Show simple item record

dc.creatorFortenberry, Holly Dawn
dc.date.accessioned2012-06-07T23:04:19Z
dc.date.available2012-06-07T23:04:19Z
dc.date.created2001
dc.date.issued2001
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2001-THESIS-F67
dc.descriptionDue to the character of the original source materials and the nature of batch digitization, quality control issues may be present in this document. Please report any quality issues you encounter to digital@library.tamu.edu, referencing the URI of the item.en
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (leaves 52-54).en
dc.descriptionIssued also on microfiche from Lange Micrographics.en
dc.description.abstractI observed bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) from a shore-based, rooftop theodolite station on the southeast side of Galveston Island to test their behavioral response to pingers. Pingers have been shown to alert some cetacean species to the presence of nets, but have not been tested adequately for bottlenose dolphins. Data were collected from September 1997 to August 1999 for behavioral variables (behavior, cohesion level, and group size) as well as for track variables (linearity, track speed, and reorientation) to determine differences between three levels of an experimental factor: active, dummy, and control. An active treatment consisted of pingers that contained batteries and were pinging, while a dummy treatment consisted of pingers that did not contain the batteries and would not ping, and the control with no pinger. Hypotheses were that with a change of pinger treatment, dolphins would not exhibit different: 1) behaviors, 2) cohesion levels, 3) group sizes; and 4) movement patterns. In addition, two criteria were used to select case-study tracks that exhibited possible reactions by the dolphins to pingers: 1) All tracks of dolphins that extended "through" the treatment line or just next to either buoy, as if there was nothing to deter dolphin movement; and 2) All tracks that showed an approximate 180-degree turn by dolphins upon nearing or reaching the treatment line, as if movement was deterred. The first criterion was expected to occur for dolphin groups during control or dummy days, while criterion 2 was expected to occur for dolphin groups during active treatment. Chi-square tests and MANCOVA's did not detect significant differences among treatments; however, case studies showed interesting trends. Four of 5 dolphin pods that turned 180 degrees occurred on days when the treatment was active. At no time did a dolphin or dolphin pod swim through the treatment line during an "active" treatment. However, during "dummy" or "control" treatment days, 9 dolphins or dolphin groups, of 14 case study dolphin groups swam through the treatment line. It is apparent that the "active" pinger may have been deterring dolphins from passing across the treatment line.en
dc.format.mediumelectronicen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherTexas A&M University
dc.rightsThis thesis was part of a retrospective digitization project authorized by the Texas A&M University Libraries in 2008. Copyright remains vested with the author(s). It is the user's responsibility to secure permission from the copyright holder(s) for re-use of the work beyond the provision of Fair Use.en
dc.subjectwildlife and fisheries sciences.en
dc.subjectMajor wildlife and fisheries sciences.en
dc.titleBottlenose dolphin responses to pingersen
dc.typeThesisen
thesis.degree.disciplinewildlife and fisheries sciencesen
thesis.degree.nameM.S.en
thesis.degree.levelMastersen
dc.type.genrethesisen
dc.type.materialtexten
dc.format.digitalOriginreformatted digitalen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

This item and its contents are restricted. If this is your thesis or dissertation, you can make it open-access. This will allow all visitors to view the contents of the thesis.

Request Open Access