Potential acoustic habitat partitioning in delphinids along the Florida Atlantic coast


Abstract

Acoustic signaling is fundamental to dolphin ecology, with echolocation primarily supporting foraging, navigation, and predator avoidance, and whistles facilitating social communication. Here we investigate potential acoustic habitat partitioning in oceanic dolphins (delphinids) along the Florida Atlantic coast by identifying distinct environmental conditions associated with each signal type and investigating their relationships with soniferous fish presence. Delphinid acoustic signals were recorded during a two-month deployment of a wave glider equipped with a Remora-ST acoustic recorder. Additionally, environmental variables including sound pressure level (SPL), anthropogenic noise, soniferous fish presence, location, temperature, current speed and direction, depth, distance to the coast, salinity, and chlorophyll-a concentration were recorded. Generalized additive models (GAMs) were used to identify key predictors of whistle and echolocation occurrence, and best fit models were then used to generate predictive maps of suitable habitat for each signal type and for soniferous fish. Our results revealed distinct environmental predictors of delphinid presence, depending on acoustic signal type (echolocation vs whistles) which produces spatial separation in predicted hotspots. Furthermore, the presence of soniferous fish is shown to influence acoustic vocalization type and detection, offering an initial look into potential predator-prey interactions shaping delphinid vocalization behavior. This research offers valuable insight for management, particularly in identifying key foraging grounds and social hotspots and further validates the capabilities of passive acoustic monitoring via wave gliders for ecological insights of cetaceans.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].