<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jézéquel, Youenn</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bonnel, Julien</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Eliès, Phillipe</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Chauvaud, Laurent</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Acoustic scaling in the European spiny lobster (&lt;i&gt;Palinurus elephas&lt;/i&gt;)</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dec-01-2022</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/10.0016363</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">152</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3235-3244</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;jats p=&quot;&quot;&gt; Sound is an important cue for arthropods. In insects, sound features and sound-producing apparatus are tightly correlated to enhance signal emission in larger individuals. In contrast, acoustic scaling in marine arthropods is poorly described even if they possess similar sound-producing apparatus. Here, the acoustic scaling of the European spiny lobster is analyzed by recording sounds in situ at 1&amp;thinsp;m from a wide range of body sizes. The dimensions of associated sound-producing apparatus increased with body size, indicating sound features would also be influenced by spiny lobster size. Indeed, temporal sound features changed with body size, suggesting differences in calling songs could be used for spiny lobster acoustic communication. Source levels (peak&amp;ndash;peak) ranged from 131 to 164&amp;thinsp;dB re 1 &amp;mu;Pa for smaller and larger lobsters, respectively, which could be explained by more efficient resonating structures in larger animals. In addition, dominant frequencies were highly constrained by ambient noise levels, masking the low-frequency content of low intensity sounds from smaller spiny lobsters. Although the ecological function of spiny lobster sounds is not clear yet, these results suggest larger body sizes benefit because louder calls increase the broadcast area and potential interactions with conspecifics, as shown in the insect bioacoustic literature. &lt;/jats&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Leroy, Emmanuelle C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Royer, Jean-Yves</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bonnel, Julien</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Samaran, Flore</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Long-Term and Seasonal Changes of Large Whale Call Frequency in the Southern Indian Ocean</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans</style></secondary-title><short-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J. Geophys. Res. Oceans</style></short-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2018</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mar-11-2020</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://doi.wiley.com/10.1029/2018JC014352</style></url></web-urls></urls><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In the past decades, in the context of a changing ocean submitted to an increasing human activity, a progressive decrease in the frequencies (pitch) of blue whale vocalizations has been observed worldwide. Its causes, of natural or anthropogenic nature, are still unclear. Based on 7 years of continuous acoustic recordings at widespread sites in the southern Indian Ocean, we show that this observation stands for five populations of large whales. The frequency of selected units of vocalizations of fin, Antarctic, and pygmy blue whales has steadily decreased at a rate of a few tenths of hertz per year since 2002. In addition to this interannual frequency decrease, blue whale vocalizations display seasonal frequency shifts. We show that these intra‐annual shifts correlate with seasonal changes in the ambient noise near their call frequency. This ambient noise level, in turn, shows a strong correlation with the seasonal presence of icebergs, which are one of the main sources of oceanic noise in the Southern Hemisphere. Although cause‐and‐effect relationships are difficult to ascertain, wide‐ranging changes in the acoustic environment seem to have a strong impact on the vocal behavior of large baleen whales. Seasonal frequency shifts may be due to short‐term changes in the ambient noise, and the interannual frequency decline to long‐term changes in the acoustic properties of the ocean and/or in postwhaling changes in whale abundances.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Thode, Aaron</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bonnel, Julien</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Thieury, Margaux</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Fagan, Aileen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Verlinden, Chris</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wright, Dana</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Crance, Jessica</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Using nonlinear time warping to estimate North Pacific right whale calling depths in the Bering Sea</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America</style></secondary-title><short-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America</style></short-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2017</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jan-05-2017</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.4982200</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">141</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3059 - 3069</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Calling depth distributions are estimated for two types of calls produced by critically endangered eastern North Pacific right whales (NPRWs) in the Bering Sea, using passive acoustic data collected with bottom-mounted hydrophone recorders. Nonlinear time resampling of 12 NPRW &amp;ldquo;upcalls&amp;rdquo; and 20 &amp;ldquo;gunshots&amp;rdquo; recorded in a critical NPRW habitat isolated individual normal mode arrivals from each call. The relative modal arrival times permitted range estimates between 1 and 40&amp;thinsp;km, while the relative modal amplitudes permitted call depth estimates, provided that environmental inversions were obtained from high signal-to-noise ratio calls. Gunshot sounds were generally only produced at a few meters depth, while upcall depths clustered between 10 and 25&amp;thinsp;m, consistent with previously published bioacoustic tagging results from North Atlantic right whales. A Wilcoxon rank sum test rejected the null hypothesis that the mean calling depths of the two call types were the same (p&amp;thinsp;=&amp;thinsp;2.9&amp;thinsp;&amp;times;&amp;thinsp;10&amp;minus;5); the null hypothesis was still rejected if the sample set was restricted to one call per acoustic encounter (p&amp;thinsp;=&amp;thinsp;0.02). Propagation modeling demonstrates that deeper depths enhance acoustic propagation and that source depth estimates impact both NPRW upcall source level and detection range estimates.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue></record></records></xml>