Rodney A. Rountree

• Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolution
• Fish Ecologist at The Fish Listener

Do we need to develop a network of scientists and agencies interested in fish soundscape studies in the tropical Americas? Funding is difficult for everyone, but with the advent of cheaper tech more people are recording soundscapes but then don't have resources to focus on fish. I am often approached by scientists, particularly young scientists and students, interested in soniferous fish ecology in the tropics. Often they, or their colleagues, are working with marine mammals, but they know they are collecting lots of fish data, but can't do anything with it (o.k., I get this in many area of the world too). This is such an important new field for ecology, taxonomy, conservation, fisheries, etc., in a part of the world with a LOT of soniferous species. For that matter what about India, Africa, SE Asia, who is working, or wants to work in this field from these areas?

I am not a medical professional, but have been confused by conflicting statements about the use of gloves and masks by the general public as an effective means to reduce the spread of the virus. It would be helpful if our leaders would actually discuss the logic behind the advice. I've tried to think about this logically and set down a straw man set of statements below. I'd be interested to learn where my logic may be flawed.

Assumptions:

1. virus cannot penetrate unbroken skin

2. virus is airborne

3. virus can live on surfaces

4. virus is killed by soap and water

1. Hands

a. Bare – touching any contaminated surface results in contamination of hands

i. Virus spread by touching other surfaces

ii. Virus spread by touching other people’s faces

iii. Owner only gets virus if contaminated hand touches mouth/nose/eyes, or open skin wounds

iv. Preventative – washing hands

b. Gloves – touching any contaminated surface results in contamination of gloved hand

i. Virus spread to any surface touched by gloved hand

ii. Virus spread by touching other people’s faces

iii. Owner gets virus if touches mouth/nose/eyes while wearing contaminated glove

iv. Discarded glove still contaminated, touching it with bear hands transfers virus to hands

v. Preventative – disposable gloves discarded after each use; non-disposable gloves washed after each use; hands washed immediately after taking gloves off

2. Mask

a. Sealed

i. Prevents user from shedding virus into air

ii. Prevents user from inhaling virus in air

iii. Prevents user from touching face with contaminated gloved or bare hands

b. Unsealed (e.g. standard hardware or homemade mask, bandana, etc.)

i. Reduces amount of virus shed by user into the air, likely to a large degree

ii. Reduces likelihood of inhaling virus

iii. Prevents user from touching face with contaminated gloved or bare hands

3. Conclusions

a. Glove use by general public provides minimal protection and can increase spread of virus if not used properly, which is very likely. Professionals use disposable gloves which are discarded immediately after each use, hence do not transfer virus from person to person or room to room. If used properly by general public, gloves can provide minimal protection to the USER when hands can’t be washed immediately, but do not reduce spread of virus on surfaces. For example, a cashier wearing gloves who touches a contaminated object is just as likely to spread the virus to other objects that are touched as a cashier without gloves. Caveat – virus may have shorter survival times on different types of gloves compared to bare hands.

b. Masks can reduce spread of virus by a carrier by limiting or reducing shedding by breathing, coughing or sneezing. However, homemade masks use by the general public likely helps most by preventing the user from touching their face with contaminated bare of gloved hands.

If you are particularly interested in estuarine gradients, check out some of my papers and dissertation.

Also at www.fishecology.org

On a recent hiking trip in Utah I was recording the holo-soundscape in a tributary of the Virgin River in Orderville Canyon when a small boulder fell into the river.  It produced a strong hissing sound for at least ten minutes. Is the sound the result of out gassing?  No obvious bubble trail was produced.  A short clip of the sound can be viewed on my soundcloud site at:https://soundcloud.com/rodney-rountree/sets/natural-soundscapes-utah

Select the "drowning rock" clip. Rustles sounds at the beginning are from my shifting feet in the gravel.  The left track is a hydrophone recording underwater and the right track is microphone recording of aerial sounds. Then you can hear the boulder falling down the canyon wall and splashing into the water better underwater than above, followed by an intense hissing sound of up to 5 kHz.