Ocean ambient noise results from both anthropogenic and natural sources. Different noise sources are dominant in each of 3 frequency bands: low (10 to 500 Hz), medium (500 Hz to 25 kHz) and high (>25 kHz). The low-frequency band is dominated by anthropogenic sources: pri- marily, commercial shipping and, secondarily, seismic exploration. Shipping and seismic sources con- tribute to ambient noise across ocean basins, since low-frequency sound experiences little attenua- tion, allowing for long-range propagation. Over the past few decades the shipping contribution to ambient noise has increased by as much as 12 dB, coincident with a significant increase in the num- ber and size of vessels comprising the world's commercial shipping fleet. During this time, oil explo- ration and construction activities along continental margins have moved into deeper water, and the long-range propagation of seismic signals has increased. Medium frequency sound cannot propagate over long ranges, owing to greater attenuation, and only local or regional (10s of km distant) sound sources contribute to the ambient noise field. Ambient noise in the mid-frequency band is primarily due to sea-surface agitation: breaking waves, spray, bubble formation and collapse, and rainfall. Var- ious sonars (e.g. military and mapping), as well as small vessels, contribute anthropogenic noise at mid-frequencies. At high frequencies, acoustic attenuation becomes extreme so that all noise sources are confined to an area close to the receiver. Thermal noise, the result of Brownian motion of water molecules near the hydrophone, is the dominant noise source above about 60 kHz.

/pdf/anthropogenic-and-natural-sources-of-ambient-noise-in-the-y12gqbl9jj.pdf

Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean

The underwater environment is filled with biotic and abiotic sounds, many of which can be important for the survival and reproduction of fish. Over the last century, human activities in and near the water have increasingly added artificial sounds to this environment. Very loud sounds of relatively short exposure, such as those produced during pile driving, can harm nearby fish. However, more moderate underwater noises of longer duration, such as those produced by vessels, could potentially impact much larger areas, and involve much larger numbers of fish. Here we call attention to the urgent need to study the role of sound in the lives of fish and to develop a better understanding of the ecological impact of anthropogenic noise.

/pdf/a-noisy-spring-the-impact-of-globally-rising-underwater-35qvvt0r0z.pdf

A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

The marine ecosystem of the West Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) extends from the Bellingshausen Sea to the northern tip of the peninsula and from the mostly glaciated coast across the continental shelf to the shelf break in the west. The glacially sculpted coastline along the peninsula is highly convoluted and characterized by deep embayments that are often interconnected by channels that facilitate transport of heatandnutrientsintotheshelfdomain.Theecosystemisdividedintothreesubregions,thecontinental slope, shelf and coastal regions, each with unique ocean dynamics, water mass and biological distributions. The WAP shelf lies within the Antarctic Sea Ice Zone (SIZ) and like other SIZs, the WAP system is very productive, supporting large stocks of marine mammals, birds and the Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba.Ecosystemdynamicsisdominatedbytheseasonalandinterannualvariationinseaice extent and retreat. The Antarctic Peninsula is one among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth, having experienced a 28C increase in the annual mean temperature and a 68C rise in the mean winter temperature since 1950. Delivery of heat from the Antarctic Circumpolar Current has increased significantly in the past decade, sufficient to drive to a 0.68C warming of the upper 300 m of shelf water. In the past 50 years and continuing in the twenty-first century, the warm, moist maritime climate of the northern WAP has been migrating south, displacing the once dominant cold, dry continental Antarctic climate and causing multi-levelresponses inthe marine ecosystem. Ecosystem responses tothe regional warming include increased heat transport, decreased sea ice extent and duration, local declines in ice

/pdf/marine-pelagic-ecosystems-the-west-antarctic-peninsula-42mrovubq2.pdf

Marine pelagic ecosystems: the West Antarctic Peninsula

1
Since the last thorough review of the effects of anthropogenic noise on cetaceans in 1995, a substantial number of research reports has been published and our ability to document response(s), or the lack thereof, has improved. While rigorous measurement of responses remains important, there is an increased need to interpret observed actions in the context of population-level consequences and acceptable exposure levels. There has been little change in the sources of noise, with the notable addition of noise from wind farms and novel acoustic deterrent and harassment devices (ADDs/AHDs). Overall, the noise sources of primary concern are ships, seismic exploration, sonars of all types and some AHDs.

2
Responses to noise fall into three main categories: behavioural, acoustic and physiological. We reviewed reports of the first two exhaustively, reviewing all peer-reviewed literature since 1995 with exceptions only for emerging subjects. Furthermore, we fully review only those studies for which received sound characteristics (amplitude and frequency) are reported, because interpreting what elicits responses or lack of responses is impossible without this exposure information. Behavioural responses include changes in surfacing, diving and heading patterns. Acoustic responses include changes in type or timing of vocalizations relative to the noise source. For physiological responses we address the issues of auditory threshold shifts and ‘stress’, albeit in a more limited capacity; a thorough review of physiological consequences is beyond the scope of this paper.

3
Overall, we found significant progress in the documentation of responses of cetaceans to various noise sources. However, we are concerned about the lack of investigation into the potential effects of prevalent noise sources such as commercial sonars, depth finders and fisheries acoustics gear. Furthermore, we were surprised at the number of experiments that failed to report any information about the sound exposure experienced by their experimental subjects. Conducting experiments with cetaceans is challenging and opportunities are limited, so use of the latter should be maximized and include rigorous measurements and or modelling of exposure.

Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise

Recent measurement at a previously studied location illustrates the magnitude of increases in ocean ambient noise in the Northeast Pacific over the past four decades. Continuous measurements west of San Nicolas Island, California, over 138 days, spanning 2003-2004 are compared to measurements made during the 1960s at the same site. Ambient noise levels at 30-50 Hz were 10-12 dB higher (95% CI = 2.6 dB) in 2003-2004 than in 1964-1966, suggesting an average noise increase rate of 2.5-3 dB per decade. Above 50 Hz the noise level differences between recording periods gradually diminished to only 1-3 dB at 100-300 Hz. Above 300 Hz the 1964-1966 ambient noise levels were higher than in 2003-2004, owing to a diel component which was absent in the more recent data. Low frequency (10-50 Hz) ocean ambient noise levels are closely related to shipping vessel traffic. The number of commercial vessels plying the world's oceans approximately doubled between 1965 and 2003 and the gross tonnage quadrupled, with a corresponding increase in horsepower. Increases in commercial shipping are believed to account for the observed low-frequency ambient noise increase.

/pdf/increases-in-deep-ocean-ambient-noise-in-the-northeast-3y4pstjyzg.pdf

Increases in deep ocean ambient noise in the Northeast Pacific west of San Nicolas Island, California.

Fin whales are among the largest predators on earth, yet little is known about their foraging behavior at depth. These whales obtain their prey by lunge-feeding, an extraordinary biomechanical event where large amounts of water and prey are engulfed and filtered. This process entails a high energetic cost that effectively decreases dive duration and increases post-dive recovery time. To examine the body mechanics of fin whales during foraging dives we attached high-resolution digital tags, equipped with a hydrophone, a depth gauge and a dual-axis accelerometer, to the backs of surfacing fin whales in the Southern California Bight. Body pitch and roll were estimated by changes in static gravitational acceleration detected by orthogonal axes of the accelerometer, while higher frequency, smaller amplitude oscillations in the accelerometer signals were interpreted as bouts of active fluking. Instantaneous velocity of the whale was determined from the magnitude of turbulent flow noise measured by the hydrophone and confirmed by kinematic analysis. Fin whales employed gliding gaits during descent, executed a series of lunges at depth and ascended to the surface by steady fluking. Our examination of body kinematics at depth reveals variable lunge-feeding behavior in the context of distinct kinematic modes, which exhibit temporal coordination of rotational torques with translational accelerations. Maximum swimming speeds during lunges match previous estimates of the flow-induced pressure needed to completely expand the buccal cavity during feeding.

/pdf/kinematics-of-foraging-dives-and-lunge-feeding-in-fin-whales-3uw2n6h2fl.pdf

Kinematics of foraging dives and lunge-feeding in fin whales

We assessed the behavioral context of calls produced by blue whales Balaenoptera mus- culus off the California coast based on acoustic, behavioral, and dive data obtained through acoustic recording tags, sex determination from tissue sampling, and coordinated visual and acoustic obser- vations. Approximately one-third of 38 monitored blue whales vocalized, with sounds categorized into 3 types: (1) low-frequency pulsed A and tonal B calls, in either rhythmic repetitive song sequences or as intermittent, singular calls; (2) downswept D calls; and (3) highly variable amplitude- or frequency-modulated calls. Clear patterns of behavior, sex, and group size are evident for some call types. Only males were documented producing AB calls, with song produced by lone, traveling blue whales, and singular AB calls were more typically produced by whales in pairs; D calls were heard from both sexes during foraging, commonly from individuals within groups. The sex bias evi- dent in AB callers suggests that these calls probably play a role in reproduction, even though the calls are produced year-round. All calls are produced at shallow depth, and calling whales spend more time at shallow depths than non-calling whales, suggesting that a cost may be incurred during D call- ing, as less time is spent feeding at deeper depths. This relationship between calling and depth may predict the traveling behavior of singing blue whales, as traveling whales do not typically dive to deep depths and therefore would experience little extra energetic cost related to the production of long repetitive song bouts while moving between foraging areas.

/pdf/behavioral-context-of-call-production-by-eastern-north-59u7llhbrf.pdf

Behavioral context of call production by eastern North Pacific blue whales

Calling blue and fin whales have been tracked using relative travel times and amplitudes from both direct and multipath arrivals to a seafloor array of seismometers. Calls of three fin whales swimming in the same general direction, but several kilometers apart, are believed to represent communication between the whales because of signature differences in call character, an alternating call pattern, and coordination of call and respiration times. Whale call tracks, call patterns, call character, and swimming speeds were examined during periods with and without the presence of noise. Noise sources included airguns, when the whales were subject to sound levels of up to 143 dB P-P (peak-to-peak) re: 1 µPa over the 10 to 60-Hz band, and transits of merchant ships, when the whales received continuous levels up to 106 dB rms re: 1 µPa over the 10 to 60-Hz band (115 dB P-P). Whale responses associated with these noises remain arguable.

/pdf/blue-and-fin-whales-observed-on-a-seafloor-array-in-the-3e4lnm7ydq.pdf

Blue and fin whales observed on a seafloor array in the Northeast Pacific

The calling seasonality of blue (Balaenoptera musculus) and fin (B. physalus) whales was assessed using acoustic data recorded on seven autonomous acoustic recording packages (ARPs) deployed from March 2001 to February 2003 in the Western Antarctic Peninsula. Automatic detection and acoustic power analysis methods were used for determining presence and absence of whale calls. Blue whale calls were detected year round, on average 177 days per year, with peak calling in March and April, and a secondary peak in October and November. Lowest calling rates occurred between June and September, and in December. Fin whale calling rates were seasonal with calls detected between February and June (on average 51 days/year), and peak calling in May. Sea ice formed a month later and retreated a month earlier in 2001 than in 2002 over all recording sites. During the entire deployment period, detected calls of both species of whales showed negative correlation with sea ice concentrations at all sites, suggesting an absence of blue and fin whales in areas covered with sea ice. A conservative density estimate of calling whales from the acoustic data yields 0.43 calling blue whales per 1000 n mi2 and 1.30 calling fin whales per 1000 n mi2, which is about one-third higher than the density of blue whales and approximately equal to the density of fin whales estimated from the visual surveys.

Mark A. McDonald

Papers

Increases in deep ocean ambient noise in the Northeast Pacific west of San Nicolas Island, California.

Kinematics of foraging dives and lunge-feeding in fin whales

Behavioral context of call production by eastern North Pacific blue whales

Blue and fin whales observed on a seafloor array in the Northeast Pacific

Seasonality of blue and fin whale calls and the influence of sea ice in the Western Antarctic Peninsula