Using a spatial overlap approach to estimate the risk of collisions between deep diving seabirds and tidal stream turbines: A review of potential methods and approaches

Marine Policy

Volumn 44, Issue , 2014, Pages 90-97

  Waggitt, J J ^a   Scott, B E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Collision risks; Environmental impacts; Marine renewable energy; Predator prey interactions; Seabirds; Spatial ecology

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY; ECOLOGICAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; RENEWABLE RESOURCE; SEABIRD; TURBINE;

UNITED KINGDOM;

ALCIDAE; GAVIA; PHALACROCORACIDAE; PHALACROCORAX; PINGUINUS;

EID: 84889582749     PISSN: 0308597X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.07.007     Document Type: Article

References (110)

1. Fraenkel PL. Tidal current energy technologies. Ibis 2006, 148:145-151.
2. Pelc R, Fujita RM. Renewable energy from the ocean. Marine Policy 2002, 26(6):471-479.
3. Grecian WJ, Inger R, Attrill MJ, Bearhop S, Godley BJ, Witt MJ., et al. Potential impacts of wave-powered marine renewable energy installations on marine birds. Ibis 2010, 152(4):683-697.
4. Mitchell PI, Newton SF, Ratcliffe N, Dunn TE. Seabird populations of Britain and Ireland. London: T. & A.D. Poyser; 2004.
5. Langton R, Davies IM, Scott BE. Seabird conservation and tidal stream and wave power generation: information needs for predicting and managing potential impacts. Marine Policy 2011, 35(5):623-630.
6. Scott BE, Langton R, Philpott E, Waggitt JJ. Seabirds and marine renewables: are we asking the right questions? In: Shields MA, Payne AIL, editors. Humanity and the seas: marine renewable energy and environmental interactions. London: Springer; in press.
7. Wilson B, Batty RS, Daunt F, Carter C. Collision risks between marine renewable energy devices and mammals, fish and diving birds. Report to the Scottish Executive. Scottish Association for Marine Science 2007.
8. Furness RW, Wade HM, Robbins AMC, Masden EA. Assessing the sensitivity of seabird populations to adverse effects from tidal stream turbines and wave energy devices. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2012, 69(8):1466-1479.
9. Fauchald P. Spatial interaction between seabirds and prey: review and synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2009, 391:139-151.
10. Weimerskirch H. Are seabirds foraging for unpredictable resources?. Deep-Sea Research Part II 2007, 54(3 and 4):211-223.
11. Hunt GL, Mehlum F, Russell RW, Irons D, Decker MB, Becker PH. Physical processes, prey abundance, and the foraging ecology of seabirds. Proceedings of the International Ornithological Congress 1999, 22:2040-2056.
12. Holm KJ, Burger AE Foraging behavior and resource partitioning by diving birds during winter in areas of strong tidal currents. Waterbirds 2002, 25(3):312-325.
13. Ladd C, Jahncke J, Hunt GL, Coyle KO, Stabeno PJ. Hydrographic features and seabird foraging in Aleutian Passes. Fisheries Oceanography 2005, 14:178-195.
14. Zamon JE. Mixed species aggregations feeding upon herring and sandlance schools in a nearshore archipelago depend on flooding tidal currents. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2003, 261:243-255.
15. Department of Energy and Climate Change. The atlas of UK marine renewable energy resources; 2004.
16. The Crown Estate. UK wave and tidal key resource areas project: summary report; 2012.
17. Kober K, Webb A, Win I, Lewis M, O'Brien S, Wilson LJ, et al. An analysis of the numbers and distribution of seabirds within the British Fishery Limit aimed at identifying areas that qualify as possible marine SPAs. JNCC Report 431; 2010.
18. Saether BE, Bakke O. Avian life history variation and contribution of demographic trait to the population growth rate. Ecology 2000, 3:642-653.
19. Mehlum F, Hunt GL, Klusek Z, Decker MB. Scale-dependent correlations between the abundance of Brünnich's guillemots and their prey. Journal of Animal Ecology 1999, 68(1):60-72.
20. Fauchald P, Erikstad KE, Skarsfjord H. Scale-dependent predator-prey interactions: the hierarchical spatial distribution of seabirds and prey. Ecology 2000, 81(3):773-783.
21. Skov H, Durinck J, Andell P. Associations between wintering avian predators and schooling fish in the Skagerrak-Kattegat suggest reliance on predictable aggregations of herring Clupea harengus. Journal of Avian Biology 2000, 31(2):135-143.
22. Tremblay Y, Bertrand S, Henry RW, Kappes MA, Costa DP, Shaffer SA. Analytical approaches to investigating seabird-environment interactions: a review. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2009, 391:153-163.
23. Fauchald P, Skov H, Skern-Mauritzen M, Hausner VH, Johns D, Tveraa T. Scale-dependent response diversity of seabirds to prey in the North Sea. Ecology 2011, 1:228-239.
24. Scott BE, Sharples J, Ross ON, Wang J, Pierce GJ, Camphuysen CJ. Sub-surface hotspots in shallow seas: fine-scale limited locations of top predator foraging habitat indicated by tidal mixing and sub-surface chlorophyll. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2010, 408:207-226.
25. Harrison NM, Webb A, Leaper GM. Patterns in seabird distribution west of Scotland. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 1994, 4(1):21-30.
26. Ewins PJ. The diet of black Guillemots Cepphus grylle in Shetland. Ecography 1990, 13(2):90-97.
27. Watanuki Y, Daunt F, Takahashi A, Newell M, Wanless S, Sato K, et al. Microhabitat use and prey capture of a bottom-feeding top predator, the European shag, shown by camera loggers. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2008, 356:283-293.
28. Richner H. Wintering cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo carbo in the Ythan estuary, Scotland: numerical and behavioral responses to fluctuating prey availability. Ardea 1995, 83:193-197.
29. Burke CM, Montevecchi WA. The foraging decisions of a central place foraging seabird in response to fluctuations in local prey conditions. Journal of Zoology 2009, 278(4):354-361.
30. Monaghan P, Walton P, Wanless S, Uttley JD, Bljrns MD. Effects of prey abundance on the foraging behaviour, diving efficiency and time allocation of breeding Guillemots Uria aalge. Ibis 1994, 136(2):214-222.
31. Wanless S, Grémillet D, Harris MP. Foraging activity and performance of shags Phalacrocorax aristotelis in relation to environmental characteristics. Journal of Avian Biology 1998, 29(1):49-54.
32. Orians GH, Pearson NE. On the ecology of central place foraging. Analysis of ecological systems 1979, 155-177. Ohio University Press, Ohio. D.J. Horn, R.D. Mitchell, G.R. Stairs (Eds.).
33. Thaxter CB, Lascelles B, Sugar K, ASCP Cook, Roos S, Bolton M, et al. Seabird foraging ranges as a preliminary tool for identifying candidate Marine Protected Areas. Biological Conservation 2012, 156:53-61.
34. Garthe S. Influence of hydrography, fishing activity, and colony location on summer seabird distribution in the south-eastern North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 1997, 54(4):566-577.
35. Maclean IMD, Rehfisch MM, Skov H, Thaxter CB. Evaluating the statistical power of detecting changes in the abundance of seabirds at sea. Ibis 2013, 155(1):113-126.
36. Boyce MS, Vernier PR, Nielsen SE, Schmiegelow FKA Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecological Modelling 2002, 157(2-3):281-300.
37. Oppel S, Meirinho A, Ramírez I, Gardner B, O'Connell AF, Miller PI, et al. Comparison of five modelling techniques to predict the spatial distribution and abundance of seabirds. Biological Conservation 2012, 156(0):94-104.
38. Boyce MS. Scale for resource selection functions. Diversity and Distributions 2006, 12(3):269-276.
39. McLoughlin PD, Morris DW, Fortin D, Vander Wal E, Contasti AL. Considering ecological dynamics in resource selection functions. Journal of Animal Ecology 2010, 79(1):4-12.
40. Matthiopoulos J. The use of space by animals as a function of accessibility and preference. Ecological Modelling 2003, 159(2 and 3):239-268.
41. Meyer CB, Thuiller W. Accuracy of resource selection functions across spatial scales. Diversity and Distributions 2006, 12(3):288-297.
42. Matthiopoulos J, Hebblewhite M, Aarts G, Fieberg J. Generalized functional responses for species distributions. Ecology 2011, 92(3):583-589.
43. Embling CB, Illian J, Armstrong E, Van der Kooij J, Sharples J, Camphuysen CJ, et al. Investigating fine scale spatio-temporal predator-prey patterns in dynamic marine ecosystems: a functional data analysis approach. Journal of Applied Ecology 2012, 49:481-492.
44. Burt WH. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 1943, 24(3):346-352.
45. Camphuysen CJ, Fox AD, Leopold MF, Petersen IK. Towards standardised seabirds at sea census techniques in connection with environmental impact assessments for offshore wind farms in the UK. Report by Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research and the Danish National Environmental Research Institute commissioned by Cowrie Ltd; 2004.
46. Tasker ML, Jones PH, Dixon TJ, Blake BF. Counting seabirds at sea from ships: a review of methods employed and a suggestion for a standardized approach. The Auk 1984, 101:567-577.
47. Thaxter CB, Burton NHK. High definition imagery for surveying seabirds and marine mammals: a review of recent trials and development of protocols. Report by the British Trust for Ornithology commissioned by Cowrie Ltd; 2009.
48. Buckland ST, Burt ML, Rexstad EA, Mellor M, Williams AE, Woodward R. Aerial surveys of seabirds: the advent of digital methods. Journal of Applied Ecology 2012, 49(4):960-967.
49. Ropert-Coudert Y, Wilson RP Trends and perspectives in animal-attached remote sensing. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2005, 3(8):437-444.
50. Ropert-Coudert Y, Beaulieu M, Hanuise M, Kato A. Diving into the world of biologging. Endangered Species Research 2010, 10:21-27.
51. Harris MP, Bogdanovaa MI, Daunt F, Wanless S. Using GPS technology to assess feeding areas of Atlantic Puffins Fratercula arctica. Bird Study 2012, 27(1):43-49.
52. Fauchald P, Tveraa T. Using first-passage time in the analysis of area-restricted search and habitat selection. Ecology 2003, 84(2):282-288.
53. Worton BJ. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 1989, 70:164-168.
54. Hamer KC, Humphreys EM, Magalhães MC, Garthe S, Hennicke J, Peters G, et al. Fine-scale foraging behaviour of a medium-ranging marine predator. Journal of Animal Ecology 2009, 78(4):880-889.
55. Cook T, Hamann M, Pichegru L, Bonadonna F, Grémillet D, Ryan PG. GPS and time-depth loggers reveal underwater foraging plasticity in a flying diver, the Cape Cormorant. Marine Biology 2012, 159(2):373-387.
56. Thaxter CB, Daunt F, Hamer KC, Watanuki Y, Harris MP, Grémillet D, et al. Sex-specific food provisioning in a monomorphic seabird, the common guillemot Uria aalge: nest defence, foraging efficiency or parental effort?. Journal of Avian Biology 2009, 40(1):75-84.
57. Stauss C, Bearhop S, Gunn C, Grecian WJ, Inger R, Knight ME, et al. Sex-specific foraging behaviour in a monomorphic seabird: age-specific incidence, seasonal variation and implications for interactions with commercial fisheries. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2012, 457:151-162.
58. Votier SC, Grecian WJ, Patrick S, Newton J. Inter-colony movements, at-sea behaviour and foraging in an immature seabird: results from GPS-PPT tracking, radio-tracking and stable isotope analysis. Marine Biology 2011, 158(2):355-362.
59. Daunt F, Wanless S, Harris MP, Money L, Monaghan P. Older and wiser: improvements in breeding success are linked to better foraging performance in European shags. Functional Ecology 2007, 21(3):561-567.
60. Gremillet D, Dell'Omo G, Ryan PG, Peters G, Ropert-Coudert Y, Weeks SJ. Offshore diplomacy, or how seabirds mitigate intra-specific competition: a case study based on GPS tracking of Cape gannets from neighbouring colonies Marine Ecology Progress Series 2004, 268:265-279.
61. Gaston AJ, Smith PA, Tranquilla LM, Montevecchi WA, Fifield DA, Gilchrist HG, et al. Movements and wintering areas of breeding age Thick-billed Murre Uria lomvia from two colonies in Nunavut, Canada. Marine Biology 2011, 158:1929-1941.
62. Votier SC, Bearhop S, Witt MJ, Inger R, Thompson D, Newton J Individual responses of seabirds to commercial fisheries revealed using GPS tracking, stable isotopes and vessel monitoring systems. Journal of Applied Ecology 2010, 47(2):487-497.
63. Elliott KH, Woo K, Gaston AJ, Benvenuti S, Dall'Antonia L, Davoren GK Seabird foraging behaviour indicates prey type. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2008, 354(289):289-303.
64. Elliott HK, Woo KJ, Gaston AJ. Specialization in Murres. The Story of Eight Specialists Waterbirds 2008, 32(4):491-506.
65. Hamer KC, Phillips RA, Hill JK, Wanless S, Wood AG. Contrasting foraging strategies of gannets Morus bassanus at two North Atlantic colonies: foraging trip duration and foraging area fidelity. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2001, 224:283-290.
66. Guilford T, Freeman R, Boyle D, Dean B, Kirk H, Phillips RA, et al. A dispersive migration in the Atlantic puffin and its implications for migratory navigation. PLoS ONE 2011, 6(7):e21336.
67. Thaxter CB, Ross-Smith VH, Clark NA, Conway GJ, Helen W, Masden EA, et al. Measuring the interaction between marine features of special protection areas with offshore wind farm development zones through telemetry: second year report. British trust for ornithology research report no. 610; 2012.
68. Ito M, Takahashi A, Kokubun N, Kitaysky AS, Watanuki Y Foraging behavior of incubating and chick-rearing thick-billed murres Uria lomvia. Aquatic Biology 2010, 8:279-287.
69. Hatch SA, Meyers PM, Mulcahy DM, Douglas DC. Seasonal movements and pelagic habitat use of murres and puffins determined by satellite telemetry. The Condor 2001, 102(1):145-154.
70. Falk K, Antonia LD, Benvenutti S. Mapping pre- and post-fledging foraging locations of thick-billed murres in the North Water polynya. Ecography 2001, 24(6):625-632.
71. Phillips RA, Silk JRD, Croxall JP, Afanasyev V, Briggs DR. Accuracy of geolocation estimates for flying seabirds. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2004, 266:265-272.
72. Huettmann F, Diamond AW. Seabird colony locations and environmental determination of seabird distribution: a spatially explicit breeding seabird model for the Northwest Atlantic. Ecological Modelling 2001, 141(1-3):261-298.
73. Yen PPW, Huettmann F, Cooke F. A large-scale model for the at-sea distribution and abundance of Marbled Murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) during the breeding season in coastal British Columbia, Canada. Ecological Modelling 2004, 171(4):395-413.
74. Nur N, Jahncke J, Herzog MP, Howar J, Hyrenbach KD, Zamon JE, et al. Where the wild things are: predicting hotspots of seabird aggregations in the California Current System. Ecological Applications 2011, 21(6):2241-2257.
75. Louzao M, Bécares J, Rodríguez B, Hyrenbach KD, Ruiz A, Arcos JM. Combining vessel-based surveys and tracking data to identify key marine areas for seabirds. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2009, 391:183-197.
76. Stevick PT, Incze LS, Kraus SD, Rosen S, Wolff N, Baukus A. Trophic relationships and oceanography on and around a small offshore bank. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2008, 363:15-28.
77. Saulnier J, Maisondieu C, Ashton I, Smith GH. Refined sea state analysis from an array of four identical directional buoys deployed off the Northern Cornish coast (UK). Applied Ocean Research 2012, 37:1-21.
78. Pohlmann T. A meso-scale model of the central and southern North Sea: consequences of an improved resolution. Continental Shelf Research 2006, 26(19):2367-2385.
79. Miller P. Composite front maps for improved visibility of dynamic sea-surface features on cloudy SeaWiFS and AVHRR data. Journal of Marine Systems 2009, 78(3):327-336.
80. Jones J, Hall P, Davies A. An inter-comparison of tidal solutions computed with a range of unstructured grid models of the Irish and Celtic Sea Regions. Ocean Dynamics 2009, 59(6):997-1023.
81. Brown JM, Wolf J. Coupled wave and surge modelling for the eastern Irish Sea and implications for model wind-stress. Continental Shelf Research 2009, 29(10):1329-1342.
82. Xing J, Jones E, Davies A, Hall P. Modelling tidal surge interaction effects using finite volume and finite element models of the Irish Sea. Ocean Dynamics 2011, 61(8):1137-1174.
83. O'dea EJ, Arnold AK, Edwards KP, Furner R, Hyder P, Martin MJ, et al. An operational ocean forecast system incorporating NEMO and SST data assimilation for the tidally driven European North-West shelf. Journal of Operational Oceanography 2012, 5(1):3-17.
84. ICES. Report of the ICES advisory committee 2010. ICES Advice 2010; Book 6: 309.
85. Eliasen K, Reinert J, Gaard E, Hansen B, Jacobsen JA, Grønkjær P, et al. Sandeel as a link between primary production and higher trophic levels on the Faroe shelf. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2011, 438:185-194.
86. Scott BE, Sharples J, Wanless S, Ross O, Frederiksen M, Daunt F. The use of biologically meaningful oceanographic indices to separate the effect of climate and fisheries on seabird breeding success. Top predators in marine ecosystems: their role in monitoring and management 2006, 46-62. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. I.L. Boyd, S. Wanless (Eds.).
87. Sharples J, Ross ON, Scott BE, Greenstreet SPR, Fraser H. Inter-annual variability in the timing of stratification and the spring bloom in the North-western North Sea. Continental Shelf Research 2006, 26(6):733-751.
88. Hunt GL, Russell RW, Coyle KO, Weingartner T. Comparative foraging ecology of planktivorous auklets in relation to ocean physics and prey availability. Marine Ecology Progress Series 1998, 167:241-259.
89. Shields MA, Woolf DK, Grist EPM, Kerr SA, Jackson AC, Harris RE, et al. Marine renewable energy: the ecological implications of altering the hydrodynamics of the marine environment. Ocean and Coastal Management 2011, 54(1):2-9.
90. Slater PJB. Tidal rhythm in a seabird. Nature 1976, 264(5587):636-638.
91. Thomas L, Buckland ST, Rexstad EA, Laake JL, Strindberg S, Hedley SL, et al. Distance software: design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size. Journal of Applied Ecology 2010, 47(1):5-14.
92. Simmonds J, MacLennan D. Fisheries acoustics 2005, Blackwell, Oxford. second ed.
93. Shields MA, Dillon LJ, Woolf DK, Ford AT. Strategic priorities for assessing ecological impacts of marine renewable energy devices in the Pentland Firth (Scotland, UK). Marine Policy 2009, 33(4):635-642.
94. Lawrence J, Kofoed-Hansen H, Chevalier C. High-resolution metocean modelling at EMEC's (UK) marine energy test sites. In: Proceedings of the eighth European wave and tidal energy; 2009. p. 209-21.
95. Blunden LS, Bahaj AS. Initial evaluation of tidal stream energy resources at Portland Bill, UK. Renewable Energy 2006, 31(2):121-132.
96. Work PA, Haas KA, Defne Z, Gay T. Tidal stream energy site assessment via three-dimensional model and measurements. Applied Energy 2013, 102(0):510-519.
97. Heath JP, Gilchrist HG. When foraging becomes unprofitable: energetics of diving in tidal currents by common eiders wintering in the Arctic. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2010, 403:279-290.
98. Hedd A, Regular PM, Montevecchi WA, Buren AD, Burke CM, Fifield DA Going deep: common murres dive into frigid water for aggregated, persistent and slow-moving capelin. Marine Biology 2009, 156(4):741-751.
99. Regular PM, Davoren GK, Hedd A, Montevecchi WA. Crepuscular foraging by a pursuit-diving seabird: tactics of common murres in response to the diel vertical migration of capelin. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2010, 415:295-304.
100. Wanless S, Harris MP, Burger AE, Buckland ST. Use of time-at-depth recorders for estimating depth and diving performance of European shags. Journal of Field Ornithology 1997, 68(4):547-561.
101. Wanless S, Burger AE, Harris MP. Diving depths of Shags Phalacrocorax aristotelis breeding on the Isle of May. Ibis 1991, 133(1):37-42.
102. Inger R, Attrill MJ, Bearhop S, Broderick AC, Grecian WJ, Hodgson DJ, et al. Marine renewable energy: potential benefits to biodiversity? An urgent call for research. Journal of Applied Ecology 2009, 46(6):1145-1153.
103. Axelsen BE, Anker-Nilssen T, Fossum P, Kvamme C, Nøttestad L. Pretty patterns but a simple strategy: predator-prey interactions between juvenile herring and Atlantic puffins observed with multibeam sonar. Canadian Journal of Zoology 2001, 79:1586-1596.
104. Benoit-Bird KJ, Kuletz K, Heppell S, Jones N, Hoover B. Active acoustic examination of the diving behavior of murres foraging on patchy prey. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2011, 443:217-235.
105. Thaxter CB, Wanless S, Daunt F, Harris MP, Benvenuti S, Watanuki Y, et al. Influence of wing loading on the trade-off between pursuit-diving and flight in common guillemots and razorbills. Journal of Experimental Biology 2010, 213:1018-1025.
106. Wanless S, Morris JA, Harris MP. Diving behaviour of guillemot Uria aalge, puffin Fratercula arctica and razorbill Alca torda as shown by radio-telemetry. Journal of Zoology 1988, 216(1):73-81.
107. Brierley AS, Fernandes PG. Diving depths of northern gannets: acoustic observations of Sula Bassana from an autonomous underwater vehicle. The Auk 2001, 118(2):529-534.
108. Kaartvedt S, Røstad A, Klevjer TA, Staby A. Use of bottom-mounted echo sounders in exploring behavior of mesopelagic fishes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2009, 395:109-118.
109. Axenrot T, Didrikas T, Danielsson C, Hansson S. Diel patterns in pelagic fish behaviour and distribution observed from a stationary, bottom-mounted, and upward-facing transducer. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2004, 61(7):1100-1104.
110. Genin A, Jaffe JS, Reef R, Richter C, Frank PJS. Swimming against the flow: a mechanism of zooplankton aggregation. Science 2005, 308(5723):860-862.