Behavioral Responses of a Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) to Sounds from an Acoustic Porpoise Deterrent

Kastelein, Ronald A.; Huybrechts, Janne; Covi, Jennifer; Helder-Hoek, Lean

doi:10.1578/am.43.3.2017.233

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Captive harbor porpoises did not change their vocal behavior when different high-frequency sounds were played back, except for the first exposure (Teilmann et al, 2006), and wild harbor porpoises in Canada even increased echolocation activity when wind turbine sounds were played (Koschinski et al, 2003). For the APD as the AHD, harbor porpoises also do not seem to change their vocal behavior (Kastelein et al, 2017). Therefore, acoustic detections were considered to be a good indication of harbor porpoise presence.…”

Section: Acoustic Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The decrease in porpoise clicks when using the seal scarer as the AHD and during subsequent piling is not due to a change in echolocation activity but to a displacement of the animals (Brandt et al, 2013b;Haelters et al, 2015). For the APD as the AHD, harbor porpoises seem to react similarly (Kastelein et al, 2017). Therefore, acoustic detections were considered to be a good indication of harbor porpoise presence.…”

Section: Short-range Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this frequency range, harbor porpoises are most sensitive, so that a relatively low sound intensity suffices for deterrence (van der Meij et al, 2015). Accordingly, a porpoise response threshold of 86 dB re 1 mPa was observed for acoustic signals from the FaunaGuard Porpoise Module (Kastelein et al, 2017). At this or a higher SPL, the distance of harbor porpoises from the APD was significantly larger than without AHD operation, and the porpoises thus appeared to have left the immediate vicinity of the source.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Response of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) to different types of acoustic harassment devices and subsequent piling during the construction of offshore wind farms

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Before piling of offshore wind farm foundations, acoustic harassment devices (AHDs) are used to drive harbor porpoises out of the area where they could suffer injuries. Until 2017, a combination of pingers and seal scarer devices (usually SPL = 174-193 dB re 1 μPa (rms) @ 1m at 1 to 20 kHz depending on the device) was prescribed for mitigation purposes in Germany. However, seal scarers led to decreased porpoise detection rates in much larger distances than intended, when 750 m is usually rendered sufficient to avoid injuries. Therefore, devices specifically designed for mitigation purposes were developed and are prescribed since then. These acoustic porpoise deterrents (APDs; e.g. FaunaGuard Porpoise Module; SPL = 172 dB re 1 μPa (rms) @ 1m at 60 to 150 kHz) aim to keep the animals away from offshore construction sites but should not lead to large-scale disturbance as caused by a seal scarer. Although project-specific evaluations indicated that APDs are effective, a cross-project analysis and a comparison with data from previous piling procedures employing seal scarers were still pending. The present study aimed to fill this gap. Between March 2018 and April 2019, harbor porpoise detection rates were monitored acoustically in four offshore wind farm projects using CPODs before, during and after piling at different distances up to 10 km from piling. APD operation led to a significant decrease in detection rates in the vicinity of the device, indicating the displacement of the animals from a small-scale area. Depending on the wind farm, detection rates during APD operation decreased by 30 to 100% at 750 m distance compared to 6 hours before APD operation. Furthermore, reduced detection rates during APD operation were only observed up to about 2.5 km distance even when the APD was switched on for over 40 minutes. Given that the extent of disturbance to harbor porpoises is lower when using an acoustic porpoise deterrent compared to the seal scarer, we consider that preferential use of an acoustic porpoise deterrent is an improvement to mitigation strategies and an important step forward to a less harmful piling procedure.

show abstract

Section: Acoustic Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Short-range Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Response of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) to different types of acoustic harassment devices and subsequent piling during the construction of offshore wind farms

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on a study with captive porpoises that were exposed to the FaunaGuard by Kastelein et al (2014c) the theoretical effective range was modelled to be 1.3 km for the Dutch mainland coast under conditions with little wind (de Jong & Binnerts, 2014). A field study by means of mainly visual camera observations in the Marsdiep, between Den Helder and Texel, concluded that the FaunaGuard deterred harbour porpoises up to distances of at least 1000 meters (Geelhoed et al, 2017).…”

Section: Effect Of Construction Activities On Harbour Porpoise Occurrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gemini T-c: aerial surveys and passive acoustic monitoring of harbour porpoises 2015

Geelhoed¹,

I.²,

Friedrich³

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Sand-mining has a range of impacts on abiotic properties of freshwater systems (channel morphology, flow regime, water quality, sediment composition and movement) and on wider biodiversity (Zou et al, 2019;Koehnken et al, 2020). Porpoises might also be affected directly by underwater noise associated with sand-mining (de Leeuw et al, 2010), as anthropogenic noise from vessels and industrial activities is a known source of sub-lethal environmental stress (Zhao et al, 2008;Wang, 2009), causing physiological damage, hormonal stress, and behavioral alteration including disruption of foraging and communication and avoidance behavior (Li et al, 2008;Kastelein et al, 2015;Kastelein et al, 2017;Wisniewska et al, 2018). Sand-mining is now considered a primary threat to porpoises in some areas (Xu, 2015;Li et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatiotemporal relationships of threatened cetaceans and anthropogenic threats in the lower Yangtze system

Mogensen

Mei

Hao

et al. 2022

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impacts of fisheries interactions on cetaceans can be challenging to determine, often requiring multiple complementary investigative approaches. The Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis asiaeorientalis), one of the few Critically Endangered cetaceans, is endemic to the middle-lower Yangtze drainage, a system impacted by multiple anthropogenic pressures. Bycatch mortality is implicated in regional porpoise decline, but the significance and dynamics of porpoise interactions with fishing activities and other threats remain poorly understood. We conducted boat-based surveys to map seasonal distributions and spatial congruence of porpoises and two potential threats (fishing and sand-mining), and an interview survey of fishing communities to understand temporal patterns and drivers of regional fishing activity, across Poyang Lake and the adjoining Yangtze mainstem. Variation in harmful and non-harmful gear use (non-fixed nets versus static pots and traps) between these landscapes might be an important factor affecting local porpoise status. Within Poyang Lake, spatial correlations between porpoises and threats were relatively weak, seasonal porpoise and threat hotspots were located in different regions, and two protected areas had higher porpoise encounter rates and densities than some unprotected sections. However, porpoise hotspots were mostly in unprotected areas, threats were widely observed across reserves, and more fishing and sand-mining was seasonally observed within reserves than within unprotected areas. Compared to null distributions, porpoises were detected significantly closer to fishing activities in summer and further from sand-mining in winter, indicating possible spatial risks of gear entanglement and disturbance. Reported porpoise bycatch deaths are associated with fixed and non-fixed nets, hook-based gears, and electrofishing. Longitudinal patterns in reported gear use indicate that hook-based fishing has decreased substantially and is generally conducted by older fishers, and significantly fewer respondents now practice fishing as their sole source of income, but electrofishing has increased. This combined research approach indicates a continued potential risk to porpoises from changing fisheries interactions and other threats, highlighting the importance of fishing restrictions and appropriate support for fishing communities impacted by this legislation. A potential “win–win” for both biodiversity and local livelihoods could be achieved through wider use of static pots and traps, which are not associated with bycatch deaths.

show abstract

Behavioral Responses of a Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) to Sounds from an Acoustic Porpoise Deterrent

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Response of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) to different types of acoustic harassment devices and subsequent piling during the construction of offshore wind farms

Response of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) to different types of acoustic harassment devices and subsequent piling during the construction of offshore wind farms

Gemini T-c: aerial surveys and passive acoustic monitoring of harbour porpoises 2015

Spatiotemporal relationships of threatened cetaceans and anthropogenic threats in the lower Yangtze system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About