The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The mixed blessing of echolocation: differences in sonar use by fish-eating and mammal-eating killer whales
Abstract
Despite well-documented experimental evidence of echolocation in toothed whales, virtually nothing is known about the use and functional significance of cetacean sonar in the wild. Here, the patterns of echolocation sounds produced by killer whales, Orcinus orca ,o VBritish Columbia and Alaska are described. Two sympatric populations with divergent food habits diVered markedly in sonar sound production. Individuals belonging to the fish-eating 'resident' population produced trains of characteristic sonar clicks, on average, 4% of the time, 27 times more often than marine mammal-eating 'transient' killer whales. The click trains of residents averaged 7 s, more than twice as long as the trains of transients. Click repetition rates within resident's trains were constant or changed gradually; within transient's trains they often fluctuated abruptly. Transients produced isolated single or paired clicks at an average rate of 12/h, four times as often as residents. In general, the isolated clicks and infrequent, short and irregular trains of transients were less conspicuous against background noise than the sonar of residents. This diVerence in acoustic crypticity may reflect a flexible response to the probability of alerting prey, because marine mammals have more acute hearing than fish in the frequency range of sonar clicks. In both populations, echolocation use per individual decreased with increasing group size, suggesting the sharing of information between group members. No relationships were found between echolocation activity and water clarity for whales of either population. Transient whales often travelled or foraged without discernibly echolocating, suggesting that passive listening provides cues for prey detection and orientation. ? 1996 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Graded persistent activity in entorhinal cortex neurons
Egorov, A. V., Hamam, B. N., Fransén, E., Hasselmo, M. E., & Alonso, A. A. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01171 · Cited by 769
Ford, J. K., Ellis, G. M., Barrett-Lennard, L. G., Morton, A. B., Palm, R. S., & Balcomb III, K. C. (1998) · Canadian Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1139/z98-089 · Cited by 507
Self-citationEstimating relative energetic costs of human disturbance to killer whales (Orcinus orca)
Williams, R., Lusseau, D., & Hammond, P. S. (2006) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2006.06.010 · Cited by 371
Yurk, H., Barrett-Lennard, L., Ford, J. K. B., & Matkin, C. O. (2002) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1006/anbe.2002.3012 · Cited by 256
Self-citationSensory acquisition in active sensing systems
Nelson, M. E., & MacIver, M. A. (2006) · Journal of Comparative Physiology A · doi:10.1007/s00359-006-0099-4 · Cited by 247
Metadata
- Authors
- BARRETT-LENNARD, L. G., FORD, J. K. B., & HEISE, K. A.
- Venue
- Animal Behaviour
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1996-03
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 553-565
- ISSN
- 0003-3472 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2096046484
- Cited by
- 304
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The mixed blessing of echolocation: differences in sonar use by fish-eating and mammal-eating killer whales. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1006/anbe.1996.0059
- The paper
- 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 mammal-eating killer whales. Animal Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0059
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.