Effects of Underwater Noise on Marine Mammals

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 730)


Public concern about the effects of underwater noise on marine mammals has steadily increased over the past few decades. Research programs have been developed around the globe to investigate noise impacts. Government departments in many countries regulate underwater noise emission. Industries, in particular the oil and gas industry, undertake environmental impact assessments of underwater noise expected from planned marine activities and submit these to regulatory agencies as part of a permit application process. Lawsuits have been brought against the Navy in an attempt to protect marine mammals from sonar testing. The number and diversity of stakeholders in the management of noise and marine animals is great. Marine Mammals and Noise (Richardson et al. 1995) was the first book to review and synthesize research on the noise effects on marine mammals. In the 15 years since then, a handful of review projects have been undertaken, with focus on specific aspects (e.g., Committee on Characterizing Biologically Significant Marine Mammal Behavior 2005; Committee on Potential Impacts of Ambient Noise in the Ocean on Marine Mammals 2003; National Research Council 2000; Nowacek et al. 2007; Southall et al. 2007).


Marine Mammal Ambient Noise Noise Exposure Hearing Threshold Environmental Impact Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Committee on Characterizing Biologically Significant Marine Mammal Behavior (2005) Marine mammal populations and ocean noise: Determining when noise causes biologically significant effects. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Committee on Potential Impacts of Ambient Noise in the Ocean on Marine Mammals (2003) Ocean noise and marine mammals. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Cosens SE, Dueck LP (1988) Responses of migrating narwhal and beluga to icebreaker traffic at the Admiralty Inlet ice-edge, N.W.T. in 1986. In: Sackinger WM, Jeffries MO (eds) Port and ocean engineering under arctic conditions. Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, pp 39–54.Google Scholar
  4. Erbe C (2000) Detection of whale calls in noise: Performance comparison between a beluga whale, human listeners and a neural network. J Acoust Soc Am 108:297–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Erbe C (2002) Underwater noise of whale-watching boats and potential effects on killer whales (Orcinus orca), based on an acoustic impact model. Mar Mamm Sci 18:394–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Erbe C (2008) Critical ratios of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) and masked signal duration. J Acoust Soc Am 124:2216–2223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Erbe C (2009) Underwater noise from pile driving in Moreton Bay, QLD. Acoust Aust 37:87–92.Google Scholar
  8. Erbe C (2010) Underwater acoustics: Noise and the effects on marine mammals, 3rd edn. Pocketbook, printed by JASCO Applied Sciences, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.Google Scholar
  9. Erbe C, Farmer DM (1998) Masked hearing thresholds of a beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) in icebreaker noise. Deep Sea Res II Top Stud Oceanogr 45:1373–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erbe C, Farmer DM (2000) Zones of impact around icebreakers affecting beluga whales in the Beaufort Sea. J Acoust Soc Am 108:1332–1340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erbe C, King AR (2009) Modeling cumulative sound exposure around marine seismic surveys. J Acoust Soc Am 125:2443–2451.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erbe C, King AR, Yedlin M, Farmer DM (1999) Computer models for masked hearing experiments with beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas). J Acoust Soc Am 105:2967–2978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finley KJ, Miller GW, Davis RA, Greene CR (1990) Reactions of belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) and narwhals (Monodon monoceros) to ice-breaking ships in the Canadian High Arctic. Can Bull Fish Aquat Sci 224:97–117.Google Scholar
  14. Lucke K, Siebert U, Lepper PA, Blanchet MA (2009) Temporary shift in masked hearing thresholds in a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) after exposure to seismic airgun stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 125:4060–4070.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. National Research Council (2000) Marine mammals and low-frequency sound. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  16. Nowacek DP, Thorne LH, Johnston DW, Tyack PL (2007) Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise. Mamm Rev 37:81–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Richardson WJ, Greene CR Jr, Malme CI, Thomson DH (1995) Marine mammals and noise. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Ross D (1976) Mechanics of underwater noise. Pergamon Press, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Scrimger P, Heitmeyer RM (1991) Acoustic source-level measurements for a variety of merchant ships. J Acoust Soc Am 89:691–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Southall BL, Bowles AE, Ellison WT, Finneran JJ, Gentry RL, Greene CR, Kastak D, Ketten DR, Miller JH, Nachtigall PE, Richardson WJ, Thomas JA, Tyack PL (2007) Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquat Mamm 33:412–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. US Department of the Navy (2009) Atlantic fleet active sonar training environmental impact statement/overseas environmental impact statement. Available via Accessed 5 April 2010.Google Scholar
  22. Wright AJ, Deak T, Parsons ECM (2009) Size matters: Management of stress responses and chronic stress in beaked whales and other marine mammals may require larger exclusion zones. Mar Pollut Bull 31 December 2009. Available via Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Marine Science & TechnologyCurtin UniversityBentleyAustralia
  2. 2.JASCO Applied SciencesEight Mile PlainsAustralia

Personalised recommendations