Anne Harmann 27 October 2007

1. A study of the relationship between The Southern Resident Killer Whale echolocation click production and depth: A Beam Reach first Anne Harmann 27 October 2007 Beam Reach Marine Science and Sustainability School beamreach.org/071 Salmon!

2. The SRKW are listed as an endangered species. • prey availability • environmental contaminants • vessel effects • oil spills • disease • cumulative effects of multiple chronic stressors Why Echolocation clicks? I wanted to study fish. We only had the equipment to study killer whales.

3. Blowhole Melon Phonic Lips Echolocation Click Production Cranford et al. 1996 A beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) Echolocation clicks are typically emitted at a rate that allows the echoes to return to the animal before next click is emitted.

4. http://www.teara.govt.nz/EarthSeaAndSky/en Foraging

5. http://www.cascadiaresearch.org Foraging

6. www.wildriversoutfitters.com/ rivers.htm Foraging

7. It’s all very simple… • The SRKW forage on fish. • These fish swim at various depths in the water column. • The SRKW use echolocation clicks to find these fish. • So… • Is there a relationship between the pattern of SRKW echolocation click production and depth? • Remember, this is a novel study. My Research Chain of Logic

8. B C A D Hph 1 at 5 m Hph 2 at 15 m Hph 3 at 25 m Hph 4 at 35 m E • Data collected October 7-13, 2007 • Positioned ahead of whales when possible • Array deployed vertically • Minor movements of Gato Verde to maintain vertical orientation • Stopped recording if calls or clicks became difficult to hear above background noise Data Collection Diagram not to scale Starboard hull of GV Outrigger 2 m bungee cord Hydrophone array 12 lb weight attached to rope

9. Data Analysis Audacity(Version 1.2.5, Sourceforge.net)

10. Data Analysis: Time of Arrival Differences

11. Data Analysis: Time of Arrival Differences

12. Data Analysis: Time of Arrival Differences

13. Data Analysis: Time of Arrival Differences

14. Data Analysis: Time of Arrival Differences

15. Data Analysis: Time of Arrival Differences

16. Data Analysis: Time of Arrival Differences

17. Data Analysis: Time of Arrival Differences

18. Data Analysis: Time of Arrival Differences

19. Data Analysis: Time of Arrival Differences

20. Data Analysis: Time of Arrival Differences

21. Data Analysis: Time of Arrival Differences

22. 77 15 73 n = 165 Classification of Clicks Shallow Deep Middle

23. 11.2% 5 m 67.4% 35 m 21.3% 44.5 m Observed distribution of clicks was significantly different from expected distribution (p < .001, d.f. 2) Null hypothesis: rejected • Dives made to 44.5 m, average daytime traveling depth for chinook salmon (Candy and Quinn 1999) • Swimming at a constant speed • Echolocating constantly • Diving repeatedly, no lingering at surface or at depth Foraging Model 1: Repeated Dives for Chinook Null hypothesis: Observed distribution of clicks will match distribution predicted by model.

24. Model based on dive profile from one dive made by L87 (Baird et al. 2003) • Echolocating constantly • Diving repeatedly • No lingering at surface 5 m Shallow 14.6% Middle 22.9% 35 m Deep 62.5% Null hypothesis: Observed distribution of clicks will match distribution predicted by model. Observed distribution of clicks was significantly different from expected distribution (p < .02, d.f. 2) Null hypothesis: rejected Foraging Model 2: Repeated Deep Dives

25. Click Trains and Clicking Rate Slow Fast No significant difference between deep and shallow groups for either click train length or clicking rate

26. Clicks with Surface Reflections

27. * ** Clicks with Surface Reflections ** *

28. Clicks with Surface Reflections D R

29. Click train length and clicking rate: No significant difference between shallow and deep • Foraging at surface for deeper fish? • Navigating around boats? n= 165 shallow = 77 middle = 15 deep = 73 Do not fit simple dive profile models • Array geometry? • Directional characteristic of clicks? • Deep diving year? Summary

30. I would like to extend the warmest thank you to Val, Shannon, Todd, Jason, Scott, Team VATO, Team JAMI, Marla Holt, and the good folks at the Whale Museum. This has been an amazing experience. And a special thank you goes to Gilda and Vernon Harmann and to B. Literature Cited Acknowledgements Au, W.W.L. 2004. Echolocation signals of wild dolphins. Acoustical Physics, 50:454-462. Au, W.W.L., Ford, J.K.B., Horne, J.K., Newman Allman, K.A. 2004. Echolocation signal of free-ranging killer whales (Orcinus orca) and modeling of foraging for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawyscha). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77:726-730. Baird, R.W., Hanson, M.B., Dill, L.M. 2005. Factors influencing the diving behaviour of fish-eating killer whales: sex differences and diel and interannual variation in diving rates. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 83:257-267. Barrett-Lennard, L.G., Ford, J.K.B., Heise, K.A. 1996. The mixed blessing of echolocation: differences in sonar use by fish-eating and mamma-eating killer whales. Animal Behavior, 51:553-565. Candy, J.R. and Quinn, T.P. 1999. Behavior of adult chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in British Columbia coastal waters determined from ultrasonic telemetry. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77(7):1161-1169. Cranford, T.W., Amundin, M., Norris, K.S. 1996. Functional morphology and homology in the odontocete nasal complex: implications for sound generation. Journal of Morphology, 228:223-285. Ford, J.K.B. and Ellis, G.M. 2006. Selective foraging by fish-eating killer whales Orcinus orca in British Columbia. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 316:185-199 Tieman, C.O., Thode, A.M., Straley, J., O’Connell, V., Folkert, K. 2006. Three-dimensional localization of sperm whales using a single hydrophone. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 120(4):2355-2365.

31. Questions?

32. Overlapping Click Trains