Journal of Experimental Biology has a long history of reporting research discoveries on animal echolocation, the subject of this Centenary Review. Echolocating animals emit intense sound pulses and process echoes to localize objects in dynamic soundscapes. More than 1100 species of bats and 70 species of toothed whales rely on echolocation to operate in aerial and aquatic environments, respectively. The need to mitigate acoustic clutter and ambient noise is common to both aerial and aquatic echolocating animals, resulting in convergence of many echolocation features, such as directional sound emission and hearing, and decreased pulse intervals and sound intensity during target approach. The physics of sound transmission in air and underwater constrains the production, detection and localization of sonar signals, resulting in differences in response times to initiate prey interception by aerial and aquatic echolocating animals. Anti-predator behavioral responses of prey pursued by echolocating animals affect behavioral foraging strategies in air and underwater. For example, many insect prey can detect and react to bat echolocation sounds, whereas most fish and squid are unresponsive to toothed whale signals, but can instead sense water movements generated by an approaching predator. These differences have implications for how bats and toothed whales hunt using echolocation. Here, we consider the behaviors used by echolocating mammals to (1) track and intercept moving prey equipped with predator detectors, (2) interrogate dynamic sonar scenes and (3) exploit visual and passive acoustic stimuli. Similarities and differences in animal sonar behaviors underwater and in air point to open research questions that are ripe for exploration.
1 January 2016 in Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics
The C-POD logger is a widely used instrument for passive acoustic monitoring of harbor porpoises, but the absence of a continuous recording in this device makes it difficult to verify its performance. An alternative but more labor-intensive approach is to use a wideband sound recorder and off-line detection software. Here we compare the performance of the C-POD with that of a HF SoundTrap recorder analysed with PAMGUARD software. Seven deployments were made with C-PODs and SoundTraps in the Danish Great and Little Belts between June and November, 2015. There was a positive but generally poor correlation between PAMGUARD and C-POD detections, with the C-PODs detecting only about 21-94% of the click trains detected by PAMGUARD based on the broadband recordings. The main explanation behind this poor correspondence is likely that PAMGUARD performs classification on single clicks, whereas the C-POD classifies groups of clicks (‘trains’) collectively. Such poor correlation between two common methods can have severe implications for conclusions reached in effect and abundance studies.
Marine mammals and diving birds face several physiological challenges under water, affecting their thermoregulation and locomotion as well as their sensory systems. Therefore, marine mammals have modified ears for improved underwater hearing. Underwater hearing in birds has been studied in a few species, but for the record-holding divers, such as penguins, there are no detailed data. We played underwater noise bursts to gentoo penguins (Pygoscelis papua) in a large tank at received sound pressure levels between 100 and 120 dB re 1 µPa RMS. The penguins showed a graded reaction to the noise bursts, ranging from no reactions at 100 dB to strong reactions in more than 60% of the playbacks at 120 dB re 1 µPa. The responses were always directed away from the sound source. The fact that penguins can detect and react to underwater stimuli may indicate that they make use of sound stimuli for orientation and prey detection during dives. Further, it suggests that penguins may be sensitive to anthropogenic noise, like many species of marine mammals.
14 May 2018 in Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
Understanding jellyfish ecology and roles in coastal ecosystems is challenging due to their patchy distribution. While standard net sampling or manned aircraft surveys are inefficient, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or drones represent a promising alternative for data collection. In this technical report, we used pictures taken from a small drone to estimate the density of Aurelia sp. in a shallow fjord with a narrow entrance, where the population dynamic is well-known. We investigated the ability of an image processing software to count small and translucent jellyfish from the drone pictures at three locations with different environmental conditions (sun glare, waves or seagrass). Densities of Aurelia sp. estimated from semiautomated and manual counts from drone images were similar to densities estimated by netting. The semiautomated program was able to highlight the medusae from the background in order to discard false detections of items unlikely to be jellyfish. In spite of this, some objects (e.g., seagrass) were hardly distinguishable from jellyfish and resulted in a small number of false positives. This report presents a preview of the possible applications of drones to observe small and fragile jellyfishes, for which in situ sampling remains delicate. Drones may represent a noninvasive approach to monitoring jellyfish abundance over time, enabling the collection of a large amount of data in a short time. Software development may be useful for automatically measuring jellyfish size and even population biomass.