Volume 136, Issue 2, August 2014
Index of content:
- ANIMAL BIOACOUSTICS 
Acoustic discrimination between harbor porpoises and delphinids by using a simple two-band comparison136(2014); http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4884763View Description Hide Description
A simple discrimination method between Delphinidae and Phocoenidae based on the comparison of the intensity ratios of two band frequencies (130 and 70 kHz) is proposed. Biosonar signals were recorded at the Istanbul Strait (Bosphorus) in Turkey. Simultaneously, the presence of the species was confirmed by visual observation. Two types of thresholds of two-band intensity ratios, fixed and dynamic threshold, were tested for identification. The correct detection and false alarm rates for porpoises were 0.55 and 0.06 by using the fixed threshold and 0.74 and 0.08 by using the dynamic threshold, respectively. When the dynamic threshold was employed, the appropriate threshold changed depending on the mix ratio of recorded sounds from both Delphinidae and Phocoenidae. Even under biased mix ratios from 26% to 82%, the dynamic threshold worked with >0.80 correct detection and <0.20 false alarm rates, whereas the fixed threshold did not. The proposed method is simple but quantitative, which can be applicable for any broadband recording system, including a single hydrophone with two frequency band detectors.
Discriminating between the vocalizations of Indo-Pacific humpback and Australian snubfin dolphins in Queensland, Australia136(2014); http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4884772View Description Hide Description
Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins co-occur throughout most of their range in coastal waters of tropical Australia. Little is known of their ecology or acoustic repertoires. Vocalizations from humpback and snubfin dolphins were recorded in two locations along the Queensland coast during 2008 and 2010 to describe their vocalizations and evaluate the acoustic differences between these two species. Broad vocalization types were categorized qualitatively. Both species produced click trains burst pulses and whistles. Principal component analysis of the nine acoustic variables extracted from the whistles produced nine principal components that were input into discriminant function analyses to classify 96% of humpback dolphin whistles and about 78% of snubfin dolphin calls correctly. Results indicate clear acoustic differences between the vocal whistle repertoires of these two species. A stepwise routine identified two principal components as significantly distinguishable between whistles of each species: frequency parameters and frequency trend ratio. The capacity to identify these species using acoustic monitoring techniques has the potential to provide information on presence/absence, habitat use and relative abundance for each species.
136(2014); http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4887439View Description Hide Description
Fixed passive acoustic monitoring can be used for long-term recording of vocalizing cetaceans. Both presence monitoring and animal density estimation requires the call rates and sound source levels of vocalizations produced by single animals. In this study, blue whale calls were recorded using acoustic bio-logging systems in Skjálfandi Bay off Húsavík, Northeast Iceland, in June 2012. An accelerometer was attached to individual whales to monitor diving behavior. During 21 h recording two individuals, 8 h 45 min and 13 h 2 min, respectively, 105 and 104 lunge feeding events and four calls were recorded. All recorded calls were down-sweep calls ranging from 105 to 48 Hz. The sound duration was 1–2 s. The source level was estimated to be between 158 and 169 dB re 1μPa rms, assuming spherical sound propagation from the possible sound source location to the tag. The observed sound production rates and source levels of individual blue whales during feeding were extremely small compared with those observed previously in breeding grounds. The feeding whales were nearly acoustically invisible. The function of calls during feeding remains unknown.