Thursday, October 31, 2013

Using Earthquake Sensors to Track Endangered Whales



Ally Minoli
           
            “Using Earthquake Sensors to Track Endangered Whales” explains how there are a number of seafloor seismometers, or devices that record vibrations that are located on the Juan de Duca Ridge off the Washington coast. Over the winter months, not only were lots of earthquakes were recorded, but fin whale calls were recorded, too. Fin whales are very hard to study. In 2008, William Wilcock, a University of Washington professor of oceanography, received funding from the Office of Naval Research to study the whale calls. The University of Washington group analyzed more than 300,000 whale calls. A UW doctoral student in oceanography, Dax Soule, compared the data recorded between eight seismometers. This ingenious idea served as a method for calculating the whale’s position. Soule discovered 154 individual whale paths. He also discovered three main groups of whales that swam south in the winder and early spring. Another group of whales that swam north in the early fall was discovered. It is believed these whales are young males who have no purpose for heading south during breeding season. The whale calls were further tested. Michelle Weirathmueller, a UW doctoral student in oceanography, determined a whale’s call is 190 decibels (a unit for measuring the intensity of sound), which is as loud as a jet engine.

            Using seismometers is a very effective way to track whales. This method is inexpensive and non-invasive. The data recorded can give hints of the animals’ movement and communication patterns. Also, fin whales are vulnerable to collision with fast-moving ships. By learning their swimming behaviors, ships could easily avoid the whales. The seismometers help scientists to understand how a whale reacts in relation to food availability, ocean conditions, and seafloor geology. Although seismometers are intended to track earthquakes, they are a very useful method for studying whales.

            This article is very well written, and it is packed with lots of information. I think it is so fascinating that something used for recording data of earthquakes has a dual purpose for tracking an animal. Also, the article was very interesting and enjoyable to read. I thought the article did an amazing job of explaining everything. However, I wish the article gave more information, including what the scientists are doing now. I would love to learn more about this topic.



University of Washington (2013, May 13). Using earthquake sensors to track endangered whales. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 27, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2013/05/130513152411.htm





7 comments:

  1. I believe that this was a well-written review. It was well presented in a multitude of ways. For example, it was very clear and defined any unknown words, such as seismometers and decibels. Also, it was very specific. By this, I mean that it provided the exact setting of the earthquakes (Juan de Duca Ridge). Finally, while this ties into the previous sentence, it helped to provide a connection with the reader. For instance, it showed a relative location of Juan de Duca Ridge, which is just off of Washington Coast. I was very impressed by the depth that the author went on the Fin Whales. She included various statistics, dates, and people who contributed in the study of Fin Whale calls. In addition, I was shocked by how much scientists are able to learn by seismometers. I was just blown away by how they were able tell the migration paths of these whales and what causes them. In conclusion, I found this review very well written, however I believe that it could have been improved by going into more depth in how it was relevant to the average citizen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I thought that this article was well-presented in the review. It conveyed the whole idea of the article without being too lengthy and boring. This is important because some reviews can be too lengthy and convey the whole article instead of just summarizing it. I thought that the article started off with a good hook, it made the rest of the article really interesting and caught my attention. I thought that the review was also the perfect length, it wasn't to long or too short. Overall, this review was fairly well-written, It conveyed a great summary of the article and displayed all the important facts and points. I was very impressed to learn that scientists could use seismometers to track whales. I had never heard of that before. I was also interested to learn that these seismometers could be used to track endangered whales. I did not think that scientists could use the paths of whales to identify them. I was even more interested once I learned that they could even be used to identify different species of whales as well. It is interesting that some whale calls have different decibel levels, I didn't think that whales could be identified this way. Even though this does not affect the average person, it is still interesting that whales can be identified this way. I think this review could be a little bit better if it explained why this discovery is important.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that this review is on a topic that is very intriguing. I liked that there was a lot of background information on the topic, like funding and what this project was about. I also liked that there was steps that listed what was done during this experiment. I found it helpful to have a procedure of what they did. Finally, I thought you did a very good job of summarizing the results that were gained from this experiment, and even went on to talk about further testing that wasn't even included in this part of the experiment. I thought that you could have expanded more on how the whale calls allow for scientists to track them. I thought that by knowing the science behind this, it may help to better understand how the experiment worked. Overall I really liked this review and found that there was lots of information that I wasn't aware of. I thought it was interesting that not only can their paths be tracked, but that this showed how the whales react in relation to food availability, ocean conditions, and seafloor geology. I also thought is was interesting to learn how this information could help ships to avoid hitting the whales. I think that this article is very interesting and even though it many not effect everyone, it is still helping the whales as well as people on ships.

    ReplyDelete
  4. “Using Earthquake Sensors to Track Endangered Whales” is a well written review. The review is easy to understand. It includes a lot of details and well explains why using seismometers is a very effective way to track whales. I learned a couple new things from this review. One of them is that not only we can use earthquake sensors to get information about the earthquakes, but also we can get information of where the whales migrate. I also learned that there are 154 individual whale paths. The review could have been improved by including more information on how we can use this scientific data of tracking the whales in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ally,
    I thought you did a great job on this review. You did a good job at explaining to the audience why seismometers is the true way to track whales, specifically endangered ones. I now know that we can use these "earthquake sensors" to not only track earthquakes, but the migration of whales as well. I am happy to see that the method does not harm the whales. You also did a good job at analyzing the article. For example, you stated that fin whales are vulnerable to collisions with boats. You went on to say that if boaters lear the whale's swimming habits, there would be less of a chance of a terrible collision. I thought you did a good, not great job in the summary stating fact after fact. Although your stellar analysis in the second paragraph made up for it. You had me interested throughout the whole review so that is a huge plus.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think the article that you chose to review was an interesting choice. This review, in my opinion, was pretty good. You were concise in your summary by summarizing the main idea and point of your article in basically one sentence, and then using key details to allow us to understand it. Keeping the summary short but packed with information was another part I liked about your review. It was the perfect length. Unlike me, where I droned on about my topic, your summary didn't lose most readers half way. Your review was also simple and easy to understand which also helped me get a better understanding of your article. I also thought it was good how you balanced your summary with specific information such as statistics and locations of these whale calls and the earthquake sensors that track them. Your review showed me that through the coincidence, not only will people learn more about these fin whales but also prevent any more deaths humans cause by accident. From reading the article and your review, it was impressive to learn how earthquake sensors can also track the vibrations created by not only the earth, but also the by practically only the fin whales undersea. This fact, presented in the article, but not in your review was the only qualm I had against your review. Though you did mention the fin whales often, you didn't mention that these whales specifically were the ones that could be monitored by the earthquake sensors as their calls were special. Overall, your review was good and had an easy flow to it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete