for assessing chronic anthropogenic noise effects on communication opportunities. Our methods can be used to integrate chronic and wide-ranging noise effects in emerging ocean-planning forums that seek to improve management of cumulative effects of noise on marine species and their habitats. ©2012 Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22891747     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01908.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  16 in total

1.  Acoustically advertising male harbour seals in southeast Alaska do not make biologically relevant acoustic adjustments in the presence of vessel noise.

Authors:  Leanna P Matthews; Michelle E H Fournet; Christine Gabriele; Holger Klinck; Susan E Parks
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2020-04-08       Impact factor: 3.703

2.  The effect of biological and anthropogenic sound on the auditory sensitivity of oyster toadfish, Opsanus tau.

Authors:  Loranzie S Rogers; Rosalyn L Putland; Allen F Mensinger
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2019-12-10       Impact factor: 1.836

3.  The importance of ambient sound level to characterise anuran habitat.

Authors:  Sandra Goutte; Alain Dubois; Frédéric Legendre
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-21       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Dolphins adjust species-specific frequency parameters to compensate for increasing background noise.

Authors:  Elena Papale; Marco Gamba; Monica Perez-Gil; Vidal Martel Martin; Cristina Giacoma
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Seasonal migrations of North Atlantic minke whales: novel insights from large-scale passive acoustic monitoring networks.

Authors:  Denise Risch; Manuel Castellote; Christopher W Clark; Genevieve E Davis; Peter J Dugan; Lynne Ew Hodge; Anurag Kumar; Klaus Lucke; David K Mellinger; Sharon L Nieukirk; Cristian Marian Popescu; Christian Ramp; Andrew J Read; Aaron N Rice; Monica A Silva; Ursula Siebert; Kathleen M Stafford; Hans Verdaat; Sofie M Van Parijs
Journal:  Mov Ecol       Date:  2014-11-18       Impact factor: 3.600

6.  Underwater noise levels in UK waters.

Authors:  Nathan D Merchant; Kate L Brookes; Rebecca C Faulkner; Anthony W J Bicknell; Brendan J Godley; Matthew J Witt
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-11-10       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Passive acoustic tracking of singing humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) on a northwest Atlantic feeding ground.

Authors:  Joy E Stanistreet; Denise Risch; Sofie M Van Parijs
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Identifying modeled ship noise hotspots for marine mammals of Canada's Pacific region.

Authors:  Christine Erbe; Rob Williams; Doug Sandilands; Erin Ashe
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-05       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Ship noise extends to frequencies used for echolocation by endangered killer whales.

Authors:  Scott Veirs; Val Veirs; Jason D Wood
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 2.984

10.  State-space mark-recapture estimates reveal a recent decline in abundance of North Atlantic right whales.

Authors:  Richard M Pace; Peter J Corkeron; Scott D Kraus
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 2.912

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.