4.5 Article

Geographic variation in Northwest Atlantic fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) song: Implications for stock structure assessment

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
卷 125, 期 3, 页码 1774-1782

出版社

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.3068454

关键词

acoustic signal processing; biocommunications; environmental factors; underwater sound

资金

  1. Marisla Foundation
  2. Northeast Fisheries Science Center
  3. Northeast Regional Fisheries Office
  4. Forschungskommission der Universitat Zurich
  5. Zurich Tierschutz
  6. Schweizerische Akademie der Naturwissenschaften
  7. Basler Stiftung fur biologische Forschung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Passive acoustic data are increasingly being used as a tool for helping to define marine mammal populations and stocks. Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) songs present a unique opportunity to determine interstock differences. Their highly stereotyped interpulse interval has been shown to vary between geographic areas and to remain stable over time in some areas. In this study the structure of songs recorded at two geographically close feeding aggregations in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (GSL) and Gulf of Maine (GoM) was compared. Recordings were made from September 2005 through February 2006 in the GSL and intermittently between January 2006 and September 2007 at two locations in the GoM. 6257 pulse intervals corresponding to 19 GSL and 29 GoM songs were measured to characterize songs from both areas. Classification trees showed that GSL songs differ significantly from those in the GoM. The results are consistent with those derived from other stock structure assessment methodologies, such as chemical signature and photoidentification analysis, suggesting that fin whales in these areas may form separate management stocks. Song structure analysis could therefore provide a useful and cost-efficient tool for defining conservation units over temporal and geographical scales relevant to management objectives in fin whales.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据