Mui Dolphin Acoustic Monitoring Craig A Radford Institute of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

m ui dolphin acoustic monitoring
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Mui Dolphin Acoustic Monitoring Craig A Radford Institute of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mui Dolphin Acoustic Monitoring Craig A Radford Institute of Marine Science University of Auckland Background Hectors dolphins venture further offshore than previously thought Current protection measures use range of offshore


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Māui Dolphin Acoustic Monitoring

Craig A Radford Institute of Marine Science University of Auckland

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Background

  • Hector’s dolphins venture further offshore than

previously thought

  • Current protection measures use range of offshore

limits depending on the activity being controlled

  • Uncertainty surrounding the risk outside this area

because the distribution of Māui’s is not well-known

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Key Question

  • How far do Māui’s venture offshore?
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Deployment Site

  • C-POD’s and ST’s
  • Click Detecting ST at M2
  • Deployed 28/ 06/ 2018
  • Retrieved M2-8 15/ 11/ 2018
  • Lost M1 & M9
  • M8 malfunctioned
  • Additional data from

Hamilton’s Gap, New Plymouth & Whanganui

Hupman & Goetz 2017

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Processing & Assumptions

  • Using C-POD KERNO classifier – detects click trains
  • Narrow Band High Frequency (NBHF)
  • Verify by manually scrolling through the detections
  • That all NBHF detections are due to Māui’s
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Summary of NBHF Detections

CPOD/ Location July 2 0 1 7 August 2 0 1 7 Septem ber 2 0 1 7 October 2 0 1 7 Novem ber 2 0 1 7 M1

  • M2

64 17 21 66 26 M3 6 6 22 5 M4 2 2 M5 M6 M7

  • M8
  • M9
slide-7
SLIDE 7

Temporal Distribution of Detections

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Site: M2

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Site: M3

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Site: M4

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Hamilton’s Gap

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Distribution Based on Acoustic Detections

Decreasing detection rates

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Limitations

  • Assumption that all NBHF sounds are Māui’s
  • Off-axis C-POD data potentially could be unreliable
  • Background noise effects detection rates
slide-14
SLIDE 14

ST Comparisons

July 2017 Number of Clicks 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Instensity (dB re 1uPa) 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 July 2017 Number of Clicks 100 200 300 400 500 Intensity (dB re 1uPa) 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Sound Trap Click Detections C-POD Click Detections

slide-15
SLIDE 15

ST Comparisons

  • Difficult to make direct comparisons because of the

different outputs

  • Background noise affects the detections
  • Ocean Instruments developing a click train detector and

software to analyse the data in

  • Benefit of the ST over the C-POD is that you can get

sound data at the same time

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Acknowledgements

  • Whitney Nelson – summer student who did the analysis
  • NIWA deploying and retrieving C-POD’s and ST’s