Marine Environmental Research 188 (2023) 106024

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Environmental Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marenvrev

Ocean ambient noise on the Chukchi Plateau and its

environmental correlates
Xuejing Mo a, b, Hongtao Wen a, b, c, *, Yanming Yang a, b, Hongtao Zhou a, b, Jingwei Yin c, d,
Xiao Han c, d, Hongxia Chen e, Hailin Ruan a, b
a
Third Institute of Oceanography, Ministry of Natural Resources, Xiamen, 361005, China
b
Fujian Provincial Key Laboratory of Marine Physical and Geological Processes, Xiamen, 361005, China
c
Key Laboratory for Polar Acoustics and Application of Ministry of Education, Harbin, 150001, China
d
College of Underwater Acoustic Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, 150001, China
e
First Institute of Oceanography, Ministry of Natural Resources, Qingdao, 266061, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Conducting research on ocean ambient noise under different sea ice conditions is highly important for the
Ocean ambient noise comprehension of the rapidly changing Arctic. We present the first results of ambient noise and its relationship to
Chukchi Plateau environmental forcing during the open-water, ice transition and ice-covered periods on the Chukchi Plateau. The
Different sea ice conditions
ambient noise level (ANL) in the 20 Hz to 2 kHz band is higher, intermediate and lower during the open-water,
Ice-generated noise
Environmental correlates
ice transition and ice-covered periods, respectively. During the ice-covered period, the ambient noise is domi­
The rapidly changing Arctic nated by the ice-generated noise due to sea ice activities and shows a negative correlation with temperature.
Therefore, when the temperature decreases, the sea ice is prone to shrinking and cracking, thus increasing the sea
ice activities and resulting in increased ice-generated noise; when the temperature rises and is relatively high in
May and June, the ANL is lowest for the sea ice inhibition to wind waves and decreased sea ice activities induced
by temperature rise. Sea ice is the most predominant environmental factor affecting Arctic ocean ambient noise,
and the ANL can potentially increase due to a reduction in Arctic sea ice and increase in human activities caused
by global climate change.

1. Introduction
The ocean ambient noise, composed of geophony (sound generated
by wind, waves, sea ice, etc.), anthrophony (sound made by human
activities, including shipping, seismic exploration, and resource
exploitation), and biophony (sound from marine mammals, fish, etc.)
(Erbe et al., 2015; Halliday et al., 2020; Insley et al., 2017), is an
important habitat feature for many marine animals that rely on sound
for communication, navigation, echolocation, and foraging (Lillis et al.,
2014; Merchant et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2014). Arctic sea ice has
been continuously decreasing with global warming in recent decades
(Cavalieri and Parkinson, 2012; Stroeve et al., 2012), which promotes
not only an increase in Arctic shipping but also other human activities,
such as seismic exploration, resource exploitation, and even tourism
(Halliday et al., 2020; Han et al., 2021), leading to increased anthro­
phonic noise in the Arctic Ocean. Additionally, as the open-water period
in summer continues to extend (Overland and Wang, 2013; Stroeve
et al., 2007; Stroeve and Notz, 2018), the impact of wind on the ambient
noise is expected to increase, which is likely to cause an overall increase
in the ambient noise levels (ANLs). Modern Arctic sea ice is dominated
by thinner and more mobile first-year ice (Kwok, 2018; Maslanik et al.,
2007), such that sea ice is more susceptible to breaking and responding
to wind forcing, leading to an increase in wind-generated noise (Ballard
and Sagers, 2021; Kinda et al., 2013). The levels and characteristics of
ocean ambient noise in the Arctic are expected to change drastically due
to increased geophony and anthrophony induced by sea ice changes
(Han et al., 2021; Roth et al., 2012; Southall et al., 2020), which can
potentially have negative consequences for the activities of marine an­
imals (Fournet et al., 2021; Hawkins and Popper, 2017; Moore et al.,
2012). Therefore, studying the current state of Arctic ambient noise
before global warming leads to more rapid and complex changes in
Arctic sea ice, and other environmental factors can provide a useful
baseline for monitoring and predicting future ANL changes in this re­
gion. Additionally, it provides valuable information for better

* Corresponding author. Third Institute of Oceanography, Ministry of Natural Resources, Xiamen, 361005, China.
E-mail address: wenht@tio.org.cn (H. Wen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2023.106024
Received 18 January 2023; Received in revised form 9 May 2023; Accepted 15 May 2023
Available online 16 May 2023
0141-1136/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Mo et al.
comprehending the effects of increased Arctic ambient noise, particu­
larly anthropogenic noise, on Arctic marine animals and for identifying
methods to mitigate the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine
animals.
Arctic ambient noise is predominantly driven by sea ice, and ice-
generated noise induced by sea ice activities, including ice breaking,
collision, ridging, rubbing, melting, drifting, relative motion of floes,
motion of drifting granular snow over the rough sea ice surface, and
even the process of wind waves beating sea ice (Greening and Zakar­
auskas, 1994; Kinda et al., 2015; Milne, 1972; Wen et al., 2020), has
become the most common and major noise source in the Arctic Ocean
(Mo et al., 2021; Wen et al., 2022). Sea ice adds new noise sources to the
Arctic underwater environment relative to open-water sea areas.
Affected by sea ice conditions, temperature, wind speed, and other
environmental factors, the Arctic ambient noise exhibits greater vari­
ability. For example, when the temperature drops, there is significantly
impulsive noise resulting from cracks at the surface of sea ice caused by
thermal stress; therefore, at this time, under-ice noise levels can be
equivalent to those of level three sea states in open-water areas (Milne
and Ganton, 1964). However, when the temperature rises, the under-ice
ambient noise can be much quieter than the level sea state zero in
open-water areas (Roth et al., 2012; Kinda et al., 2013; Ozanich et al.,
2017; Sagers and Ballard, 2018). Additionally, due to seasonal ice cover,
the Arctic ambient noise exhibits significant seasonal variation, and the
noise level in summer is usually higher than that in autumn and winter
(Halliday et al., 2020). Sea ice is a distinctive factor affecting the Arctic
ambient noise, and its changes not only affect the ANL directly (Roth
et al., 2012; Kinda et al., 2013; Bonnel et al., 2021) but also indirectly by
increased human activities caused by the lengthening of the open-water
period (Roth et al., 2012; Halliday et al., 2020; Han et al., 2021).
The Chukchi Plateau is a sea area where the sea ice conditions
change significantly with months. Building upon previous studies (Han
et al., 2021; PAME, 2019), our study is the first to report the ambient
noise under different sea ice conditions using passive acoustic moni­
toring data for 15 months measured at the Chukchi Plateau and provides
a useful baseline for monitoring and forecasting future Arctic ANLs since
the Arctic underwater acoustic environment is continually changing.
Fig. 1. Location of underwater signal recorder (USR). This figure was created using Ocean Data View (Schlitzer, Reiner, Ocean Data View, odv.awi.de, 2021).
2
Marine Environmental Research 188 (2023) 106024
Combined with the three environmental parameters of sea ice concen­
tration (SIC), wind speed (WS), and sea surface temperature (SST), we
present the trends in ambient noise under different sea ice conditions
and months and analyzed the impact of wind, sea ice, and temperature
on the ambient noise.
2. Data and methods
From August 1, 2018, to November 2, 2019 (local time, i.e., UTC –
11 h), an underwater signal recorder (USR) included on an acoustic
mooring was deployed in the Chukchi Plateau (74◦ 59.57′ N, 159◦ 50.94′
W). The measuring location is shown in Fig. 1. The water depth at the
measuring location was approximately 1968 m, which was measured by
a Kongsberg EA600 echo sounder of the Chinese icebreaker Xue Long.
The USR was moored at a depth of 373 m, and the acoustic data were
recorded for 2 min/h with a 16 kHz sampling rate and 24-bit analog-to-
digital (A/D) resolution. The hydrophone of the USR with a receiving
voltage sensitivity of − 170.3 ± 1 dB re 1 V/μPa, in the frequency range
of 20 Hz to 5 kHz, was calibrated by the National Defense Underwater
Acoustics Calibration Laboratory of China.
This study only uses acoustic data for 15 months from August 1,
2018, to October 31, 2019, for analysis. The synchronous information of
SIC, WS, and SST in this period is shown in Fig. 2 and are acquired from
the public data from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction,
U.S.A. The SIC data is used to divide months into three time segments
corresponding to different sea ice conditions (Bonnel et al., 2021; Guerra
et al., 2016; Southall et al., 2020) and the time segmentation is as fol­
lows: September 2018 and August–October 2019 are the open-water
period (0% SIC on all days); August and October 2018 and July 2019
are the ice transition period (the ice is either forming or melting, with
25–75% SIC on average month); and November 2018 to June 2019 are
the ice-covered period (>85% SIC on average month).
The selected 15-month acoustic data were processed to provide a set
of noise spectrum levels (NSLs) ranging from 20 Hz to 2 kHz every hour.
The data were processed with a Hanning window and a 16000-point FFT
length, yielding 1 Hz frequency bins with 50% overlap. The noise
spectrum level (NSL) was used to calculate the empirical probability
X. Mo et al. Marine Environmental Research 188 (2023) 106024

Fig. 2. The time series of SIC, WS, SST and ANL in a frequency band between 20 Hz and 2 kHz from August 1st, 2018 to October 31st, 2019.

densities, percentiles and means (Bonnel et al., 2020; Merchant et al.,
2013) of the ocean ambient noise under different sea ice conditions.
Hourly ANL in the frequency band from 20 Hz to 2 kHz was integrated
NSL in the 20 Hz to 2 kHz range and denoted as ANL[20 Hz–2 kHz]. In
this paper, all correlation results were quantified using the Pearson
correlation coefficient R (Pearson, 1895). Furthermore, the ANL[20
Hz–2 kHz] versus WS and associated linear fit were processed and
shown; there was a linear relationship between the wind-generated
noise and the logarithm of WS (Piggott, 1964; Crouch and Burt, 1972).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Noise spectrum level under different sea ice conditions
The NSLs of the empirical probability densities, percentiles, and
means under different sea ice conditions are compared in Fig. 3, among
which the black dashed lines in Fig. 3(a–c) are the self-noise floor of the
USR. They were measured in an anechoic tank; however, the true self-
noise levels of the USR should be less than these values.
During the open-water period, the spectral probability density in the
300 Hz to 2 kHz band was concentrated with higher NSL (Fig. 3a). This

Fig. 3. (a–c) The NSL of the 1st, 50th, 99th percentiles, means and empirical probability densities under different sea ice conditions. The black dashed line is the self-
noise floor of the USR, which is measured in an anechoic tank. (d) The median (50th percentile) NSL under different sea ice conditions.

3
X. Mo et al.
could be attributed to the influence of high WS without ice cover (Wen
et al., 2022). The WS was typically high, greater than 5 m/s over 75% of
the time. During the ice transition period, the NSL distribution (Fig. 3b)
was relatively dispersed, signifying that the ambient noise was domi­
nated by different physical processes (Blondel et al., 2020); this result
was considered plausible for sea surface with discontinuous ice cover. In
the process of ice forming or melting, in addition to the ice-generated
noise produced by sea ice activities (such as ice rubbing, collision,
melting, and the interaction between wind and floes), there was also
wind-generated noise produced by wind directly acting on the sea sur­
face without floes. Ice covers isolated the noise generated by winds and
waves interacting with the sea surface. Additionally, due to the limited
accessibility caused by sea ice, there were fewer vessel activities except
for icebreakers and fewer other human activities from industries, such as
oil, gas, fishing, and tourism, thus decreasing anthropogenic noise.
Therefore, lower noise levels occurred during the ice-covered period,
with the 1st percentile being almost close to the self-noise curve
(Fig. 3c). Although the presence of sea ice caused decreased noise levels,
sea ice activities, including ice cracking, rubbing, collision, and pressure
ridging, could produce significant noise over a broad range of fre­
quencies (Milne and Ganton, 1964). Therefore, over the entire frequency
range, there were many discrete values that deviated from the main
distribution area of NSL in the upper part of the empirical probability
density diagram. The mean NSL during the open-water and ice transition
period had two peaks in between 200 and 400 Hz, which could poten­
tially be related to ship engine noise from a distance (Geyer et al., 2016).
The median NSL under different sea ice conditions is shown in
Fig. 3d. In the 100 Hz to 2 kHz band, the median differences between the
open-water, ice transition, and ice-covered periods increased with
increasing frequency. The median NSL during the open-water period
was nearly equal to that during the ice transition period at 100 Hz but
approximately 6 dB higher than that at 2 kHz; the median NSL during
the open-water period was approximately 4 dB higher than that during
the ice-covered period at 100 Hz but approximately 16 dB higher than
that at 2 kHz. A comparison of the median attenuation trend was per­
formed with increasing frequency under different sea ice conditions.
During the open-water period, the attenuation slope of the median
ranging from 20 to 60 Hz was nearly 0 dB/octave, and − 2.4, − 1.4, and
− 3.4 dB/octave at 60–200 Hz, 200–600 Hz, and 600 Hz–2 kHz,
respectively. During the ice transition period, the median attenuation
slope was nearly 0 and –3.5 dB/octave at 20–50 Hz and 50 Hz–2 kHz,
respectively. During the ice-covered period, the median attenuation
slope was the largest, with approximately − 5 dB/octave at 20 Hz to 2
kHz. These results occurred because the ice covers that caused stronger
scattering of high-frequency components and weaker scattering of low-
frequency components were conducive to the propagation of low-
frequency energy of ice-generated noise (Hutt, 2012; Roth et al.,
2012). The changes in the median NSL and its attenuation slope with
frequency were consistent with another study conducted on the Chukchi
Plateau during the open-water and ice-covered periods (Wen et al.,
2022).
3.2. Monthly patterns and influence of ice
Combined with SIC, WS, and SST data in Fig. 2, the overall trend in
ANL was analyzed. Affected by wind and waves, a higher ANL occurred
during the open-water period. With the appearance of sea ice, wind had
a reduced effect on the ANL, and thus, the ANL began to significantly
drop. When the SIC approached or reached 100%, underwater noise was
dominated by ice-generated noise induced by various sea ice activities.
Since the duration, intensity, and interval of the ice-generated noise
constantly changed in a short time (Sheng et al., 2021), a significant
fluctuation in the ANL during the ice-covered period was observed
relative to the open-water area. However, after the end of April during
the ice-covered period, sea ice activities were reduced as the Arctic
entered spring with gradually rising temperature (Milne and Ganton,
4
Marine Environmental Research 188 (2023) 106024
1964; Milne, 1972), and the ANL dropped to its lowest value and
exhibited a smaller fluctuation.
The monthly trends in ambient noise were evaluated using ANL
boxplots (Bonnel et al., 2020) ranging from 20 Hz to 2 kHz in Fig. 4a.
The open-water months (September 2018 and August–October 2019)
experienced higher ANL, with the median being close to or greater than
95 dB and as high as 97 dB. The ice-covered months from November
2018 to April 2019 experienced a lower ANL, with a median range of
88–93 dB. However, as sea ice activities decreased with increasing
temperature, the ANL reached its lowest in May and June 2019, with a
median of approximately 82.5 dB. The ice transition months (August
and October 2018 and July 2019) experienced intermediate ANL, with a
median range of 89.5–95.5 dB. The ANL of October 2018 and July 2019
had some abnormal phenomena, and their interquartile ranges were
significantly larger than those in other months. The hypothesis for this
phenomenon was that a significant change in the SIC within a month
resulted in a larger interquartile range. We divided the data of each ice
transition month into two parts in half-month units for analysis since the
SIC had a significant boundary at mid-month (Fig. 2a). The ANL box­
plots of the first and second half-months of the three-month period are
shown in Fig. 4b, and the SIC in the figure is the result of the half-month
average. In October 2018 and July 2019, there was a significant dif­
ference between the average SIC in the first and second half-months,
thus resulting in a significant difference in ANL between them, and
the difference in ANL median was more than 10 dB. In August 2018,
there was a relatively small difference between the average SIC in the
first and second half-months; correspondingly, the difference in ANL
median was only approximately 2.7 dB.
The monthly trends in ANL that we documented were comparable to
trends from another study conducted in the East Siberian Sea (Han et al.,
2021). Their study demonstrated that the ANL reached its lowest at the
end of spring (June 2018) and its highest in the open-water month
(September 2017), which agreed with our results. Interestingly, the
trends we recorded were completely different from the monthly trends
from another study showing that the noise level remained the lowest in
February and highest in June near Sachs Harbour (Insley et al., 2017).
However, their study indicated that the ambient noise experienced
lower levels owing to the increase in SIC, which agreed with our mea­
surements. A comparison of the median values of ocean ambient noise in
Arctic sea areas (Han et al., 2021) demonstrated that the noise level in
the sea areas covered by sea ice over a long period of a year (East Si­
berian Sea, Sachs Harbour, Chukchi Sea, Ulukhaktok) was usually lower
than that in the sea areas covered by sea ice over a short period of a year
(Bering Sea, Greenland Sea, Fram Strait). With the growth of the
open-water period caused by climate change and ice melting, the ANL is
projected to gradually increase in the future, thus changing the ocean
ambient noise intensity baseline in the Arctic.
3.3. Influence of wind and temperature
Wind is a crucial factor that affects ocean ambient noise (Wenz,
1962). Fig. 5a depicts the correlation between ANL and WS over 15
months. The ANL in the open-water months (September 2018 and
August–October 2019) was highly correlated with WS, with correlation
coefficients ranging between 0.79 and 0.90. There was a weak correla­
tion between ANL and WS in the ice-covered months from December
2018 to April 2019, with correlation coefficients ranging between 0.12
and 0.46. These results were to be expected, since ice cover largely
suppressed the impact of WS on ANL, and ice-generated noise became a
dominant driver of ocean ambient noise. Previous studies demonstrated
that the correlation coefficients between ANL and WS were 0.28 and
0.37 when the SIC was 75–100% and greater than 90%, respectively
(Kinda et al., 2013; Roth et al., 2012), which were within the range of
our research results. Notably, during the ice-covered period in
November 2018 and May and June 2019, the correlation coefficients
between ANL and WS were between 0.55 and 0.65. For November 2018,
X. Mo et al. Marine Environmental Research 188 (2023) 106024

Fig. 4. (a) The monthly ANL in the frequency band between 20 Hz and 2 kHz from August 2018 to October 2019. The bottom and top edges of the blue boxes
represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, the distances between them are the interquartile ranges, and the red lines between them represent the median values; the
bottom and top black whiskers outside the boxes represent the minimum and maximum ANL, respectively, excluding outliers; red crosses represent outliers, and red
“x” symbols represent the mean values. (b) The half-month ANL in a frequency band between 20 Hz and 2 kHz in August and October 2018 and July 2019 and half-
month averages of the local SIC.

this was attributed to the wind interacting with the sea surface incom­
pletely covered by sea ice in early and mid-November. For May and June
2019, this potentially occurred because when the temperature became
warmer in spring, sea ice activities decreased, and the influence of wind
on under-ice noise was greater than those in other ice-covered months.
The impact of wind on ambient noise is related to sea ice and its
change. During the ice transition months (August and October 2018 and
July 2019), the SIC significantly changed. Therefore, we divided each
ice transition month into the first and second half-months, as shown in
Fig. 4b, to analyze the correlation between ANL and WS. In each month,
the correlation coefficient between ANL and WS with a lower SIC was
always greater than that with a higher SIC.
The correlation coefficients between the NSL with SST and WS at
different frequencies under different sea ice conditions are shown in
Fig. 5b. During the ice-covered period, there was a relatively strong
negative relationship between the NSL and SST. In this period, ocean
ambient noise was dominated by ice-generated noise and thus weakly
correlated with WS. Decreased SST was beneficial for the generation of
sea ice activities, including shrinking and breaking, especially when the
SST was relatively low; however, increased temperature relieved such
sea ice activities, especially when the SST was relatively high. In other
words, ice-generated noise increases as the SST decreases but decreases
as the SST rises. During the open-water period, the negative correlation
between NSL and SST was strongest below 50 Hz but rapidly weakened
with increasing frequency. In this period, the negative correlation be­
tween NSL and SST was potentially related to the ice-generated noise
produced by the long-lived ice cover in the central Arctic Ocean, which
is located north of the USR. Existing research demonstrated that high-
frequency sounds could not travel long distances, while very low-
frequency sounds travelled much farther distances (Roth et al., 2012).
The lower frequency was, the greater ice-generated noise impacted on
the ambient noise, and resulted in a stronger negative correlation with
SST. During the ice transition period, the determination for the cause of
the positive correlation between NSL and SST requires further research.
However, the increased ice melting noise caused by increased temper­
ature (Wen et al., 2020) could potentially be an influencing factor.
4. Conclusions and implications
Ocean ambient noise under different sea ice conditions was
measured and studied on the Chukchi Plateau from August 2018 to
October 2019. To our knowledge, this study was the first to report on the
ambient noise properties under different sea ice conditions and their
relationship to environmental forcing on the Chukchi Plateau. From the
monthly trend in ANL [20 Hz–2 kHz], the open-water months had a
higher ANL, with a median of 97 dB. Ice-covered months had a lower
ANL, especially in May and June, when the temperature increased and
was relatively high; the ANL reached its lowest value in the year, with a
median of approximately 82.5 dB. Ice transition months had an inter­
mediate ANL. In this period, a large change in SIC led to a substantial
interquartile range of ANL.
During the open-water period, the correlation coefficients between
WS and ANL were greater than 0.79, and WS had a profound influence
on the ambient noise. During the ice-covered period, ice cover isolated
the noise generated by wind interacting with the sea surface, the cor­
relation between ANL and WS was weak, and ambient noise was

5
X. Mo et al. Marine Environmental Research 188 (2023) 106024

Fig. 5. (a) ANL in the 20 Hz to 2 kHz range versus WS with its associated linear fit and Pearson correlation coefficient (R). Red scatter represents ANL during the
open-water period, blue scatter represents ANL during the ice-covered period, green and cyan scatter represents ANL under the SIC of the corresponding color during
the ice transition period, respectively. (b) Pearson correlation coefficients between the NSL with SST and WS for various frequencies (20 Hz–2 kHz) under different
sea ice conditions.

dominated by the ice-generated noise induced by various sea ice activ­
ities. Compared to the ice-covered period, the correlation between ANL
and WS during the ice transition period was usually better, and the
ambient noise was collectively influenced by the ice- and wind-
generated noise. Temperature was also a vital environmental param­
eter affecting Arctic under-ice noise. When SST decreased, sea ice ac­
tivities were enhanced, and ice-generated noise increased; when SST
increased, sea ice activities were reduced, and ice-generated noise
decreased. The ANL during the ice-covered period showed a negative
correlation with SST.
In the Arctic Ocean, sea ice is a distinctive factor that influences
ambient noise, and there are evident differences in the ANL under
different sea ice conditions. Overall, the ambient noise during the ice-
covered period is the quietest. However, the acceleration of ice
melting caused by climate change is predicted to increase the impact of
wind on ambient noise and cause the Arctic to be more accessible to
human activities, leading to an overall increase in ANL and changing the
ocean ambient noise intensity baseline in the Arctic. Future work should
pay more attention to the impact of these changes in sea ice and human
activities on ambient noise to better track changes in the ANL.
Author statement
Xuejing Mo: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Software,
Formal analysis, Visualization; Hongtao Wen: Conceptualization,
Writing – review and editing, Funding acquisition, Validation; Yanming
Yang: Project administration, Supervision; Hongtao Zhou: Investiga­
tion, Data curation; Jingwei Yin: Funding acquisition; Xiao Han:
Investigation; Hongxia Chen: Investigation; Hailin Ruan: Data
curation.

6
X. Mo et al.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China
(2021YFC2801202), the National Nature Science Foundation of China
(42276192, 42076236), the Scientific Research Foundation of Third
Institute of Oceanography, MNR (No.2022020). We would like to
acknowledge the NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2) for
the sea ice concentration, wind speed and sea surface temperature data
access (https://rda.ucar.edu/). We also thank the officers and crew of
RV Xue Long during the Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Chinese National
Arctic Research Expedition.
References
Ballard, M.S., Sagers, J.D., 2021. Clustering analysis of a yearlong record of ambient
sound on the Chukchi Shelf in the 40 Hz to 4 kHz frequency range. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 150 (3), 1597–1608. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0006100.
Blondel, P., Dell, B., Suriyaprakasam, C., 2020. Acoustic signatures of shipping, weather
and marine life: comparison of NE Pacific and Arctic soundscapes. Proc. Mtgs.
Acoust. 40, 070011 https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0001312.
Bonnel, J., Kinda, G.B., Zitterbart, D.P., 2021. Low-frequency ocean ambient noise on the
Chukchi Shelf in the changing Arctic. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 149 (6), 4061–4072.
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0005135.
Cavalieri, D.J., Parkinson, C.L., 2012. Arctic sea ice variability and trends, 1979–2010
Cryosphere 6, 881–889. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-6-881-2012.
Crouch, W.W., Burt, P.J., 1972. The logarithmic dependence of surface-generated
ambient-sea-noise spectrum level on wind speed. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 51 (3),
1066–1072. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1912926.
Erbe, C., Verma, A., McCauley, R., Gavrilov, A., Parnum, I., 2015. The marine
soundscape of the Perth Canyon. Prog. Oceanogr. 137, 38–51. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.pocean.2015.05.015.
Fournet, M.E.H., Silvestri, M., Clark, C.W., Klinck, H., Rice, A.N., 2021. Limited vocal
compensation for elevated ambient noise in bearded seals: implications for an
industrializing Arctic Ocean. Proc. R. Soc. A B 288, 20202712. https://doi.org/
10.1098/rspb.2020.2712.
Geyer, F., Sagen, H., Hope, G., Babiker, M., Worcester, P.F., 2016. Identification and
quantification of soundscape components in the marginal ice zone. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 139 (4), 1873–1885. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4945989.
Greening, M.V., Zakarauskas, P., 1994. Pressure ridging spectrum level and a proposed
origin of the infrasonic peak in arctic ambient noise spectra. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95
(2), 791–797. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.408389.
Guerra, M., Stafford, K.M., Andrew, R.K., 2016. Evaluating underwater ambient noise
levels across a changing Arctic environment. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 140 (4), 3073.
https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4969576.
Halliday, W.D., Pine, M.K., Mouy, X., Kortsalo, P., Hilliard, R.C., Insley, S.J., 2020. The
coastal Arctic marine soundscape near Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, Canada.
Polar Biol. 43, 623–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-020-02665-8.
Han, D.G., Joo, J., Son, W., Cho, K.H., Choi, J.W., Yang, E.J., Kim, J.H., Kang, S.H., La, H.
S., 2021. Effects of geophony and anthrophony on the underwater acoustic
environment in the East Siberian sea, Arctic Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48,
e2021GL093097 https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093097.
Hawkins, A.D., Popper, A.N., 2017. A sound approach to assessing the impact of
underwater noise on marine fishes and invertebrates. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 74 (3),
635–651. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw205.
Hutt, D., 2012. An overview of Arctic Ocean acoustics. AIP Conf. Proc. 1495, 56–68.
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4765907.
Insley, S.J., Halliday, W.D., Jong de, T., 2017. Seasonal patterns in ocean ambient noise
near Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories. Arctic 70 (3), 239–248. https://doi.org/
10.14430/arctic4662.
Kinda, G.B., Simard, Y., Gervaise, C., Mars, J.I., Fortier, L., 2013. Under-ice ambient
noise in Eastern Beaufort Sea, Canadian Arctic, and its relation to environmental
forcing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134 (1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4808330.
Marine Environmental Research 188 (2023) 106024
Kinda, G.B., Simard, Y., Gervaise, C., Mars, J.I., Fortier, L., 2015. Arctic underwater noise
transients from sea ice deformation: characteristics, annual time series, and forcing
in Beaufort Sea. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 138 (4), 2034–2045. https://doi.org/10.1121/
1.4929491.
Kwok, R., 2018. Arctic sea ice thickness, volume, and multiyear ice coverage: losses and
coupled variability (1958-2018). Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 105005 https://doi.org/
10.1088/1748-9326/aae3ec.
Lillis, A., Eggleston, D.B., Bohnenstiehl, D.R., 2014. Estuarine soundscapes: distinct
acoustic characteristics of oyster reefs compared to soft-bottom habitats. Mar. Ecol.
Prog. Ser. 505, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10805.
Maslanik, J.A., Fowler, C., Stroeve, J., Drobot, S., Zwally, J., Yi, D., Emery, W., 2007.
A younger, thinner Arctic ice cover: increased potential for rapid, extensive sea-ice
loss. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L24501 https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032043.
Merchant, N.D., Barton, T.R., Thompson, P.M., Pirotta, E., Dakin, D.T., Dorocicz, J.,
2013. Spectral probability density as a tool for ambient noise analysis. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 133 (4), EL262–EL267. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4794934.
Merchant, N.D., Fristrup, K.M., Johnson, M.P., Tyack, P.L., Witt, M.J., Blondel, P.,
Parks, S.E., 2015. Measuring acoustic habitats. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 257–265.
https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12330.
Milne, A.R., 1972. Thermal tension cracking in sea ice: a source of underice noise.
J. Geophys. Res. 77 (12), 2177–2192. https://doi.org/10.1029/JC077i012p02177.
Milne, A.R., Ganton, J.H., 1964. Ambient noise under Arctic-Sea ice. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
36 (5), 855–863. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1919103.
Mo, X., Wen, H., Yang, Y., Zhou, H., Ruan, H., 2021. Monthly and Seasonal Trends in
Statistical Characteristics of Underwater Noise in Chukchi Plateau, vol. 2021. IEEE/
OES China Ocean Acoustics (COA), pp. 1078–1083. https://doi.org/10.1109/
COA50123.2021.9519949.
Moore, S.E., Reeves, R.R., Southall, B.L., Ragen, T.J., Suydam, R.S., Clark, C.W., 2012.
A New Framework for Assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine
mammals in a rapidly changing Arctic. Bioscience 62 (3), 289–295. https://doi.org/
10.1525/bio.2012.62.3.10.
Overland, J.E., Wang, M., 2013. When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice free?
Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 2097–2101. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50316.
Ozanich, E., Gerstoft, P., Worcester, P.F., Dzieciuch, M.A., Thode, A., 2017. Eastern
Arctic ambient noise on a drifting vertical array. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 142 (4),
1997–2006. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5006053.
PAME, 2019. Underwater noise in the Arctic: a state of knowledge report. In: Protection
of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) Secretariat. https://www.pame.is/index.
php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-ministerial-deliverables/2019-11
th-arctic-council-ministerial-meeting-rovaniemi-finland/421-underwater-noise-r
eport/file.
Pearson, K., 1895. Notes on regression and inheritance in the case of two parents. Proc.
Roy. Soc. Lond. 58 (6), 240–242.
Piggott, C.L., 1964. Ambient sea noise at low frequencies in shallow water of the Scotian
Shelf. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 36 (11), 2152–2163. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1919337.
Roth, E.H., Hildebrand, J.A., Wiggins, S.M., Ross, D., 2012. Underwater ambient noise on
the Chukchi Sea continental slope from 2006–2009. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131 (1),
104–110. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3664096.
Sagers, J.D., Ballard, M.S., 2018. Properties of the ambient noise field at the 150-m
isobath during the Canada basin acoustic propagation experiment. Proc. Mtgs.
Acoust. 33, 070001 https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000839.
Sheng, X., Dong, C., Guo, L., Yin, J., 2021. Ambient noise under stably covered ice.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 150 (4), 3074–3084. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0006792.
Southall, B.L., Southall, H., Antunes, R., Nichols, R., Rouse, A., Stafford, K.M.,
Robards, M., Rosenbaum, H.C., 2020. Seasonal trends in underwater ambient noise
near St. Lawrence Island and the Bering Strait. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 157, 111283
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111283.
Stroeve, J., Holland, M.M., Meier, W., Scambos, T., Serreze, M., 2007. Arctic sea ice
decline: faster than forecast. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L09501 https://doi.org/
10.1029/2007GL029703.
Stroeve, J., Notz, D., 2018. Changing state of Arctic sea ice across all seasons. Environ.
Res. Lett. 13, 103001 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aade56.
Stroeve, J.C., Serreze, M.C., Holland, M.M., Kay, J.E., Malanik, J., Barrett, A.P., 2012.
The Arctic’s rapidly shrinking sea ice cover: a research synthesis. Climatic Change
110, 1005–1027. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0101-1.
Wen, H., Yang, Y., Ruan, H., Zhou, H., Wang, N., 2020. Nearfield measurements of ice
melting noise in the central Arctic Ocean in summer. Pol. Sci. 24, 100528 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.polar.2020.100528.
Wen, H., Yang, Y., Zhou, H., Wei, S., Ruan, H., Mo, X., 2022. Comparison of underwater
noise at the Chukchi Plateau under open-water and ice-covered conditions. Pol. Sci.
33, 100870 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polar.2022.100870.
Wenz, G.M., 1962. Acoustic ambient noise in the ocean: spectra and sources. J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 34 (12), 1936–1956. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1909155.
Williams, R., Clark, C.W., Ponirakis, D., Ashe, E., 2014. Acoustic quality of critical
habitats for three threatened whale populations. Anim. Conserv. 17, 174–185.
https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12076.