Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Journal of Marine Biology

Volume 2014, Article ID 267917, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/267917

Research Article
Correcting Positional Errors in Shore-Based Theodolite
Measurements of Animals at Sea

Ophélie Sagnol,1 Femke Reitsma,2 Christoph Richter,3 and Laurence H. Field1

1
School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand
2
Department of Geography, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand
3
Department of Biology, University of Toronto at Mississauga, Mississauga, ON, Canada L5L 1C6

Correspondence should be addressed to Ophélie Sagnol; ophelie.sagnol@hotmail.fr

Received 30 September 2013; Revised 3 December 2013; Accepted 9 December 2013; Published 22 January 2014

Academic Editor: Nobuyuki Miyazaki

Copyright © 2014 Ophélie Sagnol et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Determining the position of animals at sea can be particularly difficult and yet, accurate range and position of animals at sea
are essential to answer a wide range of biological questions. Shore-based theodolite techniques have been used in a number of
studies to examine marine mammal movement patterns and habitat use, offering reliable position measurements. In this study we
explored the accuracy of theodolite measurements by comparing positional information of the same objects using two independent
techniques: a shore-based theodolite station and an onboard GPS over a range of 25 km from the shore-based station. The technique
was developed to study the habitat use of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) off Kaikoura, New Zealand. We observed that the
position accuracy fell rapidly with an increase in range from the shore-based station. Results showed that the horizontal angle was
accurately determined, but this was not the case for the vertical angle. We calibrated the position of objects at sea with a regression-
based correction to fit the difference in distance between simultaneously recorded theodolite fixes and GPS positions. This approach
revealed the necessity to calibrate theodolite measurements with objects at sea of known position.

1. Introduction By tracking animals at sea from land, a small amount of

equipment is required and a larger area can be monitored
Knowing the accurate geographical position is essential for in a shorter amount of time compared to boat-based station.
studying the spatial behaviour of animals at sea. Accurate The theodolite readings (horizontal and vertical angle) can be
positional data can answer a wide range of biological ques- converted into longitude and latitude when exact theodolite
tions related to their movement patterns, habitat use, and the
position and height above sea level are known [18, 19].
effects of human activities [1, 2].
However, shore-based tracking can only occur with animals
A number of tracking methods can be used in order to
passing close enough to the coastline to be sighted from
obtain the position of animals at sea including recoverable
data loggers, satellite tags [3–8], acoustic monitoring [9– the shore-based station. Previous studies using theodolite
12], and boat surveys [13–16]. All of these methods require tracking have focused on coastal species such as dolphins
expensive equipment, and time to collect data and the within 5 km from shore [2, 17, 20, 21]. Shore-based tracking
observer can be a source of potential disturbance [17]. As has also been used to monitor whales during their migration
a result, the geographical coordinates of animals at sea are when their course passes close to shore [22–29] or to examine
ideally determined from shore using a surveyor’s theodolite, the effects of human activities on whales [30–34].
first introduced by Roger Paine in 1972 (Describe in Würsig et A number of parameters can influence the accuracy of the
al. 1991) [18]. Shore-based theodolite tracking is a technique calculated position from theodolite fixes, such as the accuracy
offering an inexpensive and nondisturbing alternative to inherent to the theodolite, weather parameters (heat haze or
other tracking techniques. swell), and the experience of the observer. One of the main
2 Journal of Marine Biology

173∘ 30󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E 173∘ 40󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E 173∘ 50󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E This protocol will offer the possibility to easily correct the
positional error arising in such shore-based data.
42∘ 20󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 S

42∘ 20󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 S

2. Method
The theodolite accuracy correction was developed for a

50
Kaikoura peninsula sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) habitat study within
750
the Kaikoura submarine canyon in New Zealand. The prox-
10
25
0 00
imity of the Kaikoura submarine canyon to the coast of the
42∘ 30󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 S

500
South Island makes it one of the few places in the world

42∘ 30󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 S

50

500

where male sperm whales are found close to the shoreline

0
100

[38, 39], offering the opportunity to track sperm whales from

750

shore. A shore-based station was set up on a hill situated

at the east end of the Kaikoura peninsula (42∘ 25󸀠 47. 1󸀠󸀠 S,
12
500
50

173∘ 41󸀠 54. 6󸀠󸀠 E) (Figure 1) at a height of 99.88 m (±0.04 m)

10
00

150
0

above sea level (method described by Würsig et al. [18]). This

(km)
location provided a good vantage point overlooking the study
250

0 5 10
12
750

area encompassing the Kaikoura canyon and surrounding

50

173∘ 30󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E 173∘ 40󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E 173∘ 50󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E nearshore habitat.

Figure 1: Bathymetry of the study area and location of the shore-

based station (pentagon). 3. Data Collection
To determine the theodolite’s accuracy, we needed inde-
pendently derived and accurate geographical positions of
problems with shore-based theodolite data is the increasing
the same objects taken at the same time as recorded by
error in positional fixes with increasing distance. In order to
the shore-based theodolite station. During our study, two
improve the accuracy of theodolite readings Würsig et al. [18]
research boats were operating inside our study area. One of
summarized several of the necessary elements to organize
the research vessels was a 6 m aluminium monohull used
a shore-based study. Errors in the calculation of the station
for behavioural and acoustic observation on sperm whales.
elevation will bias the calculations of the animal’s position.
The second vessel was a 5.5 m rigid-hull inflatable vessel used
Therefore, the theodolite station height should be greater than
for a study on dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus).
45 m and errors in the elevation calculation should be within
Both vessels were equipped with a GPS (accuracy within
±10 cm. Thus far, a better understanding of the calculation
3 m) and recorded the vessel’s position every 15 seconds.
of the elevation has been the focus to improve theodolite
From shore, we collected the positions of these research
accuracy [18, 35].
vessels using a Sokkia Set4000 theodolite (accuracy of angle
Previous boat-based platform studies have assessed the 󸀠󸀠

accuracy of distance measurements of animals at sea at measurement ±5 and measuring time less than 0.5 sec).
close range (0–2 km) using video cameras and binoculars. For consistency, we fixed the boat positions by placing the
Gordon [36] compared the photogrammetric technique with theodolite crosshair at the waterline at the centre of the
laser rangefinding binoculars and nondifferential GPS and vessel. We connected the theodolite to a laptop running the
determined that there was a good agreement for ranges tracking program Pythagoras [19]. The software transformed
measured between these three techniques. Kinzey and Ger- real-time theodolite readings into GPS coordinates corrected
rodette [37] identified the accuracy with which distances can for curvature of the Earth and tide level and stored them for
be measured from ships using the reticles in binoculars at analysis [19].
a range of 0–8 km. They determined that the accuracy of
distance measurements decreased with the distance of the 4. Results
object at sea [37]. Concerning shore-based tracking, Denardo
et al. [1] established and calibrated a shore-based technique to During the study period we recorded a total of 347 theodolite
measure interanimal spacing using a theodolite and a video fixes of research vessels (Table 1). The positions recorded
camera over a 2 km range from the station. were between 2 km and up to 26 km from the theodolite
In this paper, we compare positional information of the station (Table 1) and were distributed along the whole study
same objects from two independent techniques: a shore- area (Figure 2). For each research vessel position recorded
based theodolite station and an onboard vessel GPS. By with the theodolite, we extracted the time related position
analysing how the difference in the positions from both recorded with the vessels’ onboard GPS.
techniques relates to the distance of the measured object from We compared vessel positions based on theodolite read-
the shore-based station, we build a model to correct positions ings with the time-related positions extracted from the
estimated from theodolite measurements. The objective of vessels’ onboard GPS (Figure 3). Theodolite and GPS posi-
this study is mainly to describe a protocol that should be tions appeared to be on the same line as seen from the
used when tracking animals at sea from a shore-based station. theodolite station when viewing from plan view (Figure 4(a)).
Journal of Marine Biology 3

173∘ 30󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E 173∘ 40󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E 173∘ 50󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E 173∘ 30󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E 173∘ 40󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E 173∘ 50󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E

42∘ 20󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 S

42∘ 20󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 S

42∘ 20󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 S

42∘ 20󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 S

42∘ 30󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 S N N

42∘ 30󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 S

42∘ 30󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 S

42∘ 30󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 S
(km) (km)
0 5 10 0 5 10

173∘ 30󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E 173∘ 40󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E 173∘ 50󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E 173∘ 30󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E 173∘ 40󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E 173∘ 50󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E
(a) (b)
∘ 󳰀 󳰀󳰀 ∘ 󳰀 󳰀󳰀 ∘ 󳰀 󳰀󳰀
173 30 0 E 173 40 0 E 173 50 0 E
42∘ 20󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 S

42∘ 20󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 S

N
42∘ 30󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 S

42∘ 30󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 S

(km)
0 5 10

173∘ 30󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E 173∘ 40󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E 173∘ 50󳰀 0󳰀󳰀 E

(c)

Figure 2: Research vessels locations recorded by onboard GPS by year. (a) and (b) are fixes from the sperm whale research vessel (2010 and
2011) and (c) is fixes from the dolphin research vessel (2012) (pentagon: shore-based station, grey dot: research vessel positions).

However, when seen from the side, theodolite and GPS to calculate an angle towards a given position, we made use of
positions differed (Figure 4(b)). We hypothesized that while the fact that we know the length of the vertical distance (𝑦 is
horizontal angles recorded with the theodolite were accurate, latitude converted to the Cartesian system) and the horizontal
vertical angles were inaccurately determined. We investigated distance (𝑥 is longitude converted to the Cartesian system) to
this hypothesis by separately examining the relationships this position.
between horizontal and vertical angles measured by GPS and The horizontal angle (𝜃𝐻) to the research boat position
theodolite. (GPS) or theodolite position (TH) can be calculated using the
To compare the accuracy, all theodolite fixes and onboard relationship
GPS positions were converted to a Cartesian system using the tan(𝜃𝐻-GPS ) =𝑦GPS /𝑥GPS ,
tool “calculate geometry” in ArcGIS 10.1. We also converted tan(𝜃𝐻-TH ) =𝑦TH /𝑥TH .
the geographic coordinates of the theodolite station in order The vertical angle (𝜃𝑉 ) to the research boat position
to centre all the positions with the theodolite station. In order (GPS) or theodolite position (TH) can be calculated using the
4 Journal of Marine Biology

−42.70 Table 2: Results of models analyses (AIC = Akaike Information

Criterion; Δ 𝑖 (AIC) = AIC𝑖 − minAIC).

−42.65 Model AIC ΔAIC

y ∼ a ∗ x∧b 5138.896 0
𝑦∼𝑥∗𝑏 5502.441 363.545
−42.60
𝑦∼𝑥+𝑏 6722.799 1583.903
Latitude

𝑦∼𝑥 5267.642 128.746

−42.55 𝑦 ∼ −1 + 𝑥 5502.441 363.545

−42.50

(AIC) to select the best model. A quadratic model of the form

−42.45 𝑦 = 𝑎 ∗ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑏 fitted the data best (Table 2) and we plotted the
best curve fitting for visualization (Figure 5).
The best model (𝑦 ∼ 𝑎 ∗ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑏) was used to correct
173.5 173.6 173.7 173.8 173.9
theodolite fixes based on their distance from the theodolite
Longitude
station. After applying this correction to our data, the vertical
Figure 3: Comparison of all research vessel positions over all years angles of the theodolite fixes did not differ from the GPS
recorded by theodolite (red dots) and by onboard GPS (black dots). positions (Mann Whitney 𝑈 test, ns). After calibration,
theodolite positions did not differ from GPS positions any-
more (Figure 6, Mann Whitney 𝑈 test, ns).
Table 1: Distance summary of the two research vessels from the
The corrected positions showed normal distributions of
theodolite station (±SE).
errors in distance suggesting no evidence of overall bias in
Dolphin distance after the correction (Figure 7).
Sperm whale research
research vessel
vessel positions
positions
2010 2011
2012 (𝑁 = 144)
5. What Is Influencing This Error?
(𝑁 = 66) (𝑁 = 137)
Mean distance A number of parameters can influence the accuracy of
12.99 (±0.74) 11.93 (±0.39) 7.93 (±0.28) theodolite positions, such as the observer experience, the size
(km)
Maximum distance of the boat, incorrect calibration, imprecision in measuring
25.85 25.22 18.52 the theodolite height above sea level (waves, swell, and tidal
(km)
Minimum distance estimation) and the refraction [36, 37].
2.96 4.76 2.45 We illuminated the possibility of an error coming from
(km)
an imprecision in measuring the height of the shore-based
station. In order to avoid such an error we determined the
relationship using the distance from the position (𝐷) and the height of the theodolite station twice during our study. We
theodolite station height (ℎ): also checked the height of the theodolite eyepieces during
tan(𝜃𝑉-GPS ) = 𝐷GPS /ℎ = (𝑦GPS /cos(𝜃𝐻-TH ))/ℎ, the day to make sure that it did not vary. To determine the
tan (𝜃𝑉-TH ) = 𝐷TH /ℎ = (𝑦TH /cos(𝜃𝐻-TH ))/ℎ. possible effect of the observers on the theodolite fixes, we
The error in distance (Δ𝐷) is given by subtracting the modelled separately the error with distance depending on
distances recorded from the GPS positions (𝐷GPS ) and the the year. During 2010, different people collected the data
distances recorded from the theodolite (𝐷TH ): through the year and data collected from mid-2011 and 2012
were entirely collected by the same observer. By comparing
Δ𝐷 = 𝐷TH − 𝐷GPS . (1) the distance error on the annual dataset with the general
distance error on the whole dataset we could assess whether
We then determined the distance of the object at sea. As experienced versus inexperienced observer influenced the
expected, 𝐷 differed significantly between theodolite and accuracy in theodolite fixes. We hypothesized that a presence
onboard GPS positions (Mann Whitney 𝑈 test, 𝑃 = 0.013). of observer bias will be described by a better accuracy of
While the 𝜃𝐻 is resolved very accurately with the theodolite theodolite fixes towards the end of the fieldwork. However,
(Mann Whitney 𝑈 test, ns), 𝜃𝑉 is not (Mann Whitney 𝑈 test, there was no significant difference in the theodolite fixes
𝑃 = 0.013). corrected by years or corrected using the complete database
Since distance from the platform can influence accu- (Mann Whitney 𝑈 test, ns). We also compared the error in
racy of theodolite readings, we examined the relationship distance from data collected from the same observer with
between distance from shore and the distance error between the distance error in the whole dataset and there was no
simultaneously recorded theodolite fixes and GPS positions significant difference (Mann Whitney 𝑈 test, ns). After these
(Figure 5). We tested a couple of models to determine the best analyses we determined that, in our study, the observer did
fitted model and we used the Akaike Information Criterion not significantly influence the accuracy of theodolite fixes.
Journal of Marine Biology 5

𝜃V−GPS

𝜃H
DGPS ΔD

(a) (b)

Figure 4: (a) Plan view and (b) side view schematic for the GPS position of a particular position recorded by the theodolite (red dot) compared
to the position collected with the onboard GPS (black dot) extracted from Figure 3. The blue dot is the shore-based station.

−42.65
6000

5000 −42.60
Error in distance (m)

4000
Latitude

−42.55
3000

−42.50
2000

1000 −42.45

0
173.5 173.6 173.7 173.8 173.9
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Longitude
Distance from theodolite station (m)
Figure 6: Comparison of the corrected positions of the research
Figure 5: Error in measurements of distance between theodolite vessel over all years recorded by theodolite (green dots) and by
fixes and GPS positions. Red line: best fitting curve (𝑦 ∼ 𝑎 ∗ 𝑥 ∧ 𝑏). onboard GPS (black dots).

100

We then looked at the possible impact of the size of

the object being tracked. Analysis showed that there was no 80
significant influence of the boat size on the fixes accuracy
Number of measurements

(Mann Whitney 𝑈 test, ns). Therefore, neither observer

experience nor object size influenced accuracy of theodolite 60
positions.
Because data were collected from a shore-based station,
it was not possible to obtain accurate values for the swell 40
height and the Beaufort sea state. Data were collected only
during favourable weather conditions, limiting the effect of
swell and Beaufort sea state on research vessels/sperm whales 20
detection. Consequently, it was unlikely that these conditions
influenced our results.
The possibility of an error in positioning the theodolite 0
−900 −650 −400 −150 150 400 650 900 1150 1400 1650
crosshair on the waterline can be one of the factors causing an Error in range by categories (m)
overestimation of the distance from the shore-based station.
Since size of the object will decrease with the distance, it Figure 7: Distribution of Δ𝐷 after correction.
6 Journal of Marine Biology

became increasingly difficult for the observer to establish the correction, distances will be negatively biased. In our results,
position of the object waterline. In addition, the size of the the error increase with the distance, rejecting the possibility
theodolite crosshair remained constant, covering up distant of an impact caused by the refraction. In addition, by
and thus small objects, making it difficult to accurately locate regularly collecting the position of an object at known range
the waterline. Therefore the error can come from the difficulty during fieldwork all the parameters influencing the error can
by the observer to accurately position the theodolite crosshair be corrected.
on the waterline which leads to an error that increases with Optical errors can be an important factor in theodolite
distance. accuracy and can be affected by the fact that theodolite
scopes are composed of a monocular scope with a single
eyepiece. Therefore, it is harder to see the object due to the
6. Discussion decreasing field of view, increasing the possibility of an optical
error. Parallax error was also considered when positioning the
This study presented the accuracy in determining the position theodolite crosshair. This error is caused by a change in the
of object at sea using a surveyor theodolite over a distance position of the eye which will change the point of aim of the
range of 25 km from the shore-based station. Our results scope. If the parallax error was important it should influence
indicated that the model we provided can successfully correct both vertical and horizontal angles and should differ between
the positional error in shore-based theodolite measurements observers and days. However, in our study we determined
of animals at sea. that the horizontal angle was accurately determined by the
The particularity of this study was to focus on objects theodolite.
found at large distance from the shore-based station. The The last and more probable error came from the crosshair
accuracy and precision of determining the distance of objects positioning error. This study showed that the observer was
at sea has been previously studied for a range up to 8 km from able to accurately determine the general position of the
the shore [1, 36, 37]. Studies using a surveyor theodolite for object, described with an accurate horizontal angle, but what
marine mammals tracking avoided collecting data at large appeared to be difficult was to establish the exact vertical
distances because of the likelihood of inaccuracy in the dis- angle, the position where the object met the waterline. As
tance estimation. These studies limited their data collection the object became smaller with distance, it was harder for
to a critical distance from the theodolite station in order the observer to define the waterline. Moreover, the large size
to ensure consistent data [1, 26, 27, 40]. By having known of the theodolite crosshair made it difficult to position it
GPS positions over the whole study area we significantly on small objects. In conclusion, with increasing distance,
improved our theodolite measurements and this allowed us observers tended to place the theodolite crosshair on the
to collect data to the limit of the visual capacity. The method object instead of on the waterline, creating a bias in the
presented here could easily be used in other locations in order positioning crosshair. Positioning the crosshair on the object
to accurately survey a larger study area from a shore-based rather than the waterline will overestimate the distance
station. and may cause the positive bias in distance estimation we
Theodolite estimation has been shown to be biased by the observed.
observer experiences. Our results showed that this factor was During our study it was not possible to have constant
not significantly influencing the error. Our observers were objects found at different distances within our study area
trained before the fieldwork and one main observer was in and collecting opportunistic vessel positions was the only
charge of most of the theodolite data collection. approach to estimate positional error. Thus, the protocol
Previous studies found that the swell and Beaufort sea we propose could be improved by using objects at constant
state were important factors influencing the accuracy of positions, such as buoys. The difficulty will be to have enough
distance estimates for sightings of marine mammals [37, 41]. such objects across the study area.
In our case, it was not possible to access a database providing
information on swell and Beaufort sea state. We looked at the
year effect and it was not statistically significant in our model, 7. Conclusion
which suggests that the weather factors did not explain the
bias in overestimation of the theodolite measurements. This study revealed the necessity of calibrating theodolite
The effect of refraction was not directly tested during measurements when tracking animals at sea. Known GPS
our study. Light does not travel in straight lines; when positions of objects within the study area should be used in all
light travels through the Earth’s atmosphere, it is subject theodolite studies in order to correct the error with distance.
to refraction. Mirages and other refraction events are the One of the most important applications of this technique is
result of the bending of rays in the Earth’s atmosphere. For its potential to improve the use of shore-based stations for
range measurement studies the effect of refraction will result habitat and abundance studies at the limit of visual detection.
in an angular error and the distance estimates of distant
objects will be seriously affected. Several studies integrated
a correction for the refraction for surveys using binoculars Conflict of Interests
and video camera [36, 37, 42] based on the air temperature
and pressure measured daily during their data collection. If The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests
the range measurements are not corrected with the refraction regarding the publication of this paper.
Journal of Marine Biology 7

Acknowledgments waters off southern Spain,” Deep-Sea Research, vol. 49, no. 11, pp.
2053–2073, 2002.
Equipment was provided by the Department of Conserva- [15] M. C. Ferguson, J. Barlow, S. B. Reilly, and T. Gerrodette, “Pre-
tion, New Zealand. The authors thank Dara Orbach and dicting Cuvier’s (Ziphius cavirostris) and Mesoplodon beaked
Manuel C. Fernandes who provided the data from the whale population density from habitat characteristics in the
onboard GPS. They are grateful to the many volunteers eastern tropical Pacific Ocean,” Journal of Cetacean Research
that have given their time to this project. Finally, they also and Management, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 287–299, 2006.
thank Kathy Walter from the National Institute of Water and [16] G. D. Hastie, R. J. Swift, G. Slesser, P. M. Thompson, and
Atmosphere Research (NIWA) who provided data on tide W. R. Turrell, “Environmental models for predicting oceanic
levels. dolphin habitat in the Northeast Atlantic,” ICES Journal of
Marine Science, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 760–770, 2005.
[17] K. Barr and E. Slooten, “Effects of tourism on dusky dolphins
References at Kaikoura,” New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater
Research, vol. 35, pp. 277–287, 1999.
[1] C. Denardo, M. Dougherty, G. Hastie, R. Leaper, B. Wilson,
[18] B. Würsig, F. Cipriano, and M. Würsig, “Dolphin movement
and P. M. Thompson, “A new technique to measure spatial
patterns: information from radio and theodolite tracking stud-
relationships within groups of free-ranging coastal cetaceans,”
ies,” in Dolphin Societies: Discoveries and Puzzles, K. Pryor and
Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 888–895, 2001.
K. S. Norris, Eds., pp. 79–111, University of California Press,
[2] H. Bailey and P. Thompson, “Quantitative analysis of bottlenose Berkeley, Calif, USA, 1991.
dolphin movement patterns and their relationship with forag-
[19] G. A. Gailey and J. Ortega-Ortiz, “A note on a computer-based
ing,” Journal of Animal Ecology, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 456–465, 2006.
system for theodolite tracking of cetaceans,” Journal of Cetacean
[3] M. Amano and M. Yoshioka, “Sperm whale diving behavior Research & Management, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 213–218, 2002.
monitored using a suction-cup-attached TDR tag,” Marine [20] S. Harzen, “Use of an electronic theodolite in the study of
Ecology Progress Series, vol. 258, pp. 291–295, 2003. movements of the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) in
[4] M. P. Heide-Jorgensen, E. S. Nordoy, N. Oien et al., “Satellite the Sado Estuary, Portugal,” Aquatic Mammals, vol. 28, no. 3,
tracking of minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) off the pp. 251–260, 2002.
coast of northen Norway,” Journal of Cetacean Research & [21] T. Photopoulou, P. B. Best, P. S. Hammond, and K. P. Findlay,
Management, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 175–178, 2001. “Movement patterns of coastal bottlenose dolphins in the
[5] W. A. Watkins, M. A. Daher, N. A. Dimarzio et al., “Sperm whale presence of a fast-flowing, prevailing current: shore-based
surface activity from tracking by radio and satellite tags,” Marine observations at Cape Vidal, South Africa,” African Journal of
Mammal Science, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 245–267, 1999. Marine Science, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 393–401, 2011.
[6] G. L. Kooyman, Diverse Divers: Physiology and Behavior, [22] N. J. Patenaude, Southern Right Whales Wintering in the Auck-
Springer, New York, NY, USA, 1989. land Islands, vol. 321 of Conservation Advisory Science Notes,
[7] M. A. Hindell, D. J. Slip, and H. R. Burton, “The diving Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand, 2000.
behaviour of adult male and female southern elephant seals, [23] P. B. Best, K. Sekiguchi, and K. P. Findlay, “A suspended
Mirounga leonina (Pinnipedia: Phocidae),” Australian Journal migration of humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae on the
of Zoology, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 595–619, 1991. west coast of South Africa,” Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol.
[8] R. L. DeLong, B. S. Stewart, and R. D. Hill, “Documenting 118, no. 1–3, pp. 1–12, 1995.
migrations of northern elephant seals using day length,” Marine [24] M. E. Morete, A. Freitas, M. H. Engel, R. M. Pace III, and P. J.
Mammal Science, vol. 8, pp. 155–159, 1992. Clapham, “A novel behavior observed in humpback whales on
wintering grounds at Abrolhos Bank (Brazil),” Marine Mammal
[9] M. R. Heupel, J. M. Semmens, and A. J. Hobday, “Auto-
Science, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 694–707, 2003.
mated acoustic tracking of aquatic animals: scales, design and
deployment of listening station arrays,” Marine and Freshwater [25] A. Schaffar, B. Madon, C. Garrigue, and R. Constantine,
Research, vol. 57, no. 1, p. 113, 2006. “Avoidance of whale watching boats by humpback whales in
their main breeding ground in New Caledonia,” SC/61/WW/6
[10] S. M. Wiggins and J. A. Hildebrand, “High-frequency Acoustic Paper SC/34/WW6, IWC Scientific Committee, 2009.
Recording Package (HARP) for broad-band, long-term marine
[26] K. P. Findlay, P. B. Best, and M. A. Meÿer, “Migrations of
mammal monitoring,” in International Symposium on Under-
humpback whales past Cape Vidal, South Africa, and an
water Technology and Workshop on Scientific Use of Submarine
estimate of the population increase rate (1988–2002),” African
Cables and Related Technologies, pp. 551–557, April 2007.
Journal of Marine Science, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 375–392, 2011.
[11] W. A. Watkins and W. E. Schevill, “Sperm whale codas,” Journal [27] T. K. Boye, M. Simon, and P. T. Madsen, “Habitat use of
of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 1485–1490,
humpback whales in Godthaabsfjord, West Greenland, with
1977. implications for commercial exploitation,” Journal of the Marine
[12] K. M. Stafford, C. G. Fox, and D. S. Clark, “Long range detection Biological Association of the United Kingdom, vol. 90, pp. 1529–
and localization of blue whale calls in the northeast Pacific using 1538, 2010.
military hydrophone arrays,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of [28] J. Barendse, P. B. Best, M. Thornton, C. Pomilla, I. Carvalho, and
America, vol. 104, no. 6, pp. 3616–3625, 1998. H. C. Rosenbaum, “Migration redefined? seasonality, move-
[13] L. T. Ballance, “Habitat use patterns and ranges of the bottlenose ments and group composition of humpback whales megaptera
dolphin in the Gulf of California, Mexico,” Marine Mammal novaeangliae off the west coast of South Africa,” African Journal
Science, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 262–274, 1992. of Marine Science, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2010.
[14] A. Cañadas, R. Sagarminaga, and S. Garcı́a-Tiscar, “Cetacean [29] M. E. Morete, T. L. Bisi, R. M. Pace III, and S. Rosso, “Fluctuating
distribution related with depth and slope in the Mediterranean abundance of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in
8 Journal of Marine Biology

a calving ground off coastal Brazil,” Journal of the Marine

Biological Association of the United Kingdom, vol. 88, no. 6, pp.
1229–1235, 2008.
[30] G. Gailey, B. Würsig, and T. L. McDonald, “Abundance, behav-
ior, and movement patterns of western gray whales in relation
to a 3-D seismic survey, Northeast Sakhalin Island, Russia,”
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 134, no. 1–3, pp.
75–91, 2007.
[31] D. W. Funk, T. M. Markowitz, and R. R. Rodrigues, Eds.,
Baseline Studies of Beluga Whale Habitat Use in Knik Arm,
Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska, 2004-2005, LGL Alaska Research
Associates, HDR, for the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and the
Federal Highway Administration, Anchorage, Alaska, USA,
2005.
[32] T. M. Markowitz and T. L. McGuire, Temporal-Spatial Dis-
tribution, Movements and Behavior of Beluga Whales Near
the Port of Anchorage, Alaska, Alaska Research Associates,
for Integrated Concepts and Research Corporation and the
U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration,
Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 2007.
[33] D. Lundquist, M. Sironi, B. Würsig, and V. Rowntree, “Behav-
ioral responses of southern right whales to simulated swim-
with-whale tourism at Penı́nsula Valdés, Argentina,” Journal of
Cetacean Research & Management, SC/60/WW4, 2006.
[34] F. Ollervides, Effects of boat traffic on the behavior of gray whales,
Eschrichtius robustus, in Bahia Magdalena, Baja California Sur,
Mexico [M.S. thesis], Texas A&M University, 1997.
[35] H. Bailey and D. Lusseau, “Increasing the precision of theodolite
tracking: modified technique to calculate the altitude of land-
based observation sites,” Marine Mammal Science, vol. 20, no.
4, pp. 880–885, 2004.
[36] J. Gordon, “Measuring the range to animals at sea from boats
using photographic and video images,” Journal of Applied
Ecology, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 879–887, 2001.
[37] D. Kinzey and T. Gerrodette, “Distance measurements using
binoculars from ships at sea: accuracy, precision and effects of
refraction,” Journal of Cetacean Research & Management, vol. 5,
no. 2, pp. 159–171, 2003.
[38] J. Gordon, R. Leaper, F. G. Hartley, and O. Chappell, “Effects of
whale-watching vessels on the surface and underwater acoustic
behaviour of sperm whales off Kaikoura, New Zealand,” Sci-
ences and Research Series 52, Department of Conservation,
Wellington, New Zealand, 1992.
[39] N. Jaquet, S. Dawson, and E. Slooten, “Seasonal distribution and
diving behaviour of male sperm whales off Kaikoura: foraging
implications,” Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 78, no. 3, pp.
407–419, 2000.
[40] R. Williams, A. W. Trites, and D. E. Bain, “Behavioural resp-
onses of killer whales (Orcinus orca) to whale-watching boats:
opportunistic observations and experimental approaches,” Jour-
nal of Zoology, vol. 256, no. 2, pp. 255–270, 2002.
[41] J. Barlow, T. Gerrodette, and J. Forcada, “Factors affecting
perpendicular sighting distances on shipboard line-transect
surveys for cetaceans,” Journal of Cetacean Research and Man-
agement, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 201–212, 2001.
[42] R. Leaper and J. Gordon, “Application of photogrammetric
methods for locating and tracking cetacean movements at sea,”
Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, vol. 3, no. 2, pp.
131–141, 2001.
 International Journal of

Peptides

Advances in
BioMed
Research International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Stem Cells
International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Virolog y
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
International Journal of
Genomics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of
Nucleic Acids

Zoology
 International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

http://www.hindawi.com

Journal of The Scientific

Signal Transduction
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Genetics Anatomy International Journal of Biochemistry Advances in

Research International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Research International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Microbiology
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Research International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Bioinformatics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Enzyme International Journal of Molecular Biology Journal of

Archaea
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Research
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Evolutionary Biology
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Marine Biology
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014