Guiding principles for assessing the impact of underwater noise

Faulkner, Rebecca C.; Farcas, Adrian; Merchant, Nathan D.

doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13161

Cited by 37 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…6); recreational (57), military (106) and urban noises (131) in terms of exposure (see Fig. 7); space use (94), reproduction (149) and ecosystems (167) in terms of outcomes (see Fig. 8).…”

Section: Behaviour Biophysiology and Communication)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…New research programs should initiate studies on knowledge gaps, using robust experimental protocols (such as CE-Control/Exposure, BAE-Before/After/Exposure, B(D)ACE-Before(/During)/After/Control/Exposure) [145][146][147][148] and taking into account different types of bias [149][150][151]. In particular, studies should be started on some taxonomic groups (amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates), on certain sources of noise (recreational, military and urban) and to assess particular impacts (space use, reproduction, ecosystems) because these populations, exposures and outcomes have received little study to date.…”

Section: Implications For Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evidence of the impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: a systematic map

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Ecological research now deals increasingly with the effects of noise pollution on biodiversity. Indeed, many studies have shown the impacts of anthropogenic noise and concluded that it is potentially a threat to the persistence of many species. The present work is a systematic map of the evidence of the impacts of all anthropogenic noises (industrial, urban, transportation, etc.) on biodiversity. This report describes the mapping process and the evidence base with summary figures and tables presenting the characteristics of the selected articles. Methods The method used was published in an a priori protocol. Searches included peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English and French. Two online databases were searched using English terms and search consistency was assessed with a test list. Supplementary searches were also performed (using search engines, a call for literature and searching relevant reviews). Articles were screened through three stages (titles, abstracts, full-texts). No geographical restrictions were applied. The subject population included all wild species (plants and animals excluding humans) and ecosystems. Exposures comprised all types of man-made sounds in terrestrial and aquatic media, including all contexts and sound origins (spontaneous or recorded sounds, in situ or laboratory studies, etc.). All relevant outcomes were considered (space use, reproduction, communication, etc.). Then, for each article selected after full-text screening, metadata were extracted on key variables of interest (species, types of sound, outcomes, etc.). Review findings Our main result is a database that includes all retrieved literature on the impacts of anthropogenic noise on species and ecosystems, coded with several markers (sources of noise, species concerned, types of impacts, etc.). Our search produced more than 29,000 articles and 1794 were selected after the three screening stages (1340 studies (i.e. primary research), 379 reviews, 16 meta-analyses). Some articles (n = 19) are written in French and all others are in English. This database is available as an additional file of this report. It provides an overview of the current state of knowledge. It can be used for primary research by identifying knowledge gaps or in view of further analysis, such as systematic reviews. It can also be helpful for scientists and researchers as well as for practitioners, such as managers of transportation infrastructure. Conclusion The systematic map reveals that the impacts of anthropogenic noises on species and ecosystems have been researched for many years. In particular, some taxonomic groups (mammals, birds, fishes), types of noise (transportation, industrial, abstract) and outcomes (behavioural, biophysiological, communication) have been studied more than others. Conversely, less knowledge is available on certain species (amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates), noises (recreational, military, urban) and impacts (space use, reproduction, ecosystems). The map does not assess the impacts of anthropogenic noise, but it can be the starting point for more thorough synthesis of evidence. After a critical appraisal, the included reviews and meta-analyses could be exploited, if reliable, to transfer the already synthesized knowledge into operational decisions to reduce noise pollution and protect biodiversity.

show abstract

“…6); recreational (57), military (106) and urban noises (131) in terms of exposure (see Fig. 7); space use (94), reproduction (149) and ecosystems (167) in terms of outcomes (see Fig. 8).…”

Section: Behaviour Biophysiology and Communication)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence of the impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: a systematic map

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most approaches to estimating the impacts of noise focus on the sound as received at the animal as opposed to at the source. Faulkner, Farcas, and Merchant (2018) review the process for environmental impact assessments of noise according to European and US regulations. In most jurisdictions, the environmental impact assessment process assesses environmental risk by comparing the distribution of sensitive receivers with that of the potential hazard.…”

Section: Selection Of An Appropriate Limit Often Depends On a Decisiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Using dose–response functions to improve calculations of the impact of anthropogenic noise

Tyack

Thomas

2019

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Estimating the number of animals impacted by a stressor typically involves combining a dose-response function with information about the distribution of animals and of the stressor.2. Regulators often prefer a single threshold to a full dose-response function, but much of the variability observed in the threshold at which different individuals respond to a stressor is an inherent characteristic of populations that needs to be taken into account to predict the effects of stressors. When selecting an exposure threshold, regulators need information on the proportion of the population that will be protected.3. Regulatory processes that calculate the number of animals impacted must draw from the dose-response function, the actual distribution of the animals, and a model mapping how the stressor intensity declines with distance from the source.Ignoring any of these factors can lead to significant errors in estimates of the area and numbers of animals affected.4. This paper focuses on behavioural responses of marine mammals to anthropogenic sound and demonstrates that a common approach of selecting the threshold at which half of the animals respond (RLp50) grossly underestimates the number of animals affected. We present an example, using a published dose-response function, where the number affected is underestimated by a factor of 280. Results would be similar for any stressor whose strength decreases following an inversesquare function as it dilutes into the environment.5. This paper presents a method to use a dose-response function to derive a more accurate estimate of animals affected and to set a threshold (the Effective Response Level) that corrects the problem with the RLp50 estimate.6. Estimates of effects of stressors should include estimates of uncertainty, which can be used to adapt thresholds to different policy contexts and conservation problems. ---This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

“…Environmental assessments for offshore windfarm developments must assess the areas over which each of these effects might occur using a combination of noise propagation modelling and agreed marine mammal noise exposure criteria (Faulkner, Farcas, & Merchant, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, sub‐lethal effects may result from behavioural disturbance. Environmental assessments for offshore windfarm developments must assess the areas over which each of these effects might occur using a combination of noise propagation modelling and agreed marine mammal noise exposure criteria (Faulkner, Farcas, & Merchant, 2018). Together with data on local species densities, the number of individuals potentially impacted are then used within various modelling frameworks to predict long‐term population consequences of construction in relation to baseline (King et al., 2015; Nabe‐Nielsen et al., 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing risks of injury and disturbance to marine mammals when pile driving at offshore windfarms

Thompson

Graham

Cheney

et al. 2020

Ecol Sol and Evidence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Offshore windfarms require construction procedures that minimize impacts on protected marine mammals. Uncertainty over the efficacy of existing guidelines for mitigating near-field injury when pile-driving recently resulted in the development of alternative measures, which integrated the routine deployment of acoustic deterrent devices (ADD) into engineering installation procedures without prior monitoring by marine mammal observers. 2. We conducted research around the installation of jacket foundations at the UK's first deep-water offshore windfarm to address data gaps identified by regulators when consenting this new approach. Specifically, we aimed to (a) measure the relationship between noise levels and hammer energy to inform assessments of near-field injury zones and (b) assess the efficacy of ADDs to disperse harbour porpoises from these zones. 3. Distance from piling vessel had the biggest influence on received noise levels but, unexpectedly, received levels at any given distance were highest at low hammer energies. Modelling highlighted that this was because noise from pin pile installations was dominated by the strong negative relationship with pile penetration depth with only a weak positive relationship with hammer energy. 4. Acoustic detections of porpoises along a gradient of ADD exposure decreased in the 3-h following a 15-min ADD playback, with a 50% probability of response within 21.7 km. The minimum time to the first porpoise detection after playbacks was > 2 h for sites within 1 km of the playback. 5. Our data suggest that the current regulatory focus on maximum hammer energies needs review, and future assessments of noise exposure should also consider foundation type. Despite higher piling noise levels than predicted, responses to ADD playback suggest mitigation was sufficiently conservative. Conversely, strong responses of porpoises to ADDs resulted in far-field disturbance beyond that required to mitigate injury. We recommend that risks to marine mammals can be further minimized by (1) optimizing ADD source signals and/or deployment schedules to minimize broad-scale This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Guiding principles for assessing the impact of underwater noise

Cited by 37 publications

References 20 publications

Evidence of the impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: a systematic map

Evidence of the impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: a systematic map

Using dose–response functions to improve calculations of the impact of anthropogenic noise

Balancing risks of injury and disturbance to marine mammals when pile driving at offshore windfarms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About