The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, communication behaviour
The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Dunlop, Rebecca A. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2016transfer abstract |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
9 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Wave energy converter array layout optimization: A critical and comprehensive overview - Yang, Bo ELSEVIER, 2022, Amsterdam [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:111 ; year:2016 ; pages:13-21 ; extent:9 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV030040647 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV030040647 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230625180322.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 180603s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a GBVA2016020000018.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV030040647 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0003-3472(15)00373-5 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | |a 150 | |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 150 |q DE-600 |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 620 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 52.56 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Dunlop, Rebecca A. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 4 | |a The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, communication behaviour |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2016transfer abstract | |
| 300 | |a 9 | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication. | ||
| 520 | |a The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication. | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a vocal source level |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a wind noise |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a acoustic communication |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a vocal response |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a anthropogenic noise |2 Elsevier | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier |a Yang, Bo ELSEVIER |t Wave energy converter array layout optimization: A critical and comprehensive overview |d 2022 |g Amsterdam [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV008373477 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:111 |g year:2016 |g pages:13-21 |g extent:9 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 52.56 |j Regenerative Energieformen |j alternative Energieformen |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 111 |j 2016 |h 13-21 |g 9 | ||
| 953 | |2 045F |a 150 | ||
| author_variant |
r a d ra rad |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
dunloprebeccaa:2016----:hefcovsenienupakhlmgpeaoaagieo |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2016transfer abstract |
| bklnumber |
52.56 |
| publishDate |
2016 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002 doi GBVA2016020000018.pica (DE-627)ELV030040647 (ELSEVIER)S0003-3472(15)00373-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 150 150 DE-600 620 VZ 52.56 bkl Dunlop, Rebecca A. verfasserin aut The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, communication behaviour 2016transfer abstract 9 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication. The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication. vocal source level Elsevier wind noise Elsevier acoustic communication Elsevier vocal response Elsevier anthropogenic noise Elsevier Enthalten in Elsevier Yang, Bo ELSEVIER Wave energy converter array layout optimization: A critical and comprehensive overview 2022 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV008373477 volume:111 year:2016 pages:13-21 extent:9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 52.56 Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen VZ AR 111 2016 13-21 9 045F 150 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002 doi GBVA2016020000018.pica (DE-627)ELV030040647 (ELSEVIER)S0003-3472(15)00373-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 150 150 DE-600 620 VZ 52.56 bkl Dunlop, Rebecca A. verfasserin aut The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, communication behaviour 2016transfer abstract 9 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication. The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication. vocal source level Elsevier wind noise Elsevier acoustic communication Elsevier vocal response Elsevier anthropogenic noise Elsevier Enthalten in Elsevier Yang, Bo ELSEVIER Wave energy converter array layout optimization: A critical and comprehensive overview 2022 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV008373477 volume:111 year:2016 pages:13-21 extent:9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 52.56 Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen VZ AR 111 2016 13-21 9 045F 150 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002 doi GBVA2016020000018.pica (DE-627)ELV030040647 (ELSEVIER)S0003-3472(15)00373-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 150 150 DE-600 620 VZ 52.56 bkl Dunlop, Rebecca A. verfasserin aut The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, communication behaviour 2016transfer abstract 9 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication. The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication. vocal source level Elsevier wind noise Elsevier acoustic communication Elsevier vocal response Elsevier anthropogenic noise Elsevier Enthalten in Elsevier Yang, Bo ELSEVIER Wave energy converter array layout optimization: A critical and comprehensive overview 2022 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV008373477 volume:111 year:2016 pages:13-21 extent:9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 52.56 Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen VZ AR 111 2016 13-21 9 045F 150 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002 doi GBVA2016020000018.pica (DE-627)ELV030040647 (ELSEVIER)S0003-3472(15)00373-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 150 150 DE-600 620 VZ 52.56 bkl Dunlop, Rebecca A. verfasserin aut The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, communication behaviour 2016transfer abstract 9 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication. The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication. vocal source level Elsevier wind noise Elsevier acoustic communication Elsevier vocal response Elsevier anthropogenic noise Elsevier Enthalten in Elsevier Yang, Bo ELSEVIER Wave energy converter array layout optimization: A critical and comprehensive overview 2022 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV008373477 volume:111 year:2016 pages:13-21 extent:9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 52.56 Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen VZ AR 111 2016 13-21 9 045F 150 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002 doi GBVA2016020000018.pica (DE-627)ELV030040647 (ELSEVIER)S0003-3472(15)00373-5 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 150 150 DE-600 620 VZ 52.56 bkl Dunlop, Rebecca A. verfasserin aut The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, communication behaviour 2016transfer abstract 9 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication. The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication. vocal source level Elsevier wind noise Elsevier acoustic communication Elsevier vocal response Elsevier anthropogenic noise Elsevier Enthalten in Elsevier Yang, Bo ELSEVIER Wave energy converter array layout optimization: A critical and comprehensive overview 2022 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV008373477 volume:111 year:2016 pages:13-21 extent:9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 52.56 Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen VZ AR 111 2016 13-21 9 045F 150 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Wave energy converter array layout optimization: A critical and comprehensive overview Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:111 year:2016 pages:13-21 extent:9 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Wave energy converter array layout optimization: A critical and comprehensive overview Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:111 year:2016 pages:13-21 extent:9 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Regenerative Energieformen alternative Energieformen |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
vocal source level wind noise acoustic communication vocal response anthropogenic noise |
| dewey-raw |
150 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Wave energy converter array layout optimization: A critical and comprehensive overview |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Dunlop, Rebecca A. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2016-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV008373477 |
| dewey-sort |
3150 |
| id |
ELV030040647 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV030040647</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230625180322.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBVA2016020000018.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV030040647</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0003-3472(15)00373-5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">150</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">150</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">620</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">52.56</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dunlop, Rebecca A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, communication behaviour</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">vocal source level</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">wind noise</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">acoustic communication</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">vocal response</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">anthropogenic noise</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier</subfield><subfield code="a">Yang, Bo ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Wave energy converter array layout optimization: A critical and comprehensive overview</subfield><subfield code="d">2022</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV008373477</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:111</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:13-21</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">52.56</subfield><subfield code="j">Regenerative Energieformen</subfield><subfield code="j">alternative Energieformen</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">111</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="h">13-21</subfield><subfield code="g">9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">150</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Dunlop, Rebecca A. |
| spellingShingle |
Dunlop, Rebecca A. ddc 150 ddc 620 bkl 52.56 Elsevier vocal source level Elsevier wind noise Elsevier acoustic communication Elsevier vocal response Elsevier anthropogenic noise The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, communication behaviour |
| authorStr |
Dunlop, Rebecca A. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV008373477 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
150 - Psychology 620 - Engineering & allied operations |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
150 150 DE-600 620 VZ 52.56 bkl The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, communication behaviour vocal source level Elsevier wind noise Elsevier acoustic communication Elsevier vocal response Elsevier anthropogenic noise Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 150 ddc 620 bkl 52.56 Elsevier vocal source level Elsevier wind noise Elsevier acoustic communication Elsevier vocal response Elsevier anthropogenic noise |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 150 ddc 620 bkl 52.56 Elsevier vocal source level Elsevier wind noise Elsevier acoustic communication Elsevier vocal response Elsevier anthropogenic noise |
| topic_browse |
ddc 150 ddc 620 bkl 52.56 Elsevier vocal source level Elsevier wind noise Elsevier acoustic communication Elsevier vocal response Elsevier anthropogenic noise |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Wave energy converter array layout optimization: A critical and comprehensive overview |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV008373477 |
| dewey-tens |
150 - Psychology 620 - Engineering |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Wave energy converter array layout optimization: A critical and comprehensive overview |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV008373477 |
| title |
The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, communication behaviour |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV030040647 (ELSEVIER)S0003-3472(15)00373-5 |
| title_full |
The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, communication behaviour |
| author_sort |
Dunlop, Rebecca A. |
| journal |
Wave energy converter array layout optimization: A critical and comprehensive overview |
| journalStr |
Wave energy converter array layout optimization: A critical and comprehensive overview |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
100 - Philosophy & psychology 600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2016 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
13 |
| author_browse |
Dunlop, Rebecca A. |
| container_volume |
111 |
| physical |
9 |
| class |
150 150 DE-600 620 VZ 52.56 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Dunlop, Rebecca A. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002 |
| dewey-full |
150 620 |
| title_sort |
effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, megaptera novaeangliae, communication behaviour |
| title_auth |
The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, communication behaviour |
| abstract |
The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication. |
| abstractGer |
The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U |
| title_short |
The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, communication behaviour |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| ppnlink |
ELV008373477 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T23:02:27.019Z |
| _version_ |
1803872577279492096 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV030040647</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230625180322.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBVA2016020000018.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV030040647</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0003-3472(15)00373-5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">150</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">150</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">620</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">52.56</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dunlop, Rebecca A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The effect of vessel noise on humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, communication behaviour</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">The modification of communication signals in response to a changing noise environment has been demonstrated in many terrestrial species, although there are comparatively fewer studies in marine mammals. It is rare, even in terrestrial studies, that the response to an anthropogenic source of noise is compared with a natural source of noise in order to evaluate how animals cope with anthropogenic noise. Humpback whales produce two different types of communication signal other than song: vocal sounds and nonvocal sounds from surface-generated behaviours (breaches, pectoral slapping, tail slapping). In this study, the response of humpback whales to noise dominated by wind (a natural source of noise from breaking waves) was compared with the response to noise dominated by a passing vessel (anthropogenic noise). There were no significant changes in frequency or duration of two common vocal sounds in response to increases in either wind or vessel noise. As with previous studies, humpback whale groups, in response to increasing wind-dominated noise, increased their vocal source level and switched from using primarily vocal sounds to surface-generated sounds in their repertoire. In response to an increase in vessel noise, groups did neither. The proportion of nonvocal sounds in their repertoire was significantly correlated with wind speed (and therefore wind noise) regardless of vessel noise suggesting this response is specific to increased wind noise. However, vocal source levels were lower than expected in vessel noise, suggesting a potential for signal masking in these groups. This comparison of response to two different sources of noise shows that humpback whales may not be able to cope with an increase in anthropogenic noise in the same way they cope with an increase in natural noise. The results highlight the benefits of using the response to a natural source to assess the potential effects of anthropogenic noise on animal communication.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">vocal source level</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">wind noise</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">acoustic communication</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">vocal response</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">anthropogenic noise</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier</subfield><subfield code="a">Yang, Bo ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Wave energy converter array layout optimization: A critical and comprehensive overview</subfield><subfield code="d">2022</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV008373477</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:111</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:13-21</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.10.002</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">52.56</subfield><subfield code="j">Regenerative Energieformen</subfield><subfield code="j">alternative Energieformen</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">111</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="h">13-21</subfield><subfield code="g">9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">150</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4016924 |