Advertisement

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 789–807 | Cite as

Acoustic deterrents to manage fish populations

  • R. L. PutlandEmail author
  • A. F. Mensinger
Reviews
First Online:

Abstract

Finding effective ways to direct native fish away from anthropogenic hazards and limit the spread of invasive species, without physical intervention, harming non-target fishes or interrupting aquatic commerce is a major challenge for fisheries management. One option is to target fish sensory systems to manipulate behavior using attractive or repulsive cues. Many, if not all species of fish, use sound as part of their behavioral repertoire and display varying degrees of phonotaxis. Sound has inherent advantages over other sensory stimuli such as light or odor as underwater sound attenuates slowly, is highly directional and is unimpeded by low light or water turbidity. This review details the use of acoustics to deter and guide fish movements for a wide variety of fishes, before critically assessing the benefits and limitations of the technology. No single method of fish deterrence is a “one size fits all”, and therefore this review will assist both managers and researchers attempting to use acoustic deterrents for different fish orders.

Keywords

Acoustic deterrents Fish Fisheries management Invasive species 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Grant 00065033 to AFM.

Supplementary material

11160_2019_9583_MOESM1_ESM.docx (314 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 313 kb)

References

  1. Acou A, Laffaille P, Legault A, Feunteun E (2008) Migration pattern of silver eel (Anguilla anguilla, L.) in an obstructed river system. Ecol Freshw Fish 17:432–442Google Scholar
  2. Allen GS, Amaral SV, Black J (2012) Fish protection technologies: the US experience. In: Rajagopal S, Jenner HA, Venugopalan VP (eds) Operational and environmental consequences of large industrial cooling water systems. Springer, Boston, pp 371–390Google Scholar
  3. Anderson JJ, Puckett KJ, Nemeth RS (1998) Studies on the effect of behavior on fish guidance efficacy at the Rocky Reach Dam: avoidance to strobe light and other stimuli. Fisheries Research, Institute of the University of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnett EB, Hein CD, Schirmacher MR, Huso MMP, Szewczak JM (2013) Evaluating the effectiveness of an ultrasonic acoustic deterrent for reducing bat fatalities at wind turbines. PLoS ONE 8:e65794PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakke BM (1993) Managing for productivity: a new strategy for pacific salmon recovery. Trout J Coldwater Fish Conserv Summer:37–40Google Scholar
  6. Banner A (1972) Use of sound in predation by young lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris (Poey). Bull Mar Sci 22:251–283Google Scholar
  7. Blaxter JHS, Hoss DE (1981) Startle response in herring: the effect of sound stimulus frequency, size of fish and selective interference with the acoustico-lateralis system. J Mar Biol Assoc U K 61:871–879Google Scholar
  8. Braithwaite V (2010) Do fish feel pain?. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Braun CB, Grande T (2008) Evolution of peripheral mechanisms for the enhancement of sound reception. In: Webb JF, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Fish bioacoustics: with 81 illustrations. Springer, New York, pp 99–144Google Scholar
  10. Brown RS, Colotelo AH, Pflugrath BD, Boys CA, Baumgartner LJ, Deng ZD, Silva LGM, Brauner CJ, Mallen-Cooper M, Phonekhampeng O, Thorncraft G, Singhanouvong D (2014) Understanding barotrauma in fish passing hydro structures: a global strategy for sustainable development of water resources. Fisheries 39:108–122Google Scholar
  11. Bruijs M, Durif C, Noakes DLG (2009) Silver eel migration and behavior. In: Thillart G, Dufour S, Rankin JC (eds) Spawning migration of the European eel. Springer, Berlin, pp 65–95Google Scholar
  12. Buerkle U (1968) An audiogram of the Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua. J Fish Res Board Can 25:1155–1160Google Scholar
  13. Bullen CR, Carlson TJ (2003) Non-physical fish barrier systems: their development and potential applications to marine ranching. Rev Fish Biol Fish 13:201–212Google Scholar
  14. Casper BM, Mann DA (2006) Evoked potential audiograms of the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) and the yellow stingray (Urobatis jamaicensis). Environ Biol Fishes 76:101–108Google Scholar
  15. Chapman CJ, Hawkins AD (1973) A field study of hearing in the cod, Gadus morhua L. J Comp Physiol 85:147–167Google Scholar
  16. Chapman CJ, Sand O (1974) Field studies of hearing in two species of flatfish Pleuronectes platessa (L.) and Limanda limanda (L.) (family pleuronectidae). Comp Biochem Physiol A Physiol 47:371–385Google Scholar
  17. Codarin A, Wysocki LE, Ladich F, Picciulin M (2009) Effects of ambient and boat noise on hearing and communication in three fish species living in a marine protected area (Miramare, Italy). Mar Pollut Bull 58:1880–1887PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Colgan P (1993) The motivational basis of fish behaviour. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) Behaviour of teleost fishes. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 31–35Google Scholar
  19. Crook V (2010) Trade in Anguilla species, with a focus on recent trade in European Eeel A. anguilla. In: TRAFFIC report prepared for the European Commission. International Union for the Conservation of NatureGoogle Scholar
  20. Cooke SJ, Hinch SG, Wikelski M, Andrews RD, Kuchel LJ, Wolcott TG, Butler PJ (2004) Biotelemetry: a mechanistic approach to ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 19:334–343Google Scholar
  21. Corwin J (1978) The relation of inner ear structure to the feeding behavior in sharks and rays. Scan Electron Microsc 2:1105–1112Google Scholar
  22. Deleau MJC, White PR, Peirson G, Leighton TG, Kemp PS (2019) Use of acoustics to enhance the efficiency of physical screens designed to protect downstream moving European eel (Anguilla anguilla). Fish Manag Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Deng XY, Wagner HJ, Popper AN (2011) The inner ear and its coupling to the swim bladder in the deep sea fish Antimora rostrata (Teleostei: Moridae). Deep Sea Res I 58:27–37Google Scholar
  24. DuBois RB, Gloss SP (1993) Mortality of juvenile american shad and striped bass passed through Ossberger crossflow turbines at a small-scale hydroelectric site. North Am J Fish Manag 13:178–185Google Scholar
  25. Duncan A, Lucke K, Erbe C, McCauley RD (2016) Issues associated with sound exposure experiments in tanks. Proc Meet Acoust 27:070008Google Scholar
  26. Dunning DJ, Ross QE, Geoghegan P, Reichle JJ, Menezes JK, Watson JK (1992) Alewives avoid high-frequency sound. North Am J Fish Manag 12:407–416Google Scholar
  27. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1998) Review of downstream fish passage and protection technology evaluations and effectiveness. EPRI, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  28. ESEERCO (1991) Responses of white perch, striped bass, alewives, spottail shiners, golden shiners and Altantic tomcod in a cage to high and low frequency underwater sounds generated by an electronic fish startle system. In: Project EP89-30. ESEERCO, Amherst, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. EU Water Framework Directive (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament. Off J Eur Commun Legis L 327(1):1–71Google Scholar
  30. Evans DH, Claiborne JB (2006) The physiology of fishes. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  31. Fay RR, Popper AN (1975) Modes of stimulation of the teleost ear. J Exp Biol 62(2):379PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Fay RR, Popper AN (1978) Structure and function in teleost auditory systems. J Acoust Soc Am 64:S1–S1Google Scholar
  33. Fish Guidance Systems Ltd (2010) BAFF: synchronised intense light and sound—driven BAFF system, Central Valley California. Fish Guidance Systems Ltd., Business ParkGoogle Scholar
  34. Fish Guidance Systems Ltd and Hydro Energy Developments Ltd (1996) Testing of an acoustic smolt deflection system. Blantyre Hydroelectric Power SchemeGoogle Scholar
  35. Gardiner JM, Hueter RE, Maruska KP, Sisneros JA, Casper BM, Mann DA, Demski LS (2012) Sensory physiology and behavior of elasmobranchs. Biology of sharks and their relatives. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  36. Gibson AF, Myers RA (2002) Effectiveness of a high-frequency-sound fish diversion system at the Annapolis tidal hydroelectric generating station, Nova Scotia. North Am J Fish Manag 22:770–784Google Scholar
  37. Gray MD, Rogers PH, Zeddies DG (2016) Acoustic particle motion measurement for bioacousticians: principles and pitfalls. Proc Meet Acoust 27:010022Google Scholar
  38. Halvorsen MB, Casper BM, Woodley CM, Carlson TJ, Popper AN (2012) Threshold for onset of injury in chinook salmon from exposure to impulsive pile driving sounds. PLoS ONE 7:e38968PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Hamel MJ, Brown ML, Chipps SR (2011) Behavioral responses of rainbow smelt to in situ strobe lights. North Am J Fish Manag 28:394–401Google Scholar
  40. Harding H, Bruintjes R, Radford AN, Simpson SD (2016) Measurement of hearing in the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) using auditory evoked potentials, and effects of pile driving playback on salmon behaviour and physiology. Mar Scotl Sci 7:1–51Google Scholar
  41. Hastings MC, Popper AN, Finneran JJ, Lanford PJ (1996) Effects of low-frequency underwater sound on hair cells of the inner ear and lateral line of the teleost fish Astronotus ocellatus. J Acoust Soc Am 99:1759–1766PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Hawkins AD (1981) The hearing abilities of fish. In: Tavolga WN, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Hearing and sound communication in fishes. Springer, New York, pp 109–138Google Scholar
  43. Hawkins AD (1986) Underwater sound and fish behaviour. In: Pitcher TJ (ed) The behaviour of teleost fishes. Springer, Boston, pp 114–151Google Scholar
  44. Hawkins AD, Johnstone ADF (1978) The hearing of the Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. J Fish Biol 13:655–674Google Scholar
  45. Haymes GT, Patrick PH (1986) Exclusion of adult alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus using low-frequency sound for application at water intakes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 43:855–862Google Scholar
  46. Hecker GE, Allen GS (2005) An approach to predicting fish survival for advanced technology turbines. HCI Publications Inc., St LouisGoogle Scholar
  47. Helvey M, Dorn PB (1987) Selective removal of reef fish associated with an offshore cooling-water intake structure. J Appl Ecol 24:1–12Google Scholar
  48. Higgs DM, Radford CA (2016) The potential overlapping roles of the ear and lateral line in driving “acoustic” responses. In: Sisneros JA (ed) Fish hearing and bioacoustics: an anthology in honor of Arthur N. Popper and Richard R. Fay. Springer, Cham, pp 255–270Google Scholar
  49. Holand B, Walso O (1988) Sound barrier: experiments with cod at Sommaroyhamn. SINTEF Rapport for Myre Havbruk. In: Fish protection at cooling water intake structures: a technologies reference. EPRI, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  50. Hueter RE, Mann DA, Maruska KP, Sisneros JA, Demski LS (2004) Sensory biology of elasmobranchs. CRC Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. Jerkø H, Turunen-Rise I, Enger PS, Sand O (1989) Hearing in the eel (Anguilla anguilla). J Comp Physiol A 165:455–459Google Scholar
  52. Jesus J et al (2018) Acoustic barriers as an acoustic deterrent for native potamodromous migratory fish species. J Fish Biol 95(1):247–255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Johnson PN, Bouchard K, Goetz FA (2005) Effectiveness of strobe lights for reducing juvenile salmonid entrainment into a navigation lock. North Am J Fish Manag 25:491–501Google Scholar
  54. Karlsen HE (1992) The inner ear is responsible for detection of infrasound in the perch (Perca fluviatilis). J Exp Biol 171:163–172Google Scholar
  55. Keller RP, Geist J, Jeschke JM, Kühn I (2011) Invasive species in Europe: ecology, status, and policy. Environ Sci Europe 23:23Google Scholar
  56. Kelly JC, Nelson DR (1975) Hearing thresholds of the horn shark Heterodontus francisci. J Acoust Soc Am 58:905–909PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Kenyon TN, Ladich F, Yan HY (1998) A comparative study of hearing ability in fishes: the auditory brainstem response approach. J Comp Physiol A 182:307–318PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Klimley AP, Myrberg AA (1979) Acoustic stimuli underlying withdrawal from a sound source by adult lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris (Poey). Bull Mar Sci 29:447–458Google Scholar
  59. Knudsen FR (1997) Infrasound: Atlantic salmon in Norway and Pacific salmonids in the Umatilla River. In: Using sound to modify fish behavior at a power-production and water-control facilities: a workshop December 12–13, 1995. Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, p 360Google Scholar
  60. Knudsen FR, Enger PS, Sand O (1992) Awareness reactions and avoidance responses to sound in juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. J Fish Biol 40:523–534Google Scholar
  61. Knudsen FR, Enger PS, Sand O (1994) Avoidance responses to low frequency sound in downstream migrating Atlantic salmon smolt, Salmo salar. J Fish Biol 45:227–233Google Scholar
  62. Ladich F, Fay RR (2013) Auditory evoked potential audiometry in fish. Rev Fish Biol Fish 23:317–364PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Leighton TG, Walton AJ (1987) An experimental study of the sound emitted from gas bubbles in a liquid. Eur J Phys 8:98Google Scholar
  64. Lough RG et al (1985) Larval abundance and mortality of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus L.) spawned in the Georges Bank and Nantucket Shoals Areas, 1971–78 seasons, in relation to spawning stock size. J Northwest Atl Fish Organ 6(1):21–35Google Scholar
  65. Lovell JM, Findlay MM, Nedwell JR, Pegg MA (2006) The hearing abilities of the silver carp (Hypopthalmichthys molitrix) and bighead carp (Aristichthys nobilis). Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 143:286–291PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, De Poorter M (2000) 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the global invasive species database. IUCN, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  67. Maes J, Turnpenny AWH, Lambert DR, Nedwell JR, Parmentier A, Ollevier F (2004) Field evaluation of a sound system to reduce estuarine fish intake rates at a power plant cooling water inlet. J Fish Biol 64:938–946Google Scholar
  68. Maniwa Y (1976) Attraction of bony fish, squid and crab by sound. In: Schuijf A, Hawkins A (eds) Sound reception in fish. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 271–283Google Scholar
  69. Mann DA, Lobel PS (1995) Passive acoustic detection of sounds produced by the damselfish Dascyllus albisella (Pomacentridae). Bioacoustics 6:199–213Google Scholar
  70. Mann DA, Lu Z, Popper AN (1997) A clupeid fish can detect ultrasound. Nature 389:341Google Scholar
  71. Mann DA, Higgs DM, Tavolga WN, Souza MJ, Popper AN (2001) Ultrasound detection by clupeiform fishes. J Acoust Soc Am 109:3048–3054PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Mann DA, Popper AN, Wilson B (2005) Pacific herring hearing does not include ultrasound. Biol Lett 1:158–161PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Marchesan M, Spoto M, Verginella L, Ferrero EA (2005) Behavioural effects of artificial light on fish species of commercial interest. Fish Res 73:171–185Google Scholar
  74. Maruska KP, Sisneros JA (2016) Comparison of electrophysiological auditory measures in fishes. In: Sisneros JA (ed) Fish hearing and bioacoustics: an anthology in honor of Arthur N. Popper and Richard R. Fay. Springer, Cham, pp 227–254Google Scholar
  75. McKinley RS, Patrick PH, Mussalli YG (1987) Influence of three sonic devices on fish behavior. EPRI, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  76. McNeely JA, Mooney HA, Neville LE, Schei P, Waage JK (2001) A global strategy on invasive alien species. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  77. Mensinger AF (2014) Disruptive communication: stealth signaling in the toadfish. J Exp Biol 217:344PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Millot S, Vandewalle P, Parmentier E (2011) Sound production in red-bellied piranhas (Pygocentrus nattereri): an acoustical, behavioural and morphofunctional study. J Exp Biol 214:3613PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Mueller RP, Neitzel DA, Mavros WV, Carlson TJ (1998) Evaluation of low and high frequency sound for enhancing fish screening facilities to protect outmigrating salmonids. U.S Department of Energy, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  80. Murchy KA (2016) Bioacoustic deterrence of invasive bigheaded carp. University of Minnesota, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  81. Murchy KA, Vetter BJ, Brey MK, Amberg JJ, Gaikowski MP, Mensinger AF (2016) Not all carp are created equal: impacts of broadband sound on common carp swimming behavior. Proc Meet Acoust 27:010032Google Scholar
  82. Mussen TD (2000) How fish detect screen: investigating fishes' abilities to avoid screens while swimming in a current, and testing vibrations and strobe lights as deterrents. In: Cech JJ Jr, Moyle PB, Klimley AP (ed) Department of Ecology, University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  83. Mussen TD, Cech JJ Jr (2019) Assessing the use of vibrations and strobe lights at fish screens as enhanced deterrents for two estuarine fishes. J Fish Biol 95:238–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Myrberg AA (2001) The acoustical biology of elasmobranchs. Environ Biol Fishes 60:31–45Google Scholar
  85. Nelson DR, Gruber SH (1963) Sharks: attraction by low-frequency sounds. Science 142:975–977PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Neo YY, Hubert J, Bolle L, Winter HV, ten Cate C, Slabbekoorn H (2016) Sound exposure changes European seabass behaviour in a large outdoor floating pen: effects of temporal structure and a ramp-up procedure. Environ Pollut 214:26–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Freeman SM et al (2013) Wave and tidal consenting position paper series: impacts on fish and shellfish ecology. Krohn D (ed) National Environment Research CouncilGoogle Scholar
  88. Nestler JM, Ploskey GR, Pickens J, Menezes J, Schilt C (1992) Responses of blueback herring to high-frequency sound and implications for reducing entrainment at hydropower dams. North Am J Fish Manag 12:667–683Google Scholar
  89. New York Power Authority (NYPA) Inc (1991) Response of white perch, striped bass, alewives, spottail shiners, golden shiners, and Atlantic tomcod in a cage to high and low frequency underwater sounds generated by an electronic fish startle system. EPRI, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  90. Noatch MR, Suski CD (2012) Non-physical barriers to deter fish movements. Environ Rev 20:71–82Google Scholar
  91. O’Donnell M, Letcher BH (2017) Implanting 8-mm passive integrated transponder tags into small brook trout: effects on growth and survival in the laboratory. North Am J Fish Manag 37:605–611Google Scholar
  92. O’Keefe N, Clough SC, Lepper PA (2009) Preliminary investigations into the response of 0 + twaite shad (Alosa fallax) to ultrasound and its potential as an entrainment deterrent. In: Fifth internation conference on bio-acoustics. Loughborough: Proceedings of the institute of acoustics, pp 57–63Google Scholar
  93. Olsen E (1976) Directional response of herring to sound and noise stimuli. Int Counc Explor Sea P20:8Google Scholar
  94. Parmentier E, Fine ML (2016) Fish sound production: insights. In: Suthers RA, Fitch WT, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Vertebrate sound production and acoustic communication. Springer, Cham, pp 19–49Google Scholar
  95. Patrick PH, Christie AE, Sager DR, Hocutt CH, Stauffer JR (1985) Responses of fish to a strobe light/air-bubble barrier. Fish Res 3:157–172Google Scholar
  96. Patrick PH, McKinley RS, Christie AE, Holsapple JG (1988) Fish protection: sonic deterrents. In: Fish protection at steam and hydroelectic power plants. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  97. Patrick PH, Poulton JS, Brown R (2001) Responses of American eels to strobe light and sound (preliminary data) and introduction to sound conditioning as a potential fish passage technology. In: Coutant C (ed) Behavioral technologies for fish guidance. American Fisheries Society, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  98. Perry RW, Romine JG, Adams NS, Blake AR, Burau JR, Johnston SV, Liedtke TL (2012) Using a non-physical behavioral barrier to alter migration routing of juvenile chinook salmon in the Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta. River Res Appl 30(2):192–203Google Scholar
  99. Piper AT, White PR, Wright RM, Leighton TG, Kemp PS (2019) Response of seaward-migrating European eel (Anguilla anguilla) to an infrasound deterrent. Ecol Eng 127:480–486Google Scholar
  100. Popper AN, Fay RR (1993) Sound detection and processing by fish: critical review and major research questions (part 1 of 2). Brain Behav Evol 41:14–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Popper AN, Fay RR (1997) Evolution of the ear and hearing: issues and questions. Brain Behav Evol 50:213–221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Popper AN, Fay RR (2011) Rethinking sound detection by fishes. Hear Res 273:25–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Popper AN, Hastings MC (2009) The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. J Fish Biol 75:455–489PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Popper AN, Hawkins AD (2018) The importance of particle motion to fishes and invertebrates. J Acoust Soc Am 143:470–488PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Popper AN, Schilt CR (2008) Hearing and acoustic behavior: basic and applied considerations. In: Webb JF, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Fish bioacoustics: with 81 illustrations. Springer, New York, pp 17–48Google Scholar
  106. Purser J, Radford AN (2011) Acoustic noise induces attention shifts and reduces foraging performance in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). PLoS ONE 6:e17478PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  107. Radford AN, Kerridge E, Simpson SD (2014) Acoustic communication in a noisy world: can fish compete with anthropogenic noise? Behav Ecol 25:1022–1030Google Scholar
  108. Radford CA, Putland RL, Mensinger AF (2018) Barking mad: the vocalisation of the John Dory, Zeus faber. PLoS ONE 13:e0204647PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  109. Rankin CH, Abrams T, Barry RJ, Bhatnagar S, Clayton DF, Colombo J, Coppola G, Geyer MA, Glanzman DL, Marsland S, McSweeney FK, Wilson DA, Wu C, Thompson RF (2009) Habituation revisited: an updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiol Learn Mem 92:135–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Ricciardi A, MacIsaac HJ (2011) Impacts of biological invasions on freshwater ecosystems. In: Richardson DM (ed) Fifty years of invasion ecology: the legacy of Charles Elton. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 211–224Google Scholar
  111. Ross QE, Dunning DJ, Menezes JK, Kenna MJ, Tiller G (1995) Reducing impingement of alewives with high freuqency sound at a power plant intake on Lake Ontario. North Am J Fish Manag 15:378–388Google Scholar
  112. Rossi L, Rossi JL (2004) Frequency modulation of the sounds produced by the AQUAmark 200® deterrent devices. Acoust Res Lett Online 6:20–24Google Scholar
  113. Ruebush BC et al (2012) In-situ tests of sound-bubble-strobe light barrier technologies to prevent range expansions of Asian carp. Aquat Invasions 7(1):37–48Google Scholar
  114. Ryan LA, Chapuis L, Hemmi JM, Collin SP, McCauley RD, Yopak KE, Gennari E, Huveneers C, Kempster RM, Kerr CC, Schmidt C, Egeberg CA, Hart NS (2017) Effects of auditory and visual stimuli on shark feeding behaviour: the disco effect. Mar Biol 165:11Google Scholar
  115. Sager DR, Hocutt CH, Stauffer JR (1987) Estuarine fish responses to strobe light, bubble curtains and strobe light/bubble-curtain combinations as influenced by water flow rate and flash frequencies. Fish Res 5:383–399Google Scholar
  116. Sand O, Karlsen HE (1986) Detection of infrasound by the Atlantic cod. J Exp Biol 125:197–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. Sand O, Enger PS, Karlsen HE, Knudsen F, Kvernstuen T (2000) Avoidance responses to infrasound in downstream migrating European silver eels, Anguilla anguilla. Environ Biol Fishes 57(3):327–336Google Scholar
  118. Sand O, Enger PS, Karlsen HE, Knudsen FR (2001) Detection of infrasound in fish and behavioral responses to intense infrasound in juvenile salmonids and European silver eels: a minireview. Am Fish Soc Symp 26:183–193Google Scholar
  119. Sara G, Dean JM, Amato DD, Buscaino G, Oliveri A, Genovese S, Ferro S, Buffa G, Lo Martire M, Mazzola S (2007) Effect of boat noise on the behaviour of bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 331:243–253Google Scholar
  120. Scholik AR, Yan HY (2002) Effects of boat engine noise on the auditory sensitivity of the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. Environ Biol Fishes 63:203–209Google Scholar
  121. Schwarz AL, Greer GL (1984) Responses of Pacific herring, Clupea harengus pallasi, to some underwater sounds. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 41(8):1183–1192Google Scholar
  122. Sheridan S, Turnpenny AWH, Horsfield D, Solomon DJ, Bamford B, Bayliss S, Coates I, Dolben P, Frear E, Hazard I, Tavner N, Trudgill R, Wright RM, Aprahamian M (2014) Screening at intakes and outfalls: measures to protect eel. Environment Agency, BristolGoogle Scholar
  123. Sisneros JA, Popper AN, Hawkins AD, Fay RR (2016) Auditory evoked potential audiograms compared with behavioral audiograms in aquatic animals. Springer, New York, pp 1049–1056Google Scholar
  124. Sloan JL, Cordo EB, Mensinger AF (2013) Acoustical conditioning and retention in the common carp (Cyprinus carpio). J Great Lakes Res 39:507–512Google Scholar
  125. Smith ME, Kane AS, Popper AN (2004a) Acoustical stress and hearing sensitivity in fishes: does the linear threshold shift hypothesis hold water? J Exp Biol 207:3591–3602PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. Smith ME, Kane AS, Popper AN (2004b) Noise-induced stress response and hearing loss in goldfish (Carassius auratus). J Exp Biol 207:427–435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. Sonny D, Knudsen FR, Enger PS, Kvernstuen T, Sand O (2006) Reactions of cyprinids to infrasound in a lake and at the cooling water inlet of a nuclear power plant. J Fish Biol 69:735–748Google Scholar
  128. Sprott TA (2001) Preliminary report on the field testing of an air curtain screen to minimize fish passage onto submerged floating drydocks. NSRP Environmental Studies and Testing Panel, SP-1, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  129. Taft EP, Dixon DA, Sullivan CW (2001) Electric Power Research Institute’s (EPRI) research on behavioral technologies. In: Coutant C (ed) Behavioral technologies for fish guidance. American Fisheries Society, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  130. Tavolga WN (1967) Masked auditory thresholds in teleost fishes. In: Tavolga WN (ed) Marine bio-acoustics. Pergamon Pres, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  131. Tavolga WN (1971) Chapter 6. Sound production and detection. In: Hoar WS, Randall DJ (eds) Fish physiology. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 135–205Google Scholar
  132. Taylor RM, Pegg MA, Chick JH (2005) Response of bighead carp to a bioacoustic behavioural fish guidance system. Fish Manag Ecol 12:283–286Google Scholar
  133. Tindle CT (1982) Attenuation parameters from normal mode measurements. J Acoust Soc Am 71:1145–1148Google Scholar
  134. Tindle CT, Deane GB (2005) Shallow water propagation with surface waves. J Acoust Soc Am 117:2783–2794PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. Turnpenny AWH, Nedwell JR (2003) Screening and other fish diversion/deterrent technologies. In: Agency, USEP (ed) Symposium on cooling water intake technologies to protect aquatic organisms May 6–7. Arlington, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  136. Turnpenny AWH, O’Keefe N (2005) Screening for intake and outfalls: a best practice guide. Environment Agency, BristolGoogle Scholar
  137. Turnpenny AWH, Thatcher KP, Wood R, Nedwell JR (1994) Fish deterrent field trials at Hinkley Power Station, Somerset, 1993–1994. Fawley Aquatic Labs. Ltd, FawleyGoogle Scholar
  138. Turnpenny AWH, Fleming JM, Thatcher KP, Wood R (1995) Trials of an acoustic fish deterrent system at Hartlepool Power Station. Fawley Aquatic Labs. Ltd, FawleyGoogle Scholar
  139. University of Florida (2018) Plant management in Florida waters: an integrated approach. University of Florida, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  140. Urick RJ (1983) Principles of underwater sound. McGraw-Hill Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  141. US Clean Water Act (1972) Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Government, E. P. A. a. U., (ed)Google Scholar
  142. US Environmental Protection Agency (2003) A symposium on cooling water intake technologies to protect aquatic organisms. Arlington, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  143. van der Walker JG (1966) Response of salmonids to low frequency sound. In: Tavolga WN (ed) Proceeding of the second symposium on marine bio-acoustics, New York. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 45–58Google Scholar
  144. van Oosterom L, Montgomery JC, Jeffs AG, Radford CA (2016) Evidence for contact calls in fish: conspecific vocalisations and ambient soundscape influence group cohesion in a nocturnal species. Sci Rep 6:19098PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  145. VanDerWalker JG (1967) Response of salmonids to low frequency sound. In: Tavolga WN (ed) Marine bioacoustics II. Pergamon Press, New York, pp 45–54Google Scholar
  146. Vetter BJ, Mensinger AF (2016) Broadband sound can induce jumping behavior in invasive silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix). Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 27:010021Google Scholar
  147. Vetter BJ, Cupp AR, Fredricks KT, Gaikowski MP, Mensinger AF (2015) Acoustical deterrence of silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix). Biol Invasions 17:3383–3392Google Scholar
  148. Vetter BJ, Murchy KA, Cupp AR, Amberg JJ, Gaikowski MP, Mensinger AF (2017) Acoustic deterrence of bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) to a broadband sound stimulus. J Great Lakes Res 43:163–171Google Scholar
  149. Vetter BJ, Brey MK, Mensinger AF (2018) Reexamining the frequency range of hearing in silver (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and bighead (H. nobilis) carp. PLoS ONE 13:e0192561PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  150. Wahlberg M (1999) A review of the literature on acoustic herding and attraction in fish. Fishkeriverket Rapport 1999:2Google Scholar
  151. Weber EH (1820) De aure et auditu hominis et animalium: De aure animalium aquatilium: cum x tabulis aeneis, vol 1. Bavarian State Library, FleischerGoogle Scholar
  152. Welton JS, Beaumont WRC, Clarke RT (2002) The efficacy of air, sound and acoustic bubble screens in deflecting Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., smolts in the River Frome, UK. Fish Manag Ecol 9:11–18Google Scholar
  153. Westenberg J (1953) Acoustical aspectsof some Indonesian fisheries. J du Conseil pour l’Exploration de la Mer 19:311–325Google Scholar
  154. Wolff D (1967) Akustische Untersuchungen zur Klapperfischerei und verwandter Metoden. Zeitschrift fur Fischerei XIV:277–315Google Scholar
  155. Wood R, Thatcher KP, Woodcock A, Turnpenny AWH (1994) Fish deterrent trials at the River Foss pumping station, York, 1993–1994. Fawley Aquatic Research Laboratories Ltd., SouthamptonGoogle Scholar
  156. Wu YH, Yu HY, Shao IT, Lee ZC, Lin ST, Yan HY, Hsu CH, Lee CP, Jiang HH (2009) The method using underwater sound in reducing fish entrainment and impingement at cooling water inlets of nuclear power plants in northern Taiwan. Tai Power Eng Mon 733:108–117Google Scholar
  157. Wysocki LE, Ladich F (2005) Hearing in fishes under noise conditions. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 6:28–36PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  158. Zhang GS, Hiraishi T, Motomatsu K, Yamamoto K, Nashimoto K (1998) Auditory threshold of marbled sole Pleuronectes yokohamae. Nippon Suisan Gakaishi 64:211–215Google Scholar
  159. Zielinski DP, Sorensen PW (2015) Field test of a bubble curtain deterrent system for common carp. Fish Manag Ecol 22:181–184Google Scholar
  160. Zielinski DP, Sorensen PW (2016) Bubble curtain deflection screen diverts the movement of both Asian and common carp. North Am J Fish Manag 36:267–276Google Scholar
  161. Zielinski DP, Sorensen PW (2017) Silver, bighead, and common carp orient to acoustic particle motion when avoiding a complex sound. PLoS ONE 12:e0180110PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  162. Zielinski DP, Voller VR, Svendsen JC, Hondzo M, Mensinger AF, Sorensen P (2014) Laboratory experiments demonstrate that bubble curtains can effectively inhibit movement of common carp. Ecol Eng 67:95–103Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of Minnesota DuluthDuluthUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options