The Experts below are selected from a list of 27 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
G M Ellis - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Reactions of harbor porpoises Phocoena phocoena and herring Clupea harengus to acoustic alarms
Marine Ecology Progress Series, 2001Co-Authors: Boris M. Culik, S. Koschinski, N. Tregenza, G M EllisAbstract:Small cetaceans are susceptible to incidental mortality in the various forms of gillnet fisheries throughout their range. Research conducted since 1994 has shown that acoustic alarms (pingers) emitting high-frequency pulsed sounds effectively reduce the number of harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena casualties in sink gillnets. However, the mechanisms behind the effects of pingers were still not understood. Until now, advantages and risks associated with their widespread use could not be evaluated. Here we present the results of 2 field experiments: (1) theodolite-tracking of harbor porpoises exposed to a single PICE-pinger in Clayoquot Sound, Vancouver Island, Canada and (2) herring Clupea harengus capture rates in surface gillnets equipped with and without acoustic alarms (Dukane Netmark 1000, Lien, PICE) in the Baltic Sea herring fishery at Rügen Island, Germany. Our results show that harbor porpoises do not seem to react to an experimental net in their foraging area (n = 172 groups, median group size = 2 porpoises). Porpoise distance from the mid-point of the net was distributed around a median of only 150 m (range 4 to 987 m). A net equipped with an acoustic alarm, however, was avoided (n = 44 groups) within audible range (distance distribution median = 530 m, range 130 to 1140 m). The porpoises were thus effectively excluded from the ensonified area. Herring, one of the main prey species of harbor porpoises, were not affected by the acoustic alarms tested (n = 25407 fish captured). The advantages and risks of using acoustic alarms to mitigate by-catch are discussed.
Danielle M Waples - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
behavioral responses of bottlenose dolphins tursiops truncatus to gillnets and acoustic alarms
Biological Conservation, 2004Co-Authors: Tara M Cox, Andrew J Read, Dave Swanner, Kim W Urian, Danielle M WaplesAbstract:Along the east coast of the United States, by-catches of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in gillnet fisheries exceed removal levels set under the US Marine Mammal Protection Act. One measure proposed to reduce this mortality is the use of acoustic alarms, or pingers, which have proven effective in reducing by-catches of other small cetaceans, but have not been tested with bottlenose dolphins. We examined the responses of bottlenose dolphins to a commercial gillnet equipped with functional (active) and non-functional (control) Dukane NetMark 1 1000 alarms near Fort Macon, NC. Between 5 April and 10 May 2001 we used a theodolite to track 59 groups of dolphins around the net. Choice of treatment was random each day and the two shore-based observers were unaware of whether alarms were active (13 days) or controls (9 days). There were no significant differences in the number of groups observed (P=0.315; 1� � =0.835) or in the closest observed approach to the net (P=0.307; 1� � =0.828) between treatments. However, dolphins entered a circular buffer approximately 100 m around the net more frequently with control than active alarms (P=0.015). We conclude that some dolphins responded to the alarms by avoiding the net, but caution that the potential efficacy of alarms is confounded by dolphin behavior. Most dolphins were aware of the net, regardless of the status of alarms, and some dolphins fed on fish in the net or discarded by the fishing vessel. We believe that it would be unwise to use pingers in these fisheries because of the limited behavioral responses we observed in our experiment. Furthermore, the responses we observed are likely to diminish or change over time as dolphins habituate or sensitize to these alarms. Further research is required to understand the behavior responsible for entanglement. # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Boris M. Culik - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Reactions of harbor porpoises Phocoena phocoena and herring Clupea harengus to acoustic alarms
Marine Ecology Progress Series, 2001Co-Authors: Boris M. Culik, S. Koschinski, N. Tregenza, G M EllisAbstract:Small cetaceans are susceptible to incidental mortality in the various forms of gillnet fisheries throughout their range. Research conducted since 1994 has shown that acoustic alarms (pingers) emitting high-frequency pulsed sounds effectively reduce the number of harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena casualties in sink gillnets. However, the mechanisms behind the effects of pingers were still not understood. Until now, advantages and risks associated with their widespread use could not be evaluated. Here we present the results of 2 field experiments: (1) theodolite-tracking of harbor porpoises exposed to a single PICE-pinger in Clayoquot Sound, Vancouver Island, Canada and (2) herring Clupea harengus capture rates in surface gillnets equipped with and without acoustic alarms (Dukane Netmark 1000, Lien, PICE) in the Baltic Sea herring fishery at Rügen Island, Germany. Our results show that harbor porpoises do not seem to react to an experimental net in their foraging area (n = 172 groups, median group size = 2 porpoises). Porpoise distance from the mid-point of the net was distributed around a median of only 150 m (range 4 to 987 m). A net equipped with an acoustic alarm, however, was avoided (n = 44 groups) within audible range (distance distribution median = 530 m, range 130 to 1140 m). The porpoises were thus effectively excluded from the ensonified area. Herring, one of the main prey species of harbor porpoises, were not affected by the acoustic alarms tested (n = 25407 fish captured). The advantages and risks of using acoustic alarms to mitigate by-catch are discussed.
Tara M Cox - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
behavioral responses of bottlenose dolphins tursiops truncatus to gillnets and acoustic alarms
Biological Conservation, 2004Co-Authors: Tara M Cox, Andrew J Read, Dave Swanner, Kim W Urian, Danielle M WaplesAbstract:Along the east coast of the United States, by-catches of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in gillnet fisheries exceed removal levels set under the US Marine Mammal Protection Act. One measure proposed to reduce this mortality is the use of acoustic alarms, or pingers, which have proven effective in reducing by-catches of other small cetaceans, but have not been tested with bottlenose dolphins. We examined the responses of bottlenose dolphins to a commercial gillnet equipped with functional (active) and non-functional (control) Dukane NetMark 1 1000 alarms near Fort Macon, NC. Between 5 April and 10 May 2001 we used a theodolite to track 59 groups of dolphins around the net. Choice of treatment was random each day and the two shore-based observers were unaware of whether alarms were active (13 days) or controls (9 days). There were no significant differences in the number of groups observed (P=0.315; 1� � =0.835) or in the closest observed approach to the net (P=0.307; 1� � =0.828) between treatments. However, dolphins entered a circular buffer approximately 100 m around the net more frequently with control than active alarms (P=0.015). We conclude that some dolphins responded to the alarms by avoiding the net, but caution that the potential efficacy of alarms is confounded by dolphin behavior. Most dolphins were aware of the net, regardless of the status of alarms, and some dolphins fed on fish in the net or discarded by the fishing vessel. We believe that it would be unwise to use pingers in these fisheries because of the limited behavioral responses we observed in our experiment. Furthermore, the responses we observed are likely to diminish or change over time as dolphins habituate or sensitize to these alarms. Further research is required to understand the behavior responsible for entanglement. # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Ravi Prakash - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
manetconf configuration of hosts in a mobile ad hoc network
International Conference on Computer Communications, 2002Co-Authors: S Nesargi, Ravi PrakashAbstract:A mobile ad hoc network (MANET) is a multi-hop wireless network capable of autonomous operation. The mobility of MANET nodes can lead to frequent and unpredictable topology changes. Most MANET literature assumes that network related information of a node (such as its IP address, Netmask, etc.) is configured statically, prior to the node joining the MANET. However, not all nodes have IP addresses permanently assigned to them. Such nodes rely on a centralized server and use a dynamic host configuration protocol, like DHCP (dynamic host configuration protocol), to acquire an IP address. Such a solution cannot be employed in MANETs due to the unavailability of any centralized DHCP server. In this paper, we first present a survey of possible solutions approaches, and discuss their limitations. Then, we present a distributed dynamic host configuration protocol designed to configure nodes in a MANET. We show that the proposed protocol works correctly and does not have the limitations of earlier approaches. Finally, we evaluate the performance of the solution through simulation experiments, and conclude with a discussion of related security issues.