The Effects of Pulse Pressure from Seismic Water Gun Technology on Northern Pike

Abstract

We examined the efficacy of sound pressure pulses generated from a water gun for controlling invasive Northern Pike Esox lucius. Pulse pressures from two sizes of water guns were evaluated for their effects on individual fish placed at a predetermined random distance. Fish mortality from a 5,620.8-cm 3 water gun (peak pressure source level = 252 dB referenced to 1 µP at 1 m) was assessed every 24 h for 168 h, and damage (intact, hematoma, or rupture) to the gas bladder, kidney, and liver was recorded. The experiment was replicated with a 1,966.4-cm 3 water gun (peak pressure source level = 244 dB referenced to 1 µP at 1 m), but fish were euthanized immediately. The peak sound pressure level (SPL peak ), peak-to-peak sound pressure level (SPL p-p ), and frequency spectrums were recorded, and the cumulative sound exposure level (SEL cum ) was subsequently calculated. The SPL peak , SPL p-p , and SEL cum were correlated, and values varied significantly by treatment group for both guns. Mortality increased and organ damage was greater with decreasing distance to the water gun. Mortality (31%) by 168 h was only observed for Northern Pike exhibiting the highest degree of organ damage. Mortality at 72 h and 168 h postexposure was associated with increasing SEL cum above 195 dB. The minimum SEL cum calculated for gas bladder rupture was 199 dB recorded at 9 m from the 5,620.8-cm 3 water gun and 194 dB recorded at 6 m from the 1,966.4-cm 3 water gun. Among Northern Pike that were exposed to the large water gun, 100% of fish exposed at 3 and 6 m had ruptured gas bladders, and 86% exposed at 9 m had ruptured gas bladders. Among fish that were exposed to pulse pressures from the smaller water gun, 78% exhibited gas bladder rupture. Results from these initial controlled experiments underscore the potential of water guns as a tool for controlling Northern Pike.One technology that is being considered as a potential tool for suppressing invasive fish is the seismic water gun (USEPA 2010). In the early 1980s, water guns were developed as an alternative to seismic air guns for seismic exploration (Hutchinson and Detrick 1984). In brief, a water gun operates as a low-energy,

Anthropogenic noise playback impairs embryonic development and increases mortality in a marine invertebrate

“…One potential mechanism for the death of veligers after hatching is barotrauma (tissue damage due to pressure changes in gas filled chambers, such as when fish are brought to the surface too quickly and their swim bladders rupture; see18). Sea hare embryos may have gas bubbles in their circulatory system that could cause barotrauma if they were to fluctuate in size in response to pressure changes.…”

Response of Bighead Carp and Silver Carp to Repeated Water Gun Operation in an Enclosed Shallow Pond

“…Given the reproductive potential of Bighead Carp and Silver Carp and the lack of native predators (Kolar et al 2005), anything short of 100% deterrence of these fish by any barrier technology would be unacceptable due to the ecological consequences for the Great Lakes (Cuddington et al 2014). Although the water guns appear to have been partially successful at impeding carp movement, application of other technologies in conjunction with water guns may provide better deterrence (Pegg and Chick 2004;Noatch and Suski 2012;Gross et al 2013;Wittmann et al 2014). In addition, McCauley et al (2000) found that fish became habituated to the guns, as indicated by a lessening of startle responses over time; therefore, deterrence may be temporally limited.…”

“…The water gun is one of the many mechanisms that have been considered for use as a fish passage deterrent due to the acoustic energy produced and the hypothesized negative phonotaxis of nearby fish (Gross et al 2013). Water guns were developed for marine seismic exploration in the 1980s.…”

“…Behavioral responses by several fish species to water guns used in marine seismic surveys suggest that seismic survey gear (water guns and air guns) may alter fish behavior (Løkkeborg et al 2012). Results from previous studies have ranged from minor changes in fish behavior, such as C-start startle responses (i.e., the fish bends into a "C" shape and orients in the opposite direction; Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994;Wardle et al 2001), to fish mortality (Gross et al 2013). Although some direct mortality may occur in organisms that are in close proximity to the water guns, the most commonly observed effects have been changes in behavior and movement direction (Turnpenny and Nedwell 1994).…”

“…In other cases, air guns have been reported to exert minimal effects on the behavior of fish (Jorgenson and Gyselman 2009). Given these results, biologists have come to recognize the potential for water guns and air guns to be utilized as fish passage barriers or as a means to directly kill unwanted fishes (Gross et al 2013).…”