4.7 Article

Acoustic interaction of humpback whales and whale-watching boats

期刊

MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 49, 期 5, 页码 469-481

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0141-1136(99)00086-0

关键词

humpback whales; whale watching; boat interaction with whales; disturbance; behavior; effects-whole organisms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The underwater acoustic noise of five representative whale-watching boats used in the waters of west Maul was measured in order to study the effects of boat noise on humpback whales. The first set of measurements were performed on 9 and LO March, close to the peak of the whale season. The ambient noise was relatively high with the major contribution from many chorusing humpback whales. Measurements of boat sounds were contaminated by this high ambient background noise. A second set of measurements was performed on 28 and 29 April, towards the end of the humpback whale season. In both sets of measurements, two of the boats were inflatables with outboard engines, two were larger coastal boats with twin inboard diesel engines and the fifth was a small water plane area twin hull (SWATH) ship with inter-island cruise capabilities. The inflatable boats with outboard engines produced very complex sounds with many bands of tonal-like components. The boats with inboard engines produced less intense sounds with fewer tonal bands. One-third octave band measurements of ambient noise measured on 9 March indicated a maximum sound pressure level of about 123 dB re 1 mu Pa at 315 Hz. The maximum sound pressure level of 127 dB at 315 Hz was measured for the SWATH ship. One of the boats with outboard engines produced sounds between 2 and 4 kHz that were about 8-10 dB greater than the level of background humpback whale sounds at the peak of the whale season. We concluded that it is unlikely that the levels of sounds produced by the boats in our study would have any grave effects on the auditory system of humpback whales. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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