Marine Mammal ScienceEarly View NOTEOpen Access Probable signature whistle production in Atlantic white-sided (Lagenorhynchus acutus) and short-beaked common (Delphinus delphis) dolphins near Cape Cod, Massachusetts Seth Cones, Corresponding Author Seth Cones sethfcones@gmail.com orcid.org/0000-0002-8616-975X Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Joint Program in Oceanography/Applied Ocean Science and Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts Correspondence Seth Cones, Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Joint Program in Oceanography/Applied Ocean Science and Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MA 02543. Email: sethfcones@gmail.comSearch for more papers by this authorMolly Dent, Molly Dent School of Cognitive Science, Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachusetts Contribution: Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorSam Walkes, Sam Walkes Department of Evolution and Ecology, University of California Davis, Davis, California Bodega Marine Laboratory, Bodega Bay, California Contribution: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorAlessandro Bocconcelli, Alessandro Bocconcelli Applied Ocean Physics and Engineering Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts Contribution: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorChristianna DeWind, Christianna DeWind Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts Contribution: Investigation, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorKayla Arjasbi, Kayla Arjasbi Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts Contribution: Investigation, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorKathryn Rose, Kathryn Rose International Fund for Animal Welfare, Marine Mammal Rescue and Research Program, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts Contribution: Data curation, Methodology, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorTammy Silva, Tammy Silva Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, Scituate, Massachusetts Contribution: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorLaela Sayigh, Laela Sayigh orcid.org/0000-0001-8334-1326 School of Cognitive Science, Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachusetts Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts Contribution: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this author Seth Cones, Corresponding Author Seth Cones sethfcones@gmail.com orcid.org/0000-0002-8616-975X Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Joint Program in Oceanography/Applied Ocean Science and Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts Correspondence Seth Cones, Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Joint Program in Oceanography/Applied Ocean Science and Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MA 02543. Email: sethfcones@gmail.comSearch for more papers by this authorMolly Dent, Molly Dent School of Cognitive Science, Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachusetts Contribution: Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorSam Walkes, Sam Walkes Department of Evolution and Ecology, University of California Davis, Davis, California Bodega Marine Laboratory, Bodega Bay, California Contribution: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorAlessandro Bocconcelli, Alessandro Bocconcelli Applied Ocean Physics and Engineering Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts Contribution: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorChristianna DeWind, Christianna DeWind Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts Contribution: Investigation, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorKayla Arjasbi, Kayla Arjasbi Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts Contribution: Investigation, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorKathryn Rose, Kathryn Rose International Fund for Animal Welfare, Marine Mammal Rescue and Research Program, Yarmouth Port, Massachusetts Contribution: Data curation, Methodology, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorTammy Silva, Tammy Silva Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, Scituate, Massachusetts Contribution: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this authorLaela Sayigh, Laela Sayigh orcid.org/0000-0001-8334-1326 School of Cognitive Science, Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachusetts Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts Contribution: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing - review & editingSearch for more papers by this author First published: 15 September 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12976 Funding information: Woods Hole Sea Grant, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Grant/Award Number: NA14OAR4170074 AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Some delphinids produce a learned, individually specific tonal whistle that conveys identity information to conspecifics (Janik & Sayigh, 2013). These whistles, termed signature whistles, were first described by Caldwell and Caldwell (1965) and have been studied intensively over the past several decades (Janik & Sayigh, 2013). In common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and potentially other species, signature whistles facilitate many ecologically-important behaviors, including individual recognition and maintenance of group cohesion (Janik & Slater, 1998). Additionally, signature whistle contours, or patterns of frequency change over time, can remain stable for several decades, aiding in long-term social bonds (Sayigh et al., 1990). Signature whistles account for approximately 38%–70% of all whistle production in free-swimming animals (Buckstaff, 2004; Cook et al., 2004; Watwood et al., 2005); this percentage can be up to 100% for isolated individuals in captivity (Caldwell et al., 1990). Most of our knowledge on the function and use of signature whistles stems from Tursiops spp., and their use and presence in other delphinid taxa is less understood. Nonetheless, seven additional delphinid species have been reported to produce signature whistles: Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus; Gridley et al., 2014), common dolphins (D. delphis; Caldwell & Caldwell 1968; Fearey et al., 2019), Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella plagiodon; Caldwell et al., 1970), Pacific white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens; Caldwell & Caldwell, 1973), Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis; Van Parijs & Corkeron, 2001), and Guiana dolphins (Sotalia guianensis; Duarte de Figueiredo & Simão, 2009). Early signature whistle investigations in wild populations were hindered by the inability to conclusively link whistles to individuals. To address this, Janik et al. (2013) developed SIGnature IDentification (known as SIGID), which is a set of criteria used to identify signature whistle types of free-ranging T. truncatus. Leveraging that signature whistles often occur in bouts (Janik & Sayigh, 2013), SIGID defines signature whistle types as whistles of similar contour having 75% or more occurrences within 1–10 s. These criteria are conservative, and application of SIGID on T. truncatus (four captive and seven wild, all with known signature whistles) correctly identified 8 of 11 signature whistles (Janik et al., 2013) with no false positives. To date, multiple studies have applied the SIGID method on other bottlenose dolphin populations and other delphinid species (Fearey et al., 2019; Gridley et al., 2014; Longden et al., 2020; Luís et al., 2016; Matsushiro et al., 2022; Panova et al., 2021; Papale et al., 2015; Rio et al., 2022; Terranova et al., 2022). In the present study, we sought to examine the whistle repertoires of L. acutus and D. delphis, and if present, describe signature whistle parameters. Several studies have quantified D. delphis whistle parameters and broadly described whistle types (Ansmann et al., 2007; Goold, 1996, 1998; Oswald et al., 2003, 2007; Petrella et al., 2012). In addition, two studies provided evidence for signature whistle production: Caldwell and Caldwell (1968), Fearey et al. (2019). Caldwell and Caldwell (1968) recorded a group of four captive common dolphins and noted that three animals emitted theiown distinct stereotyped whistle, while the fourth produced two stereotyped whistles, with one occurring much less frequently. Fearey et al. (2019) described individually specific whistles in a population of D. delphis off southern Africa, identifying 29 signature whistle types from 10 focal follows. Fearey et al. (2019) also noted that probable D. delphis signature whistles had shorter interwhistle intervals than probable nonsignature whistles, reinforcing the utility of the SIGID method. The vocal repertoire of L. acutus is less understood. Of the few existing studies, Steiner (1981) recorded 1,691 whistles from a population off Nova Scotia and documented basic whistle parameters (e.g., minimum and maximum frequency, whistle duration). Hamran (2014) described whistles, buzzes, and clicks in the L. acutus vocal repertoire, and noted that whistles and clicks were commonly emitted in all activity states. Repeated whistle contours were observed, although the quantity was not specified, leaving open whether L. acutus emit signature whistles. To identify signature whistle presence in D. delphis and L. acutus, we used a combination of confirmed sightings, stranding responses (D. delphis only), and passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) through SIGID. Acoustic recordings of free-ranging L. acutus and D. delphis were collected in Wellfleet Harbor, Massachusetts (41°53′51.15″N, 70°3′22.50″W) from April 2014 to January 2018, excluding November 2014 to April 2015. Soundtrap acoustic recorders (Ocean Instruments, Auckland, New Zealand) were moored near the entrance of Wellfleet Harbor and recorded acoustic data at 72–96 kHz sampling rate at 5–45 min/hr duty cycles. Wellfleet Harbor is a mass stranding hotspot and is frequently monitored by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) for delphinids, which is the organization permitted to respond to marine mammal strandings in the area. During this study period, there were both confirmed sightings of D. delphis and L. acutus swimming in Wellfleet Harbor. Additionally, some groups stranded and were rescued by IFAW. As a result, we were able to temporally link some acoustic data to IFAW delphinid sighting data around the recorder location. Whistles of the same type were assigned to a species when IFAW documented species presence in Wellfleet Harbor on the same day whistles were recorded. There were no days in which both D. delphis and L. acutus were reported in the harbor. Acoustic data totaling 1,093 days were audited for the presence of whistles in Raven Pro 1.5 (Brightness: 30–35; Contrast: 60–65; FFT 2350). When whistles were boxed in RavenPro, parameters including start and end times were stored in a selection table, along with annotations including call type. This makes the process of calculating interwhistle intervals between calls of the same type straightforward. Whistles were visually grouped into types based upon contour similarity. Whistles of the same type that were repeated in bouts were classified as probable signature whistles if their parameters met SIGID requirements (Janik et al., 2013). Five human observers verified a subset of our visual classifications. Each observer was given five examples of 31 randomly selected signature whistle types, and they were instructed to place them into groups of five based upon contour similarity (Janik, 1999; Sayigh et al., 2007). No further guidance was given. The observers' classifications had 98.7% overlap, with four of the five scoring 100% in accordance with the author's classifications. Of the 1,093 recording days, 114 contained odontocete whistles. Using the IFAW sighting log, one recording day with whistle detections was linked to L. acutus and 8 days were linked to D. delphis (Table 1). In the confirmed D. delphis detection days, 651 whistles were found. Of these, 251 whistles (39% of total whistle selections) were classified into 17 call types that met SIGID criteria and were deemed probable signature whistles (Figures 1 and 2). Average maximum and minimum frequencies of probable signature whistles were (M ± SD) 15.28 ± 3.0 kHz and 8.09 ± 1.5 kHz, and average whistle duration was 0.89 ± 0.3 s. Seven signature whistle instances were multilooped, with an interloop interval between 0 s and 0.25 s. In the one confirmed recording day of L. acutus, over 100 animals were reported by IFAW, and 1,369 whistles were selected in the recording. Of these, 556 whistles (41% of total whistle selections) were classified into 66 call types that met SIGID requirements (Figures 1 and 2). Average maximum and minimum frequencies of probable signature whistles were 14.16 ± 2.6 kHz and 8.17 ± 2.4 kHz, and average whistle duration was 0.83 ± 0.3 s. L. acutus emitted 24 probable signature whistles with multiloop components with interloop interval between 0 s and 0.25 s. One hundred and five recording days contained whistles, but we were unable to link the recordings to IFAW visual sightings. During these days, 221 probable signature whistle types were classified. TABLE 1. Mean and standard deviation of whistle duration, maximum frequency, and minimum frequency for all signature whistles recorded for L. acutus and D. delphis. Species # Signature whistles recorded # Probable signature types Whistle duration (s) Maximum frequency (kHz) Minimum frequency (kHz) Lagenorhynchus acutus 556 66 0.83 ± 0.3 14.16 ± 2.6 8.17 ± 2.4 Delphinus delphis 251 17 0.89 ± 0.3 15.28 ± 3.0 8.09 ± 1.5 FIGURE 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Probable signature whistle bouts of free-ranging L. acutus (a; note two different whistle types) and D. delphis (b) in Wellfleet Harbor, MA. Stereotyped whistle production during health assessments of stranded D. delphis adult (c) and subadult (d). FIGURE 2Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Contour tracings of six randomly selected L. acutus and D. delphis signature whistle types. Five contours of each whistle type were traced and overlaid on the same spectrogram to convey stereotypy. In addition to the PAM data, one male adult and one male subadult D. delphis stranded in Wellfleet Harbor in October 2015, and both individuals were acoustically recorded during health assessments and transportation from the stranding to release site. Throughout the entire response, both animals received appropriate supportive care and were continuously monitored. The adult and subadult were recorded for 72 and 65 min, respectively. The adult was notably more stressed during relocation and ultimately died before being released. Both individuals emitted highly stereotyped whistles (Figure 1C, D). The adult emitted 718 whistles (10 whistles/min), all of which were visually categorized into one whistle type. The subadult, however, emitted two whistle types throughout the recording period. The prominent whistle type, and probable signature whistle, was emitted 230 times (3.5 whistles/min), while a secondary whistle was produced 35 times. D. delphis and L. acutus whistle parameters measured in the present study varied from previously published accounts. D. delphis whistle duration in our study (0.89 ± 0.3 s) was greater than other populations measured in the Celtic Sea (0.65 ± 0.3 s; Ansmann et al., 2007), English Channel (0.64 ± 0.3; Ansmann et al., 2007), Tropical Pacific (0.7 ± 0.4 s; Oswald et al., 2007), and New Zealand (0.27 ± 0.3 s; Petrella et al., 2012). These differences in whistle duration suggest there may be geographic variation in whistle production or differences in duration between whistle types (i.e., signature and nonsignature) as seen in T. truncatus (Esch et al., 2009b; Rendell et al., 1999). L. acutus whistles in the present study were longer in duration and with higher maximum frequency than found for a Nova Scotian population (0.50 ± 0.3 s, maximum 12.1 kHz; Steiner 1981), again suggesting possible geographic differences in whistle parameters. Another potential explanation for the discrepancy in whistle parameters was the behavioral context of our PAM recordings. The majority (91%) of signature whistle occurrences for D. delphis occurred on days of stranding events. Strandings are stressful for the animals, and these events may have caused individuals or groups to vocalize differently. In fact, T. truncatus signature whistle rates have been shown to be impacted by stress, but it is unknown if similar trends are found in D. delphis and L. acutus (Esch et al., 2009a; Perez-Ortega et al., 2021). We acknowledge that PAM data do not have unequivocal visual ground truthing that linked whistles to a species, but the large sample size of probable signature whistles identified with SIGID both linked and not linked to the sighting log, as well as whistle stereotypy in the isolated D. delphis pair (Janik & Slater, 1998; Sayigh et al., 2007), all point to a strong likelihood of signature whistles in both species' vocal repertoires. Our work strengthens the growing list of delphinid species that likely produce signature whistles, illustrating their central role in delphinid behavior and communication systems. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Seth Cones: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; validation; writing–review and editing. Molly Dent: Formal analysis; investigation; validation; writing – review and editing. Sam Walkes: Conceptualization; investigation; methodology; writing – review and editing. Alessandro Bocconcelli: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; investigation; methodology; writing – review and editing. Christianna DeWind: Investigation; writing – review and editing. Kayla Arjasbi: Investigation; writing – review and editing. Kathryn S. Rose: Data curation; methodology; writing – review and editing. Tammy Silva: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; writing – review and editing. Laela S. Sayigh: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; funding acquisition; investigation; methodology; resources; software; supervision; validation; writing – review and editing. REFERENCES Ansmann, I. C., Goold, J. C., Evans, P. G. H., Simmonds, M., & Keith, S. G. (2007). Variation in the whistle characteristics of short-beaked common dolphins, Delphinus delphis, at two locations around the British Isles. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 87(1), 19– 26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315407054963 CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Buckstaff, K. C. (2004). Effects of watercraft noise on the acoustic behavior of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Sarasota bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science, 20(4), 709– 725. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004.tb01189.x Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Caldwell, M. C., & Caldwell, D. K. (1965). Individualized whistle contours in bottlenose dolphins. Nature, 207, 434– 435. https://doi.org/10.1038/207434a0 CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Caldwell, M. C., & Caldwell, D. K. (1968). Vocalization of naive captive dolphins in small groups. Science, 159(3819), 1121– 1123. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3819.1121 CrossrefCASPubMedGoogle Scholar Caldwell, M. C., & Caldwell, D. K. (1970). Statistical evidence for individual signature whistles in the Pacific whitesided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obliquidens (Office of Naval Research Technical Report Number 9). Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History Foundation. Google Scholar Caldwell, M. C., Caldwell, D. K., & Miller, J. F. (1973). Statistical evidence for individual signature whistles in the spotted dolphin, Stenella plagiodon. Cetology, 16, 1– 21. Google Scholar Caldwell, M. C., Caldwell, D. K., & Tyack, P. L. (1990). A review of the signature-whistle hypothesis for the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin. In S. Leatherwood & R. Reeves (Eds.), The bottlenose dolphin (pp. 199– 234). Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Cook, M. L. H., Sayigh, L. S., Blum, J. E., & Wells, R. S. (2004). Signature-whistle production in undisturbed free-ranging bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271(1543), 1043– 1049. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2610 CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Duarte de Figueiredo, L., & Simão, S. M. (2009). Possible occurrence of signature whistles in a population of Sotalia guianensis (Cetacea, Delphinidae) living in Sepetiba Bay, Brazil. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(3), 1563– 1569. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3158822 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar Esch, H. C., Sayigh, L. S., Blum, J. E., & Wells, R. S. (2009a). Whistles as potential indicators of stress in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Journal of Mammalogy, 90(3), 638– 650. https://doi.org/10.1644/08-MAMM-A-069R.1 CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Esch, H. C., Sayigh, L. S., & Wells, R. S. (2009b). Quantifying parameters of bottlenose dolphin signature whistles. Marine Mammal Science, 25(4), 976– 986. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2009.00289.x Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Fearey, J., Elwen, S. H., James, B. S., & Gridley, T. (2019). Identification of potential signature whistles from free-ranging common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) in South Africa. Animal Cognition, 22(5), 777– 789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-019-01274-1 CrossrefCASPubMedGoogle Scholar Goold, J. C. (1996). Acoustic assessment of populations of common dolphin Delphinus delphis in conjunction with seismic surveying. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 76(3), 811– 820. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0025315400031477 CrossrefGoogle Scholar Goold, J. C. (1998). Acoustic assessment of populations of common dolphin off the west Wales coast, with perspectives from satellite infrared imagery. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 78(4), 1353– 1364. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0025315400044544 CrossrefGoogle Scholar Gridley, T., Cockcroft, V. G., Hawkins, E. R., Blewitt, M. L., Morisaka, T., & Janik, V. M. (2014). Signature whistles in free-ranging populations of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops aduncus. Marine Mammal Science, 30(2), 512– 527. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12054 Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Hamran, E. T. (2014). Distribution and vocal behavior of Atlantic white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus) in northern Norway [Unpublished master's thesis]. Universitetet i Nordland. Google Scholar Janik, V. M. (1999). Pitfalls in the categorization of behaviour: A comparison of dolphin whistle classification methods. Animal Behaviour, 57(1), 133– 143. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1998.0923 CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Janik, V. M., King, S. L., Sayigh, L. S., & Wells, R. S. (2013). Identifying signature whistles from recordings of groups of unrestrained bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Marine Mammal Science, 29(1), 109– 122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2011.00549.x Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Janik, V. M., & Sayigh, L. S. (2013). Communication in bottlenose dolphins: 50 years of signature whistle research. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 199(6), 479– 489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-013-0817-7 CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Janik, V. M., & Slater, P. J. B. (1998). Context-specific use suggests that bottlenose dolphin signature whistles are cohesion calls. Animal Behaviour, 56(4), 829– 838. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1998.0881 CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Longden, E. G., Elwen, S. H., McGovern, B., James, B. S., Embling, C. B., & Gridley, T. (2020). Mark–recapture of individually distinctive calls—a case study with signature whistles of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Journal of Mammalogy, 101(5), 1289– 1301. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyaa081 CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Luís, A. R., Couchinho, M. N., & dos Santos, M. E. (2016). Signature whistles in wild bottlenose dolphins: long-term stability and emission rates. Acta Ethologica, 19(2), 113– 122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-015-0230-z CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Matsushiro, M., Nakamura, M., Chayahara, Y., & Kooriyama, T. (2022). Contour variations and acoustic characteristics of whistle sounds emitted by Pacific white-sided dolphins in shallow coastal waters of the Sea of Japan. Marine Mammal Science, 38(3), 881– 897. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12892 Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Oswald, J. N., Barlow, J., & Norris, T. F. (2003). Acoustic identification of nine delphinid species in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Marine Mammal Science, 19(1), 20– 37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2003.tb01090.x Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Oswald, J. N., Rankin, S., Barlow, J., & Lammers, M. O. (2007). A tool for real-time acoustic species identification of delphinid whistles. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(1), 587– 595. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2743157 CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Panova, E., Agafonov, A., & Logominova, I. (2021). First description of whistles of Black Sea short-beaked common dolphins, Delphinus delphis ponticus. Bioacoustics, 30(6), 662– 679. https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2020.1842245 CrossrefGoogle Scholar Papale, E., Buffa, G., Filiciotto, F., Maccarrone, V., Mazzola, S., Ceraulo, M., Giacoma, C. Buscaino, G. (2015). Biphonic calls as signature whistles in a free-ranging bottlenose dolphin. Bioacoustics, 24(3), 223– 231. https://doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2015.1041158 CrossrefGoogle Scholar Perez-Ortega, B., Daw, R., Paradee, B., Gimbrere, E., & May-Collado, L. J. (2021). Dolphin-watching boats affect whistle frequency modulation in bottlenose dolphins. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.618420 CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar Petrella, V., Martinez, E., Anderson, M. G., & Stockin, K. A. (2012). Whistle characteristics of common dolphins (Delphinus sp.) in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science, 28(3), 479– 496. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2011.00499.x Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Rendell, L. E., Matthews, J. N., Gill, A., Gordon, J. C. D., & Macdonald, D. W. (1999). Quantitative analysis of tonal calls from five odontocete species, examining interspecific and intraspecific variation. Journal of Zoology, 249(4), 403– 410. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836999009875 CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Rio, R., Rosales-Nanduca, H., Piuma, L. A., Piuma, J. F., Piuma, M., Redecker, G. S., & Hoffmann, L. S. (2022). First report of signature whistles in an oceanic common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) population from Revillagigedo Archipelago, Mexico. Marine Mammal Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12921 Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Sayigh, L. S., Esch, H. C., Wells, R. S., & Janik, V. M. (2007). Facts about signature whistles of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus. Animal Behaviour, 74(6), 1631– 1642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.02.018 CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Sayigh, L. S., Tyack, P. L., Wells, R. S., & Scott, M. D. (1990). Signature whistles of free-ranging bottlenose dolphins Tursiops truncatus: Stability and mother-offspring comparisons. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 26(4), 247– 260. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00178318 CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Steiner, W. W. (1981). Species-specific differences in pure tonal whistle vocalizations of five western north Atlantic dolphin species. Behavorial Ecology and Sociobiology, 9(4), 241– 246. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00299878 CrossrefGoogle Scholar Terranova, F., Raffa, A., & Floridia, S. (2022). Vocal behaviour of a bottlenose dolphin pod during a deadly bycatch event in the Gulf of Catania, Ionian Sea. Marine Science and Engineering, 10, Article 616. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10050616 CrossrefGoogle Scholar Van Parijs, S. M., & Corkeron, P. J. (2001). Evidence for signature whistle production by a Pacific humpback dolphin, Sousa chinensis. Marine Mammal Science, 17(4), 944– 949. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2001.tb01308.x Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar Watwood, S. L., Owen, E. C. G., Tyack, P. L., & Wells, R. S. (2005). Signature whistle use by temporarily restrained and free-swimming bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus. Animal Behaviour, 69(6), 1373– 1386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.08.019 CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation