Abstract

Advances in mobile autonomous platforms for oceanographic sensing, including gliders and deep-water profiling floats, have provided new opportunities for passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) of cetaceans. However, there are few direct comparisons of these mobile autonomous systems to more traditional methods, such as stationary bottom-moored recorders. Cross-platform comparisons are necessary to enable interpretation of results across historical and contemporary surveys that use different recorder types, and to identify potential biases introduced by the platform. Understanding tradeoffs across recording platforms informs best practices for future cetacean monitoring efforts. This study directly compares the PAM capabilities of a glider (Seaglider) and a deep-water profiling float (QUEphone) to a stationary seafloor system (High-frequency Acoustic Recording Package, or HARP) deployed simultaneously over a two week period in the Catalina Basin, California, USA. Two HARPs were deployed 4 km apart while a glider and deep-water drifter surveyed within 20 km of the HARPs. Acoustic recordings were analyzed for the presence of multiple cetacean species, including beaked whales, delphinids, and minke whales. Variation in acoustic occurrence at one-minute (beaked whales only), hourly, and daily scales were examined. The number of minutes, hours, and days with beaked whale echolocation clicks were variable across recorders, likely due to differences in the noise floor of each recording system, the spatial distribution of the recorders, and the short detection radius of such a high-frequency, directional signal type. Delphinid whistles and clicks were prevalent across all recorders, and at levels that may have masked beaked whale vocalizations. The number and timing of hours and days with minke whale boing sounds were nearly identical across recorder types, as was expected given the relatively long propagation distance of boings. This comparison provides evidence that gliders and deep-water drifters record cetaceans at similar detection rates to traditional stationary recorders at a single point. The spatiotemporal scale over which these single hydrophone systems record sounds is highly dependent on acoustic features of the sound source. Additionally, these mobile platforms provide improved spatial coverage which may be critical for species that produce calls that propagate only over short distances such as beaked whales.

Highlights

  • The Wideband Intelligent Signal Processor and Recorder (WISPR) system applies a pre-whitening filter configured for typical deep ocean ambient noise to optimize the dynamic range of the system; the spectral effects of this filter were reversed before the analysis described below

  • Total recording duration varied across recording systems due to differences in platform operation and deployment durations. Both HARPS recorded during 309 1-h bins over 14 days, a total of 308.1 h for H01 and 308.4 h for H02

  • Through acoustic analyses of data collected by three types of passive acoustic recording systems deployed simultaneously in the Catalina Basin, we have provided a direct comparison of acoustic monitoring of marine mammals by mobile (Seaglider and QUEphone) and stationary (HARPs) recorders

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) is a cost-effective, noninvasive tool for surveying marine mammal populations, cryptic species such as deep-diving beaked whales (Zimmer et al, 2008; Yack et al, 2013) and minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata; Martin et al, 2013; Risch et al, 2013) for which visual sighting methods are less effective (Rankin and Barlow, 2005; Barlow and Gisiner, 2006). Fixed autonomous recorders are valuable tools for monitoring marine mammals, but they have a variety of limitations They are typically deployed for long time periods (months to years), but spatial coverage is limited to a specific detection radius around the unit (Mellinger et al, 2007). This detection radius is dependent on various factors including source level and frequency of the target signal, the location, directivity, and behavior of the vocalizing animal, local sound propagation conditions, and ambient noise levels (Urick, 1983; Kuperman and Roux, 2007; Mellinger et al, 2007; Zimmer et al, 2008; Ward et al, 2011; Helble et al, 2013; Gkikopoulou, 2018). Increasing the number of recorders increases costs and produces terabytes of data that can be difficult to analyze efficiently (Van Parijs et al, 2009; Roch et al, 2016)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.