Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 304

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The mixed blessing of echolocation: differences in sonar use by fish-eating and mammal-eating killer whales

BARRETT-LENNARD, LANCE G., FORD, JOHN K.B., HEISE, KATHY A.·1996·Animal Behaviour

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/anbe.1996.0059

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 304

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.