https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5259-5718
Figures
Abstract
Odontocetes rely on vocalizations for navigation, foraging, and communication. Their vocalization patterns are associated with environmental conditions and behavioral contexts, particularly in captive populations. This study investigated the vocalization behaviors of captive bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis) using continuous acoustic monitoring. The focus was on their responses to human-involved training and feeding activities. Comparative analyses revealed that rough-toothed dolphins produced significantly more clicks and fewer whistles than bottlenose dolphins (p < 0.05). During training, bottlenose dolphins reduced their click rate by 41% but increased whistle production by 125%. In contrast, rough-toothed dolphins showed no significant change in click emissions (from 643.9/min to 597.4/min, p > 0.05), but significantly reduced whistles by 56% (p < 0.05). Neither species exhibited significant changes in vocalization during feeding. However, rough-toothed dolphins shifted their predominant whistle type from “constant” to “sinusoidal”, while bottlenose dolphins changed from “constant” to “upsweep” during feeding. These findings offer valuable insights expanding current knowledge of dolphin vocal patterns under captivity and establish baseline information potentially supporting acoustic assessment of captive dolphin welfare, particularly for the understudied rough-toothed dolphin.
Citation: Fu W, Song Z, Xiang W, Zhang C, Yang W, Xu X, et al. (2025) Vocalization behaviors in captive bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis). PLoS One 20(10): e0336138. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336138
Editor: Livia D’Angelo,, University of Naples Federico II: Universita degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, ITALY
Received: April 24, 2025; Accepted: October 21, 2025; Published: October 31, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Fu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.
Funding: YZ: National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant number-12074323, 42106181, 62231011), Development of a novel high-performance platform for deep-sea fish farming and research of its key performances for Science and Technology Major Project of Fujian Province (Grant number-2021NZ033016); ZCS: Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province (Grant number-2022J02003); WYY: Special Fund for Marine and Fishery Development of Xiamen (Grant number-23ZHZB056QCB32). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Odontocetes evolved the ability to use sound for foraging, navigation, and communication [1]. They emit highly directional echolocation clicks while navigating and echolocating prey or targets of interest. Echolocation clicks are characterized by high-frequency, short-duration, and form trains [2]. This type of emission is often recognized as an indicator of odontocetes’ presence in passive acoustic monitoring, due to their high frequency of occurrence during echolocation. Most odontocete species, except for porpoises, produce continuous, narrow-band, and frequency-modulated whistles as communication signals [1]. Whistles can be readily identified and characterized by their distinctive frequency contours and are commonly categorized into six tonal types: constant, upsweep, downsweep, concave, convex, and sinusoidal [3–5]. Whistles have garnered significant research interest due to their important social functions in biological activities, such as collaborative foraging, reproductive gatherings, and mother-calf interactions [6–9].
Odontocetes exhibit adaptive modifications in their vocalization patterns in response to changing environmental conditions. For instance, beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in extremely shallow waters (<1 m depth) produce significantly higher click rates (median ICI = 25.2 ms) compared to those in open waters (97.4 ms) [10,11]. Captive species such as the Baiji (Lipotes vexillifer), finless porpoises (Neophocaena phocaenoides), and bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) have also been observed to exhibit similar acoustic adjustments, likely as an adaptation to the constrained echolocation ranges within artificial tank environments [12]. Furthermore, odontocete vocal behavior is influenced by ambient noise levels. Killer whales (Orcinus orca) and melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra) have been reported to increase their vocal amplitude in response to elevated background noise [13–15].
Adjustments in odontocetes’ vocalizations are also associated with behavioral contexts [16]. Sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) dynamically adjust click intervals and acoustic properties during prey approach and capture phases [17]. False killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens), Killer whales, and bottlenose dolphins were reported to increase signal repetition rates and reduce output energy before prey interception [18,19]. Compared to free-ranging animals, captive odontocetes modify vocalizations primarily during interactions with humans, particularly in feeding and training sessions. For instance, captive Yangtze finless porpoises produced more clicks when socially separated during training/feeding sessions [20]. Increased vocalization rates and sound types were reported in captive beluga whales and Pacific white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus) during training and feeding sessions [21,22].
In summary, the vocal behavior of odontocetes is influenced substantially by environmental conditions and behavioral contexts. Monitoring their vocalization patterns can thus serve as a non-invasive auxiliary tool offering critical insights into their behavioral status and welfare [20,23–26]. Compared to the wild populations, captive odontocetes experience intensified interactions with humans, emphasizing the importance of assessing how captivity and associated human activities influence their acoustic behaviors.
In this study, continuous passive acoustic monitoring was conducted to investigate the vocalization patterns of captive bottlenose dolphins and rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis), with a particular focus on variations in vocalization rate and whistle type during feeding and training sessions. Bottlenose dolphins, among the most widely distributed odontocetes globally, are the most commonly maintained species in captivity. In contrast, rough-toothed dolphins are relatively understudied, and current knowledge of their vocal behavior is largely derived from studies on wild populations [4,16,27–32]. Information on the vocalizations of captive rough-toothed dolphins remains scarce. The present study provides essential baseline data that address current knowledge gaps in vocalization behaviors of captive dolphins, while also supporting the potential use of acoustic monitoring to assess animal welfare through identifying vocal abnormalities that may indicate welfare concerns. Furthermore, comparisons between these two distinct dolphin species provide insights into the potential interspecific differences or similarities in vocal modulation under identical human-care scenarios, which may help inform the development of species-specific management strategies.
Materials and methods
Facility and captivity management
This study was conducted at Ocean World – Europark, Fuzhou, China. Dolphins were housed in a facility separated into three distinct regions by mesh fences interconnected through water channels (Fig 1A). Pool A is approximately 20.4 meters in length and 15.8 meters in width. Its upper side connects to the training platform, with the water depth maintained at 5.8 meters. Pools B and C are formed by two identical circular pools, each with a diameter of 8.3 meters. They are symmetrically positioned on either side of Pool A, with a water depth of approximately 4.2 meters.
Dolphins were primarily housed in Pool A and transferred to Pool C during feeding sessions. Pool B remained closed throughout the experimental period. Dolphins were generally fed 3–4 kg of thawed fish per day. The dolphin feeding amounts are adjusted based on age, gender, weight, season, and reproductive status for a healthy weight and optimal body condition. Daily food intake is accurately recorded and serves as a vital metric for health assessment. Basic health inspections, including visual checks of the skin, eyes, and blowhole, are performed routinely. Environmental enrichment is provided through the provision of various toys, including balls, floating rafts, and water curtains. Pool water quality is routinely monitored, with divers cleaning the pool walls approximately once per month.
Data collection
In 2022, eight bottlenose dolphins were initially housed at the dolphin pool before being relocated to another oceanarium. Subsequently, eight rough-toothed dolphins replaced the bottlenose dolphins in the same facility. Acoustic recordings of these two dolphin groups was carried out at different times (Table 1): (1) bottlenose dolphins were recorded from 15:40 on 11 November 2021 to 08:00 on 13 November 2021, and (2) rough-toothed dolphins from 17:00 on 12 October 2022 to 19:00 on 15 October 2022. An omnidirectional underwater acoustic recorder, SoundTrap 300HF (Ocean Instruments Ltd., Whangateau, New Zealand), was used for acoustic data collection. The recorder has a linear frequency response from 20 Hz to 150kHz, with a sensitivity of −188 dB re 1 V/ μPa. The sampling rate was set at 576 kS/s, allowing continuous recording for approximately four days per full charge. The SoundTrap recorder was securely attached with waterproof tape at a depth of 2 m underwater, positioned at the mesh fence separating Pools A and C (Fig 1A). To minimize potential equipment damage from animal interaction, the recorder was placed on the opposite side of the fence from where the dolphins were kept.
Throughout acoustic monitoring, the training and feeding events, as well as their precise start and end times, were accurately documented (Table 1). Training sessions typically last about 10–15 minutes, during which dolphins perform a series of trained behaviors in response to auditory and visual cues (e.g., whistles and hand signals) provided by the trainers. These behaviors included: I. Dolphins surfacing from underwater and maintaining a vertical upright posture while moving from the platform to the opposite side of the pool, then swimming back to the starting point; II. Dolphins synchronously leaping out of the water from underwater, flipping in midair, and then diving back in; III. Dolphins diving headfirst into the water and maintaining an inverted posture with their tails exposed above the surface while executing tail-wagging motions. Dolphins that successfully performed these behaviors received fish rewards as positive reinforcement (Fig 1B). The training process did not include any intentional or potential dolphin vocalization induction. In feeding events, dolphins were guided by trainers from Pool A into Pool C, where they were provided with freshly deceased fish (Fig 1C). Feeding sessions generally lasted from 30 to 42 minutes. Over the entire monitoring period, one training event and one feeding event were recorded for bottlenose dolphins, and a total of three training events and six feeding events were recorded for rough-toothed dolphins (Table 1). To facilitate further comparative analyses, two distinct temporal phases were defined for each recorded training and feeding event: (1) the 30-minute period before training and feeding (referred to as phase BE) and (2) the duration of the training and feeding activities (referred to as phase PE). In all recorded events, dolphins were free-swimming during phase BE.
Data analyses
Acoustic data processing.
To mitigate the computational burden associated with processing large datasets, the original 30-minute WAV audio files from the SoundTrap recorder were divided into 10-minute segments prior to analysis. To obtain high-quality echolocation clicks, a Butterworth band-pass filter with a cut-off frequency of 2 kHz was applied to eliminate low-frequency noise. Additionally, given the frequency limitations of the hydrophone, frequency components above 150 kHz were also filtered out of the acoustic data. A custom MATLAB (MathWorks, Cambridge, MA) script was developed to extract echolocation clicks with a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) exceeding 6 dB from each filtered data segment (Fig 2A). Detections of whistles were manually conducted in the time-frequency domain. The acoustic files were displayed in a 4-second time window to visualize the frequency spectrum using Adobe Audition software (Version 2021). A trained and experienced operator then visually scanned the audio spectrogram for the presence of whistles. Following previous studies, a continuous tonal contour without temporal breakpoints on the spectrogram was identified as a single whistle. Additionally, consecutive contours were also considered a single whistle if the gap between them was shorter than 200 ms and less than the duration of the contours. (Fig 2B) [3,5,25].
Sound data statistical analysis.
Click counts were determined in each 10-minute data segment throughout the monitoring period, and clicking rates (number of clicks per minute) were calculated. To evaluate variations in sound production associated with human-dolphin interactions, data segments corresponding specifically to phase BE (30-minute period before the event) and PE (duration of the event) of training/feeding events were picked out, according to recorded start and end times (Table 1). Clicking rates for phases BE and PE were computed, respectively.
Whistle rates (whistles per minute) were quantified through visual inspection of spectrograms, both across the entire monitoring period and specifically for data segments representing phases BE and PE of training and feeding events. To investigate changes in whistle repertoires during interactions with humans, whistle contours were further manually categorized into six tonal types previously determined by Bazúa-Durán & Au [3–5] (Fig 3). The defined whistle types included: “Constant”- whistles with a maximum frequency change of no more than 1 kHz; “Upsweep”- whistles with a predominantly upward trend in frequency; “Downsweep”- whistles with a predominantly downward trend in frequency; “Concave”- whistles contour that has an initially mainly downward trend and then shifts to an upward trend; “Convex”- whistles contour that has an initially mainly upward trend and then shifts to a downward trend; and “Sinusoidal”- whistles contour with a shape similar to a sine signal, where the trajectory rises and then falls, or vice versa, with at least two inflection points. To ensure the reliability of classifications, two experienced operators familiar with dolphin whistles independently conducted whistle classification based on the same criteria, and the few cases with consistent in classifications were resolved through discussion between the two analysts and a third researcher. The final consensus classification was used for subsequent statistical analysis. The proportion of each whistle type, calculated as the number of whistles in each category relative to the total number of whistles, was determined for phases BE and PE during each training and feeding event.
(A) constant, (B) upsweep, (C) downsweep, (D) concave, (E) convex, and (F) sinusoidal.
Statistical analyses were conducted to examine variations in sound production rates and whistle-type distributions between phase BE and PE during training and feeding events. Additionally, differences in acoustic behaviour between dolphin species were evaluated. These statistical comparisons were performed using Independent Samples t-tests and Mann–Whitney U tests, with a significance level set at 0.05.
Ethics statement
Research described in this study was reviewed and approved by the Fujian Provincial Department of Ocean and Fisheries, Fuzhou, China. Underwater acoustic monitoring carried out in this study was a completely passive and non-contact measurement method to record dolphin vocalizations with no negative effects on the dolphins, and no additional treatment was exerted on the dolphins during the entire monitoring period.
Results
Overall vocalizing rate
Over the entire monitoring period, a total of 2300 min (230 segments) and 3930 min (393 segments) of acoustic data were analyzed for bottlenose and rough-toothed dolphins, respectively. Rough-toothed dolphins exhibited significantly higher acoustic activity in click production (840.5 ± 231.3 clicks/min) compared to bottlenose dolphins (398.6 ± 146.3 clicks/min), representing a 111% increase (Mann–Whitney U test; p < 0.05) (Fig 4A). Conversely, bottlenose dolphins produced whistles at a significantly higher rate of 23.5 ± 13.5/ min, compared to rough-toothed dolphins, which displayed a rate of 6.9 ± 4.1/ min over the entire monitoring period (241% more) (Mann–Whitney U test; p < 0.05) (Fig 4B).
Vocalization in training events
Click emission rate.
During recorded training events, rough-toothed dolphins emitted clicks at a mean rate of 643.9 ± 133.1 clicks/min in phase BE (30 minutes prior to training) and 597.4 ± 171.1 clicks/min in phase PE (training duration) (Fig 5). Variations in the click production rate of the rough-toothed dolphin were not significant in the current research (Independent Samples t test; p > 0.05). In contrast, bottlenose dolphins exhibited a substantial decrease (41% reduction) in click emission rates from 606.8 clicks/min during phase BE to 355.5 clicks/min during phase PE (Fig 5B).
Whistle emission rate.
Rough-toothed dolphins exhibited a significant decrease (56% reduction) in whistle rate from 15.4 ± 1.6 whistles/min in phase BE to 6.8 ± 1.0 whistles/min in phase PE (Independent Samples t test; p < 0.05). (Fig 6). Conversely, bottlenose dolphins increased whistle emissions substantially (125% increase) from 15.9 whistles/min during phase BE to 35.8 whistles/min during phase PE, a pattern clearly distinct from that observed in rough-toothed dolphins (Fig 6B).
Whistle type.
In training events, no statistically significant differences were observed in the distribution patterns of the six whistle types for rough-toothed dolphins between phase BE (constant: 41.1 ± 11.2%; upsweep: 9.1 ± 0.9%; downsweep: 9.8 ± 2.8%; concave: 0.9 ± 0.7%; convex: 18.3 ± 3.4%; sinusoidal: 20.8 ± 8.7%) and phase PE (constant: 45.1 ± 7.8%; upsweep: 9.6 ± 2.1%; downsweep: 10.8 ± 1.7%; concave:1.4 ± 1.4%; convex: 21.6 ± 7.6%; sinusoidal: 11.6 ± 7.9%) (Independent Samples t test; p > 0.05) (Fig 7). Bottlenose dolphins represented a slight increase in sinusoidal whistle emissions (47.6% to 56.2%) and a reduction in constant whistles (18.4% to 7.3%) when training (Fig 7).
The numerical values around the pie chart denote the proportion of the corresponding whistle type.
Vocalization in feeding events
Click emission rate.
No significant differences in click production rates were observed between pre-feeding (phase BE) and feeding (phase PE) periods for either dolphin species. Rough-toothed dolphins emitted clicks at similar rates before (815.6 ± 54.4 clicks/min) and during (800.2 ± 62.9 clicks/min) feeding events (Independent Samples t test; p > 0.05) (Fig 8). Similarly, bottlenose dolphins exhibited no significant change, producing clicks at rates of 436.5 clicks/min before feeding and 497.8 clicks/min during feeding (Fig 8B) (Independent Samples t test; p > 0.05).
Whistle emission rate.
Neither dolphin species demonstrated a statistically significant change in whistle emission rate in feeding events. Rough-toothed dolphins produced whistles at rates of 7.9 ± 3.9/ min during phase BE and 10.9 ± 3.0/ min during phase PE (Fig 9). Likewise, bottlenose dolphins produced whistles at rates of 19.5 whistles/min before feeding and 17.9 whistles/min during feeding, reflecting no significant difference (Independent Samples t test; p > 0.05) (Fig 9B).
Whistle type.
In the recorded feeding events, rough-toothed dolphins predominantly emitted constant whistles during phase BE (39.4 ± 10.7%), followed by upsweep whistles (21.8 ± 3.4%). Downsweep (16.3 ± 10.4%) and convex (17.4 ± 1.1%) whistles occurred at comparable proportions, while sinusoidal (3.6 ± 3.4%) and concave whistles (1.7 ± 2.4%) were relatively uncommon. During feeding (phase PE), however, a significant shift was observed, with sinusoidal whistles increasing markedly to become the predominant whistle type (46.2 ± 14.4%) (Independent Samples t test; p < 0.05). In contrast, upsweep whistles significantly declined (9.3 ± 5.1%) (Independent Samples t test; p < 0.05). No statistically significant changes were found for the other whistle types (constant: 25.4 ± 13.4%; downsweep: 8.2 ± 0.6%; concave: 0.6 ± 0.6%; convex: 10.2 ± 4.4%) (Independent Samples t test; p > 0.05) (Fig 10).
The numerical values around the pie chart denote the proportion of the corresponding whistle type.
For bottlenose dolphins, a substantial increase in upsweep whistles was observed in the recorded feeding sessions, with the proportion growing from 15.0% during phase BE to 35.8% during phase PE, resulting in a change in the most frequent whistle type from constant to upsweep. Conversely, decreases were observed in constant whistles (from 37.1% to 31.4%), downsweep (from 3.3% to 0.9%), convex (from 14.7% to 4.4%), and sinusoidal whistles (from 29.0% to 25.8%). Concave whistles exhibited a slight increase from 0.8% to 1.8% during feeding (Fig 10).
Discussion
Increased echolocation click production associated with foraging activities has been extensively documented among various free-ranging odontocete species [15,33–37]. However, in this study, neither captive rough-toothed dolphins nor bottlenose dolphins exhibited significant differences in click emission rates before and during feeding sessions (Fig 8B). This discrepancy may arise from differences in foraging modes between captive and wild populations. Captive dolphins receive passive feeding from caregivers at scheduled times, reducing the necessity for echolocation-based prey detection, which likely results in a lower rate of click emissions compared to active foraging scenarios.
Limited previous research has addressed variations in the click production among captive dolphins during training or feeding sessions. Serres et al. (2021) reported that captive Yangtze finless porpoises produced substantially more clicks (a 312% increase) during training/feeding sessions compared to outside these sessions [20]. In contrast, rough-toothed and bottlenose dolphins in the present study did not exhibit a similar trend (Figs 5 and 8), indicating potential interspecies differences in acoustic responses to comparable contexts. Throughout the monitoring period, rough-toothed dolphins were notably more acoustically active in click emission than bottlenose dolphins (Fig 4A). Such differences may be attributed to interspecies variations, or possibly reflect the advanced cognitive capabilities and environmental detection efficiencies reported for bottlenose dolphins, which are known for their sophisticated behaviors and possess one of the largest brain index (brain weight/ (body size)2/3) among mammals (0.64), second only to humans (0.89) [38–44]. These cognitive advantages may enable bottlenose dolphins to achieve effective environmental perception with fewer echolocation clicks.
Whistle signals hold great significance for dolphins in group activities. Bottlenose dolphins are capable of coordinating actions in cooperative activities through whistle signals [45,46]. In our research, bottlenose dolphins produced far more whistle calls than rough-toothed dolphins over the entire monitoring period (Fig 4B). In addition, consistent with previous studies, bottlenose dolphins increased whistle emissions significantly during training sessions (Fig 6B) [25,47]. In contrast, rough-toothed dolphins significantly reduced whistle production during training (Fig 6B). This difference likely suggests greater inter-individual interactions and information exchanges among bottlenose dolphins during training, which may contribute to their higher training success rate compared to rough-toothed dolphins, as reported by trainers at Europark Marine Zoo.
The distribution patterns of whistle types, especially the characteristic (predominant) whistle type, were closely related to behavioral context. Previous research has shown that some cetaceans produce characteristic calls or increase call numbers during feeding to recruit conspecifics, signal feeding initiation, or manipulate prey [48–52]. Similarly, both dolphin species in our study shifted their predominant whistle types during feeding sessions (Fig 10). In compliance with earlier reports [16,24,53], bottlenose dolphins produced significantly more upsweep whistles during feeding sessions, with it became their predominant whistle type (Fig 10). Notably, this study reported, for the first time, a significant shift in rough-toothed dolphin whistle types during feeding, marked by a pronounced increase and dominance of sinusoidal whistles (Fig 10). Since the dolphins were fed by caretakers, rather than naturally hunting, these whistle changes likely serve a social function, broadcasting feeding events among the group. In rough-toothed dolphins, constant whistles remain the predominant whistle type outside of feeding sessions. This aligns with the observations of Miksis et al. (2002), which reported a higher prevalence of whistles with constant frequency components in captive dolphins and suggested that this may represent a learned behavior to mimic trainers’ whistles [54]. However, for our current study, it remains unclear whether the predominance of constant whistles represents an innate species-specific tendency or an imitation of the trainer’s whistle because the same phenomenon was also observed in wild rough-toothed dolphins [4]. While the current data does not allow for definitive confirmation of this hypothesis, it presents an insightful explanation that should be investigated in future studies.
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the current study on the relatively short data collection period due to the COVID-19 prevention and control policies implemented at the Marine Zoo. While continuous acoustic monitoring captured multiple training and feeding events, providing a rich dataset suited to the focus of this study, dolphin vocal behavior may exhibit natural variation over extended periods. A longer sampling duration would be beneficial to more fully explore this potential variability, a direction that warrants attention in future research. The conclusions regarding bottlenose dolphins are derived from a single training and feeding event. Due to the lack of replication across multiple events, these findings should be interpreted as preliminary. Nevertheless, their strong consistency with previous research [16,24,53] provides robust corroboration for established knowledge of this species. Non-invasive underwater acoustic monitoring has proven effective in monitoring captive dolphin welfare [20,23–26]. The data presented here, particularly for the understudied rough-toothed dolphins, provide valuable baseline information critical for identifying acoustic abnormalities that may signal welfare concerns, while also offering important insights and a solid foundation for future hypothesis-driven research on cetacean vocal behavior in managed settings.
Future research with longer-term monitoring and a larger sample size of events is recommended to better account for the natural fluctuation in dolphin vocalizations and confirm the consistency and effect size of these vocalization changes, thus establishing more generalized baseline data to enhance the acoustic assessment framework for animal welfare evaluations. Moreover, controlled studies, such as examining vocalization patterns in individually isolated dolphins during training and feeding sessions, are needed to conclusively identify the drivers behind the acoustic changes observed in this study, as well as to elucidate their potential biological and social functions.
Conclusions
The vocalization patterns of captive bottlenose dolphins and rough-toothed dolphins during human-involved training and feeding sessions were investigated in this study. The results revealed that rough-toothed dolphins exhibited significantly higher click rates but lower whistle rates compared to bottlenose dolphins. During training, bottlenose dolphins showed a marked decrease in click production alongside a substantial increase in whistle emission, whereas rough-toothed dolphins significantly reduced their whistle emissions. Furthermore, both species demonstrated notable shifts in whistle type distribution during feeding activities. Rough-toothed dolphins shifted their predominant whistle type from “constant” to “sinusoidal”, while bottlenose dolphins shifted from “constant” to “upsweep”. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the vocalization behaviors of captive dolphins and provide valuable baseline data potentially supporting the acoustic assessment of animal welfare, particularly for the understudied rough-toothed dolphin.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge Zhen Xiao from the College of Ocean and Earth Sciences at Xiamen University and the staff from the Europark Marine Zoo for their help in the acoustic monitoring.
References
- 1.
Au WWL, Hastings MC. Principles of marine bioacoustics. New York: Springer; 2008.
- 2.
Au WWL. The Sonar of Dolphins. Springer Science & Business Media; 1993.
- 3. Bazúa-Durán C, Au WWL. The whistles of Hawaiian spinner dolphins. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;112(6):3064–72. pmid:12509029
- 4. Seabra de Lima IM, de Andrade LG, Ramos de Carvalho R, Lailson-Brito J, de Freitas Azevedo A. Characteristics of whistles from rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis) in Rio de Janeiro coast, southeastern Brazil. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012;131(5):4173–81. pmid:22559388
- 5. Dong L, Caruso F, Lin M, Liu M, Gong Z, Dong J, et al. Whistles emitted by Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) in Zhanjiang waters, China. J Acoust Soc Am. 2019;145(6):3289. pmid:31255103
- 6. Belikov RA, Bel’kovich VM. Whistles of beluga whales in the reproductive gathering off Solovetskii Island in the White Sea. Acoust Phys. 2007;53(4):528–34.
- 7. Janik VM, Sayigh LS. Communication in bottlenose dolphins: 50 years of signature whistle research. J Comp Physiol A. 2013;199: 479–89.
- 8. King SL, Janik VM. Bottlenose dolphins can use learned vocal labels to address each other. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(32):13216–21. pmid:23878217
- 9. Heiler J, Elwen SH, Kriesell HJ, Gridley T. Changes in bottlenose dolphin whistle parameters related to vessel presence, surface behaviour and group composition. Anim Behav. 2016;117:167–77.
- 10. Zahn MJ, Laidre KL, Stilz P, Rasmussen MH, Koblitz JC. Vertical sonar beam width and scanning behavior of wild belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) in West Greenland. PLoS One. 2021;16(9):e0257054. pmid:34499678
- 11. Song Z, Mooney TA, Quakenbush L, Hobbs R, Gaglione E, Goertz C, et al. Variability of Echolocation Clicks in Beluga Whales (Delphinapterus leucas) Within Shallow Waters. Aquat Mamm. 2023;49(1):62–72.
- 12. Akamatsu T, Wang D, Nakamura K, Wang K. Echolocation range of captive and free-ranging baiji (Lipotes vexillifer), finless porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides), and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;104(4):2511–6. pmid:10491711
- 13. Holt MM, Noren DP, Veirs V, Emmons CK, Veirs S. Speaking up: Killer whales (Orcinus orca) increase their call amplitude in response to vessel noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;125(1):EL27-32. pmid:19173379
- 14. Holt MM, Noren DP, Emmons CK. Effects of noise levels and call types on the source levels of killer whale calls. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011;130(5):3100–6. pmid:22087938
- 15. Baumann-Pickering S, Roch MA, Wiggins SM, Schnitzler H-U, Hildebrand JA. Acoustic behavior of melon-headed whales varies on a diel cycle. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2015;69(9):1553–63. pmid:26300583
- 16. Herzing DL. Vocalizations and associated underwater behavior of free-ranging bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins. Aquatic Mammals. 1996;22(2):61–79.
- 17. Jiang J, Li S, Wang X, Li C, Sun Z, Liu W, et al. Study of the relationship between sound signals and behaviors of a sperm whale during the hunting process. Appl Acoust. 2021;174:107745.
- 18. Simon M, Wahlberg M, Miller LA. Echolocation clicks from killer whales (Orcinus orca) feeding on herring (Clupea harengus). J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;121(2):749–52. pmid:17348498
- 19. Wisniewska DM, Johnson M, Nachtigall PE, Madsen PT. Buzzing during biosonar-based interception of prey in the delphinids Tursiops truncatus and Pseudorca crassidens. J Exp Biol. 2014;217(Pt 24):4279–82. pmid:25394631
- 20. Serres A, Xu C, Hao Y, Wang D. The Click Production of Captive Yangtze Finless Porpoises (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis asiaorientalis) Is Influenced by Social and Environmental Factors. Animals (Basel). 2021;11(2):511. pmid:33669231
- 21.
Tanchez EK. Factors affecting the diel underwater sound production of captive belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) at the John G. Shedd Aquarium (Master’s thesis). Quad Cities, Moline: Western Illinois University; 2003; p. 40.
- 22.
Brickman J. Factors influencing call usage of the Pacific white-sided dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obliquidens, at the John G. Shedd Aquarium (Master’s thesis). Quad Cities, Moline: Western Illinois University; 2003.
- 23. Castellote M, Fossa F. Measuring Acoustic Activity as a Method to Evaluate Welfare in Captive Beluga Whales (Delphinapterus leucas). Aquatic Mammals. 2006;32(3):325–33.
- 24. Akiyama J, Ohta M. Increased number of whistles of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, arising from interaction with people. J Vet Med Sci. 2007;69(2):165–70. pmid:17339761
- 25. Therrien S. Time of Day and Social Change Affect Underwater Sound Production by Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) at the Brookfield Zoo. Aquat Mamm. 2012;38(1):65–75.
- 26. Clegg I, Borger-Turner J, Eskelinen H. C-Well: The development of a welfare assessment index for captive bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Anim Welf. 2015;24(3):267–82.
- 27. Watkins WA, Tyack P, Moore KE, Notarbartolo‐di‐Sciara G. Steno Bredanensis in the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Mammal Sci. 1987;3(1):78–82.
- 28. Oswald JN, Barlow J, Norris TF. Acoustic identification of nine Delphinid species in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Marine Mammal Sci. 2003;19(1):20–037.
- 29. Oswald JN, Rankin S, Barlow J, Lammers MO. A tool for real-time acoustic species identification of delphinid whistles. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;122(1):587–95. pmid:17614515
- 30. Baumann-Pickering S, Wiggins SM, Hildebrand JA, Roch MA, Schnitzler H-U. Discriminating features of echolocation clicks of melon-headed whales (Peponocephala electra), bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), and Gray’s spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris longirostris). J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;128(4):2212–24. pmid:20968391
- 31. Rankin S, Oswald JN, Simonis AE, Barlow J. Vocalizations of the rough‐toothed dolphin, Steno bredanensis, in the Pacific Ocean. Marine Mammal Sci. 2015;31(4):1538–48.
- 32. Caruso F, Sciacca V, Parisi I, Viola S, de Vincenzi G, Bocconcelli A, et al. Acoustic recordings of rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis) offshore Eastern Sicily (Mediterranean Sea). J Acoust Soc Am. 2019;146(3):EL286. pmid:31590530
- 33. Soldevilla MS, Wiggins SM, Hildebrand JA. Spatial and temporal patterns of Risso’s dolphin echolocation in the Southern California Bight. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;127(1):124–32. pmid:20058956
- 34. Soldevilla M, Wiggins S, Hildebrand J. Spatio-temporal comparison of Pacific white-sided dolphin echolocation click types. Aquat Biol. 2010;9:49–62.
- 35. Elliott R, Dawson S, Henderson S. Acoustic monitoring of habitat use by bottlenose dolphins in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand. New Zealand J Mar Freshw Res. 2011;45(4):637–49.
- 36. Wang Z, Akamatsu T, Wang K, Wang D. The diel rhythms of biosonar behavior in the Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis asiaeorientalis) in the port of the Yangtze River: The correlation between prey availability and boat traffic. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e97907. pmid:24823945
- 37. Ziegenhorn MA, Hildebrand JA, Oleson EM, Baird RW, Wiggins SM, Baumann-Pickering S. Odontocete spatial patterns and temporal drivers of detection at sites in the Hawaiian islands. Ecol Evol. 2023;13(1):e9688. pmid:36620420
- 38. Mercado E, Murray SO, Uyeyama RK, Pack AA, Herman LM. Memory for recent actions in the bottlenosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus): Repetition of arbitrary behaviors using an abstract rule. Animal Learn Behav. 1998;26(2):210–8.
- 39. Whiten A. Imitation and cultural transmission in apes and cetaceans. Behav Brain Sci. 2001;24(2):359–60.
- 40. Reiss D, Marino L. Mirror self-recognition in the bottlenose dolphin: a case of cognitive convergence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(10):5937–42. pmid:11331768
- 41. Norris S. Creatures of Culture? Making the Case for Cultural Systems in Whales and Dolphins. BioScience. 2002;52(1):9.
- 42. Simmonds MP. Into the brains of whales. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2006;100(1–2):103–16.
- 43. Smolker R, Richards A, Connor R, Mann J, Berggren P. Sponge Carrying by Dolphins (Delphinidae, Tursiops sp.): A Foraging Specialization Involving Tool Use? Ethology. 1997;103(6):454–65.
- 44.
Russell IS. Brain size and intelligence: a comparative perspective. Brain, Behaviour and Evolution. Routledge; 1979.
- 45. Eskelinen HC, Winship KA, Jones BL, Ames AEM, Kuczaj SA 2nd. Acoustic behavior associated with cooperative task success in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Anim Cogn. 2016;19(4):789–97. pmid:27022973
- 46. King SL, Guarino E, Donegan K, McMullen C, Jaakkola K. Evidence that bottlenose dolphins can communicate with vocal signals to solve a cooperative task. R Soc Open Sci. 2021;8(3):202073. pmid:33959360
- 47. Lopez Marulanda J, Adam O, Delfour F. Modulation of whistle production related to training sessions in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) under human care. Zoo Biol. 2016;35(6):495–504. pmid:27911478
- 48. Würsig B, Würsig M. Behavior and ecology of the dusky dolphin, Lagenorhynchus obscurus, in the South Atlantic. Fishery Bulletin. 1980;77:871–90.
- 49.
D’Vincent CG, Nilson RM, Hanna RE. Vocalization and coordinated feeding behavior of the humpback whale in southeastern Alaska. 1985.
- 50. Janik VM. Food-related bray calls in wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Proc Biol Sci. 2000;267(1446):923–7. pmid:10853736
- 51. Acevedo-Gutiérrez A, Stienessen SC. Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) Increase Number of Whistles When Feeding. Aquatic Mamm. 2004;30(3):357–62.
- 52. King SL, Janik VM. Come dine with me: food-associated social signalling in wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Anim Cogn. 2015;18(4):969–74. pmid:25688042
- 53. Hawkins ER, Gartside DF. Patterns of Whistles Emitted by Wild Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) During a Provisioning Program. Aquatic Mammals. 2009;35(2):171–86.
- 54. Miksis JL, Tyack PL, Buck JR. Captive dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, develop signature whistles that match acoustic features of human-made model sounds. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;112(2):728–39. pmid:12186052