Communication masking in marine mammals: A review and research strategy.
TL;DR: The understanding of masking in marine mammals is reviewed, data on marine mammal hearing as they relate to masking is summarized, audiograms, critical ratios, critical bandwidths, and auditory integration times are summarized, and anti-masking strategies of signalers are discussed.
About: This article is published in Marine Pollution Bulletin.The article was published on 2016-02-15 and is currently open access. It has received 252 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Auditory masking & Masking (art).
Citations
More filters
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology1, Aarhus University2, University of Exeter3, La Trobe University4, University of California, Santa Cruz5, Spanish National Research Council6, Curtin University7, Australian Institute of Marine Science8, University of California, Santa Barbara9, University of Bristol10, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science11, University of New Hampshire12, University of Auckland13, Leiden University14, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research15, University of Victoria16
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors show that ocean sound affects marine animals at multiple levels, including their behavior, physiology, and, in extreme cases, survival, which should prompt management actions to deploy existing solutions to reduce noise levels in the ocean, thereby allowing marine animals to reestablish their use of ocean sound as a central ecological trait.
Abstract: Oceans have become substantially noisier since the Industrial Revolution. Shipping, resource exploration, and infrastructure development have increased the anthrophony (sounds generated by human activities), whereas the biophony (sounds of biological origin) has been reduced by hunting, fishing, and habitat degradation. Climate change is affecting geophony (abiotic, natural sounds). Existing evidence shows that anthrophony affects marine animals at multiple levels, including their behavior, physiology, and, in extreme cases, survival. This should prompt management actions to deploy existing solutions to reduce noise levels in the ocean, thereby allowing marine animals to reestablish their use of ocean sound as a central ecological trait in a healthy ocean.
254 citations
TL;DR: It is made clear that there are currently so many information gaps that it is almost impossible to reach clear conclusions on the nature and levels of anthropogenic sounds that have potential to cause changes in animal behaviour, or even result in physical harm.
Abstract: Fishes use a variety of sensory systems to learn about their environments and to communicate. Of the various senses, hearing plays a particularly important role for fishes in providing information, often from great distances, from all around these animals. This information is in all three spatial dimensions, often overcoming the limitations of other senses such as vision, touch, taste and smell. Sound is used for communication between fishes, mating behaviour, the detection of prey and predators, orientation and migration and habitat selection. Thus, anything that interferes with the ability of a fish to detect and respond to biologically relevant sounds can decrease survival and fitness of individuals and populations. Since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, there has been a growing increase in the noise that humans put into the water. These anthropogenic sounds are from a wide range of sources that include shipping, sonars, construction activities (e.g., wind farms, harbours), trawling, dredging and exploration for oil and gas. Anthropogenic sounds may be sufficiently intense to result in death or mortal injury. However, anthropogenic sounds at lower levels may result in temporary hearing impairment, physiological changes including stress effects, changes in behaviour or the masking of biologically important sounds. The intent of this paper is to review the potential effects of anthropogenic sounds upon fishes, the potential consequences for populations and ecosystems and the need to develop sound exposure criteria and relevant regulations. However, assuming that many readers may not have a background in fish bioacoustics, the paper first provides information on underwater acoustics, with a focus on introducing the very important concept of particle motion, the primary acoustic stimulus for all fishes, including elasmobranchs. The paper then provides background material on fish hearing, sound production and acoustic behaviour. This is followed by an overview of what is known about effects of anthropogenic sounds on fishes and considers the current guidelines and criteria being used world-wide to assess potential effects on fishes. Most importantly, the paper provides the most complete summary of the effects of anthropogenic noise on fishes to date. It is also made clear that there are currently so many information gaps that it is almost impossible to reach clear conclusions on the nature and levels of anthropogenic sounds that have potential to cause changes in animal behaviour, or even result in physical harm. Further research is required on the responses of a range of fish species to different sound sources, under different conditions. There is a need both to examine the immediate effects of sound exposure and the longer-term effects, in terms of fitness and likely impacts upon populations.
177 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors consider the problem of assessing the impact of underwater noise on fishes and invertebrates and the assessment procedures that need to be implemented to protect these animals and the marine ecosystems of which they form an integral part.
Abstract: Increasing attention is being paid to the ecological consequences of underwater noise generated by human activities such as shipping and maritime industries including, but not limited to, oil and gas exploration and extraction, sonar systems, dredging and the construction of offshore renewable energy devices. There is particular concern over the extension of these activities into previously undeveloped areas of the oceans, including Polar Regions and areas of coral reef habitat. Most of the concern by regulators and others has focussed upon effects upon marine mammals and other protected species. However, examining the impacts upon the overall ecology of affected habitats is also important as it may be dominated by effects upon the far larger biomasses of fishes and invertebrates, which do not have the same degree of legal protection. Many of these assessments of the impact of noise on fishes and invertebrates have overlooked important issues, including the sensitivity of a substantial proportion of these species to particle motion rather than sound pressure. Attempts have been made to establish sound exposure criteria setting regulatory limits to the levels of noise in terms of effects upon mortality levels, injury to tissues, hearing abilities, behaviour, and physiology. However, such criteria have almost exclusively been developed for marine mammals. Criteria for fishes and invertebrates have often had to be assumed, or they have been derived from poorly designed and controlled studies. Moreover, the metrics employed to describe sounds from different sources have often been inappropriate, especially for fishes, and invertebrates, as they have been based on sound pressure rather than particle motion. In addition, the sound propagation models employed to assess the distances over which effects might occur have seldom been validated by actual measurements and are especially poor at dealing with transmission under shallow water conditions, close to or within the seabed, or at the surface. Finally, impacts on fish and invertebrate populations are often unknown and remain unassessed. This paper considers the problems of assessing the impact of noise upon fishes and invertebrates and the assessment procedures that need to be implemented to protect these animals and the marine ecosystems of which they form an integral part. The paper also suggests directions for future research and planning that, if implemented, will provide for a far better scientific and regulatory basis for dealing with effects of noise on aquatic life.
142 citations
Cites background from "Communication masking in marine mam..."
...Greatest concern is currently directed at examining the effects of underwater man-made sound upon marine mammals (Southall et al., 2007; Erbe et al., 2016; NMFS, 2016), largely because of the strong legal protection given to these charismatic animals....
[...]
...Masking of biologically important sounds by ambient noise (particle motion as well as sound pressure for fishes and invertebrates) may well provide the ultimate limit to sound detection for many marine animals (Fay, 2011; Erbe et al., 2016)....
[...]
...Greatest concern is currently directed at examining the effects of underwater man-made sound upon marine mammals (Southall et al., 2007; Erbe et al., 2016; NMFS, 2016), largely because of the...
[...]
TL;DR: This review aims to summarise scientific studies investigating the impacts of low-frequency sound on marine fish and invertebrates, as well as to critically evaluate how such studies may apply to field populations exposed to seismic operations.
106 citations
Cites background from "Communication masking in marine mam..."
...Previous reviews on aquatic noise impacts have focussed on particular taxa, including cetaceans (Gordon et al., 2003; Erbe et al., 2016), turtles (Nelms et al., 2016) and fish (Popper and Hastings, 2009; Radford et al., 2014), or often in the context of general noise pollution (Popper and Hastings,…...
[...]
...Previous reviews on aquatic noise impacts have focussed on particular taxa, including cetaceans (Gordon et al., 2003; Erbe et al., 2016), turtles (Nelms et al....
[...]
TL;DR: The analysis emphasized that behavioural responses in cetaceans (measured via a linear severity scale) were best explained by the interaction between sound source type (continuous, sonar, or seismic/explosion) and functional hearing group (a proxy for hearing capabilities).
Abstract: Noise can cause marine mammals to interrupt their feeding, alter their vocalizations, or leave important habitat, among other behavioural responses. The current North American paradigm for regulati...
87 citations
Cites background from "Communication masking in marine mam..."
...…most general manner (e.g., this is a migration route, or a feeding area), at least for the foreseeable future until more welldesigned and standardized studies are undertaken (see Erbe et al. 2016 for a summary of the protocols and standards necessary for research on noise impacts on marine life)....
[...]
References
More filters
Book•
01 Jan 1995
TL;DR: This paper presents a meta-anatomy of Marine Mammal Hearing, a probabilistic assessment of the response of marine mammals to man-made noise, and its consequences.
Abstract: Preface. Introduction. Acoustic Concepts and Terminology. Measurement Procedures. Sound Propagation. Ambient Noise. Man-Made Noise. Marine Mammal Sounds. Marine Mammal Hearing. Documented Disturbance Reactions. Zones of Noise Influence. Significance of Responses and Noise Impacts. Conclusions and Data Needs. Literature Cited. Appendices: Common and Scientific Names of Marine Mammals. Acoustical Glossary. Subject Index.
1,572 citations
"Communication masking in marine mam..." refers background in this paper
...Several summaries of underwater noise characteristics have been published (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995), and more recently of the sounds emitted by offshore petroleum operations (Wyatt, 2008), naval, fisheries and hydrographic sonars (Ainslie, 2010), pile driving (Illinworth and Rodkin Inc.,…...
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors compared the results of recent ambient-noise investigations, after appropriate processing, on the basis of pressure spectra in the frequency band 1 cps to 20 kc.
Abstract: The results of recent ambient‐noise investigations, after appropriate processing, are compared on the basis of pressure spectra in the frequency band 1 cps to 20 kc. Several possible sources are discussed to determine the most probable origin of the observed noise. It is concluded that, in general, the ambient noise is a composite of at least three overlapping components: turbulent‐pressure fluctuations effective in the band 1 cps to 100 cps; wind‐dependent noise from bubbles and spray resulting, primarily, from surface agitation, 50 cps to 20 kc; and, in many areas, oceanic traffic, 10 cps to 1000 cps. Spectrum characteristics of each component and of the composite are shown. Additional sources, including those of intermittent and local effects, are also discussed. Guidelines for the estimation of noise levels are given.
1,238 citations
"Communication masking in marine mam..." refers background in this paper
...Summaries of ambient noise in different parts of the world's oceans have been published (e.g., Cato, 1978, 1997; Erbe et al., 2015; Wenz, 1962) showing a wide range of variability in acoustic habitats used by marine mammals....
[...]
...noise in different parts of the world's oceans have been published (e.g., Cato, 1978, 1997; Erbe et al., 2015; Wenz, 1962) showing a wide range of variability in acoustic habitats used by marine mammals....
[...]
...At frequencies N40 kHz, thermal noise (molecular agitation) affects the ambient spectrum, apparent at low sea states as the up-sloping PSD for increasing frequency (Wenz, 1962)....
[...]
10 Dec 1993
TL;DR: In this article, the authors compare the performance of the Sonar of Bats and Dolphin Sonar Signals with the performance provided by the active Sonar Signal Processing Model (SSPM).
Abstract: Introduction The Receiver System Characteristics of the Receiver for Simple Signals Characteristics of the Receiver for Complex Signals The Sonar Signal Transmission System Characteristics of the Transmission System Characteristics of Dolphin Sonar Signals Capabilities of the Active Sonar System Biosonar Discrimination and Target Recognition Biosonar Signal Processing Models A Comparison Between the Sonar of Bats and Dolphins A Road Map for Future Research
918 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1993TL;DR: The receiver system Characteristics of the Receiver for Simple Signals and the transmission system characteristics of the receiver for Complex Signals are compared to those of the sonar system.
Abstract: Introduction The Receiver System Characteristics of the Receiver for Simple Signals Characteristics of the Receiver for Complex Signals The Sonar Signal Transmission System Characteristics of the Transmission System Characteristics of Dolphin Sonar Signals Capabilities of the Active Sonar System Biosonar Discrimination and Target Recognition Biosonar Signal Processing Models A Comparison Between the Sonar of Bats and Dolphins A Road Map for Future Research
885 citations
"Communication masking in marine mam..." refers background in this paper
...Odontocete cetaceans have a biosonar system (Au, 1993), producing high-frequency clicks and utilizing their returning echoes tofindand identify swimming prey and discern environmental structure....
[...]
...Highfrequency echolocation clicks are highly directional (Au, 1993; Au et al., 1995; Beedholm and Mohl, 2006)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present the MARINE MAMMAL NOISE-EXPOSURE CRITERIA: INITIAL SCIENTIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS.
Abstract: (2008). MARINE MAMMAL NOISE-EXPOSURE CRITERIA: INITIAL SCIENTIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS. Bioacoustics: Vol. 17, No. 1-3, pp. 273-275.
727 citations