USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Acoustics”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

1,649 records · Page 92Linked to original sources
USGS2025

Fisheries research and monitoring activities of the Lake Erie Biological Station, 2024

A comprehensive understanding of fish populations and their interactions is the cornerstone of modern fishery management and the basis for Lake Erie’s Fish Community Objectives (FCOs) developed in 2020 (Francis et al. 2020). The 2024 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Lake Erie Biological Station Annual Report is responsive to these FCOs and the USGS obligations via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU 2017) with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) Council of Lake Committees (CLC) to provide scientific information in support of fishery management. Goals for the USGS Great Lakes Deepwater Fish Assessment and Ecological Studies were to monitor long-term changes in the fish community and track population dynamics of key fishes of interest to management agencies. Specific to Lake Erie, expectations were sustained investigations of native percids, prey fish populations, and Lake Trout. All work was conducted as part of the Deepwater Science Program under the authority of the Great Lakes Fishery Research Authorization Act of 2019 (16 USC §941h). The USGS 2024 Deepwater Science Program fieldwork began in Lake Erie in March and concluded in December, using trawl, gill net, hydroacoustic, lower trophic sampling devices, and telemetry methods. This work resulted in 44 bottom trawls covering 41 ha of lake bottom and catching 48,936 fish totaling 995 kg in the West Basin of Lake Erie, with detailed results described below. Overnight gill net sets (n=25) for coldwater species were performed in the East Basin of Lake Erie. A total of 8 km of gillnet was deployed during these surveys, which caught 106 fish, 92 of which were native coldwater species: Lake Trout, Burbot, and Lake Whitefish. Results from coldwater species assessments will be reported in the Coldwater Task Group report to the GLFC and the CLC (CTG 2025). These reports are used to inform Lake Trout stocking decisions and direct lamprey control measures (16 USC §939a). USGS hydroacoustic sampling included twenty-six 5-km transects (130 km total) in the Central Basin as part of a collaborative lake-wide survey with details and results reported by the Forage Task Group (FTG 2025). Lower trophic sampling provided data from zooplankton samples (n=12) and water quality profiles (n=12) to populate a database maintained by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). USGS also assisted CLC member agencies with deployment and maintenance of Great Lakes Acoustic Telemetry Observation System (GLATOS) infrastructure throughout all three Lake Erie basins and tributaries, supporting multiple coordinated telemetry investigations. This report presents biomass-based summaries of fish communities in western Lake Erie derived from USGS bottom trawl surveys conducted from 2013 to 2024 during June and September. The survey design compliments the August ODNR- OMNRF effort by reinforcing stock assessments with more robust data. Analyses herein evaluated trends in total biomass, abundance of dominant predator and forage species, non-native species composition, biodiversity, and community structure. Data from this effort are accessible for download (Keretz et al. 2025)

Lake Erie↗
USGS2025

Status and trends of pelagic and benthic prey fish populations in Lake Michigan, 2024

Fall bottom trawl (fall BT) and lakewide acoustic (AC) surveys are conducted annually to generate indices of pelagic and benthic prey fish densities in Lake Michigan. The fall BT survey has been conducted each fall since 1973 using 12-m trawls at depths ranging from 9 to 110 m at fixed locations distributed across seven transects; this survey estimates densities of seven prey fish species [i.e., Alewife ( Alosa pseudoharengus ), Bloater ( Coregonus hoyi ), Rainbow Smelt ( Osmerus mordax ), Deepwater Sculpin ( Myoxocephalus thompsonii ), Slimy Sculpin ( Cottus cognatus ), Round Goby ( Neogobius melanostomus ), Ninespine Stickleback ( Pungitius pungitius )] as well as age-0 Yellow Perch ( Perca flavescens ) and large (> 350 mm) Burbot ( Lota lota ). In recent years, wild juvenile (<400 mm) Lake Trout ( Salvelinus namaycush ) have also become more common in the fall bottom trawl. The AC survey has been conducted each late summer/early fall since 2004 (except 2020). The 2024 AC survey consisted of 24 transects [468 km total (291 miles)] covering bottom depths ranging from 16 to 173 m and 38 midwater trawl tows at 4 to 72 m; this survey estimates densities of three prey fish species (i.e., Alewife, Bloater, and Rainbow Smelt). The data generated from these surveys are used to estimate various population parameters that are, in turn, used by state and tribal agencies in managing Lake Michigan fish stocks. In spring of 2024, an additional spring bottom trawl survey (spring BT) was implemented across six of the transects sampled in the fall and sites ranged in depth from 9 to 237 m. The goal of the spring BT, conducted annually since 2021 with differing levels of effort, was to explore seasonal differences in biomass density and distributions of key prey species, most notably Alewife. Total prey fish biomass density from the spring BT was 5.7 kg/ha. For the AC survey, total biomass density of prey fish equaled 10.8 kg/ha, more than double the long-term average (20042023) of 5.1 kg/ha but 4.0 kg/ha lower than the 2023 estimate. For the fall BT, total biomass density of prey fish equaled 2.1 kg/ha, the lowest value since 2020 and 69% lower than the average from 2004-2023 (6.8 kg/ha). The 2024 fall BT biomass density was only 6.3% of the average over the entirety of the time series (1973-2023; 33.1 kg/ha). Over the period both surveys have been conducted (2004-2024), total biomass density has trended downward in the fall BT (despite a high 2022 estimate) and remained relatively stable in the AC survey. Deepwater Sculpin and Bloater were the most common species (by biomass) among prey fishes in the spring BT while the AC survey and fall BT reported co-dominance of Bloater and Alewife. Mean biomass of yearling and older (YAO) Alewife was 1.30 kg/ha in the spring BT, 4.7 kg/ha in the AC survey, and 0.68 kg/ha in the fall BT. Since 2014, annual survey results suggest that the catchability of YAO Alewives for the fall BT is substantially lower than the AC survey. Like previous spring surveys, Alewives were aggregated in deeper habitats, with 93% of biomass collected between 110 and 201 m. Results of the 2024 spring BT align with past spring surveys and do not suggest that spring bottom trawling provides a better index of age-2 and older Alewives than fall bottom trawling, even with adjustments for differences in habitat use. However, the spring BT does appear to index age-1 Alewives more effectively than the fall BT. The 2024 AC survey YAO Alewife biomass density estimate was 77% higher than the average from 2004-2023. The Alewife population of Lake Michigan appears to be composed mostly of young fish and the proportion of age-4 and older Alewives was <1.8% in each of the three surveys. Age-0 Alewife numeric density from the AC survey was 510 fish/ha in 2024, slightly higher than the long-term mean (486 fish/ha). Biomass density of large (≥120 mm) Bloater was 5.2 kg/ha in the AC survey and 0.76 kg/ha in the fall BT, while total Bloater biomass in the spring BT was 1.8 kg/ha - all three estimates were much lower than what was estimated by the fall BT between 1981 and 1998. The density of small (<120 mm) Bloater was 456 fish/ha in the AC survey, the second highest value in the time series and potentially reflective of an above average 2024 year-class. Meanwhile, small Bloater density estimated in the fall BT was only 16 fish/ha. Biomass density of large Rainbow Smelt (≥90 mm) was 0.21 kg/ha in the AC survey and 0.03 kg/ha in the fall BT survey, continuing the trend of low large Rainbow Smelt biomass observed since 2001. Numeric density of small (<90 mm) Rainbow Smelt was 31 fish/ha in the AC survey and 143 fish/ha in the fall BT. All four prey fish species indexed only by the fall BT had below-average biomass densities regardless of trawling season. Deepwater Sculpin biomass density was 0.26 kg/ha, which makes 14 of the past 15 years with biomass <1 kg/ha. Spring BT Deepwater Sculpin biomass density (2.0 kg/ha) was higher than any fall BT estimate since 2006, likely reflective of including bottom trawls at greater depths in the spring than the fall. Slimy Sculpin was estimated to be < 0.04 kg/ha in the spring and fall BT, an order of magnitude lower than the long-term average from the fall BT. Round Goby biomass density estimates were low and similar across seasons (0.43 kg/ha in the spring and 0.10 kg/ha in the fall). Ninespine Stickleback density was 3.9 fish/ha in the fall BT and no fish were collected in the spring BT.

Lake Michigan↗
USGS2025

Multi-scale predictors of Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) occupancy in the United States

Historically, Myotis septentrionalis (Northern Long eared Bat) was among the most common forest-interior species in North America. Largely due to high mortality from white-nose syndrome, this species has experienced severe population declines across its range. To create an updated species distribution map representing summer occupancy probabilities from 2017 to 2022, we integrated stationary acoustic data with live-capture data from the database of the North American Bat Monitoring Program into a multi-scale, multi-method occupancy modeling framework. Our results provide data-driven predictions with quantified uncertainty for summer occupancy probabilities for Northern Long-eared Bats at 2 spatial scales across the range of the species, while also accounting for inherent observation biases (e.g., imperfect detection).

Journal of North American Bat Research↗
USGS2026

Status and trends of pelagic and benthic prey fish populations in Lake Michigan, 2025

Fall bottom trawl (fall BT) and lakewide acoustic (AC) surveys are conducted annually to generate indices of pelagic and benthic prey fish densities in Lake Michigan. The fall BT survey has been conducted each fall since 1973 using 12-m trawls at depths ranging from 9 to 110 m at fixed locations distributed across seven transects; this survey estimates densities of seven prey fish species [i.e., Alewife ( Alosa pseudoharengus ), Bloater ( Coregonus hoyi ), Rainbow Smelt ( Osmerus mordax ), Deepwater Sculpin ( Myoxocephalus thompsonii ), Slimy Sculpin ( Cottus cognatus ), Round Goby ( Neogobius melanostomus ), Ninespine Stickleback ( Pungitius pungitius )]. The AC survey has been conducted each late summer/early fall since 2004 (except 2020). The 2025 AC survey consisted of 26 transects [470 km total (292 miles)] covering bottom depths ranging from 5 to 259 m and 44 midwater trawl tows at 1.4 to 82.4 m fishing depth; this survey estimates densities of three prey fish species (i.e., Alewife, Bloater, and Rainbow Smelt). The data generated from these surveys are used to estimate various population parameters that are, in turn, used by state and tribal agencies in managing Lake Michigan fish stocks. For the AC survey, total biomass density of prey fish equaled 9.3 kg/ha, continuing a recent trend of index values above the long-term average of 5.4 kg/ha. For the fall BT, total biomass density of prey fish equaled 3.4 kg/ha, close to values observed since 2014 and well below historic numbers and those observed earlier in the 2000s. Over the period both surveys have been conducted (2004-2025), the total biomass density index had trended downward in the fall BT through the mid-2010s and appears to have stabilized at low values, while the AC survey biomass density index has remained relatively stable over the time series. Mean biomass of yearling and older (YAO) Alewife was 4.3 kg/ha in the AC survey and 0.45 kg/ha in the fall BT. Since 2014, annual survey results suggest that the catchability of YAO Alewife for the fall BT is substantially lower than the AC survey. The 2025 AC survey YAO Alewife biomass density estimate was 57% higher than the average from 2004-2024. The Alewife population of Lake Michigan appears to be composed mostly of young fish and the proportion of age-4 and older Alewife was ~5% in both surveys. Age-0 Alewife numeric density from the AC survey was 259 fish/ha in 2025, lower than the long-term mean (487 fish/ha). Biomass density of large (≥120 mm) Bloater was 3.5 kg/ha in the AC survey and 1.9 kg/ha in the fall BT. The density of small (<120 mm) Bloater was 540 fish/ha in the AC survey, the second highest value in the time series. Meanwhile, small Bloater density estimated in the fall BT was only 6.1 fish/ha. Biomass density of large Rainbow Smelt (≥90 mm) was 0.69 kg/ha in the AC survey and 0.04 kg/ha in the fall BT survey. Numeric density of small (<90 mm) Rainbow Smelt was 541 fish/ha in the AC survey, the highest value in the time series, and 41 fish/ha in the fall BT. All four prey fish species indexed only by the fall BT had below-average biomass densities. Deepwater Sculpin biomass density was 0.21 kg/ha, which makes 15 of the past 16 years with biomass <1 kg/ha. Slimy Sculpin was estimated to be 0.03 kg/ha, an order of magnitude lower than the long-term average from the fall BT. Round Goby biomass density was 0.44 kg/ha and Ninespine Stickleback density was 0.20 kg/ha, the highest value since 2007.

Lake Michigan↗
USGS1970

Measurement of ultrasonic velocities in solids under hydrostatic pressure

An ultrasonic method for determining velocity has been developed that is independent of phase‐change errors due to reflection of specimen waves from coupling films. The method also eliminates the possibility of error due to conditions of nonhydrostatic stress at a specimen‐transducer or specimen‐delay line interface. Preliminary data are given for Alcoa 2024‐T4 aluminum and are compared with results using the phase‐comparison method.

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America↗
USGS1973

Rayleigh‐type surface wave on a linear viscoelastic half‐space

The analytic solution for a Rayleigh‐type surface wave on a linear viscoelastic half‐space is obtained. The general viscoelastic solution predicts several properties of the surface wave distinct from those predicted by elasticity. The velocity, absorption coefficient, and displacement field are described theoretically.

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America↗
USGS2005

Auditory brainstem responses in the Eastern Screech Owl: An estimate of auditory thresholds

The auditory brainstem response (ABR), a measure of neural synchrony, was used to estimate auditory sensitivity in the eastern screech owl (Megascops asio). The typical screech owl ABR waveform showed two to three prominent peaks occurring within 5 ms of stimulus onset. As sound pressure levels increased, the ABR peak amplitude increased and latency decreased. With an increasing stimulus presentation rate, ABR peak amplitude decreased and latency increased. Generally, changes in the ABR waveform to stimulus intensity and repetition rate are consistent with the pattern found in several avian families. The ABR audiogram shows that screech owls hear best between 1.5 and 6.4 kHz with the most acute sensitivity between 4?5.7 kHz. The shape of the average screech owl ABR audiogram is similar to the shape of the behaviorally measured audiogram of the barn owl, except at the highest frequencies. Our data also show differences in overall auditory sensitivity between the color morphs of screech owls.

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America↗
USGS2016

In-air hearing of a diving duck: A comparison of psychoacoustic and auditory brainstem response thresholds

Auditory sensitivity was measured in a species of diving duck that is not often kept in captivity, the lesser scaup. Behavioral (psychoacoustics) and electrophysiological [the auditory brainstem response (ABR)] methods were used to measure in-air auditory sensitivity, and the resulting audiograms were compared. Both approaches yielded audiograms with similar U-shapes and regions of greatest sensitivity (2000−3000 Hz). However, ABR thresholds were higher than psychoacoustic thresholds at all frequencies. This difference was least at the highest frequency tested using both methods (5700 Hz) and greatest at 1000 Hz, where the ABR threshold was 26.8 dB higher than the behavioral measure of threshold. This difference is commonly reported in studies involving many different species. These results highlight the usefulness of each method, depending on the testing conditions and availability of the animals.

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America↗
USGS2023

Sound and sturgeon: Bioacoustics and anthropogenic sound

Sturgeons are basal bony fishes, most species of which are considered threatened and/or endangered. Like all fishes, sturgeons use hearing to learn about their environment and perhaps communicate with conspecifics, as in mating. Thus, anything that impacts the ability of sturgeon to hear biologically important sounds could impact fitness and survival of individuals and populations. There is growing concern that the sounds produced by human activities (anthropogenic sound), such as from shipping, commercial barge navigation on rivers, offshore windfarms, and oil and gas exploration, could impact hearing by aquatic organisms. Thus, it is critical to understand how sturgeon hear, what they hear, and how they use sound. Such data are needed to set regulatory criteria for anthropogenic sound to protect these animals. However, very little is known about sturgeon behavioral responses to sound and their use of sound. To help understand the issues related to sturgeon and anthropogenic sound, this review first examines what is known about sturgeon bioacoustics. It then considers the potential effects of anthropogenic sound on sturgeon and, finally identifies areas of research that could substantially improve knowledge of sturgeon bioacoustics and effects of anthropogenic sound. Filling these gaps will help regulators establish appropriate protection for sturgeon.

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America↗
USGS2020

Carrying capacity of a population diffusing in a heterogeneous environment

The carrying capacity of the environment for a population is one of the key concepts in ecology and it is incorporated in the growth term of reaction-diffusion equations describing populations in space. Analysis of reaction-diffusion models of populations in heterogeneous space have shown that, when the maximum growth rate and carrying capacity in a logistic growth function vary in space, conditions exist for which the total population size at equilibrium (i) exceeds the total population that which would occur in the absence of diffusion and (ii) exceeds that which would occur if the system were homogeneous and the total carrying capacity, computed as the integral over the local carrying capacities, was the same in the heterogeneous and homogeneous cases. We review here work over the past few years that has explained these apparently counter-intuitive results in terms of the way input of energy or another limiting resource (e.g., a nutrient) varies across the system. We report on both mathematical analysis and laboratory experiments confirming that total population size in a heterogeneous system with diffusion can exceed that in the system without diffusion. We further report, however, that when the resource of the population in question is explicitly modeled as a coupled variable, as in a reaction-diffusion chemostat model rather than a model with logistic growth, the total population in the heterogeneous system with diffusion cannot exceed the total population size in the corresponding homogeneous system in which the total carrying capacities are the same.

Mathematics and Computers in Modern Science - Acou↗