Acoustic characterisation of bycatch mitigation pingers on shark control nets in Queensland, Australia

Abstract

The Queensland Shark Control Program (QSCP) uses pingers to prevent marine mammal entanglement in shark control nets along public beaches, in Queensland, Australia. Acoustic emissions of Fumunda F3 (designed for humpback whales) and F10 pingers (designed for dolphins) were measured and characterised. The acoustic signals consisted of tones (3 and 10 kHz, respectively) and harmonic overtones emitted for about 400 ms every 5 to 6 s. Directivity was more pronounced for the overtones. Broadband source levels were up to 135 dB re 1 µPa at 1 m for all pingers at all angles. Ambient noise was recorded in the vicinity of shark nets for 3 wk each quarter of 1 yr. Fish choruses, migrating humpback whales, dolphins, snapping shrimp, boats, sandpumps, wind and wave noise were identified. Beyond 1.5 km, pingers no longer contributed significantly to the ambient noise budget. Sound propagation was modelled to relate received pinger tones to measured ambient levels and to estimate the potential detection of pingers by local marine mammals (humpback whales, dugongs, dolphins). Mean transmitted levels were predicted to be audible over up to a few 100 m in range (depending on species). With currently 3 to 4 pingers per shark net of 200 m length, existing pinger type and arrangement were modelled to be adequate, even for marine mammals swimming straight at a net at top speed. Additional behavioural studies or long-term monitoring are needed to determine pinger efficacy.KEY WORDS: Pinger · Bycatch · ADD · Acoustic deterrence · Noise budget Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher Contribution to the Theme Section 'Techniques for reducing bycatch of marine mammals in gillnets'OPEN PEN

A whale alarm fails to deter migrating humpback whales: an empirical test

“…This 5 m depth is similar to that used by Erbe & McPherson (2012) in their modelling of acoustic characteristics of these whale alarms. Previous research undertaken at Cape Solander suggested that about 90% of migrating humpback whales should pass between 1.5 and 10 km of the coast.…”

“…whale calls, snapping shrimp) and abiotic sounds (e.g. wind, waves, rain) (Nystuen & Farmer 1987, Erbe & McPherson 2012 as well as anthropogenic noise (e.g. shipping noise, underwater construction; McCarthy & Miller 2002, Hildebrand 2009 needs to be taken into account when deploying acoustic alarms.…”

“…Given this, and that Erbe & McPherson (2012) measured the detectability range of the second harmonic of these alarms to be 210 m for humpback whales (with background ambient noise off the Gold Coast, farther north in eastern Australia), we assumed that the whales may be able to detect the alarm up to 500 m away but that it is unlikely that they would detect it at 1000 m.…”

The marine soundscape of the Perth Canyon

“…Anthropogenic sources include seismic exploration (Erbe and King, 2009;Greene and Richardson, 1988), pile driving (Erbe, 2009), dredging (Reine et al, 2014), petroleum production operations (Erbe et al, 2013;Wyatt, 2008), equipment such as sonars, echosounders, acoustic tags and pingers (Ainslie, 2010;Erbe and McPherson, 2012), explosions (Soloway and Dahl, 2014), as well as ships of all sizes (Erbe, 2002(Erbe, , 2013aRoss, 1976;Scrimger and Heitmeyer, 1991). Propeller cavitation is typically the strongest source of ship noise from large vessels and exhibits a broadband spectrum, amplitude modulated at the propeller blade rate (i.e.…”

Behavioural Responses of Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to Two Acoustic Deterrent Devices in a Northern Feeding Ground off Iceland

“…One such technology is acoustic alarms known as "pingers". These devices can be to attached to fishing gear and emit a tone underwater within the hearing range of target marine mammals [12] . The devices serve to "illuminate" the gear with sound and warn the animals of its presence to encourage them to avoid it.…”