Advertisement

Aiming for Progress in Understanding Underwater Noise Impact on Fish: Complementary Need for Indoor and Outdoor Studies

  • Hans SlabbekoornEmail author
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 875)

Abstract

Anthropogenic noise can be detrimental to aquatic life through physical harm and behavioral impact. Physical harm to fish only occurs very close to typically brief but high-power sources. Behavioral impact occurs at more moderate levels and is spatially and temporally much more widespread. More studies are needed to get a better understanding of the behavioral impact on fish. Indoor and outdoor studies vary in their acoustic and behavioral validity and in the amount of experimental control. Although each approach has its limitations, scientific progress and applied insights will depend on the exploitation of their complementary potential.

Keywords

Anthropogenic noise Sound exposure Behavioral effects Methodology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Art Popper and Tony Hawkins for the organization of the excellent meeting in Budapest and for providing opportunity and feedback. I am also grateful to Peter Rogers and David Zeddies for very clear and useful presentations at the meeting and valuable interactions afterward. Furthermore, I thank my collaborators in Leiden, IJmuiden, and Den Haag who have contributed to my current understanding of the topic: Errol Neo, Saeed Shafiei Sabet, Özkan Sertlek, Carel ten Cate, Erwin Winter, Loes Bolle, and Michael Ainslie. My work was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO-ZKO).

References

  1. Akamatsu T, Okumura T, Novarini N, Yan HY (2002) Empirical refinements applicable to the recording of fish sounds in small tanks. J Acoust Soc Am 112:3073–3082CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bracciali C, Campobello D, Giacoma C, Sara G (2012) Effects of nautical traffic and noise on foraging patterns of Mediterranean damselfish (Chromis chromis). PLoS ONE 7, e40582. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040582 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Calisi RM, Bentley GE (2009) Lab and field experiments: are they the same animal? Horm Behav 56:1–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Casper BM, Smith ME, Halvorsen MB, Sun H, Carlson TJ, Popper AN (2013) Effects of exposure to pile driving sounds on fish inner ear tissues. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 166:352–360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunlop RA, Noad MJ, Cato DH, Kniest E, Miller PJO, Smith JN, Stokes MD (2013) Multivariate analysis of behavioural response experiments in humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). J Exp Biol 216:759–770PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldbogen JA, Southall BL, DeRuiter SL, Calambokidis J, Friedlaender AS, Hazen EL, Falcone EA, Schorr GS, Douglas A, Moretti DJ, Kyburg C, McKenna MF, Tyack PL (2013) Blue whales respond to simulated mid-frequency military sonar. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 280, 20130657. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.0657 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Halvorsen MB, Casper BM, Matthews F, Carlson TJ, Popper AN (2012) Effects of exposure to pile-driving sounds on the lake sturgeon, Nile tilapia and Hogchoker. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 279:4705–4714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hawkins AD, Chapman CJ (1975) Masked auditory thresholds in the cod, Gadus morhua L. J Comp Physiol 103:209–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hawkins AD, Johnstone ADF (1978) The hearing of the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). J Fish Biol 13:655–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holles S, Simpson SD, Radford AN, Berten L, Lecchini D (2013) Boat noise disrupts orientation behaviour in a coral reef fish. Mar Ecol Prog Series 485:295–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koolhaas JM, Bartolomucci A, Buwalda B, de Boer SF, Flügg G, Korte SM, Meerlo P, Murison R, Olivier B, Palanza P, Richter-Levin G, Sgoifo A, Steimer T, Stiedl O, van Dijk G, Wöhr M, Fuchs E (2011) Stress revisited: a critical evaluation of the stress concept. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 35:1291–1301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ladich F (2008) Sound communication in fishes and the influence of ambient and anthropogenic noise. Bioacoustics 17:35–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ladich F, Schulz-Mirbach T (2013) Hearing in cichlid fish under noise conditions. PLoS ONE 8, e57588PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Normandeau Associates, Inc (2012) Effects of noise on fish, fisheries, and invertebrates in the U.S. Atlantic and Arctic from energy industry sound-generating activities. A workshop report prepared under Contract No. M11PC00031 for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, US Department of the InteriorGoogle Scholar
  15. Parvulescu A (1967) The acoustics of small tanks. In: Tavolga WN (ed) Marine bio-acoustics, vol 2. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 7–13Google Scholar
  16. Picciulin M, Sebastianutto L, Codarin A, Farina A, Ferrero EA (2010) In situ behavioural responses to boat noise exposure of Gobius cruentatus (Gmelin, 1789; fam. Gobiidae) and Chromis chromis (Linnaeus, 1758; fam. Pomacentridae) living in a marine protected area. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 386:125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Popper AN, Fay RR (2011) Rethinking sound detection by fishes. Hear Res 273:25–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Popper AN, Fewtrell J, Smith ME, McCauley RD (2004) Anthropogenic sound: effects on the behavior and physiology of fishes. Mar Technol Soc J 37:35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Radford CA, Montgomery JC, Caiger P, Higgs DM (2012) Pressure and particle motion detection thresholds in fish: a re-examination of salient auditory cues in teleosts. J Exp Biol 215:3429–3435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Rogers PH, Cox M (1988) Underwater sound as a biological stimulus. In: Atema J, Fay RR, Popper AN, Tavolga WN (eds) Sensory biology of aquatic animals. Springer, New York, pp 131–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schulz-Mirbach T, Metscher B, Ladich F (2012) Relationship between swim bladder morphology and hearing abilities-A case study on Asian and African cichlids. PLoS ONE 7, e42292PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Simpson SD, Meekan MG, Larsen NJ, McCauley RD, Jeffs A (2010) Behavioral plasticity in larval reef fish: orientation is influenced by recent acoustic experiences. Behav Ecol 21:1098–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Slabbekoorn H (2012) The complexity of noise impact assessments: from birdsong to fish behavior. In: Popper AN, Hawkins AD (eds) The effects of noise on aquatic life, vol 730, Advances in experimental medicine and biology. Springer, New York, pp 497–500. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7311-5_113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Slabbekoorn H, Bouton N (2008) Soundscape orientation: a new field in need of sound investigation. Anim Behav 76:e5–e8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Slabbekoorn H, Bouton N, van Opzeeland I, Coers A, ten Cate C, Popper AN (2010) A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends Ecol Evol 25:419–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Wale MA, Simpson SD, Radford AN (2013) Noise negatively affects foraging and antipredator behaviour in shore crabs. Anim Behav 86:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wysocki LE, Codarin A, Ladich F, Picciulin M (2009) Sound pressure and particle acceleration audiograms in three marine fish species from the Adriatic Sea. J Acoust Soc Am 126: 2100–2107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Behavioural Biology, Institute of Biology LeidenLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations