Response to ‘The active space of sperm whale codas allows for communication within and between social units’ DOI
Ellen R. Jacobs, Shane Gero, Chloë Malinka

et al.

Journal of Experimental Biology, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 227(15)

Published: Aug. 1, 2024

We thank Rendell and Whitehead for their kind words on our study, we welcome the opportunity to discuss how sperm whales communicate with clicks.When dedicated soccer fans of Manchester United Liverpool enjoy a lunch at home families before game, quiet conversations mediate family unit social interactions have small active space few tens meters address nearby audience around kitchen tables. When same from each club later join fan groups walk stadium Sunday match, they employ very different many hundreds by loudly announcing football clan affiliation easily identifiable club-specific songs passed down through generations. Such clear culture-specific vocal displays 'us' versus 'them' likely been us as long humans beyond. In paper 2003, (2003) lay out similar scenario proposing that Morse code-like click patterns whales, so-called codas, serve acoustic markers cultural are communicated between units inform decisions whether join. Specifically, based idea codas give identity, write, 'We suggest coda dialect performs signature function in this context, allowing identify other within highly mobile whale society…'. recent size (Jacobs et al., 2024), motivate parts testable hypotheses statement when writing '…the proposed long-range communication broadcasting identity beyond (Gero 2016a,b; Whitehead, 2003)." if seek assortment clan, it seemed obvious citing must extend separation animals unit.However, reply paper, correctly note never explicitly wrote 'long range' signals, proceed present hypothetical could between-unit recognition without requiring median larger than ∼4 km. speculate hears loud echolocation clicks foraging (Watwood 2006) another unit, may then approach detection range clicks, individuals outskirts two being able hear or, perhaps, exchange allow identification close enough one another.However, because vast majority not produced separated (Oliviera 2016), unlikely produce detectable clan-identifying time frame passing other: tend move horizontally about 4 km per hour (Jaquet 1999), so actually be assign membership them requires close. Thus, findings additional supporting evidence provided (Weilgart 1997; 2003) make agree can used information units, but only together, offer an ineffective way radiate much footprint unit.Irrespective stimulating discussions such hypotheticals be, Correspondence face fact quantitative data spread amongst navigate together even less typical distances movements over scales. To further compound problem, both these or spreads vary clans ocean basins differences group sizes movement behavior which demonstrated (Whitehead Rendell, 2004; 2012; Vachon 2022). part, point out, problem arises spatial scales any research vessel address.While study demonstrates most reach given also suggests biomechanically capable producing louder. This begs question why don't, is important mediating dynamics encounter another. turn, write Correspondence, do 'almost never, ever, form coordinated groups' using specifically associate? For us, crux science hand posit takes critical step answering this. It still unknown what features might encode interactions, nor understand required individual, exchanges needed, made passively upon hearing distant units.Based current species, seems truly quantify rate encounters distance regard in-group biased associations emergent segregation clans. Research conducted single vessel, equipment detect louder across 10 km, cannot biologically relevant scale. Particularly tracking protocols towards staying loudest during 'group follow', especially overnight no cues available, means remain closer center unit. biases observations focal dramatically increases chances missing potential 'swim-by' detecting echolocation, perhaps codas; creates apparent lack real empirical studies directly test it. involving wide-scale hydrophone arrays, multiple platforms concurrent long-term GPS sound recording tags deployed sympatric needed distribution context discussed here.In conclusion, last 25 years has strong physically multilayered structure exchanged remains understood. Our views will hopefully future playback large-scale provide more complete understanding functional use socio-spatial top predators ocean-scale ecosystems.

Language: Английский

Automatic detection and annotation of eastern Caribbean sperm whale codas DOI Creative Commons
Guy Gubnitsky,

Yaly Mevorach,

Shane Gero

et al.

Scientific Reports, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 15(1)

Published: April 14, 2025

Language: Английский

Citations

0
Dr. Doolittle uses AI: Ethical challenges of trying to speak whale DOI Creative Commons
Mark Ryan, Leonie N. Bossert

Biological Conservation, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 295, P. 110648 - 110648

Published: May 31, 2024

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly used in conservation practices, e.g., to prevent poaching or inventory wildlife. Another area of application is using AI decode animal vocalisations understand better—and subsequently better protect—the animals. It has already been applied different species, including various whale species. Whales have complex that for sexual selection, coo their young, echolocation, and as a form communication. Scientists deploying underwater microphones (hydrophones), robotic fish, tags record vocalisation. identify vocalisation patterns, meaning, digitally recreate these sounds communicate with them. Understanding translating into something humanly understandable aims at helping movements protect them from ship strikes bycatch reduce sonar interferes echolocation. Using holds potential benefits, but it also comes several risks. We describe current projects use decipher the humpback sperm whales (Section 3). introduce six ethical challenges applying highlight what needs be addressed establish practices responsibly 4). These anthropomorphism, privacy rights, cultural emotional harm whales, technological solutionism, ineffectiveness conservation, gender bias. This paper critically evaluates analyse vocalisation, concluding many benefits conservation; however, try speak ethically problematic because emotional, physical, caused whales.

Language: Английский

Citations

1
Coda clicks are intended for close kin DOI Creative Commons
Jarren Kay

Journal of Experimental Biology, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 227(4)

Published: Feb. 15, 2024

A group of sperm whales swimming near the surface.

Language: Английский

Citations

0
The active space of sperm whale codas allows for communication within and between social units DOI
Luke Rendell, Hal Whitehead

Journal of Experimental Biology, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 227(15)

Published: Aug. 1, 2024

Jacobs et al. (2024) recently published a powerful analysis of apparent source levels from acoustically localised sperm whale codas, using it to estimate that the active space these vocalisations is around 4 km. This an important step forward in our understanding how may function, and we congratulate authors on rigour their analysis. However, have disagreements with framing interpretation results felt were best addressed letter.Our motivations for writing are twofold. The first correct record regarding frame work. second critically evaluate claim km means codas do not function communicate between units.First, motivate hypothesis 'on par' acoustic footprint social unit by asserting made specific claims about communication over 'long range' or 'larger distances' (neither specified) [Introduction, para 5: 'Such small is, turn, incompatible proposed long-range coda broadcasting clan identity beyond (Gero al., 2016a,b; Rendell Whitehead, 2003).' Introduction, 6: 'Rendell Whitehead (2003) suggest could mediate segregation observed clans unit's other units larger distances before engaging close-proximity interaction.'], citing paper ours (Rendell 2003). We did fact make any long range paper. If there passages give impression reported claims, hope can identify them so be clearer expression going forward. one field-derived they quote 600 m (Weilgart 1997) <1/6 estimates present, while book same year as cited paper, us inferred ∼2 (Whitehead, 2003, p. 135), part collaboration documented short (<400 m) exchange interactions argued support primary functional bonding within (Schulz 2008). never suggested used (presumably tens kilometre more) ranges.Second, does preclude functioning groups, contest [Title: '…information intra-unit communication'; Abstract: 'We conclude contain information affiliation, moderate shows clans'; unit'; Discussion, 1: 'Our … strongly supports primarily within-unit communication']. Clearly matters here what meant this context – without specifying, present synonymous units. While agree likely major cannot set aside another feature structure different dialect almost form coordinated groups study areas Southeast Pacific 2003), well Caribbean, where habitat use organised vocal lines (Vachon 2022). despite presence area (Whitehead Rendell, 2004; Vachon 2022), that, Pacific, consist temporary accretion 2–3 time scales 2 few days, regularly making decisions which group How if specifically associate with?A scenario, based way ourselves encounter field, cue received when come into proximity louder echolocation clicks. tells listeners whales but only approach closer codas. might reach across, produced animals periphery will detectable up away edge unit. At point, both decide whether avoid still each other, obviating need close interaction. equipment methods Caribbean areas, field experience similar both.While evolved units, once signals emitted, become public cues. natural selection consequences would subject processes signal evolution between-unit also (for example, increasing chances find benefit increased protection). There therefore no reason question either/or perspective operate contexts. Pluripotent signals, has multiple functions, known animal (Hebets 2016) nothing evidence precludes this. Duets choruses birds, flexible, context-dependent (Mennill Vehrencamp, 2008) see should true whales, exchanges often characterised duets 2008).We allows

Language: Английский

Citations

0
Response to ‘The active space of sperm whale codas allows for communication within and between social units’ DOI
Ellen R. Jacobs, Shane Gero, Chloë Malinka

et al.

Journal of Experimental Biology, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 227(15)

Published: Aug. 1, 2024

We thank Rendell and Whitehead for their kind words on our study, we welcome the opportunity to discuss how sperm whales communicate with clicks.When dedicated soccer fans of Manchester United Liverpool enjoy a lunch at home families before game, quiet conversations mediate family unit social interactions have small active space few tens meters address nearby audience around kitchen tables. When same from each club later join fan groups walk stadium Sunday match, they employ very different many hundreds by loudly announcing football clan affiliation easily identifiable club-specific songs passed down through generations. Such clear culture-specific vocal displays 'us' versus 'them' likely been us as long humans beyond. In paper 2003, (2003) lay out similar scenario proposing that Morse code-like click patterns whales, so-called codas, serve acoustic markers cultural are communicated between units inform decisions whether join. Specifically, based idea codas give identity, write, 'We suggest coda dialect performs signature function in this context, allowing identify other within highly mobile whale society…'. recent size (Jacobs et al., 2024), motivate parts testable hypotheses statement when writing '…the proposed long-range communication broadcasting identity beyond (Gero 2016a,b; Whitehead, 2003)." if seek assortment clan, it seemed obvious citing must extend separation animals unit.However, reply paper, correctly note never explicitly wrote 'long range' signals, proceed present hypothetical could between-unit recognition without requiring median larger than ∼4 km. speculate hears loud echolocation clicks foraging (Watwood 2006) another unit, may then approach detection range clicks, individuals outskirts two being able hear or, perhaps, exchange allow identification close enough one another.However, because vast majority not produced separated (Oliviera 2016), unlikely produce detectable clan-identifying time frame passing other: tend move horizontally about 4 km per hour (Jaquet 1999), so actually be assign membership them requires close. Thus, findings additional supporting evidence provided (Weilgart 1997; 2003) make agree can used information units, but only together, offer an ineffective way radiate much footprint unit.Irrespective stimulating discussions such hypotheticals be, Correspondence face fact quantitative data spread amongst navigate together even less typical distances movements over scales. To further compound problem, both these or spreads vary clans ocean basins differences group sizes movement behavior which demonstrated (Whitehead Rendell, 2004; 2012; Vachon 2022). part, point out, problem arises spatial scales any research vessel address.While study demonstrates most reach given also suggests biomechanically capable producing louder. This begs question why don't, is important mediating dynamics encounter another. turn, write Correspondence, do 'almost never, ever, form coordinated groups' using specifically associate? For us, crux science hand posit takes critical step answering this. It still unknown what features might encode interactions, nor understand required individual, exchanges needed, made passively upon hearing distant units.Based current species, seems truly quantify rate encounters distance regard in-group biased associations emergent segregation clans. Research conducted single vessel, equipment detect louder across 10 km, cannot biologically relevant scale. Particularly tracking protocols towards staying loudest during 'group follow', especially overnight no cues available, means remain closer center unit. biases observations focal dramatically increases chances missing potential 'swim-by' detecting echolocation, perhaps codas; creates apparent lack real empirical studies directly test it. involving wide-scale hydrophone arrays, multiple platforms concurrent long-term GPS sound recording tags deployed sympatric needed distribution context discussed here.In conclusion, last 25 years has strong physically multilayered structure exchanged remains understood. Our views will hopefully future playback large-scale provide more complete understanding functional use socio-spatial top predators ocean-scale ecosystems.

Language: Английский

Citations

0