Author:
Elmegaard Siri L.,Teilmann Jonas,Rojano-Doñate Laia,Brennecke Dennis,Mikkelsen Lonnie,Balle Jeppe D.,Gosewinkel Ulrich,Kyhn Line A.,Tønnesen Pernille,Wahlberg Magnus,Ruser Andreas,Siebert Ursula,Madsen Peter Teglberg
Abstract
AbstractAcoustic Harassment Devices (AHD) are widely used to deter marine mammals from aquaculture depredation, and from pile driving operations that may otherwise cause hearing damage. However, little is known about the behavioural and physiological effects of these devices. Here, we investigate the physiological and behavioural responses of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) to a commercial AHD in Danish waters. Six porpoises were tagged with suction-cup-attached DTAGs recording sound, 3D-movement, and GPS (n = 3) or electrocardiogram (n = 2). They were then exposed to AHDs for 15 min, with initial received levels (RL) ranging from 98 to 132 dB re 1 µPa (rms-fast, 125 ms) and initial exposure ranges of 0.9–7 km. All animals reacted by displaying a mixture of acoustic startle responses, fleeing, altered echolocation behaviour, and by demonstrating unusual tachycardia while diving. Moreover, during the 15-min exposures, half of the animals received cumulative sound doses close to published thresholds for temporary auditory threshold shifts. We conclude that AHD exposure at many km can evoke both startle, flight and cardiac responses which may impact blood-gas management, breath-hold capability, energy balance, stress level and risk of by-catch. We posit that current AHDs are too powerful for mitigation use to prevent hearing damage of porpoises from offshore construction.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference73 articles.
1. Hildebrand, J. Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 395, 5–20 (2009).
2. Reeves, R. R., Read, A. J. & Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. Report of the Workshop on Interactions Between Dolphins and Fisheries in the Mediterranean, Evaluation of Mitigation Alternatives: Roma, 4–5 May 2001. (2001).
3. Götz, T. & Janik, V. M. Acoustic deterrent devices to prevent pinniped depredation: Efficiency, conservation concerns and possible solutions. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 492, 285–302 (2013).
4. Northridge, S. P. et al. Assessment of the impacts and utility of acoustic deterrent devices. Final Report to the Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum, Project Code SARF044. Oceans (2010).
5. Olesiuk, P. F., Nichol, L. M., Sowden, M. J. & Ford, J. K. B. Effect of the sound generated by an acoustic harassment device on the relative abundance and distribution of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Retreat Passage, British Columbia. Mar. Mammal Sci. 18, 843–862 (2002).
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献