Abstract
Noise from vessel activity is a major contributor to underwater soundscapes throughout many parts of the world. Vessel noise often induces physiological and behavioral changes in marine animals and can mask ecologically important signals, i.e., limit animals’ abilities to detect these signals. Quantitative study of in situ masking in marine environments is often challenged by limited understanding of noise characteristics, sound propagation, and hearing physiology of animals. As a result, studies often make assumptions about model parameters based on limited data. Masking studies in marine environments traditionally use sound pressure, which is detected by mammals and some fishes, to describe in situ acoustic data and animals’ hearing thresholds. Few masking assessments have incorporated particle motion, the back-and-forth vibratory part of sound which is the primary stimulus for fish and invertebrate hearing, limiting application of models to these abundant taxa. In this chapter, models previously employed to estimate masking effects of noise on communication and listening space in aquatic environments are summarized, followed by an example and discussion of how particle motion data can be incorporated into these assessments. Challenges and needs for more accurate estimation of masking experienced by fish and invertebrate taxa are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Brown NAW, Halliday WD, Balshine S, Juanes F (2021) Low-amplitude noise elicits the Lombard effect in plainfin midshipman mating vocalizations in the wild. Anim Behav 181:29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.08.025
Brumm H, Zollinger SA (2011) The evolution of the Lombard effect: 100 years of psychoacoustic research. Behaviour 148:1173–1198. https://doi.org/10.2307/41445240
Cholewiak D, Clark CW, Ponirakis D et al (2018) Communicating amidst the noise: modeling the aggregate influence of ambient and vessel noise on baleen whale communication space in a national marine sanctuary. Endanger Species Res 36:59–75. https://doi.org/10.3354/ESR00875
Clark CW, Ellison WT, Southall BL et al (2009) Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 395:201–222. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08402
de Jong K, Amorim MCP, Fonseca PJ et al (2018) Noise can affect acoustic communication and subsequent spawning success in fish. Environ Pollut 237:814–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.003
Erbe C, Reichmuth C, Cunningham K et al (2016) Communication masking in marine mammals: a review and research strategy. Mar Pollut Bull 103:15–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.12.007
Fay RR (1992) Structure and function in sound discrimination among vertebrates. In: Webster DB, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) The evolutionary biology of hearing, 1st edn. Springer New York, New York, pp 229–263
Fay RR (2011) Signal-to-noise ratio for source determination and for a comodulated masker in goldfish, Carassius auratus. J Acoust Soc Am 129:3367–3372. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3562179
Fletcher H (1940) Auditory patterns. Rev Mod Phys 12:47–66
Frisk G (2012) Noiseonomics: the relationship between ambient noise levels in the sea and global economic trends. Sci Rep 2:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00437
Gabriele CM, Ponirakis DW, Clark CW et al (2018) Underwater acoustic ecology metrics in an Alaska marine protected area reveal marine mammal communication masking and management alternatives. Front Mar Sci 5:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00270
Gray MD, Rogers PH, Zeddies DG (2016) Acoustic particle motion measurement for bioacousticians: principles and pitfalls. Proc Meetings Acoust 27:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000290
Hall JW, Haggard MP, Fernandes MA (1984) Detection in noise by spectro-temporal pattern analysis. J Acoust Soc Am 76:50–56. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.391005
Halvorsen MB, Ainslie MA (2018) Auditory threshold in fishes: towards international standard measurement procedures. J Acoust Soc Am 144(3):1662–1662
Hatch LT, Clark CW, van Parijs SM et al (2012) Quantifying loss of acoustic communication space for right whales in and around a U.S. National Marine Sanctuary. Conserv Biol 26:983–994. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01908.x
Hawkins AD, Chapman CJ (1975) Masked auditory thresholds in the cod Gadus morhua L. J Comp Physiol 103:209–226
Hawkins AD, Popper AN (2018) Directional hearing and sound source localization by fishes. J Acoust Soc Am 144:3329–3350. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5082306
Hawkins AD, Pembroke AE, Popper AN (2015) Information gaps in understanding the effects of noise on fishes and invertebrates. Rev Fish Biol Fish 25:39–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-014-9369-3
Holt DE, Johnston CE (2014) Evidence of the Lombard effect in fishes. Behav Ecol 25:819–826. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru028
Horodysky AZ, Brill RW, Fine ML et al (2008) Acoustic pressure and particle motion thresholds in six sciaenid fishes. J Exp Biol 211:1504–1511. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.016196
Jones IT, Gray MD, Mooney TA (2022) Soundscapes as heard by invertebrates and fishes: particle motion measurements on coral reefs. J Acoust Soc Am 152:399–415. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0012579
Kalmijn AJ (1988) Hydrodynamic and acoustic field detection. In: Atema J, Fay RR, Popper AN, Tavolga WN (eds) Sensory biology of aquatic animals, 1st edn. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 84–130
Kowarski KA, Martin SB, Maxner EE et al (2022) Cetacean acoustic occurrence on the US Atlantic outer continental shelf from 2017 to 2020. Mar Mamm Sci:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12962
Lowerre-Barbieri SK, Barbieri LR, Flanders JR et al (2008) Use of passive acoustics to determine red drum spawning in Georgia waters. Trans Am Fish Soc 137:562–575. https://doi.org/10.1577/t04-226.1
Magnhagen C, Johansson K, Sigray P (2017) Effects of motorboat noise on foraging behaviour in Eurasian perch and roach: a field experiment. Mar Ecol 564:115–125. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11997
Martin B (2013) Computing cumulative sound exposure levels from anthropogenic sources in large data sets. Proc Meetings Acoust 19:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4800967
Matthews M-NR, Schlesinger A, Hannay D (2015) Cumulative and chronic effects in the Gulf of Mexico: estimating reduction of listening area and communication space due to seismic activities in support of the BOEM geological and geophysical activities draft programmatic. Environmental Impact Statement. JASCO document # 01073, version 1.0. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for National Marine Fisheries Service
Miksis-Olds JL, Bradley DL, Niu, XM (2013) Decadal trends in Indian Ocean ambient sound. J Acoust Soc Am 134:3464–3475. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4821537
Montie EW, Kehrer C, Yost J et al (2016) Long-term monitoring of captive red drum Sciaenops ocellatus reveals that calling incidence and structure correlate with egg deposition. J Fish Biol 88:1776–1795. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12938
Nedelec SL, Campbell J, Radford AN et al (2016) Particle motion: the missing link in underwater acoustic ecology. Methods Ecol Evol 7:836–842. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12544
Nedelec SL, Ainslie MA, Andersson M, et al (2021) Best practice guide for measurement of underwater particle motion for biological applications. Technical report by the University of Exeter for the IOGP Marine Sound and Life Joint Industry Programme
Pine MK, Jeffs AG, Wang D, Radford CA (2016) The potential for vessel noise to mask biologically important sounds within ecologically significant embayments. Ocean Coast Manag 127:63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.04.007
Pine MK, Hannay DE, Insley SJ et al (2018) Assessing vessel slowdown for reducing auditory masking for marine mammals and fish of the western Canadian Arctic. Mar Pollut Bull 135:290–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.07.031
Pine MK, Nikolich K, Martin B et al (2020) Assessing auditory masking for management of underwater anthropogenic noise. J Acoust Soc Am 147:3408–3417. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0001218
Pine MK, Wilson L, Jeffs AG et al (2021) A Gulf in lockdown: how an enforced ban on recreational vessels increased dolphin and fish communication ranges. Glob Chang Biol 27:4839–4848. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15798
Popper AN, Hawkins AD (2018) The importance of particle motion to fishes and invertebrates. J Acoust Soc Am 143:470–488. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5021594
Putland RL, Merchant ND, Farcas A, Radford CA (2018) Vessel noise cuts down communication space for vocalizing fish and marine mammals. Glob Chang Biol 24:1708–1721. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13996
Radford CA, Montgomery JC, Caiger P, Higgs DM (2012) Pressure and particle motion detection thresholds in fish: a re-examination of salient auditory cues in teleosts. J Exp Biol 215:3429–3435. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.073320
Radford AN, Kerridge E, Simpson SD (2014) Acoustic communication in a noisy world: can fish compete with anthropogenic noise? Behav Ecol 25:1022–1030. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru029
Rogers LS, Putland RL, Mensinger AF (2020) The effect of biological and anthropogenic sound on the auditory sensitivity of oyster toadfish, Opsanus tau. J Comp Physiol A 206:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-019-01381-x
Slabbekoorn H, Bouton N, van Opzeeland I et al (2010) A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends Ecol Evol 25:419–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.04.005
Stanley JA, van Parijs SM, Hatch LT (2017) Underwater sound from vessel traffic reduces the effective communication range in Atlantic cod and haddock. Sci Rep 7:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14743-9
Tricas TC, Webb JF (2016) Acoustic communication in butterflyfishes: anatomical novelties, physiology, evolution, and behavioral ecology. In: Sisneros JA (ed) Fish hearing and bioacoustics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 57–92
Tripathy A, Miksis-Olds J, Lyons AP (2021) The impact of hurricanes on the US outer continental shelf underwater soundscape. 6th underwater acoustics conference and exhibition 44:070017. https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0001484
Acknowledgments
The Atlantic Deepwater Ecosystem Observatory Network (ADEON) study was funded by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Environmental Studies Program, Washington, DC, under contract number M16PC00003. Funding for ADEON ship time and additional funding for ITJ were provided by the Office of Naval Research, Code 32. We are grateful to the organizers of the 2022 Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life conference for providing travel funding for ITJ.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Jones, I.T., Martin, S.B., Miksis-Olds, J.L. (2023). Incorporating Particle Motion in Fish Communication and Listening Space Models. In: Popper, A.N., Sisneros, J., Hawkins, A., Thomsen, F. (eds) The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10417-6_73-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10417-6_73-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-10417-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-10417-6
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life SciencesReference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences