Global inventory of species categorized by known underwater sonifery.

A working group from the Global Library of Underwater Biological Sounds effort collaborated with the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) to create an inventory of species confirmed or expected to produce sound underwater. We used several existing inventories and additional literature searches to compile a dataset categorizing scientific knowledge of sonifery for 33,462 species and subspecies across marine mammals, other tetrapods, fishes, and invertebrates. We found 729 species documented as producing active and/or passive sounds under natural conditions, with another 21,911 species deemed likely to produce sounds based on evaluated taxonomic relationships. The dataset is available on both figshare and WoRMS where it can be regularly updated as new information becomes available. The data can also be integrated with other databases (e.g., SeaLifeBase, Global Biodiversity Information Facility) to advance future research on the distribution, evolution, ecology, management, and conservation of underwater soniferous species worldwide.

The importance of context in the acoustic behaviors of marine, subtropical fish speciesa).

Despite the importance of acoustic signaling in fishes, the prevalence of the behavioral contexts associated with their active (i.e., intentional) sound production remains unclear. A systematized review was conducted to explore documented acoustic behaviors in marine, subtropical fishes and potential influences affecting their relative pervasiveness. Data were collected on 186 actively soniferous fish species studied across 194 publications, identified based on existing FishSounds and FishBase datasets. Disturbance was the most common behavioral context associated with active sound production-reported for 140 species or 75% of the species studied-and then aggression (n = 46 species, 25%) and reproduction (n = 34 species, 18%). This trend, however, somewhat differed when examined by research effort, study environment, and fish family, such as reproductive sounds being more commonly reported by studies conducted in the wild. The synthesis of fish sound production behaviors was in some ways stymied by the fact that many species' sound production did not have discernible associated behavioral contexts and that some investigations did not clearly identify the study environments in which active sound production was observed. These findings emphasize the importance of context-behavioral or otherwise-when studying acoustic behaviors in fishes.

Sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) produce high frequency rasp sounds with frequency modulation.

Sablefish sounds, named rasps, were recorded at two captive facilities in British Columbia and Washington State. Rasps consisted of highly variable broadband trains of 2 to 336 ticks that lasted between 74 and 10 500 ms. The 260 rasps that were measured contained frequencies between 344 and 34 000 Hz with an average peak frequency of 3409 Hz. The frequency structure of ticks within rasps was highly variable and included both positive and negative trends. This finding makes sablefish one of the few deep-sea fish for which sounds have been validated and described. The documentation of sablefish sounds will enable the use of passive acoustic monitoring methods in fisheries and ecological studies of this commercially important deep-sea fish.

Sounds of Arctic cod (Boreogadus saida) in captivity: A preliminary description.

Sounds produced by Arctic cod were recorded for the first time and suggest passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) can be an effective additional tool for the study and management of the species. Each of the 38 calls detected in three different aquatic facilities consisted of a single grunt with 6 to 12 pulses and a mean duration of 289 ms. Call frequency ranged between 59 and 234 Hz, with a mean peak frequency of 107 Hz. These preliminary data suggest Arctic cod can be distinguished from other gadids, but additional studies of sympatric species are needed before PAM can be confidently adopted.

Effects of different analysis techniques and recording duty cycles on passive acoustic monitoring of killer whales.

Killer whales in British Columbia are at risk, and little is known about their winter distribution. Passive acoustic monitoring of their year-round habitat is a valuable supplemental method to traditional visual and photographic surveys. However, long-term acoustic studies of odontocetes have some limitations, including the generation of large amounts of data that require highly time-consuming processing. There is a need to develop tools and protocols to maximize the efficiency of such studies. Here, two types of analysis, real-time and long term spectral averages, were compared to assess their performance at detecting killer whale calls in long-term acoustic recordings. In addition, two different duty cycles, 1/3 and 2/3, were tested. Both the use of long term spectral averages and a lower duty cycle resulted in a decrease in call detection and positive pod identification, leading to underestimations of the amount of time the whales were present. The impact of these limitations should be considered in future killer whale acoustic surveys. A compromise between a lower resolution data processing method and a higher duty cycle is suggested for maximum methodological efficiency.