Intense ultrasonic clicks from echolocating toothed whales do not elicit anti-predator responses or debilitate the squid Loligo pealeii

Echolocating toothed whales use ultra-fast echo-kinetic responses to track evasive prey

Visual predators rely on fast-acting optokinetic responses to track and capture agile prey. Most toothed whales, however, rely on echolocation for hunting and have converged on biosonar clicking rates reaching 500/s during prey pursuits. If echoes are processed on a click-by-click basis, as assumed, neural responses 100× faster than those in vision are required to keep pace with this information flow. Using high-resolution biologging of wild predator-prey interactions, we show that toothed whales adjust clicking rates to track prey movement within 50–200 ms of prey escape responses. Hypothesising that these stereotyped biosonar adjustments are elicited by sudden prey accelerations, we measured echo-kinetic responses from trained harbour porpoises to a moving target and found similar latencies. High biosonar sampling rates are, therefore, not supported by extreme speeds of neural processing and muscular responses. Instead, the neurokinetic response times in echolocation are similar to those of tracking responses in vision, suggesting a common neural underpinning.

In the animal world, split-second decisions determine whether a predator eats, or its prey survives. There is a strong evolutionary advantage to fast reacting brains and bodies. For example, the eye muscles of hunting cheetahs must lock on to a gazelle and keep track of it, no matter how quickly or unpredictably it moves. In fact, in monkeys and primates, these muscles can react to sudden movements in as little as 50 milliseconds – faster than the blink of an eye. But what about animals that do not rely on vision to hunt?

To find food at night or in the deep ocean, whales and porpoises make short ultrasonic sounds, or ‘clicks’, and then listen for returning echoes. As they close in on a prey, they need to click faster to get quicker updates on its location. What is unclear is how fast they react to the echoes. Just before a kill, a harbour porpoise can click over 500 times a second: if they wait for the echo from one click before making the next one, they would need responses 100 times faster than human eyes.

Exploring this topic is difficult, as it requires tracking predator and prey at the same time. Vance et al. took up the challenge by building sound and movement recorders that attach to whales with suction cups. These were used on two different hunters: deep-diving beaked whales and shallow-hunting harbour porpoises. Both species adapted their click rate depending on how far they were from their prey, but their response times were similar to visual responses in monkeys and humans. This means that whales and porpoises do not act on each echo before clicking again: instead, they respond to groups of tens of clicks at a time. This suggests that their brains may be wired in much the same way as the ones of visual animals.

In the ocean, increased human activity creates a dangerous noise pollution that disrupts the delicate hunting mechanism of whales and porpoises. Better understanding how these animals find their food may therefore help conservation efforts.

The long-range echo scene of the sperm whale biosonar

Sperm whales use their gigantic nose to produce the most powerful sounds in the animal kingdom, presumably to echolocate deep-sea prey at long ranges and possibly to debilitate prey. To test these hypotheses, we deployed sound recording tags (DTAG-4) on the tip of the nose of three sperm whales. One of these recordings yielded over 6000 echo streams from organisms detected up to 144 m ahead of the whale, supporting a long-range prey detection function of the sperm whale biosonar. The whale navigated this complex acoustic scene by maintaining a stable, long-range acoustic gaze suggesting continual resource evaluation. Less than 10% of the echoic organisms recorded by the tag were targeted for capture and only 18% of the buzzes were emitted within the 50 m depth interval of maximum organism encounter rate, demonstrating echo-guided prey selection. Buzzes were initiated more than 20 m from the prey, showing that sperm whales do not debilitate their prey with sound, but trade echo levels for reduced forward masking and rapid updates on prey location in keeping with the lower manoeuvrability of these large predators. We conclude that the powerful biosonar of sperm whales enables long-range echolocation and selection of prey, but not acoustic debilitation.

Responses to mechanically and visually cued water waves in the nervous system of the medicinal leech

Sensitivity to water waves is a key modality by which aquatic predators can detect and localize their prey. For one such predator - the medicinal leech, Hirudo verbana - behavioral responses to visual and mechanical cues from water waves are well documented. Here, we quantitatively characterized the response patterns of a multisensory interneuron, the S cell, to mechanically and visually cued water waves. As a function of frequency, the response profile of the S cell replicated key features of the behavioral prey localization profile in both visual and mechanical modalities. In terms of overall firing rate, the S cell response was not direction selective, and although the direction of spike propagation within the S cell system did follow the direction of wave propagation under certain circumstances, it is unlikely that downstream neuronal targets can use this information. Accordingly, we propose a role for the S cell in the detection of waves but not in the localization of their source. We demonstrated that neither the head brain nor the tail brain are required for the S cell to respond to visually cued water waves.

Freezing behaviour facilitates bioelectric crypsis in cuttlefish faced with predation risk

Cephalopods, and in particular the cuttlefish Sepia officinalis, are common models for studies of camouflage and predator avoidance behaviour. Preventing detection by predators is especially important to this group of animals, most of which are soft-bodied, lack physical defences, and are subject to both visually and non-visually mediated detection. Here, we report a novel cryptic mechanism in S. officinalis in which bioelectric cues are reduced via a behavioural freeze response to a predator stimulus. The reduction of bioelectric fields created by the freeze-simulating stimulus resulted in a possible decrease in shark predation risk by reducing detectability. The freeze response may also facilitate other non-visual cryptic mechanisms to lower predation risk from a wide range of predator types.

Sperm whale predator-prey interactions involve chasing and buzzing, but no acoustic stunning

The sperm whale carries a hypertrophied nose that generates powerful clicks for long-range echolocation. However, it remains a conundrum how this bizarrely shaped apex predator catches its prey. Several hypotheses have been advanced to propose both active and passive means to acquire prey, including acoustic debilitation of prey with very powerful clicks. Here we test these hypotheses by using sound and movement recording tags in a fine-scale study of buzz sequences to relate the acoustic behaviour of sperm whales with changes in acceleration in their head region during prey capture attempts. We show that in the terminal buzz phase, sperm whales reduce inter-click intervals and estimated source levels by 1-2 orders of magnitude. As a result, received levels at the prey are more than an order of magnitude below levels required for debilitation, precluding acoustic stunning to facilitate prey capture. Rather, buzzing involves high-frequency, low amplitude clicks well suited to provide high-resolution biosonar updates during the last stages of capture. The high temporal resolution helps to guide motor patterns during occasionally prolonged chases in which prey are eventually subdued with the aid of fast jaw movements and/or buccal suction as indicated by acceleration transients (jerks) near the end of buzzes.

Ultrasonic predator-prey interactions in water-convergent evolution with insects and bats in air?

Toothed whales and bats have independently evolved biosonar systems to navigate and locate and catch prey. Such active sensing allows them to operate in darkness, but with the potential cost of warning prey by the emission of intense ultrasonic signals. At least six orders of nocturnal insects have independently evolved ears sensitive to ultrasound and exhibit evasive maneuvers when exposed to bat calls. Among aquatic prey on the other hand, the ability to detect and avoid ultrasound emitting predators seems to be limited to only one subfamily of Clupeidae: the Alosinae (shad and menhaden). These differences are likely rooted in the different physical properties of air and water where cuticular mechanoreceptors have been adapted to serve as ultrasound sensitive ears, whereas ultrasound detection in water have called for sensory cells mechanically connected to highly specialized gas volumes that can oscillate at high frequencies. In addition, there are most likely differences in the risk of predation between insects and fish from echolocating predators. The selection pressure among insects for evolving ultrasound sensitive ears is high, because essentially all nocturnal predation on flying insects stems from echolocating bats. In the interaction between toothed whales and their prey the selection pressure seems weaker, because toothed whales are by no means the only marine predators placing a selection pressure on their prey to evolve specific means to detect and avoid them. Toothed whales can generate extremely intense sound pressure levels, and it has been suggested that they may use these to debilitate prey. Recent experiments, however, show that neither fish with swim bladders, nor squid are debilitated by such signals. This strongly suggests that the production of high amplitude ultrasonic clicks serve the function of improving the detection range of the toothed whale biosonar system rather than debilitation of prey.

The function of male sperm whale slow clicks in a high latitude habitat: communication, echolocation, or prey debilitation?

Sperm whales produce different click types for echolocation and communication. Usual clicks and buzzes appear to be used primarily in foraging while codas are thought to function in social communication. The function of slow clicks is less clear, but they appear to be produced by males at higher latitudes, where they primarily forage solitarily, and on the breeding grounds, where they roam between groups of females. Here the behavioral context in which these vocalizations are produced and the function they may serve was investigated. Ninety-nine hours of acoustic and diving data were analyzed from sound recording tags on six male sperm whales in Northern Norway. The 755 slow clicks detected were produced by tagged animals at the surface (52%), ascending from a dive (37%), and during the bottom phase (11%), but never during the descent. Slow clicks were not associated with the production of buzzes, other echolocation clicks, or fast maneuvering that would indicate foraging. Some slow clicks were emitted in seemingly repetitive temporal patterns supporting the hypothesis that the function for slow clicks on the feeding grounds is long range communication between males, possibly relaying information about individual identity or behavioral states.

Sensory ecology: giant eyes for giant predators?

Mathematical models suggest the enormous eyes of giant and colossal squid evolved to see the bioluminescence induced by the approach of predatory whales.

A unique advantage for giant eyes in giant squid

Giant and colossal deep-sea squid (Architeuthis and Mesonychoteuthis) have the largest eyes in the animal kingdom [1, 2], but there is no explanation for why they would need eyes that are nearly three times the diameter of those of any other extant animal. Here we develop a theory for visual detection in pelagic habitats, which predicts that such giant eyes are unlikely to evolve for detecting mates or prey at long distance but are instead uniquely suited for detecting very large predators, such as sperm whales. We also provide photographic documentation of an eyeball of about 27 cm with a 9 cm pupil in a giant squid, and we predict that, below 600 m depth, it would allow detection of sperm whales at distances exceeding 120 m. With this long range of vision, giant squid get an early warning of approaching sperm whales. Because the sonar range of sperm whales exceeds 120 m [3-5], we hypothesize that a well-prepared and powerful evasive response to hunting sperm whales may have driven the evolution of huge dimensions in both eyes and bodies of giant and colossal squid. Our theory also provides insights into the vision of Mesozoic ichthyosaurs with unusually large eyes.

Calling under pressure: short-finned pilot whales make social calls during deep foraging dives

Toothed whales rely on sound to echolocate prey and communicate with conspecifics, but little is known about how extreme pressure affects pneumatic sound production in deep-diving species with a limited air supply. The short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) is a highly social species among the deep-diving toothed whales, in which individuals socialize at the surface but leave their social group in pursuit of prey at depths of up to 1000 m. To investigate if these animals communicate acoustically at depth and test whether hydrostatic pressure affects communication signals, acoustic DTAGs logging sound, depth and orientation were attached to 12 pilot whales. Tagged whales produced tonal calls during deep foraging dives at depths of up to 800 m. Mean call output and duration decreased with depth despite the increased distance to conspecifics at the surface. This shows that the energy content of calls is lower at depths where lungs are collapsed and where the air volume available for sound generation is limited by ambient pressure. Frequency content was unaffected, providing a possible cue for group or species identification of diving whales. Social calls may be important to maintain social ties for foraging animals, but may be impacted adversely by vessel noise.

Comparison of echolocation clicks from geographically sympatric killer whales and long-finned pilot whales (L)

The source characteristics of biosonar signals from sympatric killer whales and long-finned pilot whales in a Norwegian fjord were compared. A total of 137 pilot whale and more than 2000 killer whale echolocation clicks were recorded using a linear four-hydrophone array. Of these, 20 pilot whale clicks and 28 killer whale clicks were categorized as being recorded on-axis. The clicks of pilot whales had a mean apparent source level of 196 dB re 1 μPa pp and those of killer whales 203 dB re 1 μPa pp. The duration of pilot whale clicks was significantly shorter (23 μs, S.E.=1.3) and the centroid frequency significantly higher (55 kHz, S.E.=2.1) than killer whale clicks (duration: 41 μs, S.E.=2.6; centroid frequency: 32 kHz, S.E.=1.5). The rate of increase in the accumulated energy as a function of time also differed between clicks from the two species. The differences in duration, frequency, and energy distribution may have a potential to allow for the distinction between pilot and killer whale clicks when using automated detection routines for acoustic monitoring.

Directional escape behavior in allis shad (Alosa alosa) exposed to ultrasonic clicks mimicking an approaching toothed whale

Toothed whales emit high-powered ultrasonic clicks to echolocate a wide range of prey. It may be hypothesized that some of their prey species have evolved capabilities to detect and respond to such ultrasonic pulses in a way that reduces predation, akin to the situation for many nocturnal insects and echolocating bats. Using high-speed film recordings and controlled exposures, we obtained behavioural evidence that simulated toothed whale biosonar clicks elicit highly directional anti-predator responses in an ultrasound-sensitive allis shad (Alosa alosa). Ten shad were exposed to 192 dB re. 1 μPa (pp) clicks centred at 40 kHz at repetition rates of 1, 20, 50 and 250 clicks s(-1) with summed energy flux density levels of 148, 161, 165 and 172 dB re. 1 μPa(2) s. The exposures mimicked the acoustic exposure from a delphinid toothed whale in different phases of prey search and capture. The response times of allis shad were faster for higher repetition rates of clicks with the same sound pressure level. None of the fish responded to a single click, but had median response times of 182, 93 and 57 ms when exposed to click rates of 20, 50 and 250 clicks s(-1), respectively. This suggests that the ultrasound detector of allis shad is an energy detector and that shad respond faster when exposed to a nearby fast-clicking toothed whale than to a slow-clicking toothed whale far away. The findings are thus consistent with the hypothesis that shad ultrasound detection is used for reducing predation from echolocating toothed whales.

Sound detection by the longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) studied with auditory evoked potentials: sensitivity to low-frequency particle motion and not pressure

Although hearing has been described for many underwater species, there is much debate regarding if and how cephalopods detect sound. Here we quantify the acoustic sensitivity of the longfin squid (Loligo pealeii) using near-field acoustic and shaker-generated acceleration stimuli. Sound field pressure and particle motion components were measured from 30 to 10,000 Hz and acceleration stimuli were measured from 20 to 1000 Hz. Responses were determined using auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) with electrodes placed near the statocysts. Evoked potentials were generated by both stimuli and consisted of two wave types: (1) rapid stimulus-following waves, and (2) slower, high-amplitude waves, similar to some fish AEPs. Responses were obtained between 30 and 500 Hz with lowest thresholds between 100 and 200 Hz. At the best frequencies, AEP amplitudes were often >20 μV. Evoked potentials were extinguished at all frequencies if (1) water temperatures were less than 8°C, (2) statocysts were ablated, or (3) recording electrodes were placed in locations other than near the statocysts. Both the AEP response characteristics and the range of responses suggest that squid detect sound similarly to most fish, with the statocyst acting as an accelerometer through which squid detect the particle motion component of a sound field. The modality and frequency range indicate that squid probably detect acoustic particle motion stimuli from both predators and prey as well as low-frequency environmental sound signatures that may aid navigation.

Echolocation by two foraging harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena)

Synchronized video and high-frequency audio recordings of two trained harbour porpoises searching for and capturing live fish were used to study swimming and echolocation behaviour. One animal repeated the tasks blindfolded. A splash generated by the fish being thrown into the pool or– in controls – by a boat hook indicated prey and stimulated search behaviour. The echolocation sequences were divided into search and approach phases. In the search phase the porpoises displayed a clear range-locking behaviour on landmarks, indicated by a distance-dependent decrease in click interval. Only in trials with fish was the search phase followed by an approach phase. In the initial part of the approach phase the porpoises used a rather constant click interval of around 50 ms. The terminal part started with a sudden drop in click interval at distances around 2–4 m. Close to the prey the terminal part ended with a buzz,characterized by constant click intervals around 1.5 ms. The lag time in the search and the initial part of the approach phase seems to be long enough for the porpoise to process echo information before emitting the next click (pulse mode). However, we assume that during the buzz lag times are too short for pulse mode processing and that distance information is perceived as a `pitch'with a `frequency' corresponding to the inverse of the two-way transit time(pitch mode). The swimming speed of the animal was halved when it was blindfolded, while the click intervals hardly changed, resulting in more clicks emitted per metre swum.

The responses of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L.) to ultrasound-emitting predators: stress, behavioural changes or debilitation?

A previous study has reported that Atlantic cod can be conditioned to detect ultrasonic sound pulses of high intensity. This capability has been proposed as a mean for detection and avoidance of echolocating toothed whales that emit intense ultrasonic clicks. In this study, we use acoustic playbacks to test the hypotheses that unconditioned cod can detect and respond to intense ultrasound from toothed whales and from echosounders. Intense ultrasound exposure of 210 dB re. 1μPa (pp) did not cause a short-term stress response in the form of bradycardia in unconditioned cod. Free-swimming cod exposed to ultrasonic clicks and echosounder pulses with received levels of more than 204 dB re. 1 μPa (pp) did not elicit flight responses as seen in ultrasound detecting Alosinae. Furthermore, we tested the debilitating effects of high intensity ultrasound on swimming cod with no detected changes in swimming ability when exposed to more than 213 dB re. 1 μPa (pp). It is concluded that intense ultrasound exposure induces neither an antipredator nor a stress response in Atlantic cod, and that echosounder pulses and biosonar clicks therefore most probably play no ecophysiological role in wild cod populations.