Effects of a seismic survey on movement of free-ranging Atlantic cod

Knaap, Inge van der; Reubens, Jan; Thomas, Len; Ainslie, Michael A.; Winter, H.V.; Hubert, Jeroen; Martin, Bruce; Slabbekoorn, Hans

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.050

Cited by 35 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a final remark, we like to emphasise that the validity of ABMs heavily depends on the quality of empirical data and the availability of quantitative data for parameters that turn out to be critical for population consequences in sensitivity analyses (Soudijn et al 2020, Gallagher et al 2020). The fact that it is for example often very difficult to get a species‐specific dose‐response threshold or curve for particular behavioural or physiological responses is a major concern (Harris et al 2018, van der Knaap et al 2021). However, it is a concern for which we do see perspective in ABM.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agent‐based models to investigate sound impact on marine animals: bridging the gap between effects on individual behaviour and population level consequences

Mortensen

Chudzińska

Slabbekoorn

et al. 2021

Oikos

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine ambient sound levels have risen due to noisy human activities, such as shipping, fishing, seismic surveys and piling for windfarms. Marine mammals and fishes are two prominent taxonomic groups that are exposed to this noise pollution, which may experience detrimental effects at the population level. Acoustic effects on individual behaviour such as deterrence, disturbance, distraction and masking of biologically relevant sounds, can be translated energetically to changes in vital rates (growth, maturation, reproduction and survival) in a population consequences of acoustic disturbance (PCAD) approach. However, we typically neglect spatial variation in species distributions and noise pollution, while abiotic factors like temperature, bathymetry and currents, as well as habitat quality in terms of feeding or hiding opportunities, will also have a geographically variable impact on potential consequences. We here address the conceptual integration of agent based models (ABM) into the PCAD framework, as a suitable theoretical tool with high potential for the exploration of these spatial factors and their modifying role in noise impact assessment studies. We review five ABM case studies, including investigations into: 1) effects of movement strategy on the impact of explosions in harbour porpoise; 2) effects of disturbance sensitivity on pile driving impact on migrating cod; 3) impact of seismic survey sounds on Atlantic mackerel distribution and movement; 4) population‐level impact of mitigation of harbour porpoise bycatch with pingers; and 5) population effects of alternative windfarm construction scenarios in harbour porpoise. We discuss similarities and differences among these studies in sound and species mapping approaches and we evaluate model realism and pattern validation. We believe that ABMs are a valuable tool for integrating spatial information into ecological impact studies that investigate acoustic disturbance, for any type of sound source, and for both marine mammals and fish.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agent‐based models to investigate sound impact on marine animals: bridging the gap between effects on individual behaviour and population level consequences

Mortensen

Chudzińska

Slabbekoorn

et al. 2021

Oikos

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bruce et al (2018) showed that anthropogenic noise cause changes in diurnal local activity patterns and general swimming speed shifts of marine fishes and therefore may negatively affect the catchability of marine fish catchability and the. van der Knaap et al (2021) demonstrated in a field study that Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua) left noisy areas more quickly and decrease their swimming activity compared to the ambient sound treatment. They also have shown that seismic surveys can disrupt diurnal activity cycles which may have long term negative consequences on this species’ foraging success and fitness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental sound exposure modifies swimming activities and increases food handling error in adult zebrafish

Mohsenpour¹,

Sabet²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic sound is currently recognized as a source of environmental pollution in terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Elevated sound levels may cause a broad range of impacts on aquatic organisms among taxa. Sound is an important sensory stimulus for aquatic organisms and it may cause fluctuations in stress-related physiological indices and in a broader extent induce behavioural effects such as driving as a distracting stimulus, masking important relevant acoustic signals and cues in a range of marine and freshwater species. However, sound exposure may also induce changes in swimming activities, feed efficiency and productivity of available food sources in fish. Here, we experimentally tested sound effects on swimming activities and foraging performance in thirty adult Zebrafish (Danio rerio) individually in captivity. We used adult zebrafish and water flea (Daphnia magna) as model predator prey, respectively. We also used four sound treatments with different temporal patterns (all in the same frequency range and moderate exposure level). Our results constitute strong evidence for clear sound-related effects on zebrafish behaviour. All sound treatments induced a significant increase in the number of startle response, brief and prolonged swimming speed for zebrafish (P<0.05). Zebrafish reached to the baseline swimming speed after 60 seconds in all treatments. We found partially brief and prolonged sound effects on spatial distribution of zebrafish; Although we did not find any significant sound-related behavioural changes for horizontal spatial displacement in all treatments (P>0.05), zebrafish swam significantly more in the lower layer of the fish tank except irregular intermittent 1:1-7 in brief sound exposure (P<0.05). The results of foraging performance showed that food discrimination error was low for the zebrafish and unaffected by sound treatments (P>0.05). However, food handling error was affected by sound treatments; all treatments caused a rise in handling error (P<0.001). This study highlights the impact of sound on zebrafish swimming activities, and that more attacks are needed to consume the same number of prey items under noisy conditions.

show abstract

“…Such information can now be gathered using AT to inform spatial management plans, identify essential habitats, perform environmental risk assessments, or assess the impacts on marine biodiversity before and after the construction of infrastructures. For example, AT has been successfully employed to detect the behavioral impacts of shipping (Ivanova et al, 2020;Sertlek et al, 2019), dredging (Castro-Santos et al, 2019;Wenger et al, 2017) and seismic surveys (Slabbekoorn et al, 2019;van der Knaap et al, 2021van der Knaap et al, , 2022, identifying management and policy implications. Therefore, this tool should be widely promoted given the undergoing or planned expansion of blue economy marine infrastructures, namely renewable energy infrastructures and deep-sea mining, respectively, both of which may have confirmed or suspected severe impacts (Masmitja et al, 2020).…”

Section: S Dg14 Targ E T 2-acous Ti C Tr Ack Ing a S A Tool For O Ce ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Measuring the effects of these disturbances on aquatic animal behavior has been impaired by the lack of appropriate tools (Barcelo-Serra et al, 2021). However, recent AT studies managed to reveal significant impacts of seismic surveys (Figure 2), shipping, and wind farm noise on fish behavioral patterns (Davidsen et al, 2019;Ivanova et al, 2020;Rider et al, 2021;Wardle et al, 2001;Winter et al, 2010) and potential effects on population survival and fisheries productivity (Bruce et al, 2018;Hubert et al, 2020;van der Knaap et al, 2021van der Knaap et al, , 2022. The benefits of AT to measure the effects of light pollution is extended to other no-fish taxa.…”

Section: S Dg14 Targ E T 1-acous Ti C Tr Ack Ing To Me a Sure The Eff...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While marine protected areas (MPAs) are addressed by SDG14 Target 5, effective protection plans from widespread human activities and site-specific developments that impact marine ecosystem health F I G U R E 2 Acoustic animal Tracking (AT) can be used as a tool to measure the effects of noise pollution on fish behavior. This plot shows the results of an AT experiment on Atlantic cod Gadus morhua showing the effects of a seismic survey on the probability of switching between different activity states (adapted from van der Knaap et al, 2021). and biodiversity are also required.…”

Section: S Dg14 Targ E T 2-acous Ti C Tr Ack Ing a S A Tool For O Ce ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Toward a decade of ocean science for sustainable development through acoustic animal tracking

Alós

Aarestrup

Abecasis

et al. 2022

Global Change Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Effects of a seismic survey on movement of free-ranging Atlantic cod

Cited by 35 publications

References 44 publications

Agent‐based models to investigate sound impact on marine animals: bridging the gap between effects on individual behaviour and population level consequences

Agent‐based models to investigate sound impact on marine animals: bridging the gap between effects on individual behaviour and population level consequences

Experimental sound exposure modifies swimming activities and increases food handling error in adult zebrafish

Toward a decade of ocean science for sustainable development through acoustic animal tracking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About