<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

Medium-term acoustic monitoring of small cetaceans in
Patagonia, Chile

Julie Patris, Franck Malige, Madeleine Hamame, Hervé Glotin, Valentin

Barchasz, Valentin Gies, Sebastian Marzetti, Susannah Buchan

► To cite this version:

Julie Patris, Franck Malige, Madeleine Hamame, Hervé Glotin, Valentin Barchasz, et al. Medium-term acoustic monitoring of small cetaceans in Patagonia, Chile. PeerJ, 2023, 11, pp.e15292. 10.7717/peerj.15292. hal-04128643

HAL Id: hal-04128643

https://hal.science/hal-04128643

Submitted on 14 Jun 2023

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
# Medium-term acoustic monitoring of small cetaceans in Patagonia, Chile

Julie Patris<fnref n="1" />, Franck Malige<fnref n="2" />, Madeleine Hamame<fnref n="3" />, Hervé Glotin<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="4" />, Valentin Barchasz<fnref n="4" />, Valentin Gies<fnref n="4" />,<fnref n="5" />, Sebastian Marzetti<fnref n="4" />,<fnref n="5" /> and Susannah Buchan<fnref n="6" />,<fnref n="7" />,<fnref n="8" />

## ABSTRACT

Coastal dolphins and porpoises such as the Chilean dolphin (*Cephalorhynchus eu-
tropia*), the Peale's dolphin (*Lagenorhynchus australis*), and the Burmeister's porpoise
(*Phocoena spinipinnis*) inhabit the remote areas of Chilean Patagonia. Human develop-
ment is growing fast in these parts and may constitute a serious threat to such poorly
known species. It is thus urgent to develop new tools to try and study these cryptic
species and find out more about their behavior, population levels, and habits. These
odontocetes emit narrow-band high-frequency (NBHF) clicks and efforts have been
made to characterize precisely their acoustic production. Passive acoustic monitoring
is a common way to study these animals. Nevertheless, as the signal frequency is usually
higher than 100 kHz, storage problems are acute and do not allow for long-term
monitoring. The solutions for recording NBHF clicks are usually twofold: either short
duration, opportunistic recording from a small boat in presence of the animals (short-
term monitoring) or long-term monitoring using devices including a click detector and
registering events rather than sound. We suggest, as another possibility, medium-term
monitoring, arguing that today's devices have reached a level of performance allowing
for a few days of continual recording even at these extremely high frequencies and in
difficult conditions, combined with a long-term click detector. As an example, during
2021, we performed a quasi-continuous recording for one week with the Qualilife
High-Blue recorder anchored in a fjord near Puerto Cisnes, Region de Aysen, Chile.
We detected more than 13,000 clicks, grouped in 22 periods of passing animals. Our
detected clicks are quite similar to precedent results but, due to the large number of
clicks recorded, we find a larger variability of parameters. Several rapid sequences of
clicks (buzz) were found in the recordings and their features are consistent with previous
studies: on average they have a larger bandwidth and a lower peak frequency than the
usual clicks. We also installed in the same place a click detector (C-POD) and the two
devices compare well and show the same number and duration of periods of animals
presence. Passages of odontocetes were happening on average each three hours. We thus
confirm the high site fidelity for the species of dolphins emitting NBHF clicks present in
this zone. Finally, we confirm that the combined use of recording and detection devices
is probably a good alternative to study these poorly known species in remote areas.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹ Université d'Aix-Marseille, Marseille, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Laboratoire Informatique et Systèmes (LIS), CNRS UMR 7020, Toulon, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Centro de Investigación en Ecosistemas de la Patagonia (CIEP), Coyhaique, Chile</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Scientific Microsystems for Internet of Things (SMIoT), Université de Toulon et du Var, Toulon, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Institut Matériaux Microélectronique Nanosciences de Provence (IM2NP), CNRS UMR 7334, Toulon, France</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Center for Oceanographic Research COPAS COASTAL, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Departamento de Oceanografía, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Centro de Estudios Avanzado en Zonas Aridas (CEAZA), Coquimbo, Chile</footnote>
**Subjects** Animal Behavior, Biodiversity, Marine Biology, Zoology, Computational Science

**Keywords** Bioacoustics, Remote sensing, Patagonian ecosystem, Coastal small cetaceans, Chilean dolphin, C-POD

## INTRODUCTION

Coastal small odontocetes are present in many zones of the world, including rivers, fjords and bays. Due to their site fidelity they usually are very sensitive to human presence and some populations are on the verge of extinction (Jaramillo Legorreta et al., 2019; Sucunza et al., 2019; Silva et al., 2020). Many studies of these species focused on areas where human activity and presence is high, because it is usually easier to reach these areas and because the threats are stronger (Heinrich et al., 2019; Palmer et al., 2021). In remote areas such as Patagonia, there is still little information available on these species, though they are probably also threatened and population assessments could be decisive for their conservation.

Long term visual studies are costly and are subject to the contingencies of climate and to the locally available equipment (Stern et al., 2017; Heinrich et al., 2019). Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) is sometimes a good alternative to assess the presence, sound characteristics and behavior of cetaceans, or to estimate their density and population trends (Marques et al., 2013), especially in remote areas (see for example Schall et al. (2021)). However, in the case of odontocetes emitting narrow band high frequency (NBHF) clicks, there is a serious drawback to PAM methods: the high sample rate needed to record their high frequency emissions prevents autonomous long term recording. The very few published studies that used long term recording had very expensive devices and installations, that are not commonly found in marine biology (Gillespie et al., 2020). Usually, there are two alternatives for the passive acoustic monitoring of small coastal cetaceans: short term recording or long term presence detection.

The first method consists in recording during short time periods typically a few hours or less, usually opportunistically from a boat in the wild or in a pool for captive animals. The recording is controlled, sometimes with several hydrophones (array of sensors) and the behavior of the animal is registered (Ladegaard et al., 2015; Macaulay et al., 2020; Barlow, Cheeseman & Trickey, 2021). This kind of work is useful for describing the emissions in details (sound characteristics, beam), and/or coupling them with behavioral observations. Nevertheless, as these studies are short in duration or done in captivity, the presence of humans is a possible source of disturbance that can affect the behavior and sound production of these marine mammals. Thus, this type of study is mainly focused on characterizing the sounds emitted by a particular species, but could be biased towards certain types of sound emissions or conducts in reaction with human presence such as anxious, agonistic, attentive, or cautious behaviors (Martin et al., 2021).

The second widely used method is long term monitoring with click detectors (Sousa-Lima et al., 2013; Weel et al., 2018). Click detectors do not fully record the signal, but detect and log predetermined sounds of interest along with some of their characteristics. Thus, memory use and power consumption are much lower than for recorders, and an area can be monitored for years, due to the high autonomy of the available detectors. A drawback of
these very efficient tools is that very little information is then available on the surrounding
low to medium frequency sounds or soundscape. For instance, detectors can hardly be used
to assess interactions between marine mammals and human produced noises. Moreover,
the differentiation of sounds emitted by species of interest by a logging device is not
easy (Jacobson et al., 2017), particularly in species whose repertoire is similar or still not
fully known. In addition, the calibration of such devices is often a problem since the data
is not recorded and no a posteriori verification can be done (Robbins et al., 2015). To solve
this problem some studies proposed a combination of a long term detector and a recording
device, used for calibration purpose, mainly to test the detector performance (Jacobson
et al., 2017; Sarnocinska et al., 2016). Interestingly, instruments combining low frequency
recording, automatic detection and high frequency snippet recording will soon become
available (http://www.oceaninstruments.co.nz/) though no studies using them have been
published yet, to our knowledge. This is an exciting new technology, even if the reliability
of the detector is still a potential difficulty.

In this work, we suggest, as another possibility, a medium-term full recording monitoring
for small coastal cetaceans along with a long term monitoring by mean of a click detector.
We argue that today's recording devices have reached a level in performance allowing
for a few days of continual recording even at these extremely high frequencies and in
difficult conditions or remote places. Custom-built recorders allow for adaptation to
special conditions or a specific protocol at a relatively low cost. This set-up of two joint
devices combines several qualities : the medium-term recording provides comprehensive
information on the sound produced by these coastal odontocetes (and enables future
studies in signal processing), of the acoustic context (noises, human and other animal
sound emissions), can help to calibrate the logging of predetermined sounds by the
detector and is less invasive compared to other approaches such as recording from a boat.
We present an example of such a medium-term recording in the remote fjords of Chilean
Patagonia in May 2021, aiming at testing the feasibility of such a monitoring approach as
well as knowing better the acoustical repertoire of the cryptic small cetaceans inhabiting
the inlet waters. After presenting the species of interests, we describe in detail the two
instruments used, compare the detections of each device, show some biological results that
can be obtained and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this experimental set up
in remote places.

COASTAL ODONTOCETES IN PATAGONIA

Fjords of northern Chilean Patagonia

The marine ecosystem of Chilean Patagonia (41°5′–55°S) is considered one of the most extensive fjord systems in the world. Numerous islands, peninsulas, channels, straits and fjords form part of its complex geography covering an area of ca. 240 000 km² (Silva & Vargas, 2014). Oceanographically, sub-antarctic water, rich in nutrients, flow on the surface through “Boca del Guafo” (43°35.7′S–74°12.8′W) mixing progressively towards the south with estuarine water (Guzmán & Silva, 2006; Silva & Palma, 2008). This oceanographic and geomorphological particularities create many unique habitats that result in a high
degree of endemic wildlife and high species richness (Häussermann & Försterra, 2009; Försterra, Häussermann & Laudien, 2017; Betti et al., 2017). The region is classified as highly vulnerable to local and remote processes (Iriarte, González & Nahuelhual, 2010). Major threats associated to economic activities includes intense salmon farming, demersal and benthic artisanal fisheries and emerging cetacean sightseeing activities.

## Small coastal cetaceans of northern Chilean Patagonia

Chile is among the countries with the larger diversity of cetaceans, mainly due to its large coastline and variety of climates (Wilson & Mittermeier, 2014). The remote fjords and inlet waters of Aysén (Northern Chilean Patagonia) are no exception to this diversity (Zamorano-Abramson, Gibbons & Capella, 2010; Pichinao et al., 2019). Large delphinids, such as the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) or the predating killer whale (Orcinus orca) are transient regular visitors of the fjords, and large mysticetes such as the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), the Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) or the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) are common in the larger channels. Inside the fjords however, and very close to the shore, three species of small cetaceans mostly share the sheltered habitat: the Burmeister’s porpoise (Phocoena spinipinnis), the Peale’s dolphin (Lagenorhynchus australis) and the Chilean dolphin (Cephalorhynchus eutropia).

These three species are endemic to South America, the Chilean dolphin being even restricted to Southern Chile. They are globally poorly known, with very few studies published, and especially in the inlet waters of Chilean Patagonia. Their conservation status is considered ‘near threatened’ for the Chilean dolphin (Heinrich & Reeves, 2017) (mainly because of their restricted ranges) and the Burmeister’s porpoise (Félix et al., 2018) (because of bycatch threats). Human activities in coastal areas are generally a major threat to coastal cetaceans, through interactions with gill nets, fisheries or farms (Félix et al., 2018; Heinrich et al., 2019). The Peale’s dolphin is often seen in the fjords porpoising around the boats or foraging close to the shore. The Burmeister’s porpoise and the Chilean dolphin are much more elusive, and do not normally interact with the boats.

In the Chilean fjords of Patagonia, only these three species of coastal odontocetes emit NBHF echolocation clicks. Interestingly, for each species, only one study describing their vocalization has been published (Reyes Reyes et al., 2018; Kyhn et al., 2010; Götz, Antunes & Heinrich, 2010). Additionally, one study compared the emitted signals of Chilean and Peale’s dolphins (Rojas-Mena, 2009). The NBHF click is common in coastal species of toothed whales (Galatius et al., 2019). It is characterized by a peak frequency around 130 kHz, a half-power bandwidth of about 15 kHz and almost no energy below 100 kHz. It is thought to be an adaptative response to the predation of killer whales, that do not hear above 100 kHz (Andersen & Amundin, 1976; Morisaka & Connor, 2007). Recent studies point out that some species of the *Cephalorhynchus* genus can relax this acoustic crypsis, emitting clicks at lower frequencies probably in a communication context (Martin et al., 2018; Martin et al., 2021). In addition, the three species have been shown to produce ‘buzz’, or very rapid trains of clicks thought to be used while foraging (Götz, Antunes & Heinrich, 2010; Martin et al., 2019; Rojas-Mena, 2009; Reyes Reyes et al., 2018). NBHF signals are very similar between species, and are possibly depending on the environment more than on the
species (Kyhn et al., 2010), hence the need for more studies on these species vocalizations, that could allow for future long term passive acoustics monitoring by means of accurate detectors.

# AN EXPERIMENT IN THE FJORD OF PUYUHUAPI

## Material and methods

### QHB Recorder

The main instrument for the experiment is a Qualilife HighBlue (QHB) recorder, developed by SMIoT, University of Toulon, and presented in Fig. 1.

Its functional diagram is shown in Fig. 2. This recorder has the following characteristics (see also Barchasz et al. (2020)):

* Acquisition sample rates up to 512 Ksps (Kilo samples per second) corresponding to a frequency range up to 256 kHz. Recording can be scheduled according to user requirements.

* Up to six synchronous recording channels, with an accurate synchronization and time-stamping having less than 1 µs of jitter.

* Signal sampling depth can be adjusted among 8, 16 or 24 bits. In this latter mode, recorder self noise is limited to the two least significant bits, meaning 22 bits are truly significant for recording. This increases the signal quality and the potential detection distance compared to standard recorders, especially in quiet environments.

* Differential acquisition front end with ±2.5V maximum input level for reducing drastically recording self noise. Each recording channel has an adjustable differential gain: X1, X10, X20, X100.

* Anti-aliasing filtering automatically tuned according to the acquisition sampling rate. Signal having frequencies exceeding 0.55* Sampling Rate are attenuated by more than 120 dB.

* Sensor hub ability: QHB includes a 9-axis IMU sensor (MEMS accelerometer, magnetometer and gyroscope) and several additional sensors can be added depending on user requirements, using UART, SPI and I2C extension buses.

The QHB recorder was set up in a custom made housing allowing resistance to pressure up to 100 m deep, a stable setting on the ground, the adaptation of a C57 hydrophone from Cetacean Research, calibrated with a flat response ± 3 dB up to 250 kHz (calibration done in the Laboratoire de Mécanique et d'Acoustique, Marseilles), and a set of 21 D alkaline batteries. A reference for the QHB recorder can be found at: http://bioacoustics.lis-lab.fr/smiot.

### C-POD

Though the main instrument of the experiment was the QHB recorder, we also installed a C-POD, a commercial click detector developed by Chelonia Limited, UK (Tregenza, 2014). The C-POD works in the 20 kHz–160 kHz range, detects and logs all potential clicks in this frequency range, registering several parameters for each detection (central frequency, duration, etc.) as well as the ambient sea water temperature. A post-processing
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 Qualilife HighBlue (QHB) recorder.</figcaption></figure>

Full-size ⚫ DOI:

10.7717/peerj.15292/fig-1

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 Functional diagram of Qualilife HighBlue (QHB) recorders.</figcaption></figure>

Full-size ⚫ DOI:

10.7717/peerj.15292/fig-2

software classifies the detections between high frequency noise and real clicks based on the properties of the train of clicks, further offering a classification between NBHF or medium frequency (odontocetes) click. The C-POD is widely used for long term monitoring of toothed whales, and especially the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) because of its low energy consumption, low memory requisite and hence its very large autonomy in the field (Sousa-Lima et al., 2013; Gallus et al., 2012).
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3** (A) Study location in South America. (B) Zoomed in view on Canal Puyuhuapi. In blue, the point chosen for the installation of the different devices (44°36′38.78″S, 72°45′30.43″W). (C) Mooring design for both the QHB recorder and the C-POD.</figcaption></figure>

Full-size

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15292/fig-3

## Data recording

Both instruments QHB and C-POD were set on May, 4th of 2021, in a cove close to the shore of Magdalena Island reserve, in the canal of Puyuhuapi opposite the town of Puerto Cisnes (44°36′38.78″S, 72°45′30.43″W, Fig. 3).

The place was chosen because local tour operators had seen repeatedly Chilean dolphins in this cove during the last months. The instrument QHB was installed at a depth of approximately 13 m, on sandy ground (Fig. 3). At 10 m of distance, a mooring was set with a line sustaining the C-POD (at 4m from the ground) and a subsurface buoy. The set up of QHB was a sample rate of 512 kHz, 24 bits of precision, one channel, and a duty cycle of 95% with 9'30" of recording followed by 30" OFF. The C-POD was used with default settings: continuous logging and a 20 kHz high-pass filter (Tregenza, 2014). The QHB was retrieved on May, 11th whereas the C-POD was retrieved on July, 28th. Only Chilean dolphins were observed inside this cove, either by the authors or by the tour operators visiting the place. The only moment when we saw the dolphins was during the operation of changing the memory card on the 8th of May, when two individuals of a group of about 15 Chilean dolphins stayed with the diver, interacting below the water.

## Click detection

A click detector was custom written in Octave (Eaton, Bateman & Hauberg, 2009). It basically detects the maxima of energy in the frequency band of 100 kHz–250 kHz, and then filters out the signal that have a strong counterpart in the 30–90 kHz bandwidth. Our detector was tested on two 9.5 minutes long files, with clicks identified by a human specialist. The first file had a lot of clicks (N = 523) and some high frequency noise, and the other file was without detected click but with a lot of high frequency noise. For the chosen thresholds, we determined the following characteristics:

* Precision or positive predicted value (PPV = correctly detected / all detections) PPV = 84%

* Miss rate (MR = missed signals / all signals) MR = 17%.

These are conservative values since we chose, for the testing subset, two of the noisiest files. The code for this simple detector is given as supplementary material.
Extraction of clicks parameters

As a first analysis of the clicks, we wrote a short code to automatically extract the most
commonly used parameters of NBHF clicks (Au, 1993), in concordance with the papers
published about the NBHF clicks of the three species of odontocetes present in the Fjord
of Puyuhuapi (Götz, Antunes & Heinrich, 2010; Kyhn et al., 2010; Reyes Reyes et al., 2018).
The code is given as supplementary material and it computes the classical parameters listed
below. Peak frequency is computed as the maximum of the Fast Fourier Transform(FFT)
of 512 samples (1 ms) around the clicks. Centroid frequency (or mean frequency) is the
first raw moment of the FFT of the recorded signal during the same extract. Inter-click
interval (ICI) is computed as the time between two detections closer than 300 ms. In the
(infrequent) case of two superimposed trains of clicks, this measure does not reflect an
intrinsic property of the emitted sound. Frequency bandwidth RMS (Root Mean Square)
is the second central moment of the distribution of frequencies in the same 1 ms extract.
Bandwidth at -3 dB is the frequency band around the peak frequency where the value of
the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is higher than the maximum of the FFT divided by $\sqrt{2}$.
Bandwidth at -10 dB is the frequency band around the peak frequency where the value of
the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is higher than the maximum of the FFT divided by $\sqrt{10}$.
RMS duration is the second central moment of the distribution of time, where the modulus
squared of the signal divided by its energy is considered a probability density function.
Duration at -10 dB is the duration around the maximum of the signal where the envelope
of the signal is higher than the maximum of the signal divided by $\sqrt{10}$. The enveloppe is
obtained using the absolute values of the analytical signal (Hilbert transform in Octave)
corresponding to 1 ms of real-valued signal around the peak of the clicks. Duration at -20
dB is the duration around the maximum of the signal where the envelope of the signal is
higher than the maximum of the signal divided by 10. The statistical distribution of each
of these parameters is then computed for all the data set.

The clicks are organized in trains of several clicks and usually grouped in ‘events’ or
encounters. We defined an ‘event’ as a series of trains separated by less than 20 min. This
definition is due to the observation that the number of ‘events’ obtained is less variable for
this time scale.

Results

Clicks and events detections

The QHB instrument recorded well from the 4/05/21 at 11h30 local time to the 6/05/21 at 20 h local time, when it had a failure: it began to record the sound on the same file of 9'30" for the rest of the recording session. Then, in the second session, it recorded from the 8/05/21 at 11 h to the 10/05/21 at 11 h local time until it ran out of battery. We thus have two periods of recording, one of 56 h with 339 files of 9'30" and one of 48 h with 291 files of 9'30". We total more than 550 GB of recorded sound.

We detected more than 13,000 clicks during the 56 h from the 4th to the 6th of May,
and almost none in the second period from the 8th to the 10th of May. With the definition
of ‘event’ presented in the previous section, we find 22 events or encounters during the
56 h. Events were separated by intervals from 30 min to 6.5 h (Fig. 4). The C-POD detector
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4** Number of clicks detected per 10 min by QHB (blue) and the C-POD (purple). Twenty of the 22 events detected by the QHB recorder have also been detected by the C-POD instrument. Superimposed are night and day (night in grey, day in white) and tides in arbitrary units (black curve).</figcaption></figure>

Full-size

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15292/fig-4

recorded from the 4/05/21 to the 27/07/21. Although all the data have been extracted from the instrument, amounting to about 34,000 clicks (all classified as NBHF) during the whole three months, only the period when both instruments were in the water has been analyzed here. Figure 4 shows the compatibility of the results between the QHB instruments and the C-POD detector for the first three days, when a lot of clicks were detected by both instruments. Most of the events were detected by both the instruments, even though they were about 10 m apart. However, the detection rate of the QHB is significantly higher (more than 13,000 clicks as opposed to about 2,000 clicks for the C-POD for the same period). The number of chunks of 10 min with at least one detection is 38 in total for the CPOD and 49 for QHB.

QHB instrument also recorded contextual noise such as boat engines and sonars, as well as long duration motor noise probably linked to a nearby salmon farm (situated at about 2 km), and noise from the natural environment such as crabs, shrimps, etc. However, no detailed analysis of background noise has yet been done. It is intriguing to note that in both instruments, no clicks were detected between the 8/05 in the morning (when we changed the memory card, with two Chilean dolphins interacting with the diver) and the 10/05 late at night. On the 11th of May, the QHB instrument was removed. In the data of the C-POD, such large intervals without click are quite unusual (only three registered in the three months of data).

## Clicks properties

The clicks that were registered by QHB have a good definition and are similar to the NBHF clicks described in the literature (Rojas-Mena, 2009; Götz, Antunes & Heinrich, 2010; Kyhn et al., 2010; Reyes Reyes et al., 2018). The clicks' average parameters are given in Table 1.
<table><caption>**Table 1** Parameters of the clicks recorded by QHB instrument (average value and standard deviation, N = 13,878).</caption><thead><tr><th>Peak frequency</th><th>Frequency bandwidth 'rms'</th><th>Duration 'rms'</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(135 ± 15) kHz</td><td>(19 ± 5) kHz</td><td>(57 ± 21) μs</td></tr><tr><td>Centroid frequency</td><td>Frequency bandwidth at -3 dB</td><td>Duration at -10 dB</td></tr><tr><td>(141 ± 10) kHz</td><td>(6 ± 3) kHz</td><td>(53 ± 26) μs</td></tr><tr><td>Inter-click interval (ICI)</td><td>Frequency bandwidth at -10 dB</td><td>Duration at -20 dB</td></tr><tr><td>(88 ± 117) ms</td><td>(16 ± 8) kHz</td><td>(106 ± 52) μs</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5** (A–D) Distributions of the parameters of the detected clicks (N = 13,878). Average and standard deviation are given in Table 1.</figcaption></figure>

Full-size

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15292/fig-5

Nevertheless, the statistical distributions of the parameters are not all Gaussian, as can be seen in Fig. 5. This is particularly the case with the distribution of ICI, with a standard deviation larger than the average value and two very different modes in the distribution, and the peak frequency distribution, which is clearly multi-modal. Therefore, the description of the parameters using average values and standard deviations is not the best way to describe the diversity of clicks recorded.

The main peak of the distribution of peak frequency is itself bi-modal with a mode around 126 kHz, and another at 134 kHz. On the other hand, a mode is visible at very high frequency around 164 kHz. Three examples of clicks are given in Fig. 6. We found that
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6** Examples of NBHF clicks recorded by QHB. On the left (A-D-G), a typical click with peak frequency around 135 kHz. In the center (B-E-H), a less commonly recorded click with peak frequency around 180 kHz. On the right (C-F-I) an example of a click found in a buzz, or rapid sequence of clicks. Top: spectrogram of the signal with a FFT on 2¹⁰ points (2 ms) except for the right picture (2⁷ points, 0.5 ms), Blackman window, 50% overlap. Middle: zoom on the waveform of the click at the center of the figure just above. Bottom: spectra of the click with normalized intensity, FFT of 2⁹ = 512 points (1 ms of the signal), centered on the detection.</figcaption></figure>

Full-size

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15292/fig-6

some of the clicks had a large bandwidth, with some having a peak of energy at 170 kHz. A clear notch is also present in the spectra at 150 kHz as noticed by *Reyes Reyes et al. (2015)* for the Commerson's dolphin. Interestingly, this notch at around 150 kHz has also been described for different species of porpoises (*Reyes Reyes et al., 2018*).

Also present in our data set are very rapid trains of clicks, usually denominated buzz (Figs. 6C, 6F, 6I). We define a 'buzz' when the ICI is lower than 5 ms, usually around 2 ms, as compared to normal trains with ICI being between 50 and 100 ms. A visual examination of our data show about 20 such trains, seven of them within the same file of 9'30". These clicks are visible in the ICI distribution (very short ICI, Fig. 5G). Visual examination of the clicks with short ICI confirmed there was no superimposed trains of clicks, and thus the ICI actually corresponded to an intrinsic parameter of the emitted sound. The last mode in the distribution of frequency peak, around 107 kHz, corresponded to these buzzes. It is coherent with the results of Götz, Antunes & Heinrich (2010), *Reyes Reyes et al. (2015)* and
Martin et al. (2021) that NBHF click species emit buzz clicks at a slightly lower frequency. The clicks found in a buzz, or rapid sequence, have clearly different features compared to other clicks. The number of cycles included in the envelope of the click is much lower than for classic NBHF clicks, and shows some similarity with typical clicks of larger odontocetes. The spectrum shows a greater bandwidth, with energy lower than 75 kHz. Though we had no means of measuring the distance of the animals to the sensor, and thus we could not calculate source levels in this study, the buzz clicks that we found are generally of lower intensity compared to nearby classic NBHF clicks.

# DISCUSSION

## Validation of C-POD detections

Our results concerning the comparison between C-POD detectors and a recording device are twofold. On the one hand, the absolute numbers of detections are widely different between the two instruments. On the other hand however, almost all ‘events’ have been detected by both. Although this comparison between C-POD detector and full signal recording has never been done for NBHF clicks emitted by the three species presented in this study, it has been measured for other species, such as the harbor porpoise, one of the species most studied with clicks detector, with somewhat distinct conclusions. While Sarnocinska et al. (2016) found a rather low correlation between the clicks per minute detected by a C-POD detector and a Soundtrap recording device, installed at a distance of about 2 m in the same mooring line, Jacobson et al. (2017) found a much better correlation between the results of the same two instruments, installed so that the two hydrophones were as close as possible. Such differences may be due to the respective position of the instruments, but, more importantly, by the difference of sensitivity of each individual instrument. In our experiment, it is obvious that the recorder is much more sensitive than the detector, independently of the difference of the location of the instruments. However, and though the numbers of detected clicks show a difference of 600%, the number of detected ‘events’ is a much more robust indicator. Indeed, 20 of the 22 events detected by the QHB recorder have also been detected by the C-POD instrument, a difference of hardly 5% (concerning the weakest events, see Fig. 4). The two events detected by the QHB recorder and not by the C-POD contain slightly more than ten click detections. One of them contains only false positives and, in the other, there are mostly NBHF clicks. The classical parameters of chunks of ten minutes of recording with positive detection is thus much more robust to the global sensitivity of the instrument than the absolute number of detections. The size of the chunks should be defined after considering the data, since it can be very different for each experiment, depending on the size of home range of these odontocetes, the number of groups inhabiting the area, etc. In this context, our study validates the use of a C-POD device for long-term monitoring of these three species in the Patagonia fjords.

## Click properties

Our data set is much larger than the pioneer works of Götz, Antunes & Heinrich (2010), Kyhn et al. (2010) and Reyes Reyes et al. (2018). Almost 14,000 clicks were analyzed in our
study, as compared to around 3,000 summing these three studies. The distribution of peak frequencies in our data set shows a large diversity. Thanks to the large number of clicks of our data set, we can compute the values of the main peaks by fitting a sum of Gaussian functions on the histogram of peak frequencies of Fig. 5. Using an implemented Marquardt-Levenberg algorithm in Octave, we find that the peak frequencies are 105.8, 125.1, 135.5 and 168.3 kHz (with respective standard deviations of 4.4, 6.0, 4.4, and 18.0 kHz, see Fig. 7). Götz, Antunes & Heinrich (2010) data (N = 83 clicks) is mainly similar to our second mode (second in order of importance) at 126 kHz. The first mode at 134 kHz is compatible with productions of Burmeister's porpoise as measured by Reyes Reyes et al. (2018).

Previous studies of the acoustic productions of the three species present in Patagonian fjords give only the average and standard deviation for the peak frequency distribution (see Reyes Reyes et al. (2018), tab2, for a summary). In the results summarized in Reyes Reyes et al. (2018), the standard deviation of peak frequency measures increases with the number of clicks indicating that several modes are possibly appearing in a richer data set.

Interestingly, the modes we found in the peak frequency distribution are similar to what Reyes Reyes et al. (2015) describe for the Commerson's dolphin (*Cephalorhynchus commersonii*), a close congener of the Chilean dolphin found mainly in the Argentina coast, sub antarctic islands and Southern Chilean Patagonia (*Crespo et al.*, 2017). This species, however, is not present in the fjords of Northern Chilean Patagonia. They describe three clusters of clicks for this species, highly similar to what we found, with the median for each cluster being respectively at 129, 137 and 173 kHz. This study of the Commerson dolphin (*Reyes Reyes et al.*, 2015) shows a dissimilarity with the pioneer measures of *Kyhn et al.* (2010), with higher average frequencies and a much larger standard deviation for peak or centroid frequencies. The study by Reyes Reyes et al. (2015) analyzed a large number of clicks (as our study), which could explain the similarity of the results. Another example is given in Reyes Reyes et al. (2018), for the Burmeister's porpoise: some of the five hundred clicks analyzed have a peak frequency around 170 kHz and a histogram with two modes was obtained. Reyes Reyes et al. (2015) study of the Commerson's dolphin did not find low frequency (100 kHz) clicks, nor large band clicks in a buzz, though some have been described afterwards by Martin et al. (2021).

In our study we cannot assert if the four modes histogram comes from one species (as in Reyes Reyes et al., 2015; Reyes Reyes et al., 2018) or is the result of the mixing of different clicks from several species. In the absence of visual monitoring which would confirm the species recorded, our experiment set up draws a picture of the NBHF clicks found in a particular place rather than for a particular species. Visual monitoring would be very important to assess if the NBHF clicks are from one species or more. Nevertheless, we find in our large set of data novel types of clicks that are particularly rich and interesting. The high frequency component of the clicks cannot be found by automated detectors such as C-POD (low-pass filter at 160 kHz) or widely used recorders such as classical versions of Soundtrap (low-pass filter at 150 kHz).

A possible explanation for the presence of several modes in the histogram of Fig. 7 is that the modes could come from on and off-axis clicks. Indeed, we measured the parameters
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7** Fitting of the four peaks of the first histogram in Fig. 5 (peak frequencies) by a sum of four Gaussian functions.</figcaption></figure>

Full-size

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15292/fig-7

of all detected clicks without trying to select only on-axis clicks. To compute the average, we also took all detected clicks, without reference to on-axis or off-axis clicks. However, we find that each series of clicks has consistent parameters. Clicks with non-standard peak frequency (such as 100 kHz or 170 kHz) come in a series. Thus, taking the highest SNR click of a train (a classical method for selecting on-axis clicks as presented by Götz, Antunes & Heinrich (2010)) would not alter our results. There is no precise study available describing the beam pattern of the three species of odontocetes present in Puyuhuapi Fjord, however, based on measurements of the NBHF clicks of harbor porpoise (Macaulay et al., 2020), we can expect a narrow beam with little deformation of the clicks in a cone of 10° and then a high attenuation (of more than 10 dB) making the detection more difficult. On the whole, Götz, Antunes & Heinrich (2010) found very little difference on the average peak frequency between ‘on-axis’ clicks and the total set. For all these reasons, we consider that the four-mode peak frequency distribution is not a consequence of a distortion of the clicks due to the angle of reception, but reflects an intrinsic diversity of emitted clicks.

Concerning the buzzes, our data does not allow a clear separation between ‘buzz’ and ‘burst pulse’ as suggested by Martin et al. (2018) for the Heaviside’s dolphin (Cephalorhynchus heavisidii). While some of the rapid trains are part of normal trains with an accelerating or decelerating pattern, some seem isolated without a normal train around. The characteristics of the clicks are similar in both cases, unlike what was found by Martin et al. (2018). Unlike other click trains, we found no superimposed buzzes, which seems to indicate that this type of sound is not emitted by two animals at the same time. Despite some variability, possibly due to a variable signal to noise ratio, a general pattern of a larger bandwidth and a lower intensity is visible for most of the clicks with short
ICI, as shown in Fig. 6, confirming Götz, Antunes & Heinrich (2010) measures. No visual follow-up was done, so that we cannot link the buzz to a specific behavior.

## Feasibility of medium-term monitoring

Even though the experiment described in this study only lasted one week, we classified it as medium-term monitoring because it combined characteristics of the two usual ways of studying acoustic productions of coastal odontocetes: several months of long term monitoring by mean of detectors *versus* few hours short term studies with dipping hydrophones from a boat. We think that our approach could be a good alternative for future studies.

Long term monitoring, such as few months of recording at a sample rate of around 500 kHz is still not feasible in remote areas or without very large resources. It produces about one terabyte of data in a period of ten days, which is the order of magnitude of the duration of our experiment. The alternative of a very low duty cycle is not very well adapted to odontocetes which produce a few minutes of sound at each passage as presented in this work. On the other hand, the short term studies are possibly more invasive. Much fewer clicks are recorded and the whole repertoire of the recorded species is difficult to obtain. Our protocol enables to have a relatively non invasive experiment along with a detailed audio data set which is quasi continuous for several days. The presence of the material probably did not modify, in the medium term, the acoustic behavior of the odontocetes during the recordings. Nevertheless it is worth noting that during the maintenance, a group of Chilean dolphins present in the zone went away while two dolphins of the group stayed and repeatedly approached the diver. Afterwards, no acoustic production was recorded by HQB nor detected by the CPOD during three days. The setting-up of this type of device and/or the unusual presence of a diver could have had an impact on the medium-term presence of coastal odontocetes. Obviously, we cannot state that our interactions with the Chilean dolphins were the reason why clicks were not detected afterwards, however, as a conservative measure, we would recommend to install, maintain and retrieve the instruments when odontocetes are not present.

Finally, we also showed the feasibility of acoustic monitoring of NBHF species in remote habitat, with university built material. Our device is adapted to simple installation (two stable feet) in the sheltered channels of Patagonia, at low depth but can be modulated to other uses, depending of the place or species to monitor. Medium-term monitoring with full time recording could also offer unique opportunities to study species occurrence and behavior in the context of anthropogenic activities (with noise signatures, e.g., boats, salmon farming activities).

## CONCLUSION

Medium-term recording shows an interesting complementarity with other more traditional methods of acoustic studies of small dolphins or porpoises in remote areas. They allow an insight on a repertoire much more diverse than was previously considered. This detailed examination of clicks recorded from animals as little disturbed as possible opens new questions concerning sound production or sonar utilization by these species. To complete
this work, we suggest medium-term studies should be associated with visual monitoring,
ideally from the shore, to avoid disturbing the animals, and taking advantage of the very
coastal habits of these species in remote areas. On the other hand, by comparing our
detection results with C-POD detection, this study also validates the use of standard
detectors for large term monitoring of the presence of small cetaceans in remote areas.

Working with local communities and international universities, affordable missions can
be designed to know more about these sensitive species, very prone to be affected by the
unregulated development of human activities on the coastal environment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank “Agrupación de turismo naútico y conservación de cetáceos de Puerto Cisnes” and particularly Celestino Ancamil, Israel Ancamil, Francisca Castro Muñoz, Jorge Duamante, Catalina Paz Jorquera, Cristian Maldonado y Hector Pérez Baez for their knowledge of the studied zone and their participation in field work. The authors want to thank CIEP staff: Daniel Pérez and Claudio Herranz for the preparation of the devices and the logistics.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DECLARATIONS

Funding

This work was funded by the Programa Regional ANID of Chile (No. R17A10002 and R20F0002). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Grant Disclosures

The following grant information was disclosed by the authors:
The Programa Regional ANID of Chile: R17A10002, R20F0002.

Competing Interests

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Author Contributions

* Julie Patris conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

* Franck Malige conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

* Madeleine Hamame conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

* Hervé Glotin conceived and designed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
* Valentin Barchasz conceived and designed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

* Valentin Gies conceived and designed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

* Sebastian Marzetti conceived and designed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

* Susannah Buchan conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

## Data Availability

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The codes of click detector and of parameters extraction in Octave are available in the **Supplemental Files**.

The raw acoustic data is available at Zenodo: PATRIS Julie. (2023). Soundscape and small cetacean sounds. Puerto Cisnes May 2021. [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7708906.

The files are named after the UTC date of recording.

## Supplemental Information

Supplemental information for this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15292#supplemental-information.

## REFERENCES

* **Andersen SH, Amundin M. 1976.** Possible predator-related adaption of sound production and hearing in the harbour porpoise (*Phocoena phocoena*). *Aquatic Mammal* **4**:56–58.

* **Au W. 1993.** *The sonar of dolphin*. Springer New York: Springer.

* **Barchasz V, Gies V, Marzetti S, Glotin H. 2020.** A novel low-power high speed accurate and precise DAQ with embedded artificial intelligence for long term biodiversity survey. In: *Proceedings of the acustica symposium (Lyon)*.

* **Barlow J, Cheeseman T, Trickey J. 2021.** Acoustic detections of beaked whales, narrow-band high-frequency pulses and other odontocete cetaceans in the Southern Ocean using an autonomous towed hydrophone recorder. *Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography* **193**:104973 DOI 10.1016/j.dsr2.2021.104973.

* **Betti F, Bavestrello G, Bo M, Enrichetti F, Loi A, Wanderlingh A, Perez-Santos I, Daneri G. 2017.** Benthic biodiversity and ecological gradients in the Seno Magdalena (Puyuhuapi Fjord, Chile). *Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science* **198**:269–278 DOI 10.1016/j.ecss.2017.09.018.

* **Crespo E, Olavarria C, Dellabianca N, Iñíguez M, Ridoux V, Reeves R. 2017.** *Cephalorhynchus commersonii* (errata version published in 2018).

* **Eaton J, Bateman D, Hauberg S. 2009.** GNU Octave version 3.0.1 manual: a high-level interactive language for numerical computations. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Available at http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/doc/interpreter.
Félix F, Alfaro J, Reyes J, Mangel J, Dellabianca N, Heinrich S, Crespo E. 2018. *Phocoena spinipinnis*. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
DOI 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T17029A50370481.en.

Försterra G, Häussermann V, Laudien J. 2017. Marine animal forests: the ecology of benthic biodiversity hotspots. In: *Animal forests in the chilean fjords: discoveries, perspectives, and threats in shallow and deep waters*. Cham: Springer, 277–313
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-21012-4_3.

Galatius A, Tange Olsen M, Elstrup Steeman M, Racicot R, Bradshaw C, Kyhn L, Miller L. 2019. Raising your voice: evolution of narrow-band high-frequency signals in toothed whales (Odontoceti). *Biological Journal of the Linnean Society* **126**:213–224 DOI 10.1093/biolinnean/bly194.

Gallus A, Dähne M, Verfuss U, Bräger S, Adler S, Siebert U, Benke H. 2012. Use of static passive acoustic monitoring to assess the status of the ‘Critically Endangered’ Baltic harbour porpoise in German waters. *Endangered Species Research* **18**:265–278 DOI 10.3354/esr00448.

Gillespie D, Palmer L, Macaulay J, Sparling C, Hastie G. 2020. Passive acoustic methods for tracking the 3D movements of small cetaceans around marine structures. *PLOS ONE* **15**:e0229058 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0229058.

Götz T, Antunes R, Heinrich S. 2010. Echolocation clicks of free-ranging Chilean dolphins (*Cephalorhynchus eutropia*). *The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America* **128**:563–566 DOI 10.1121/1.3353078.

Guzmán D, Silva N. 2006. Condiciones oceanográficas físicas y químicas, entre Boca del Guafo y Fiordo Aysén (Crucero CIMAR 7 Fiordos). *Ciencia Y Tecnología Del Mar* **29**(1):25-44.

Heinrich S, Genov T, Riquelme M, Hammond P. 2019. Fine scale habitat partitioning of Chilean and Peale's dolphins and their overlap with aquaculture. *Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems* **29**:212–226.

Heinrich S, Reeves R. 2017. Cephalorhynchus eutropia. *The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species*. Gland: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Häussermann V, Försterra G. 2009. Marine benthic fauna of Chilean Patagonia. In: *Nature in Focus*. Puerto Montt: Nature in Focus.

Iriarte J, González H, Nahuelhual L. 2010. Patagonian fjord ecosystems in Southern Chile as a highly vulnerable region: problems and needs. In: *Ambio*. 39. 463–466 DOI 10.1007/s13280-010-0049-9.

Jacobson E, Merkens K, Forney K, Barlow J. 2017. Comparison of harbor porpoise (*Phocoena phocoena*) echolocation clicks recorded simultaneously on two passive acoustic monitoring instruments. Washington, D. C.: NOAA. Available at https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/15456.

Jaramillo Legorreta AM, Cárdenas Hinojosa G, Nieto E, Rojas-Bracho L, Thomas L, Ver Hoef J, Moore J, Taylor B, Barlow J, Tregenza N. 2019. Decline towards extinction of Mexico's vaquita porpoise (*Phocoena sinus*). *Royal Society Open Science* **6**:190598 DOI 10.1098/rsos.190598.
**Kyhn L, Jensen F, Beedholm K, Tougaard J, Hansen M, Madsen P. 2010.** Echolocation in sympatric Peale's dolphins (*Lagenorhynchus australis*) and Commerson's dolphins (*Cephalorhynchus commersonii*) producing narrow-band high-frequency clicks. *The Journal of Experimental Biology* **213**:1940–1949 DOI 10.1242/jeb.042440.

**Ladegaard M, Jensen F, De Freitas M, Silva V, Madsen P. 2015.** Amazon river dolphins (*Inia geoffrensis*) use a high-frequency short-range biosonar. *Journal of Experimental Biology* **218**:3091–3101 DOI 10.1242/jeb.120501.

**Macaulay J, Malinka C, Gillespie D, Madsen P. 2020.** High resolution three-dimensional beam radiation pattern of harbour porpoise clicks with implications for passive acoustic monitoring. *The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America* **147**:4175–4188 DOI 10.1121/10.0001376.

**Marques T, Thomas L, Martin S, Mellinger D, Shaffer J, Moretti D, Harris D, Tyack P. 2013.** Estimating animal population density using passive acoustics. *Biological Reviews* **88**:287–309 DOI 10.1111/brv.12001.

**Martin M, Elwen S, Kassanjee R, Gridley T. 2019.** To buzz or burst-pulse? The functional role of Heaviside's dolphin, *Cephalorhynchus heavisidii*, rapidly pulsed signals. *Animal Behaviour* **150**:273–284.

**Martin M, Gridley T, Elwen S, Jensen F. 2018.** Heaviside's dolphins (*Cephalorhynchus heavisidii*) relax acoustic crypsis to increase communication range. *Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences* **285**(1883):20181178 DOI 10.1098/rspb.2018.1178.

**Martin M, Torres Ortiz S, Reyes Reyes M, Marino A, Iñiguez M, Wahlberg M. 2021.** Commerson's dolphins (*Cephalorhynchus commersonii*) can relax acoustic crypsis. *Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology* **75**:100 DOI 10.1007/s00265-021-03035-y.

**Morisaka T, Connor R. 2007.** Predation by killer whales (*Orcinus orca*) and the evolution of whistle loss and narrow-band high frequency clicks in odontocetes. *Journal of Evolutionary Biology* **20**(4):1439–1458 DOI 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01336.x.

**Palmer L, Gillespie D, Macaulay J, Sparling C, Russell D, Hastie G. 2021.** Harbour porpoise (*Phocoena phocoena*) presence is reduced during tidal turbine operation. *Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems* **31**(12):3543–3553 DOI 10.1002/aqc.3737.

**Pichinao I, Rojas Martinez I, Soto C, Cabrera R, Boldt J. 2019.** Reporte de resultados: Censo fauna marina y avifauna en Raúl Marín Balmaceda, Febrero 2019, Región de Aysén. *Revista de Aysenología* **7**:49–57.

**Reyes Reyes M, Iñiguez M, Hevia M, Hildebrand J, Melcón M. 2015.** Description and clustering of echolocation signals of Commerson's dolphins (*Cephalorhynchus commersonii*) in Bahía San Julián, Argentina. *The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America* **138**:2046–2053 DOI 10.1121/1.4929899.

**Reyes Reyes V, Marino A, Dellabianca N, Hevia M, Torres M, Raya Rey A, Melcón M. 2018.** Clicks of wild Burmeister's porpoises (*Phocoena spinipinnis*) in Tierra del Fuego, Argentina: NOTES. *Marine Mammal Science* **34**(4):1070–1081.

**Robbins J, Brandecker A, Cronin M, Jessopp M, McAllen R, Culloch R. 2015.** Handling dolphin detections from C-PODs, with the development of acoustic parameters for
verification and the exploration of species identification possibilities. *Bioacoustics* 25(2):99-110.

**Rojas-Mena R. 2009.** Caracterización del repertorio acústico del delfín chileno *Cephalorhynchus eutropia* (Gray, 1846) y del delfín austral *Lagenorhynchus australis* (Peale, 1848) en la isla de Chiloé, Región de los Lagos, Chile. Thesis, de grado, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile.

**Sarnocinska J, Tougaard J, Johnson M, Madsen P, Wahlberg M. 2016.** Comparing the performance of C-PODs and SoundTrap/PAMGUARD in detecting the acoustic activity of harbor porpoises (*Phocoena phocoena*). In: *Proceedings of meetings on acoustics*, vol. 27. 070013 DOI 10.1121/2.0000288.

**Schall E, Thomisch K, Boebel O, Gerlach G, Mangia Woods S, El-Gabbas A, Van Opzeeland I. 2021.** Multi-year presence of humpback whales in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean but not during El Niño. *Communications Biology* 4:790 DOI 10.1038/s42003-021-02332-6.

**Silva D, Barbosa R, Conversani V, Botta S, Hohn A, Santos M. 2020.** Reproductive parameters of franciscana dolphins (*Pontoporia blainvillei*) of Southeastern Brazil. *Marine Mammal Science* 36:1291-1308.

**Silva N, Palma S. 2008.** *Progress in the oceanographic knowledge of Chilean interior waters, from Puerto Montt to Cap Horn*. Comité Oceanográfico Nacional Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso.

**Silva N, Vargas C. 2014.** Hypoxia in Chilean Patagonian Fjords. *Progress in Oceanography* 129:62-64 DOI 10.1016/j-pocean.2014.05.016.

**Sousa-Lima R, Norris T, Oswald J, Fernandes D. 2013.** A review and inventory of fixed autonomous recorders for passive acoustic monitoring of marine mammals. *Aquatic Mammals* 39:205-210 DOI 10.1578/AM.39.2.2013.205.

**Stern S, Keener W, Szczepaniak I, Webber M. 2017.** Return of harbor porpoises (*Phocoena phocoena*) to San Francisco Bay. *Aquatic Mammals* 43:691-702 DOI 10.1578/AM.43.6.2017.691.

**Sucunza F, Danilewicz D, Andriolo A, Azevedo A, Secchi E, Zerbini A. 2019.** Distribution, habitat use, and abundance of the endangered franciscana in southeastern and southern Brazil. *Marine Mammal Science* 36:421-435 DOI 10.1111/mms.12650.

**Tregenza N. 2014.** CPOD.exe: a guide for users. Technical report. Mousehole: Chelonia Ltd.

**Weel S, Geelhoed S, Tulp I, Scheidat M. 2018.** Feeding behaviour of harbour porpoises (*Phocoena phocoena*) in the Ems estuary. *Lutra* 61:137-152.

**Wilson D, Mittermeier R (eds.) 2014.** *Handbook of the mammals of the world*. Vol. 4. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions.

**Zamorano-Abramson J, Gibbons J, Capella J. 2010.** Diversity and summer distribution of cetaceans in inlet waters of Northern Aisén, Chile. *Anales Instituto Patagonia (Chile)* 38:151-157.