Suchergebnisse

1. Management interventions to reduce human-wildlife conflict can have unintended consequences for non-target species. Acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) are used globally by the aquaculture sector. However, the potential for these sound emissions to impact non-target species, such as cetaceans, has not yet been quantified at population relevant spatial scales. 2. To better understand the extent of potential impacts on cetaceans, such as harbour porpoises, we used acoustic modelling to investigate levels of ADD noise throughout the west coast of Scotland and across a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) for this species. 3. Using an energy-flux acoustic propagation model and data on aquaculture sites known to be using ADDs, we predicted the spatial extent of ADD noise on the Scottish west coast from the 1st February 2017 to 31st January 2018. Noise maps were produced to determine the risk of auditory impairment for harbour porpoises under a range of scenarios which assumed single or multiple ADDs and simultaneous use across all sites. 4. The acoustic propagation model performed well when tested against field measurements up to 5 km, with 98% of sound exposure level (SEL) predictions within ±10% of the measurements. Predictions of SELs over a 24-hour period suggested extensive temporary hearing loss zones (median radius: ~28 km) for harbour porpoises around aquaculture sites. Assuming a single device at each site, 23% of the harbour porpoise SAC was predicted to be exposed to ADD noise sufficient to induce a temporary threshold shift, and under the worst-case scenario (multiple, continuously running devices per site with an aggregate duty cycle of 100%), levels exceeding permanent threshold shift could reach 0.9% of the SAC. 5. Policy implications. This study highlights the potential for 'collateral damage' from interventions such as acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) which are intended to reduce human-wildlife conflicts with pinnipeds but may affect the long-term health and habitat use of non-target species. This is especially true for harbour porpoises which are protected under the EU and UK Habitats Regulations. The aquaculture industry, policymakers and regulators in countries where ADDs are used should consider these findings when attempting to mitigate pinniped depredation.

This study was partly funded by Beatrice Offshore Wind Ltd. and Moray Offshore Wind Farm (East) Ltd. using equipment previously purchased by UK Department of Energy & Climate Change, Scottish Government, Oil and Gas UK, COWRIE and Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd. P.T. and I.G. were core funded by University of Aberdeen. A.B. was core funded by the collaboration between University of Aberdeen and Marine Scotland Science through the MarCRF PhD studentship. N.M. was core funded by Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

This work was funded by the European Social Fund and Scottish Funding Council as part of Developing Scotland's Workforce in the Scotland 2014–2020 European Structural and Investment Fund Programme. NDM and AF were funded by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas). Funding for the seal tagging was provided by the Scottish Government to the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU) as part of the Marine Mammal Scientific Support Program MMSS/002/15, with additional resources from the Natural Environment Research Council (grant numbers NE/J004251/1 and SMRU1001). ; 1. Pinniped depredation at aquaculture sites is a globally recognized problem. To mitigate depredation, the aquaculture sector uses acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) as a non-lethal alternative to shooting pinnipeds interacting with caged finfish. However, it is unclear whether sound emissions from ADDs have the potential to also impact non-target pinnipeds at spatial scales relevant to populations. 2. Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking data from seven harbour seals tagged in a non-aquaculture context, on the west coast of Scotland, in 2017 were combined with modelled maps of ADD noise to quantify sound exposure and estimate the potential for auditory impairment. The acoustic model applied an energy flux approach across the main frequency range of ADDs (2–40 kHz). Predictions of temporary and permanent auditory threshold shifts were made using seal location data and published noise exposure criteria. The acoustic exposure of waters (10-km buffers) surrounding protected habitats (i.e. designated haul outs and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)) on the west coast of Scotland was also assessed. 3. All tagged seals and waters surrounding 51 of 56 protected sites were predicted to be exposed to ADD noise exceeding median ambient sound levels. Temporary auditory impairment was predicted to occur in one of the seven tagged harbour seals and across 1.7% of waters surrounding protected habitats over a 24-hour period, when assuming a 100% ADD duty cycle. 4. Although the predicted risk of auditory impairment appears to be relatively low, these findings suggest that harbour seals inhabiting inshore waters off western Scotland are routinely exposed to ADD noise that exceeds median ambient sound levels. This chronic exposure risks negative consequences for individual harbour seals among the wider population in this region. The use of ADDs to mitigate pinniped depredation should be carefully considered to reduce unintended habitat-wide impacts on non-target species, including pinnipeds that are not specifically interacting with aquaculture. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This study was funded by Beatrice Offshore Wind Ltd. (BOWL) using equipment previously purchased by UK Department of Energy & Climate Change, Scottish Government, Oil and Gas UK, COWRIE and Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd. Whilst this study was funded by a commercial developer, Beatrice Offshore Wind Ltd. (BOWL), the funding body had no input into data collection, data analysis or interpretation, or the writing of the paper. Experimental playbacks of ADD were conducted under Animal Licence number 91734 from Scottish Natural Heritage. Moorings for recording devices were licensed by Marine Scotland and consented by the Crown Estate. We thank: MFRAG members for constructive advice; Nick Brockie, Lis Royle, Elizabeth Reynolds and BOWL colleagues for industry data and facilitating fieldwork during windfarm construction; Bill Ruck at Moray First Marine and University of Aberdeen colleagues for support with data collection. We thank Caroline Carter and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on the manuscript. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

The work was funded under Scottish Government grant MMSS/001/11 and contract CR/2014/04, and supported by National Capability funding from NERC to SMRU (grant no. SMRU1001). Seal at-sea usage maps, location data for individual seals, locations and source levels for vessels, and SPLs from monitoring data used for acoustic validations are available from the Pure repository, https://doi.org/10.17630/89ac9345-240a-41bb-8f53-b3f14bb114c0. ; 1. Vessels can have acute and chronic impacts on marine species. The rate of increase in commercial shipping is accelerating, and there is a need to quantify and potentially manage the risk of these impacts. 2. Usage maps characterising densities of grey and harbour seals and ships around the British Isles were used to produce risk maps of seal co-occurrence with shipping traffic. Acoustic exposure to individual harbour seals was modelled in a study area using contemporaneous movement data from 28 animals fitted with UHF global positioning satellite telemetry tags and automatic identification system data from all ships during 2014 and 2015. Data from four acoustic recorders were used to validate sound exposure predictions. 3. Across the British Isles, rates of co-occurrence were highest within 50 km of the coast, close to seal haul-outs. Areas identified with high risk of exposure included 11 Special Areas of Conservation (SAC; from a possible 25). Risk to harbour seal populations was highest, affecting half of all SACs associated with the species. 4. Predicted cumulative sound exposure level, cSELs(Mpw), over all seals was 176·8 dB re 1 μPa2 s (95% CI 163·3–190·4), ranging from 170·2 dB re 1μPa2 s (95% CI 168·4–171·9) to 189·3 dB re 1 μPa2 s (95% CI 172·6–206·0) for individuals. This represented an increase in 28·3 dB re 1 μPa2 s over measured ambient noise. For 20 of 28 animals in the study, 95% CI for cSELs(Mpw) had upper bounds above levels known to induce temporary threshold shift. Predictions of broadband received sound pressure levels were underestimated on average by 0·7 dB re 1 μPa (±3·3). 5. Synthesis and applications. We present a framework to allow shipping noise, an important marine anthropogenic stressor, to be explicitly incorporated into spatial planning. Potentially sensitive areas are identified through quantifying risk to marine species of exposure to shipping traffic, and individual noise exposure is predicted with associated uncertainty in an area with varying rates of co-occurrence. The detailed approach taken here facilitates spatial planning with regard to underwater noise within areas protected through the Habitats Directive, and could be used to provide evidence for further designations. This framework may have utility in assessing whether underwater noise levels are at Good Environmental Status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

Underwater noise from human activities appears to be rising, with ramifications for acoustically sensitive marine organisms and the functioning of marine ecosystems. Policymakers are beginning to address the risk of ecological impact, but are constrained by a lack of data on current and historic noise levels. Here, we present the first nationally coordinated effort to quantify underwater noise levels, in support of UK policy objectives under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). Field measurements were made during 2013-2014 at twelve sites around the UK. Median noise levels ranged from 81.5-95.5 dB re 1 μPa for one-third octave bands from 63-500 Hz. Noise exposure varied considerably, with little anthropogenic influence at the Celtic Sea site, to several North Sea sites with persistent vessel noise. Comparison of acoustic metrics found that the RMS level (conventionally used to represent the mean) was highly skewed by outliers, exceeding the 97 th percentile at some frequencies. We conclude that environmental indicators of anthropogenic noise should instead use percentiles, to ensure statistical robustness. Power analysis indicated that at least three decades of continuous monitoring would be required to detect trends of similar magnitude to historic rises in noise levels observed in the Northeast Pacific.

Underwater noise from human activities appears to be rising, with ramifications for acoustically sensitive marine organisms and the functioning of marine ecosystems. Policymakers are beginning to address the risk of ecological impact, but are constrained by a lack of data on current and historic noise levels. Here, we present the first nationally coordinated effort to quantify underwater noise levels, in support of UK policy objectives under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). Field measurements were made during 2013–2014 at twelve sites around the UK. Median noise levels ranged from 81.5–95.5 dB re 1 μPa for one-third octave bands from 63–500 Hz. Noise exposure varied considerably, with little anthropogenic influence at the Celtic Sea site, to several North Sea sites with persistent vessel noise. Comparison of acoustic metrics found that the RMS level (conventionally used to represent the mean) was highly skewed by outliers, exceeding the 97th percentile at some frequencies. We conclude that environmental indicators of anthropogenic noise should instead use percentiles, to ensure statistical robustness. Power analysis indicated that at least three decades of continuous monitoring would be required to detect trends of similar magnitude to historic rises in noise levels observed in the Northeast Pacific.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was funded through the DECC Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment Programme using equipment previously purchased by DECC, Scottish Government, Oil and Gas UK, COW-RIE and Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd. Scottish Natural Heritage, Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Ltd., MORL, Marine Scotland, The Crown Estate and Highlands and Islands Enterprise all provided funding for photo-identification surveys. We thank Bill Ruck and col-leagues from University of Aberdeen and Moray First Marine for fieldwork support, and Global Energy, Cromarty Firth Port Authority, and other local stakeholders for information on the construction program. John Hartley, Francesca Marubini, and two anonymous reviewers kindly provided comments on the manuscript. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

Anthropogenic underwater noise has been identified as a potentially serious stressor for the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale (NARW). The Government of Canada is undertaking steps to better characterize the noise sources of most concern and their associated impacts, but there is currently an insufficient understanding of which noise sources are most impacting NARW in their Canadian habitat. This knowledge gap together with the myriad possible methods and metrics for quantifying underwater noise presents a confounding and challenging problem that risks delaying timely mitigation. This study presents the results from a 2020 workshop aimed at developing a series of metrics recommended specifically for better characterizing the types of noise deemed of greatest concern for NARW in Canadian waters. The recommendations provide a basis for more targeted research on noise impacts and set the stage for more effective management and protection of NARW, with potential conservation applications to similar species.

Marine environmental monitoring is undertaken to provide evidence that environmental management targets are being met. Moreover, monitoring also provides context to marine science and over the last century has allowed development of a critical scientific understanding of the marine environment and the impacts that humans are having on it. The seas around the UK are currently monitored by targeted, impact-driven, programmes (e.g., fishery or pollution based monitoring) often using traditional techniques, many of which have not changed significantly since the early 1900s. The advent of a new wave of automated technology, in combination with changing political and economic circumstances, means that there is currently a strong drive to move toward a more refined, efficient, and effective way of monitoring. We describe the policy and scientific rationale for monitoring our seas, alongside a comprehensive description of the types of equipment and methodology currently used and the technologies that are likely to be used in the future. We contextualize the way new technologies and methodologies may impact monitoring and discuss how whole ecosystems models can give an integrated, comprehensive approach to impact assessment. Furthermore, we discuss how an understanding of the value of each data point is crucial to assess the true costs and benefits to society of a marine monitoring programme.