Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

The Source Parameters of Echolocation Clicks from Captive and Free-Ranging Yangtze Finless Porpoises (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis asiaeorientalis)

  • Liang Fang,

    Affiliations The Key Laboratory of Aquatic Biodiversity and Conservation of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430072, China, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

  • Ding Wang,

    Affiliation The Key Laboratory of Aquatic Biodiversity and Conservation of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430072, China

  • Yongtao Li,

    Affiliations The Key Laboratory of Aquatic Biodiversity and Conservation of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430072, China, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

  • Zhaolong Cheng,

    Affiliations The Key Laboratory of Aquatic Biodiversity and Conservation of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430072, China, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

  • Matthew K. Pine,

    Affiliation The Key Laboratory of Aquatic Biodiversity and Conservation of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430072, China

  • Kexiong Wang ,

    Wangk@ihb.ac.cn (KW); lish@sidsse.ac.cn (SL)

    Affiliation The Key Laboratory of Aquatic Biodiversity and Conservation of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430072, China

  • Songhai Li

    Wangk@ihb.ac.cn (KW); lish@sidsse.ac.cn (SL)

    Affiliation Sanya Key Laboratory of Marine Mammal and Marine Bioacoustics, Sanya Institute of Deep-sea Science and Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Sanya, 572000, China

The Source Parameters of Echolocation Clicks from Captive and Free-Ranging Yangtze Finless Porpoises (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis asiaeorientalis)

  • Liang Fang, 
  • Ding Wang, 
  • Yongtao Li, 
  • Zhaolong Cheng, 
  • Matthew K. Pine, 
  • Kexiong Wang, 
  • Songhai Li
PLOS
x

Abstract

The clicks of Yangtze finless porpoises (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis asiaeorientalis) from 7 individuals in the tank of Baiji aquarium, 2 individuals in a netted pen at Shishou Tian-e-zhou Reserve and 4 free-ranging individuals at Tianxingzhou were recorded using a broadband digital recording system with four element hydrophones. The peak-to-peak apparent source level (ASL_pp) of clicks from individuals at the Baiji aquarium was 167 dB re 1 μPa with mean center frequency of 133 kHz, -3dB bandwidth of 18 kHz and -10 dB duration of 58 μs. The ASL_pp of clicks from individuals at the Shishou Tian-e-zhou Reserve was 180 dB re 1 μPa with mean center frequency of 128 kHz, -3dB bandwidth of 20 kHz and -10 dB duration of 39 μs. The ASL_pp of clicks from individuals at Tianxingzhou was 176 dB re 1 μPa with mean center frequency of 129 kHz, -3dB bandwidth of 15 kHz and -10 dB duration of 48 μs. Differences between the source parameters of clicks among the three groups of finless porpoises suggest these animals adapt to their echolocation signals depending on their surroundings.

Introduction

The Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis asiaeorientalis) is a member of the Phocoenidae family. It has a body length between 140 and 133 cm, weighs between 40 and 70 kg and reaches sexual maturity at 4.5 and 4 years in males and females respectively [1,2]. This subspecies is critically endangered and is exclusively freshwater, endemic to the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River in China, as well as two connecting lakes (i.e., Poyang Lake and Dongting Lake) [3]. Similar to other odontocetes, the Yangtze finless porpoise navigates the underwater environment using high frequency echolocation clicks (> 70 kHz) [4].

The vocalizations and echolocation ability of odontocetes have been well studied in captive animals over the past half-century [58]. Training of captive animals has allowed researchers to successfully undertake sophisticated experiments on several odontocete species; allowing researchers to accurately characterize the animal's vocalizations under varying conditions [5]. Based on these early studies on captive animals, the use of echolocation in odontocetes for detecting targets, biosonar discrimination, recognition and classification is relatively well understood [5,8]. Recent studies on free-ranging animals have greatly improved our understanding of how odontocetes use sonar in natural environments and the diversity of echolocation signals among dolphin species as well as differences within species from different natural habitats [6,915] and in captivity [5,13,16,17]. The findings presented in these more recent studies also provide insights into their vocal plasticity and ability to adapt to new environments.

The vast majority of studies have focused on the vocalizations and sonar in marine odontocetes, with very few investigating the echolocation signals of freshwater odontocetes, particularly the Yangtze finless porpoise [47,1820]. Previous work using a single hydrophone has shown that the Yangtze finless porpoise produces narrow-band frequency echolocation clicks of short duration (~ 100 μs) with peak-frequencies at ~ 126 kHz [4], sometimes in excess of 200 dB re 1 μPa @ 1 m [20,21]. However, there is a degree of uncertainty surrounding the use of a single hydrophone in these types of experiments due to the high directionality of the sonar beam, the uncertain orientation of the phonating animal within the experimental array and the limitations in deriving accurate source levels. Minor shifts in the animal's orientation may lead to the hydrophone detecting sound pressures along the transmission axis as well as the refracted echolocation signal (termed off-axis). However, the off-axis echolocation signal will be distorted; resulting in lower received amplitudes [5,16,22,23]. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the hydrophone measures the on-axis transmission signal, rather than the off-axis signal in order to accurately characterize the signal [24]. A hydrophone array consisting of several hydrophones is a simple method for distinguishing between on- and off-axis signals.

Growing anthropogenic stresses on the Yangtze River has resulted in the finless porpoise becoming critically endangered [2527]. As a result, there is increasing number of porpoises are being held in captivity or semi-nature environments for conservation [27]. Currently, very little is known about the adaptability of these animals to differing acoustic environments. To our knowledge, there are no published studies to directly compare the echolocation signals from captive and free-ranging Yangtze finless porpoises. Here, we present for the first time a comprehensive characterization of the echolocation signals from both captive (both in a land-based aquarium and an in situ holding pen) and wild Yangtze finless porpoises using a hydrophone array and high sampling rate digital recording system. The results showed differences among the temporal and spectral characteristics between captive and wild individuals. This research provides an improved understanding on the echolocation signals of the Yangtze finless porpoise and their vocal adaptability to differing environments.

Methods

Ethics Statement

The study was conducted under a research permit issued to the Institute of Hydrobiology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences by Fishery Management Bureau of Hubei province of China with permit number 20141105. The captive housing of all porpoises within the Baiji aquarium and Tian-e-zhou National Natural Reserve are overseen by the Institute of Hydrobiology and the Fishery Management Bureau of Hubei Province, respectively. Both organizations were consulted about the current study.

Study Sites

All experiments were completed between December 2013 and January 2014 at the Institute of Hydrobiology Baiji aquarium (30° 31′ N, 114° 22′ E), the Tian-e-zhou Baiji National Natural Reserve (29° 51′ N, 112° 35′ E) and at Tianxingzhou Island (30° 41′ N, 114° 23′ E) (Fig 1). They are respectively referred to herein as the Baiji aquarium experimental group, the Shishou Tian-e-zhou Reserve experimental group and the Tianxingzhou experimental group.

thumbnail
Fig 1. Map showing the three study sites (baiji aquarium, Tian-e-zhou National reserve and the branch of Yangtze River in Tianxingzhou).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129143.g001

At the Baiji aquarium, sounds were recorded from 7 adult finless porpoises (3 males and 4 females; 3–18 years of age; 1.36–1.47 m length; and weighed between 35 and 45 kg) within a 3 m deep tank (dimensions: 25 × 7 m). Recordings were made a short time after the last feeding of the day. At the Shishou Tian-e-zhou Baiji National Natural Reserve (an approximately 21 × 1.5 km oxbow off the Yangtze River and 20 m maximum depth), recordings of the echolocation clicks were made from 2 adult finless porpoises (a single male and female; aged approximately 8 and 6 years, respectively; 1.38–1.42 m length) within a 13 m deep pen (dimensions: 15 × 15 m with 2 cm mesh netting). At this site, recordings were made between the first and second feedings of the day. Tianxingzhou is a 3 km long island which splits the Yangtze River into two channels. During the dry season when the river level lowers, the northern channel becomes unsuitable for large cargo vessels and this area is most often occupied by small populations of finless porpoises. During this period, porpoises' are able to swim freely in an area of approximately 3000 × 150 m and a depth of 4 m. At the time when experiments were conducted, 4 porpoises (2 mother and calf pairs) were enclosed within the northern channel at Tianxingzhou.

Recording System

Echolocation clicks were recorded using a customized hydrophone array consisting of four calibrated omnidirectional hydrophones (TC-4013; 1 Hz—170 kHz flat response; -210.7 ± 3 dB re 1 V/μPa sensitivity;) connected to four VP2000 amplifiers (EC6081; 50 dB gain, bandpass filter 1–500 kHz). This type of hydrophone array has been successfully used in similar studies concerning the echolocation of odontocetes [2832]. To control for the reverberation within the aluminum framing of the array, each hydrophone was attached to a 2 mm diameter steel rod (15 cm length) which was then welded vertically to the framing (Fig 2). Recordings data were digitalized by an cDAQ 9178 (Hi-Speed USB, 4x 32-bit counters and up to 1 MHz clock and trigger) chassis and a 4 channel NI 9223 acquisition card (± 10 V, 16-bit, 1 MS/s/ch 60 VDC, sampling rate 500 kHz). Using LabVIEW (National Instruments, USA) acoustic software, the commencing and ceasing of recordings were manually controlled.

thumbnail
Fig 2. Measurement of on-axis clicks: (A) Schematic diagram of the four hydrophone symmetric star array.

The distance between the center hydrophone with the peripheral hydrophones is 50 cm, the angle of each arm is 120°and the hydrophones were attached vertically to the end of each 15 cm steel rod. (B) A single click train received simultaneously by each hydrophone on the symmetric star array where the center hydrophone (No.3) shows the highest amplitude compared to all peripheral hydrophones (represented by the dotted box).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129143.g002

Data recording

The hydrophone array was deployed vertically in the water column, with the top of the array at a depth of 0.5 m from the surface and 1.5 and 1 m from the pool edge and netted pen, respectively. Recordings made at Tianxingzhou were made from the middle of the channel from a small wooden boat. At the Baiji aquarium and Tian-e-zhou Baiji National Natural Reserve, recording commenced once the hydrophone array was in place. At Tianxingzhou, recording commenced when one or more porpoises where within 100 m from the hydrophone array and continued for as long as the animal(s) where swimming towards to the hydrophone. During all experiments and recording episodes, all animals were swimming freely.

Data analysis

Each sound recording was examined using DIAdem 2012 acoustic software (National Instruments, USA) and analyzed using customized MATLAB algorithms specifically written for these recordings. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of every recorded echolocation click was calculated and only when the SNR was greater than 20 dB was that particular click considered appropriate for further analysis.

The distance between the sounds source (the porpoise) and receiver (the center hydrophone) was calculated using acoustic localization techniques based on the differences in the signal's time-of-arrival between the 4 hydrophones (see [24]). The signal's time-of-arrival was determined by cross-correlating the signal received by the array's center and peripheral hydrophones.

A series of published criteria [17,24,32,33] were used to confirm that the received echolocation signal was on-axis,thereby allowing for accurate calculation of the source parameters.

The apparent peak-to-peak source level (ASL_pp) is defined as the peak-to-peak sound pressure level that has been back-calculated to 1 m from the sound source and is defined by: where RL is the received sound level and TL is transmission loss. Spherical geometric spreading of sound energy was assumed for the study and therefore, TL was defined by: where R is the distance between the sound source and receiving center hydrophone and α is the absorption coefficient in dB m-1 (0.035 dB m-1 at 120–130 kHz and 30°C) [5,34]. The ASL_-10 dB (dB re 1 μParms) is the root mean square (RMS) sound pressure level over the 10 dB duration of the signal, and The 10 dB duration was also used to define the click time [15]. Also calculated was the energy flux density (EFD) which was the integrated sound energy over the 10 dB duration of the signal [35]. Peak and center frequencies, 3-dB bandwidth (-3 dB_BW), 10-dB bandwidth (-10 dB_BW) and RMS bandwidth (RMS_BW) were also calculated for each on-axis echolocation click [5]. The interclick interval (ICI) was also calculated and defined as the interval between the preceding on-axis click and proceeding click [5].

A descriptive statistical analysis comparing the echolocation signals collected from each of the three study sites was done using PASW Statistics 16.0 (SPSS Institute Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

A total of 66 sound files (100 s each) containing vocalizations were recorded from the Baiji aquarium experimental group, from which 68 on-axis echolocation clicks were analyzed. A total of 68 sound files containing vocalizations where recorded from Shishou Tian-e-zhou Reserve experimental group, from which 78 echolocation clicks were analyzed. A total of 371 sound files containing vocalizations were recorded from Tianxingzhou experimental group, from which 79 clicks were analyzed.

Waveforms and spectral analyzes revealed similar waveforms and spectral bandwidths among the three experimental groups of porpoises (Fig 3). The average (± SD) ASL_PP of echolocation clicks from Baiji aquarium, Tian-e-zhou Reserve and Tianxingzhou experimental groups was 167 ± 8, 180 ± 4 and 176 ± 10 dB re 1 μPa, respectively (Table 1). The average (± SD) distances between the sound source (i.e. a porpoise) and receiving hydrophone was 4 ± 1 m, 12 ± 5 m and 29 ± 26 m within the Baiji aquarium, Shishou Tian-e-zhou Reserve and Tianxingzhou experimental groups, respectively (Table 1).

thumbnail
Fig 3. Example of a typical waveform and spectrum of clicks of finless porpoises from the three experimental groups: (A) Baiji aquarium (n = 68); (B) Shishou Tian-e-zhou Reserve (n = 78); (C) Tianxingzhou (n = 79).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129143.g003

thumbnail
Table 1. Summary of the parameters of finless porpoises among the three experimental groups and other Yangtze finless porpoises measured within the mainstream of the Yangtze River.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129143.t001

The peak frequency of clicks recorded within the Baiji aquarium experimental group conformed to a bimodal distribution with the greatest number of clicks (36.8%) showing peak frequencies between 125 and 130 kHz and again between 145 and 150 kHz (26.5% of clicks) (Fig 4). This differed to the other two experimental groups where most clicks (97.5 and 67.0% at Shishou Tian-e-zhou Reserve and Tianxingzhou, respectively) had peak frequencies between 125 and 135 kHz (Fig 4). Similar modal distributions among center frequencies where also observed among each experimental group where the highest percentage of clicks (36.0, 68.0 and 60.8% at Baiji aquarium, Shishou Tian-e-zhou Reserve and Tianxingzhou, respectively) were between 125 and 130 kHz (Fig 4). The highest percentage of echolocation clicks occurred within the 3-dB bandwidth of 15–20 kHz (Baiji aquarium) and 20–25 kHz (Shishou Tian-e-zhou Reserve and Tianxingzhou), while the most common RMS bandwidth was within 15–20 kHz (Baiji aquarium group) and 10–15 kHz (Shishou Tian-e-zhou Reserve and Tianxingzhou experimental groups) (Fig 4).

thumbnail
Fig 4. Histogram of peak frequency, center frequency, 3-dB bandwidth and RMS bandwidth of clicks of finless porpoises from the three experimental groups: (A) Baiji aquarium; (B) Shishou Tian-e-zhou Reserve; (C) Tianxingzhou.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129143.g004

Clicks made in quick succession tended to be shorter in duration only within the Baiji aquarium experimental group. ICIs showed an apparent positive relationship to the -10 dB duration (r2 = 0.08, Fig 5). Dissimilarly, the same apparent trend was not observed from the other two groups with a weak negative relationship between ICI and the -10 dB duration from within the Shishou Tian-e-zhou Reserve (r2 = 0.02) and Tianxingzhou (r2 = 0.01) experimental groups (Fig 5). Apparent source levels of clicks were found to be greater when the receiver was further away (Fig 6). There was also a weak negative relationship between the center frequencies and RMS bandwidths for all experimental groups (Baiji aquarium, r2 = 0.01; Shishou Tian-e-zhou, r2 = 0.22; and Tianxingzhou, r2 = 0.02) (Fig 7).

thumbnail
Fig 5. 10-dB duration as a function of ICI from the three experimental groups: (A) Baiji aquarium, regression line: y = 0.11x+53.11, r2 = 0.08; (B) Shishou Tian-e-zhou Reserve, regression line: y = -0.13x+41.0 r2 = 0.02; (C) Tianxingzhou, regression line: y = 0.02x+47.11, r2 = 0.01.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129143.g005

thumbnail
Fig 6. ASL as a function of the distance between individuals and the center hydrophone in the Baiji aquarium (y = 24.4log10(x)+153.06, R2 = 0.51), Shishou Tian-e-zhou Reserve (y = 15.0log10(x)+164.95, R2 = 0.47), and Tianxingzhou (y = 19.9log10(x)+150.46, R2 = 0.68).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129143.g006

thumbnail
Fig 7. RMS bandwidth as a function of the Center frequency of finless porpoises from the three experimental groups: (A) Baiji aquarium, regression line: y = -0.01x+28.75, r2 = 0.01; (B) Tian-e-zhou Reserve, regression line: y = -0.44x+70.6, r2 = 0.22; (C) Tianxingzhou, regression line: y = -0.06x+19.34, r2 = 0.02.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129143.g007

Discussion and Conclusion

There is a critical need to better understand the echolocation behaviors of endangered species of toothed whales as anthropogenic pressure on and around the Yangtze River continues to grow. The current study presents for the first time evidence that the Yangtze finless porpoise may alter their echolocation signals in response to different environments.

The biosonar of the free-ranging Yangtze finless porpoise at Tianxingzhou showed peak frequencies between 120 and 150 kHz, ASL_pps' between 165 and 205 dB re 1 μPa, -10 dB durations between 50 and 175 μs and -3 dB bandwidths below 30 kHz. These characteristics were quite similar with other narrow-band high frequency (NBHF) odotoncetes, such as the Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), Hector’s dolphin (Cephalorhychus hectorii), Commerson dolphin (C. commersonii), Heaviside’s dolphin (C. heavisidii), hourglass dolphin (Lagenorhynchus cruciger), Peale’s dolphin (L. australis) and pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) [6,15,3640] (Table 2). Small body sizes (~1.5 m long) between these species may explain the observed similarities in the echolocation of the finless porpoise [7].

thumbnail
Table 2. Source parameters of the echolocation of Yangtze finless porpoise (current study) and other NBHF species.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129143.t002

The average ASL from the captive animals in the Baiji aquarium experimental group) was approximately 9 dB less when compared to the free-ranging animals at the Tianxingzhou field site. Individuals within the netted pen at Shishou Tian-e-zhou Reserve produced a 4 dB higher ASL than their free-ranging counterparts in Tianxingzhou. The lower intensity levels produced by the captive porpoises at Baiji aquarium may likely be due to the high-reverberation within tank environment or the short distance between the source and receiving hydrophones [5,13]. The greater sound levels produced by porpoises within the netted cage at Shishou Tian-e-zhou Reserve may be attributed to differing factors between the reserve and Tianxingzhou. However, while the animals in the netted pen inhabit a more complicated environment than at the other two sites, it is unclear whether the animals' were searching for more distant targets than at the other two study sites or whether the animals needed to produce higher sound levels (thereby increasing the echo energy to noise ratio) to detect the net [5].

While the average click ASL from the free-ranging animals in the current study (176 dB re 1 μPa) was commensurate with other NBHF species (Table 2), it did differ from a more recent study where the average ASL for free-ranging finless porpoises was 197 dB p re 1 μPa [19,20]. However, many factors could be have led to this difference. In the current study, sounds were from two calve-and mother pairs rather than a group from sole adults. There are no published studies concerning the differences in echolocation behaviors between calves and mother porpoises. Notwithstanding that, however, there is empirical data from other odontocete species which suggest that body size may directly influence the sound intensity of echolocation clicks [6,38]. It was not possible in the current study to identify if the echolocation clicks recorded by the hydrophones where from the calf or mother because the two were only observed together and the high water turbidity inhibited the use of underwater cameras. It is therefore possible that conclusions presented within this paper concerning the free-range individuals may be influenced by the quieter calf and thus possibly lowering the average ASL. Another possible reason for the differences in sound levels between the current study and Li et al. (2009) [19] could be the different environments in which either study was conducted. Li et al. (2009) [19] investigated the echolocation signals from finless porpoises within the mainstream of the Yangtze River, where maximum depths range between 30 and 50 m [19] and currents are considerably greater than at Tangxingzhou. Finally, the distance between the animals and the hydrophones could also have affected the results. In the current study, the distance between the center hydrophone and animal was always within 40 m with an average of 29 m, while in the previous study, most of the distances were greater than 50 m. It may be possible that the animals were increasing the source levels of their echolocation clicks to detect the more distant hydrophone [17,29].

Peak and center frequencies produced by the captive porpoises at the Baiji aquarium were approximately 3–4 kHz higher compared to the other two experimental groups and demonstrated a bimodal spectrum. A bimodal distribution in peak frequencies has also been described in Heaviside's dolpins [39], as well as broadband click species (such as bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales) and is thought to be related to asymmetry in the sound generator (the dorsal bursae) [41]. Related to peak frequency and playing a central role in the production of clicks, the right hand side of the dorsal bursae is approximately twice the size than the left half in broadband species, while NBHF species show less dramatic asymmetry [39]. No bimodal peak frequency distributions were observed within the other two experimental groups; thereby suggesting that the bimodal spectral distribution within the Baiji aquarium may be attributed to the high reverberation within the tank.

The ICIs of the captive finless porpoises at the Baiji aquarium showed a weak positive relationship with click duration. Odontocetes generally space their clicks apart so that the return signal from the first click is detected before the next one is emitted. Therefore the ICI is linearly correlated with target range [5]. The use of longer click duration increases the energy of the signal without increasing the amplitude (thereby conserving energy) [35]. This may be why the click duration within the current study was inversely proportional to the click ASL. A positive relationship between the ICI and click duration has also been described Heaviside's dolphin [39]. However, no relationship between ICIs and click duration were observed from the free-ranging finless porpoises at Tianxingzhou or the other captive porpoises at the Shishou Tian-e-zhou Reserve (although this may likely be due to the limited time scale over which recordings took place). Nevertheless, it does provide further evidence for a degree of plasticity in the echolocation signals of the finless porpoise.

Dolphins and porpoises can control the amplitude of the signal at the transmission phase, rather than alter the sensitivity of the receiver (termed automatic gain control (AGC)) [17,24,29,32,33]. As the porpoise approaches a target (for example, a school of fish), the echo level remains relatively constant while the emitted signal amplitude decreases with an amount corresponding to 20logR, where R is the distance to the target. This increases the dynamic range over which the animal may detect prey [29]. Results from the current study demonstrate the source level of echolocation signal of free-range finless porpoises decrease at a rate approximate to 20logR, similar to other echolocating odontocetes. Within the Baiji aquarium group, the source level conformed more to 24logR.

There was a negative correlation between spectra (center frequencies) and bandwidth among captive porpoises; coinciding with previous research [36]. However, while broadband species typically show a negative correlation, such as Atlantic spotted dolphins Stenella frontalis, Spinner dolphins S. longirostris, and Pantropical spotted dolphins S. attenuata [24,31], more research focusing on the relationship between frequencies and bandwidths in NBHF species is needed before conclusions concerning interspecies variation can be made. Nevertheless, the results from the current study suggest that the Yangtze finless porpoise alters the source parameters of their echolocation signals in response to differing environments.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the members of the Research Group on Conservation Biology of Aquatic Animals of the Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and stuff in the Shishou Tian-e-zhou Baiji National Natural Reserve for the field work.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: LF KW DW. Performed the experiments: LF YTL ZLC. Analyzed the data: LF SHL KW DW. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: LF SHL KW DW. Wrote the paper: LF MKP.

References

  1. 1. Wang JY, Reeves R (2012) Neophocaena asiaeorientalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Accessed 28 December 2014.
  2. 2. Zhang XF (1992) Studies on the age determinnation, growth and reproduction of finless porpoise Neophocaena phocaenoides ACTA hydrobiologica Sinica 16: 289–298.
  3. 3. Gao A, Zhou KY (1993) Growth and reproduction of three populations of finless porpoise, Neophocaena pkocaenoides) in Chinese waters. Aquat Mammals 16: 3–12.
  4. 4. Li SH, Wang KX, Wang D, Akamatsu T (2005) Echolocation signals of the free-ranging Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides asiaeorientialis). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117: 3288–3296. pmid:15957795
  5. 5. Au WWL (1993) The sonar of dolphins. New York: Springer-Verlag. 277 p.
  6. 6. Surlykke A, Nachtigall PE, Fay RR, Popper AN (2014) Biosonar. New York: Springer-Verlag Handbook of Auditory Research.304p.
  7. 7. Au WWL, Hastings MC (2008) Principles of marine bioacoustics. New York: Springer Verlag. 695 p.
  8. 8. Thomas JA, Moss CF, Vater M (2004) Echolocation in bats and dolphins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 604p.
  9. 9. Johnson M, Madsen PT, Zimmer WMX, De Soto NA, Tyack PL (2004) Beaked whales echolocate on prey. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences 271: S383. pmid:15801582
  10. 10. Madsen PT, Kerr I, Payne R (2004) Echolocation clicks of two free-ranging, oceanic delphinids with different food preferences: false killer whales Pseudorca crassidens and Risso's dolphins Grampus griseus. Journal of Experimental Biology 207: 1811–1823. pmid:15107437
  11. 11. Madsen PT, Johnson M, De Soto NA, Zimmer W, Tyack P (2005) Biosonar performance of foraging beaked whales (Mesoplodon densirostris). Journal of Experimental Biology 208: 181–194. pmid:15634839
  12. 12. Nowacek DP (2005) Acoustic ecology of foraging bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), Habitat-specific use of three sound types. Marine Mammal Science 21:587–602
  13. 13. Wahlberg M, Jensen FH, Soto NA, Beedholm K, Bejder L, Oliveira C, et al. (2011) Source parameters of echolocation clicks from wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus and Tursiops truncatus). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130: 2263–2274. doi: 10.1121/1.3624822. pmid:21973382
  14. 14. Johnson M, Madsen PT, Zimmer W, De Soto NA, Tyack P (2006) Foraging Blainville's beaked whales (Mesoplodon densirostris) produce distinct click types matched to different phases of echolocation. Journal of Experimental Biology 209: 5038–5050. pmid:17142692
  15. 15. Villadsgaard A, Wahlberg M, Tougaard J (2007) Echolocation signals of wild harbour porpoises, Phocoena phocoena. Journal of Experimental Biology 210: 56–64. pmid:17170148
  16. 16. Au WWL, Pawloski JL, Nachtigall PE, Blonz M, Gisner RC (1995) Echolocation signals and transmission beam pattern of a false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 98: 51–59. pmid:7608405
  17. 17. Au WWL (2004) Echolocation signals of wild dolphins. Acoustical Physics 50: 454–462.
  18. 18. Akamatsu T, Teilmann J, Miller LA, Tougaard J, Dietz R, Wang D, et al. (2007) Comparison of echolocation behaviour between coastal and riverine porpoises. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical studies in Oceanography 54: 290–297.
  19. 19. Li SH, Akamatsu T, Wang D, Wang KX (2009) Localization and tracking of phonating finless porpoises using towed stereo acoustic data-loggers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126: 468–475. doi: 10.1121/1.3147507. pmid:19603904
  20. 20. Li SH, Wang D, Wang KX, Akamatsu T (2006) Sonar gain control in echolocating finless porpoises (Neophocaena phocaenoides) in an open water. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120: 1803–1806. pmid:17069278
  21. 21. Kimura S, Akamatsu T, Wang KX, Wang D, Li SH, Dong S, et al. (2009) Comparison of stationary acoustic monitoring and visual observation of finless porpoises. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125: 547–553. doi: 10.1121/1.3021302. pmid:19173440
  22. 22. Au WWL, Kastelein RA, Rippe T, Schooneman NM (1999) Transmission beam pattern and echolocation signals of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106: 3699–3705. pmid:10615708
  23. 23. Au WWL, Moore PWB, Pawloski D (1986) Echolocation transmitting beam of the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 80: 688–691. pmid:3745687
  24. 24. Au WWL, Herzing DL (2003) Echolocation signals of wild Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113: 598–604. pmid:12558295
  25. 25. Mei ZG, Huang S-L, Hao YJ, Turvey ST, Gong WM, Wang D. (2012) Accelerating population decline of Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis asiaeorientalis). Biological Conservation 153: 192–200.
  26. 26. Mei ZG, Zhang XQ, Huang S-L, Zhao XJ, Hao YJ, Zhang L, et al. (2014) The Yangtze finless porpoise: On an accelerating path to extinction? Biological Conservation 172: 117–123.
  27. 27. Wang D (2009) Population status, threats and conservation of the Yangtze finless porpoise. Chinese Science Bulletin 54: 3473–3484.
  28. 28. Rasmussen MH, Miller LA, Au WWL (2002) Source levels of clicks from free-ranging white-beaked dolphins (Lagenorhynchus albirostris Gray 1846) recorded in Icelandic waters. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111: 1122–1125. pmid:11865816
  29. 29. Au WWL, Benoit-Bird KJ (2003) Automatic gain control in the echolocation system of dolphins. Nature 423: 861–863. pmid:12815429
  30. 30. Rasmussen MH, Wahlberg M, Miller LA (2004) Estimated transmission beam pattern of clicks recorded from free-ranging white-beaked dolphins (Lagenorhynchus albirostris). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116: 1826–1831. pmid:15478450
  31. 31. Schotten M, Au WWL, Lammers M, Aubauer R (2004) Echolocation recordings and localization of wild spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris) and pantropical spotted dolphins (S. attenuata) using a four-hydrophone array. Echolocation in bats and dolphins University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 393–400.
  32. 32. Atem ACG, Rasmussen MH, Wahlberg M, Petersen HC, Miller LA (2009) Changes in click source levels with distance to targets: Studies of free-ranging white-beaked Dolphins Lagenorhynchus albirostris and captive Harbour Porpoises Phocoena Phocoena. Bioacoustics 19: 49–65.
  33. 33. Jensen FH, Bejder L, Wahlberg M, Madsen PT (2009) Biosonar adjustments to target range of echolocating bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) in the wild. Journal of Experimental Biology 212: 1078–1086. doi: 10.1242/jeb.025619. pmid:19329740
  34. 34. Møhl B, Wahlberg M, Madsen PT, Miller LA, Surlykke A (2000) Sperm whale clicks: Directionality and source level revisited. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107: 638–648. pmid:10641672
  35. 35. Madsen PT, Wahlberg M (2007) Recording and quantification of ultrasonic echolocation clicks from free-ranging toothed whales. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers 54: 1421–1444.
  36. 36. Madsen PT, Carder D, Bedholm K, Ridgway S (2005) Porpoise clicks from a sperm whale nose—Convergent evolution of 130 kHz pulses in toothed whale sonars? Bioacoustics 15: 195–206.
  37. 37. Kyhn LA, Tougaard J, Jensen F, Wahlberg M, Stone G, Yoshinaga Austin, et al. (2009) Feeding at a high pitch: Source parameters of narrow band, high-frequency clicks from echolocating off-shore hourglass dolphins and coastal Hector’s dolphins. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125: 1783–1791. doi: 10.1121/1.3075600. pmid:19275335
  38. 38. Kyhn LA, Jensen FH, Beedholm K, Tougaard J, Hansen M, Madsen PT (2010) Echolocation in sympatric Peale's dolphins (Lagenorhynchus australis) and Commerson's dolphins (Cephalorhynchus commersonii) producing narrow-band high-frequency clicks. The Journal of experimental biology 213: 1940–1949. doi: 10.1242/jeb.042440. pmid:20472781
  39. 39. Morisaka T, Karczmarski L, Akamatsu T, Sakai M, Dawson S, Thornton M (2011) Echolocation signals of Heaviside’s dolphins (Cephalorhynchus heavisidii)a). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129: 449–457. doi: 10.1121/1.3519401. pmid:21303024
  40. 40. Kyhn LA, Tougaard J, Beedholm K, Jensen FH, Ashe E, Williams R, et al. (2013) Clicking in a Killer Whale Habitat: Narrow-Band, High-Frequency Biosonar Clicks of Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and Dall’s Porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli). PloS one 8: e63763. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063763. pmid:23723996
  41. 41. Au WWL, Popper AN, Fay RR (2000) Hearing by whales and dolphins: Springer-Verlag.469p.
  42. 42. Li SH, Wang KX, Wang D, Akamatsu T (2005) Echolocation signals of the free-ranging Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides asiaeorientialis). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117: 3288–3296. pmid:15957795
  43. 43. Götz T, Antunes R, Heinrich S (2010) Echolocation clicks of free-ranging Chilean dolphins (Cephalorhynchus eutropia). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 128: 563–566. doi: 10.1121/1.3353078. pmid:20707424