Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 408

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Deep‐diving foraging behaviour of sperm whales ( Physeter macrocephalus )

Open access
WATWOOD, STEPHANIE L., MILLER, PATRICK J. O., JOHNSON, MARK, MADSEN, PETER T., TYACK, PETER L.·2006·Journal of Animal Ecology

Abstract

Summary: Digital tags were used to describe diving and vocal behaviour of sperm whales during 198 complete and partial foraging dives made by 37 individual sperm whales in the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Ligurian Sea. The maximum depth of dive averaged by individual differed across the three regions and was 985 m (SD = 124·3), 644 m (123·4) and 827 m (60·3), respectively. An average dive cycle consisted of a 45 min (6·3) dive with a 9 min (3·0) surface interval, with no significant differences among regions. On average, whales spent greater than 72% of their time in foraging dive cycles. Whales produced regular clicks for 81% (4·1) of a dive and 64% (14·6) of the descent phase. The occurrence of buzz vocalizations (also called ‘creaks’) as an indicator of the foraging phase of a dive showed no difference in mean prey capture attempts per dive between regions [18 buzzes/dive (7·6)]. Sperm whales descended a mean of 392 m (144) from the start of regular clicking to the first buzz, which supports the hypothesis that regular clicks function as a long‐range biosonar. There were no significant differences in the duration of the foraging phase [28 min (6·0)] or percentage of the dive duration in the foraging phase [62% (7·3)] between the three regions, with an overall average proportion of time spent actively encountering prey during dive cycles of 0·53 (0·05). Whales maintained their time in the foraging phase by decreasing transit time for deeper foraging dives. Similarity in foraging behaviour in the three regions and high diving efficiencies suggest that the success of sperm whales as mesopelagic predators is due in part to long‐range echolocation of deep prey patches, efficient locomotion and a large aerobic capacity during diving.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01101.x

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 43 references

Cited by

See all 408

Metadata

Authors
WATWOOD, S. L., MILLER, P. J. O., JOHNSON, M., MADSEN, P. T., & TYACK, P. L.
Venue
Journal of Animal Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-04-19
Volume
75
Issue
3
Pages
814-825
ISSN
  • 0021-8790 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2656
OpenAlex
W2059539229
Cited by
408
References
43
FWCI
14.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Deep‐diving foraging behaviour of sperm whales ( Physeter macrocephalus ). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01101.x
The paper
WATWOOD, S. L., MILLER, P. J. O., JOHNSON, M., MADSEN, P. T., & TYACK, P. L. (2006). Deep‐diving foraging behaviour of sperm whales ( Physeter macrocephalus ). Journal of Animal Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01101.x

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.