4.5 Article

Feeding at a high pitch: Source parameters of narrow band, high-frequency clicks from echolocating off-shore hourglass dolphins and coastal Hector's dolphins

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
卷 125, 期 3, 页码 1783-1791

出版社

ACOUSTICAL SOC AMER AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1121/1.3075600

关键词

bioacoustics; biocommunications; mechanoception; zoology

资金

  1. Danish Galathea3 oceanographic expedition
  2. Danish Expedition Foundation
  3. Villum Kann Rasmussen's Foundation
  4. Knud Hojgaard's Foundation
  5. RESON A/S and National Instruments
  6. Galathea3 Expedition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Toothed whales depend on echolocation for orientation and prey localization, and source parameters of echolocation clicks from free-ranging animals therefore convey valuable information about the acoustic physiology and behavioral ecology of the recorded species. Recordings of wild hourglass (Lagenorhynchus cruciger) and Hector's dolphins (Cephalorhynchus hectori) were made in the Drake Passage (between Tierra del Fuego and the Antarctic Peninsular) and Banks Peninsular (Akaroa Harbour, New Zealand) with a four element hydrophone array. Analysis of source parameters shows that both species produce narrow band high-frequency (NBHF) echolocation clicks. Coastal Hector's dolphins produce clicks with a mean peak frequency of 129 kHz, 3 dB bandwidth of 20 kHz, 57 mu s, 10 dB duration, and mean apparent source level (ASL) of 177 dB re 1 mu Pap.-p.. The oceanic hourglass dolphins produce clicks with mean peak frequency of 126 kHz, 3 dB bandwidth of 8 kHz, 116 mu s, 10 dB duration, and a mean estimated ASL of 197 dB re 1 mu Pap.-p.. Thus, hourglass dolphins apparently produce clicks of higher source level, which should allow them to detect prey at more than twice the distance compared to Hector's dolphins. The observed source parameter differences within these two NBHF species may be an adaptation to a coastal cluttered environment versus a deep water, pelagic habitat.

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