Far-reaching effects of a seal scarer on harbour porpoises, Phocoena phocoena

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 222-232

  Brandt, Miriam J ^a   Höschle, Caroline ^a   Diederichs, Ansgar ^a   Betke, Klaus ^b   Matuschek, Rainer ^b   Witte, Sophia ^a   Nehls, Georg ^a  

^a BioConsult SH GmbH and Co KG   (Germany)

^b Institute for Technical and Applied Physics (itap)   (Germany)

Author keywords

Aquaculture; Behaviour; Coastal; Industry; Mammals; Ocean; Protected species

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; ACOUSTIC EQUIPMENT; ACOUSTIC METHOD; AERIAL SURVEY; AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION; ECOLOGICAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL DISTURBANCE; ENVIRONMENTAL RISK; MARINE MAMMAL; OFFSHORE ENGINEERING; POPULATION DECLINE; PORPOISE; PREDATION;

ATLANTIC OCEAN; GERMANY; NORTH SEA;

MAMMALIA; PHOCOENA PHOCOENA; PHOCOENIDAE;

EID: 84876407168     PISSN: 10527613     EISSN: 10990755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2311     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Brandt MJ, Diederichs A, Betke K, Nehls G. 2011. Responses of harbour porpoises to pile driving (offshore windfarm Horns Rev II, Danish North Sea). Marine Ecology Progress Series 421: 205-216.
2. Brandt MJ, Höschle C, Diederichs A, Betke K, Matuschek R, Nehls G. in press. Sealscarer as a mitigation measure for harbour porpoises during offshore construction? DOI: 10.3354/meps10100
3. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L. 2001. Introduction to Distance Sampling - Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
4. Carstensen J, Henriksen OD, Teilmann J. 2006. Impacts of offshore wind farm construction on harbour porpoises: acoustic monitoring of echolocation activity using porpoise detectors (T-PODs). Marine Ecology Progress Series 321: 295-308.
5. Diederichs A, Brandt MJ, Nehls G, Laczny M, Ströh A, Piper W. 2010. Auswirkungen des Baus des Offshore-Testfelds "alpha ventus" auf marine Säugetiere. BioConsult SH, Husum, D.
6. Francois, RE, Garrison GR. 1982. Sound absorption based on ocean measurements. Part II: boric acid contribution and equation for absorption. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 72: 1879-1890.
7. Götz T, Janik VM. 2010. Aversiveness of sounds in phocid seals: psycho-physiological factors, learning processes and motivation. Journal of Experimental Biology 213: 1536-1548.
8. Götz T, Janik VM. 2011. Repeated elicitation of the acoustic startle reflex leads to sensitisation in subsequent avoidance behaviour and induces fear conditioning. BMC Neuroscience 12: 1-12.
9. Grünkorn T, Diederichs A, Nehls G. 2005. Aerial surveys in the German Bight - estimating g(0) for harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) by employing independent double counts. ECS Newsletter 44: 25-31.
10. Jefferson TA, Curry BE. 1996. Acoustic methods of reducing or eliminating marine mammal-fishery interactions: do they work? Ocean and Coastal Management 31: 41-70.
11. Johnston DW. 2002. The effect of acoustic harassment devices on harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Biological Conservation 108: 113-118.
12. Kastelein RA, Hoek L, Jennings N, Jong CD, Terhune J, Dieleman M. 2010. Acoustic mitigation devices (AMDs) to deter marine mammals from pile driving areas at sea: audibility and behavioural responses of a harbour porpoise & harbour seals. COWRIE Ref: SEAMAMD-09.
13. Königson S, Hemmingsson M, Lunneryd S-G, Lundström K. 2007. Seals and fyke nets: an investigation of the problem and its possible solution. Marine Biology Research 3: 29-36.
14. Kraus SD. 1999. The once and future ping: challenges for the use of acoustic deterrents in fisheries. Marine Technology Society Journal 33: 90-93.
15. Lucke K, Siebert U, Lepper PA, Blanchet MA. 2009. Temporary shift in masked hearing thresholds in a harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after exposure to seismic airgun stimuli. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125: 4060-4070.
16. Madsen PT, Wahlberg M, Tougaard J, Lucke K, Tyack PL. 2006. Wind turbine underwater noise and marine mammals: implications of current knowledge and data needs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 309: 279-295.
17. Mate BR, Harvey JT. 1986. Acoustical deterrents in marine mammal conflicts with fisheries. Oregon Sea Grant Report ORESU-W-86-001.
18. Olesiuk PF, Nichol LM, Sowden MJ, Ford JKB. 2002. Effect of the sound generated by an acoustic harassment device on the relative abundance and distribution of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in retreat passage, British Columbia. Marine Mammal Science 18: 843-862.
19. Petersen P. 1927. Zur Bestimmung der Windstärke auf See. Für Segler, Dampfer und Luftfahrzeige. Annalen der Hydrographie und Maritimen Meteorologie. Pages 69-72.
20. Southall BL, Bowles AE, Ellison WT, Finneran JJ, Gentry RL, Greene CR Jr., Kastak D, Ketten DR, Miller JH, Nachtigall PE, et al. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33: 411-522.
21. Teilmann J. 2000. The behaviour and sensory abilities of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in relation to bycatch in Danish gillnet fishery. PhD thesis, University of southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
22. Thomas L, Buckland ST, Rexstad EA, Laake JL, Strindberg S, Hedley SL, Bishop JRB, Marques TA, Burnham KP. 2010. Distance software: design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 5-14.
23. Thomsen F, Lüdemann K, Kafemann R, Pieper W. 2006. Effects of offshore wind farm noise on marine mammals and fish. Biola, Hamburg, on behalf of COWRIE Ltd.
24. Tougaard J, Carstensen J, Teilmann J. 2009. Pile driving zone of responsiveness extends beyond 20 km for harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena (L.)). Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 126: 11-14.