MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143487952 · doi:10.1139/z07-101

The impacts of anthropogenic ocean noise on cetaceans and implications for management

2007· article· en· W2143487952 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lindy Weilgart

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationBiologySound (geography)Noise (video)HabitatNoise pollutionMarine mammalHuman echolocationForagingSound exposureAmbient noise levelEcologyEnvironmental scienceOceanographyGeologyAcousticsNoise reduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ocean noise pollution is of special concern for cetaceans, as they are highly dependent on sound as their principal sense. Sound travels very efficiently underwater, so the potential area impacted can be thousands of square kilometres or more. The principal anthropogenic noise sources are underwater explosions (nuclear and otherwise), shipping, seismic exploration by mainly the oil and gas industries, and naval sonar operations. Strandings and mortalities of especially beaked whales (family Ziphiidae) have in many cases been conclusively linked to noise events such as naval maneuvers involving tactical sonars or seismic surveys, though other cetacean species may also be involved. The mechanisms behind this mortality are still unknown, but are most likely related to gas and fat emboli at least partially mediated by a behavioral response, such as a change in diving pattern. Estimated received sound levels in these events are typically not high enough to cause hearing damage, implying that the auditory system may not always be the best indicator for noise impacts. Beaked whales are found in small, possibly genetically isolated, local populations that are resident year-round. Thus, even transient and localized acoustic impacts can have prolonged and serious population consequences, as may have occurred following at least one stranding. Populations may also be threatened by noise through reactions such as increased stress levels, abandonment of important habitat, and “masking” or the obscuring of natural sounds. Documented changes in vocal behavior may lead to reductions in foraging efficiency or mating opportunities. Responses are highly variable between species, age classes, behavioral states, etc., making extrapolations problematic. Also, short-term responses may not be good proxies of long-term population-level impacts. There are many examples of apparent tolerance of noise by cetaceans, however. Noise can also affect cetaceans indirectly through their prey. Fish show permanent and temporary hearing loss, reduced catch rates, stress, and behavioral reactions to noise. Management implications of noise impacts include difficulties in establishing “safe” exposure levels, shortcomings of some mitigation tools, the need for precaution in the form of reducing noise levels and distancing noise from biologically important areas, and the role of marine protected areas and monitoring in safeguarding cetaceans especially from cumulative and synergistic effects.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations406
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207