2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114122
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Acoustic detectability of whales amidst underwater noise off the west coast of South Africa

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“… acc = 0.85 [28] RF, GLMs Whale calls collected between July 2014 and January 2017.
about 80% of acoustic detectability
[95]
SVM, SMO 469 measurement points of urban soundscapes.
AUC = 0.913 [91]
Transfer learning , CNNs , pseudo-labeling
700 sampling sites from 2016 to 2019 1-minute recording every 10 min.
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… acc = 0.85 [28] RF, GLMs Whale calls collected between July 2014 and January 2017.
about 80% of acoustic detectability
[95]
SVM, SMO 469 measurement points of urban soundscapes.
AUC = 0.913 [91]
Transfer learning , CNNs , pseudo-labeling
700 sampling sites from 2016 to 2019 1-minute recording every 10 min.
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, detection rates for other species, such as dolphins, may decrease in elevated sea states. Shabangu et al (2022), for example, suggest that high wind speeds induce a decrease in cetacean acoustic detectability due to increased ambient noise. Such a large-scale survey targeting only sperm whales would therefore not be costeffective.…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Poupard et al (2022) suggested that sperm whales do not come close to ships because ambient noise masks their echolocation when foraging. In addition, many studies have shown that cetaceans would modify their vocalisations in the vicinity of vessels and increase their sound level to maintain acoustic contact with other individuals (Castellote et al, 2012;Melcoń et al, 2012;Shabangu et al, 2022).…”
Section: Model Improvementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These low wind speeds also matched the high numbers of killer whales observed from October to December [ 28 ]. High wind speeds are associated with high underwater noise that could have masked killer whale calls in winter as wind-induced noise dominates underwater noise levels above 500 Hz [ 75 ], and wind-induced air bubbles on the sea surface could have attenuated some of the acoustic energy of the calls hitting the sea surface [ 76 , 77 ]. The observed secondary high partial effect of high wind speed could be because the wind pattern for mid-2021 to mid-2022 was somewhat different to the climatological seasonal cycle (electronic supplementary material, figure S4b) and coincided with killer whale occurrence.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Wind speed was the most important predictor of the occurrence of both echolocation clicks and social calls as their occurrence in October to December coincided with low wind speed known for this area ([ 16 ]; electronic supplementary material, figure S4b). In addition, low wind speed would have improved the acoustic detectability of killer whale calls by our recorder and between individuals given the low ambient noise levels and increased the communication space between conspecifics at those wind speeds [ 43 , 75 ] and provided suitable habitat [ 9 ]. A combination of SSH, chlorophyll-a and SST were the moderately important predictors of the occurrence of echolocation clicks and social calls, a reflection of the importance of these variables at driving the ecology and foraging behaviour of killer whales in this region.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%