MELVILLE, N.Y., Nov. 21, 2024 – Mysterious, repeating sounds from the depths of the ocean can be terrifying to some, but in the 1980s, they presented a unique look at an underwater soundscape.
In July 1982, researchers in New Zealand recorded unidentifiable sounds as a part of an experiment to characterize the soundscape of the South Fiji Basin. The sound consisted of four short bursts resembling a quack, which inspired the name of the sound “Bio-Duck.”
Looking from the stern of the ship as it tows the long horizontal array of hydrophones. The tow cable can be seen going through the metal horn at the stern. The hydrophone array is several hundred meters behind the ship and about 200 meters deep. Credit: Ross Chapman
“The sound was so repeatable, we couldn’t believe at first that it was biological,” said researcher Ross Chapman from the University of Victoria. “But in talking to other colleagues in Australia about the data, we discovered that a similar sound was heard quite often in other regions around New Zealand and Australia.”
They came to a consensus that the sounds had to be biological.
Chapman will present his work analyzing the mystery sounds Thursday, Nov. 21, at 10:05 a.m. ET as part of the virtual 187th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, running Nov. 18-22, 2024.
“I became involved in the analysis of the data from the experiment in 1986,” Chapman said. “We discovered that the data contained a gold mine of new information about many kinds of sound in the ocean, including sounds from marine mammals.”
“You have to understand that this type of study of ocean noise was in its infancy in those days. As it turned out, we learned something new about sound in the ocean every day as we looked further into the data—it was really an exciting time for us,” he said.
However, the sounds have never been conclusively identified. There are theories the sounds were made by Antarctic Minke whales, since the sounds were also recorded in Antarctic waters in later years, but there was no independent evidence from visual sightings of the whales making the sounds in the New Zealand data.
No matter the animal, Chapman believes that the sounds could be a conversation. The data was recorded by an acoustic antenna, an array of hydrophones that was towed behind a ship. The uniqueness of the antenna allowed the researchers to identify the direction the sounds were coming from.
“We discovered that there were usually several different speakers at different places in the ocean, and all of them making these sounds,” Chapman said. “The most amazing thing was that when one speaker was talking, the others were quiet, as though they were listening. Then the first speaker would stop talking and listen to responses from others.”
He will present the waveform and spectrum of the recordings during his session, as well as further evidence that the work was a conversation between multiple animals.
“It’s always been an unanswered issue in my mind,” Chapman said. “Maybe they were talking about dinner, maybe it was parents talking to children, or maybe they were simply commenting on that crazy ship that kept going back and forth towing that long string behind it.”
ASA PRESS ROOM In the coming weeks, ASA’s Press Room will be updated with newsworthy stories and the press conference schedule at https://acoustics.org/asa-press-room/.
LAY LANGUAGE PAPERS ASA will also share dozens of lay language papers about topics covered at the conference. Lay language papers are summaries (300-500 words) of presentations written by scientists for a general audience. They will be accompanied by photos, audio, and video. Learn more at https://acoustics.org/lay-language-papers/.
PRESS REGISTRATION ASA will grant free registration to credentialed and professional freelance journalists. If you are a reporter and would like to attend the virtual meeting and/or press conferences, contact AIP Media Services at media@aip.org. For urgent requests, AIP staff can also help with setting up interviews and obtaining images, sound clips, or background information.
ABOUT THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA The Acoustical Society of America is the premier international scientific society in acoustics devoted to the science and technology of sound. Its 7,000 members worldwide represent a broad spectrum of the study of acoustics. ASA publications include The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (the world’s leading journal on acoustics), JASA Express Letters, Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Acoustics Today magazine, books, and standards on acoustics. The society also holds two major scientific meetings each year. See https://acousticalsociety.org/.
Brendan Smith – brendan.smith@dal.ca
Twitter: @bsmithacoustics
Instagram: @brendanthehuman
Dalhousie University, Department of Oceanography, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada
–The research described in this Acoustics Lay Language Paper may not have yet been peer reviewed–
The Main Endeavour Hydrothermal Vent Field (MEF) is located on the Juan de Fuca Ridge in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. This ridge is a seafloor spreading center, where tectonic plates pull apart and new oceanic crust is formed as magma upwells from beneath the earth’s surface. This movement of the earth’s crust causes cracks to form, allowing seawater to penetrate downwards towards the magma below, where it circulates and eventually resurfaces into the ocean at temperatures over 300 degrees Celsius. Uniquely adapted organisms thrive at these sites, surviving from energy provided not by the sun, but by the heat and chemical composition of the vent fluid.
Figure 1: Black-smoker hydrothermal vent chimney at the Main Endeavour Hydrothermal Vent Field (Image courtesy of Ocean Networks Canada)
Long term measurements of hydrothermal vent activity are of scientific interest. However, the high temperatures and caustic chemical characteristics make it challenging to place probes directly in the vent flow. For this reason, passive acoustics (listening) can be a useful tool for hydrothermal vent monitoring, because the hydrophones (underwater microphones) can be located a safe distance from the vent fluid. Ocean Networks Canada have had a hydrophone at MEF continuously recording for over 5 years, and for the past year, a 4-element hydrophone array has been recording at this location.
The motion of the tectonic plates in these regions causes a lot of seismic activity, such as earthquakes. On March 6, 2024, a large ~4.1 magnitude earthquake was recorded at MEF, and earthquake rates were the highest observed since 2005. This earthquake was recorded on the hydrophone array and can be seen in the spectrogram in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Spectrogram of ~4.1 magnitude earthquake at MEF
Figure 3 shows differences in the soundscape at Endeavour before, during, and after the earthquake. The changes after the earthquake persist more than 1-week following the event. The duration and higher frequency components of the changes in the soundscape suggest sources other than seismicity.
Figure 3: Acoustic spectra before, during, and after the earthquake at MEF
The hydrophone array also provides us with the opportunity to gain further insights. For example, surface wind/wave-generated noise is a predominant source of ambient sound in the ocean, and the coherence, or spatial relationship between multiple hydrophone elements in the presence of this sound source, is well known. We can compare the measured coherence with the expected (modeled) coherence to explore any deviations, which could be attributed to hydrothermal vent activity. In Figure 4 we see differences between the measurements and model below 1 kHz (outlined by black boxes), suggesting the influence of hydrothermal vent sounds on the local soundscape.
Figure 4: Measured and modeled acoustic vertical coherence at MEF
In conclusion, passive acoustic monitoring can be used to monitor changes in hydrothermal vent fields in response to seismic activity. This earthquake provided a test case to prepare for a more major seismic event, which is expected to occur at Endeavour in the coming years. Passive acoustic monitoring will be an important tool to document vent field activity during this future event.
Florent Le Courtois – florent.lecourtois@gmail.com
DGA Tn, Toulon, Var, 83000, France
Samuel Pinson, École Navale, Rue du Poulmic, 29160 Lanvéoc, France
Victor Quilfen, Shom, 13 Rue de Châtellier, 29200 Brest, France
Gaultier Real, CMRE, Viale S. Bartolomeo, 400, 19126 La Spezia, Italy
Dominique Fattaccioli, DGA Tn, Avenue de la Tour Royale, 83000 Toulon, France
Popular version of 4aUW7 – The Acoustic Laboratory for Marine Applications (ALMA) applied to fluctuating environment analysis
Presented at the 186th ASA Meeting
Read the abstract at https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0027503
–The research described in this Acoustics Lay Language Paper may not have yet been peer reviewed–
Ocean dynamics happen at various spatial and temporal scales. They cause the displacement and the mixing of water bodies of different temperatures. Acoustic propagation is strongly impacted by these fluctuations as sound speed depends mainly on the underwater temperature. Monitoring underwater acoustic propagation and its fluctuations remains a scientific challenge, especially at mid-frequency (typically the order of 1 to 10 kHz). Dedicated measurement campaigns have to be conducted to increase the understanding of the fluctuations, their impacts on the acoustic propagation and thus to develop appropriate localization processing.
The Acoustic Laboratory for Marine Application (ALMA) has been proposed by the French MOD Procurement Agency (DGA) to conduct research for passive and active sonar since 2014, in support of future sonar array design and processing. Since its inception in 2014, ALMA has undergone remarkable transformations, evolving from a modest array of hydrophones to a sophisticated system equipped with 192 hydrophones and advanced technology. With each upgrade, ALMA’s capabilities have expanded, allowing us to delve deeper into the secrets of the sea.
Figure 1. Evolution of the ALMA array configuration, from 2014 to 2020. Real and Fattacioli, 2018
Bulletin of sea temperature to understand the acoustic propagation
The campaign of 2016 took place Nov 7 – 17, 2016, off the Western Coast of Corsica in the Mediterranean Sea, located by the blue dot in Fig.2 (around 42.4 °N and 9.5 °E). We analyzed signals from a controlled acoustic source and temperature recording, corresponding approximately to 14 hours of data.
Figure 2. Map of surface temperature during the campaign. Heavy rains of previous days caused a vortex in the north of Corsica. Pinson et. al, 2022
The map of sea temperature during the campaign was computed. It is similar to a weather bulletin for the sea. From previous days, heavy rains caused a global cooling over the areas. A vortex appeared in the Ligurian Sea between Italy and the North of Corsica. Then the cold waters traveled Southward along Corsica Western coast to reach the measurement area. The water cooling was measured as well on the thermometers. The main objective was to understand the changes in the echo pattern in relation to the temperature change. Echos can characterize the acoustic paths. We are mainly interested in the amplitude, the time of travel and the angle of arrival of echoes to describe the acoustic path between the source and ALMA array.
All echoes extracted by processing ALMA data are plotted as dots in 3D. They depend on the time of the campaign, the angle of arrival and the time of flight. The loudness of the echo is indicated by the colorscale. The 3D image is sliced in Fig. 3 a), b) and c) for better readability. The directions of the last reflection are estimated in Fig. 3 a): positive angles come from the surface reflection while negative angles come from seabed reflection. The global cooling of the waters caused a slowly increasing fluctuation of the time of flight between the source and the array in Fig. 3 b). A surprising result was a group of spooky arrivals, who appeared briefly during the campaign at an angle close to 0 ° during 3 and 12 AM in Fig. 3 b) and c).
All the echoes detected by processing the acoustic data. Pinson et. al, 2022
Figure 3. Evolution of the acoustic paths during the campaign. Each path is a dot defined by the time of flight and the angle of arrival during the period of the campaign. Pinson et. al, 2022
The acoustic paths were computed using the bulletin of sea temperature. A more focused map of the depth of separation between cold and warm waters, also called mixing layer depths (MLD), is plotted in Fig 4. We noticed that, when the mixing layer depth is below the depth of the source, the cooling causes acoustic paths to be trapped by bathymetry in the lower part of the water column. It explains the apparition of the spooky echoes. Trapped paths are plotted in the blue line while regular paths are plotted in black in Fig. 5.
Figure 4. Evolution of the depth of separation between cold and warm water during the campaign. Pinson et. al, 2022
Figure 5. Example of acoustic paths in the area: black lines indicate regular propagation of the sound; blue lines indicate the trapped paths of the spooky echoes. Pinson et. al, 2022
Overview
The ALMA system and the associated tools allowed illustrating practical ocean acoustics phenomena. ALMA has been deployed during 5 campaigns, representing 50 days at sea, mostly in the Western Mediterranean Sea, but also in the Atlantic to tackle other complex physical problems.
Popular version of 2pAB8 – Moving Cargo, Keeping Whales: Investigating Solutions for Ocean Noise Pollution
Presented at the 186th ASA Meeting
Read the abstract at https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0027065
–The research described in this Acoustics Lay Language Paper may not have yet been peer reviewed–
Figure 1. Image Courtesy of ZoBell, Vanessa M., John A. Hildebrand, and Kaitlin E. Frasier. “Comparing pre-industrial and modern ocean noise levels in the Santa Barbara Channel.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 202 (2024): 116379.
Southern California waters are lit up with noise pollution (Figure 1). The Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach are the first and second busiest shipping ports in the western hemisphere, supporting transits from large container ships that radiated noise throughout the region. Underwater noise generated by these vessels dominate ocean soundscapes, negatively affecting marine organisms, like mammals, fish, and invertebrates, who rely on sound for daily life functions. In this project, we modeled what the ocean would sound like without human activity and compared it with what it sounds like in modern day. We found in this region, which encompasses the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and feeding grounds of the endangered northeastern Pacific blue whale, modern ocean noise levels were up to 15 dB higher than pre-industrial levels. This would be like having a picnic in a meadow versus having a picnic on an airport tarmac.
Reducing ship noise in critical habitats has become an international priority for protecting marine organisms. A variety of noise reduction techniques have been discussed, with some already operationalized. To understand the effectiveness of these techniques, broad stakeholder engagement, robust funding, and advanced signal processing is required. We modeled a variety of noise reduction simulations and identified effective strategies to quiet whale habitats in the Santa Barbara Channel region. Simulating conservation scenarios will allow more techniques to be explored without having to be implemented, saving time, money, and resources in the pursuit of protecting the ocean.
NATO STO CMRE, Viale S. Bartolomeo, 400, La, Spezia, 19126, Italy
Aniello Russo
NATO STO CMRE
La Spezia, Italy
Sandro Carniel
NATO STO CMRE
La Spezia, Italy
Popular version of 2pAO2 – Noise levels in a changing Arctic Ocean and its implications for security
Presented at the 185th ASA Meeting
Read the abstract at https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0023028
Please keep in mind that the research described in this Lay Language Paper may not have yet been peer reviewed.
Global warming is rapidly driving a substantial transformation of the oceanographic characteristic of the Arctic Ocean and its cryosphere. The Arctic region is in fact warming up much faster than the rest of the planet, and recent studies and reports have highlighted its major consequences. In much of the ice-free Arctic Ocean, the mean sea surface temperature continued its warming trend observed since 1982 and ice sheets in Greenland receded for the 25th consecutive year. According to NASA reports, this year the annual sea-ice minimum extent was the sixth lowest on record. Such an observation implies a significant sea ice retreat and reduction of ice longevity, which will most likely turn the future Arctic in a giant Marginal Ice Zone. Storm and rain patterns are also changing, having Arctic precipitations significantly increased since the 1950s across all seasons. Moreover, increased heat fluxes injected by warmer Atlantic waters are preventing the formation of new ice, as well as reducing the thickness and longevity of multi-year ice. The resulting atmosphere- ocean interactions under these new forcing create more turbulent mixing (heat) between the deep Atlantic waters and the upper Arctic Ocean, hence a positive feedback mechanism usually referred to as “Atlantification”, that is, a climatic shift driving the Arctic Ocean towards new and different oceanographic characteristics. Moreover, an ice-free Arctic will open up new possibilities for deep-sea resources extraction, new commercial and military routes and activities. All these environmental modifications are already affecting the Arctic Ocean underwater soundscape. An example is provided by the underwater noise at low frequencies, expected to increase due to the openings of new routes for maritime shipping resulting from nearly ice-free seas (Figure 1). In addition, the more frequent storms and intense precipitation would affect the sea state generating bubbles and spray associated with breaking waves, hence increasing the underwater noise. Additional contributions are due to changes affecting marine life, marine food industries and coastal economies.
Figure 1: Main maritime routes across the Arctic Ocean with minimum sea ice extension. Source: US Navy Arctic Roadmap 2014-2030.
In the lights of this ongoing transformation of the Arctic, CMRE conducted a series of studies and sea-trials (funded by the NATO Allied Command Transformation) of the new Arctic oceanographic conditions and ambient noise. In 2021 and 2022, a series of moorings equipped with passive acoustic recorders and oceanographic sensors were deployed in the region of Fram Strait. In 2023, with the additional support of the NATO Office of the Chief Scientist, CMRE started a long-term scientific endeavor to address how climate change might affect the Alliance’s security in the maritime domain. In June-July 2023, CMRE deployed three deep moorings for monitoring the acoustic-oceanographic conditions in the long term.
Results contribute to create a long-term database of acoustic measurements and to understanding how sounds from different sources (biological, man-made and natural) will change in the next decade.
Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia
David Dall’Osto
Applied Physics Laboratory
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington
United States
Popular version of 1pAO2 – Long-range underwater acoustic detection of aircraft surface impacts – the influence of acoustic propagation conditions and impact parameters
Presented at the 185th ASA Meeting
Read the abstract at https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0022761
Please keep in mind that the research described in this Lay Language Paper may not have yet been peer reviewed.
In the right circumstances, sound can travel thousands of kilometres through water, so when Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 went missing in the Indian Ocean in 2014 we searched recordings from underwater microphones called hydrophones for any signal that could be connected to that tragic event. One signal of interest was found, but when we looked at it more carefully it seemed unlikely to be related to the loss of the aircraft.
Fast-forward five years and in 2019 the fatal crash of an F35 fighter aircraft in the Sea of Japan was detected by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) using hydrophones near Wake Island, in the north-western Pacific, some 3000 km from the crash site1.
Fig. 1. Locations of the F35 crash and the CTBTO HA11N hydroacoustic station near Wake Island that detected it.
With the whereabouts of MH370 still unknown, we decided to compare the circumstances of the F35 crash with those of the loss of MH370 to see whether we should change our original conclusions about the signal of interest.
Fig. 2. Location of the CTBTO HA01 hydroacoustic station off the southwest corner of Australia. The two light blue lines are the measured bearing of the signal of interest with an uncertainty of +/- 0.75 degrees.
We found that long range hydrophone detection of the crash of MH370 is much less likely than that of the F35, so our conclusions still stand, however there is some fascinating science behind the differences.
Fig. 3. Top: comparison of modelled received signal strengths versus distance from the hydrophones for the MH370 and F35 cases. Bottom: water depth and deep sound channel (DSC) axis depth along each path.
Aircraft impacts generate lots of underwater sound, but most of this travels steeply downward then bounces up and down between the seafloor and sea surface, losing energy each time, and dying out before it has a chance to get very far sideways. For long range detection to be possible the sound must be trapped in the deep sound channel (DSC), a depth region where the water properties stop the sound hitting the seabed or sea surface. There are two ways to get the sound from a surface impact into the DSC. The first is by reflections from a downward sloping seabed, and the second is if the impact occurs somewhere the deep sound channel comes close to the sea surface. Both these mechanisms occurred for the F35 case, leading to very favourable conditions for coupling the sound into the deep sound channel.
Fig. 4. Sound speed and water depth along the track from CTBTO’s HA11N hydroacoustic station (magenta circle) to the estimated F35 crash location (magenta triangle). The broken white line is the deep sound channel axis.
We don’t know where MH370 crashed, but the signal of interest came from somewhere along a bearing that extended northwest into the Indian Ocean from the southwest corner of Australia, which rules out the second mechanism, and there are very few locations along this bearing where the first mechanism would come into play.
Fig. 5. Sound speed and water depth in the direction of interest from CTBTO’s HA01 hydroacoustic station off Cape Leeuwin, Western Australia (magenta circle). The broken white line is the deep sound channel axis.
This analysis doesn’t completely rule out the signal of interest being related to MH370, but it still seems less likely than it being due to low-level seismic activity, something that results in signals at HA01 from similar directions about once per day.
[1] Metz D, Obana K, Fukao Y, “Remote Hydroacoustic Detection of an Airplane Crash”, Pure and Applied Geophysics, 180 (2023), 1343-1351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-022-03117-6
Figure 1: Black-smoker hydrothermal vent chimney at the Main Endeavour Hydrothermal Vent Field (Image courtesy of Ocean Networks Canada)
Figure 2: Spectrogram of ~4.1 magnitude earthquake at MEF
Figure 3: Acoustic spectra before, during, and after the earthquake at MEF
Figure 4: Measured and modeled acoustic vertical coherence at MEF
Figure 1: Main maritime routes across the Arctic Ocean with minimum sea ice extension. Source: US Navy Arctic Roadmap 2014-2030.
Fig. 1. Locations of the F35 crash and the CTBTO HA11N hydroacoustic station near Wake Island that detected it.
Fig. 2. Location of the CTBTO HA01 hydroacoustic station off the southwest corner of Australia. The two light blue lines are the measured bearing of the signal of interest with an uncertainty of +/- 0.75 degrees.
Fig. 3. Top: comparison of modelled received signal strengths versus distance from the hydrophones for the MH370 and F35 cases. Bottom: water depth and deep sound channel (DSC) axis depth along each path.
Fig. 4. Sound speed and water depth along the track from CTBTO’s HA11N hydroacoustic station (magenta circle) to the estimated F35 crash location (magenta triangle). The broken white line is the deep sound channel axis.
Fig. 5. Sound speed and water depth in the direction of interest from CTBTO’s HA01 hydroacoustic station off Cape Leeuwin, Western Australia (magenta circle). The broken white line is the deep sound channel axis.