Advertisement

How Might We Assess and Manage the Effects of Underwater Noise on Populations of Marine Animals?

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 875)

Abstract

The European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) aims to achieve good environmental status (GES) in European seas by 2020. One of the features of GES is that underwater sound should not adversely affect the marine environment. Direct injury of marine life may occur, but a more pervasive effect is likely to be through the cumulative indirect effects on behavior. Assessing the significance of these effects on an ecosystem scale is difficult. If subsequent management of these effects is required, complex and challenging international decisions will be required.

Keywords

Cumulative impact Management Harbor porpoise 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The opinions in this article are entirely mine and should not be construed to be those of any organization or group for or with which I work. I thank the numerous colleagues down the years who I have worked with in understanding and assessing the effects of underwater noise.

References

  1. Braasch A, Joost M, Ketzer C (2013) Responses of harbour porpoises to pile driving on a temporal and spatial scale. Naturvårdsverket report 6546, book of abstracts, conference on wind power and environmental impacts, Stockholm, Sweden, 5–7 Feb 2013, p 125Google Scholar
  2. Brandt MJ, Diederichs A, Betke K, Nehls G (2011) Responses of harbour porpoises to pile driving at the Horns Rev II offshore wind farm in the Danish North Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 421:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandt M, Diederichs A, Betke K, Nehls G (2012) Effects of offshore pile driving on harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). In: Popper AN, Hawkins AD (eds) The effects of noise on aquatic life. Advances in experimental medicine and biology, vol 730. Springer, New York, pp 281–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dähne M, Gilles A, Lucke K, Peschko V, Adler S, Krügel K, Sundermeyer J, Siebert U (2013) Effects of pile-driving on harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) at the first offshore wind farm in Germany. Environ Res Lett 8:025002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/025002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Harwood J, King S, Schick R, Donovan C (2014) A draft protocol for implementing the interim population consequences of disturbance (PCoD) approach: assessing the effects of UK offshore renewable energy developments on marine mammal populations. Report number SMRUL-TCE-2013-014 prepared for the Crown Estate on behalf of the funders of the project: Marine Scotland, The Department for Energy and Climate Change, The Crown Estate, Countryside Council for Wales, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Natural England, and Scottish Natural Heritage. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science 5(2)Google Scholar
  6. Stone CJ, Tasker ML (2006) The effects of seismic airguns on cetaceans in UK waters. J Cetacean Res Manage 8:255–263Google Scholar
  7. Tasker ML, Amundin M, Andre M, Hawkins A, Lang W, Merck T, Scholik-Schlomer A, Teilmann J, Thomsen F, Werner S, Zakharia M (2010) Marine strategy framework directive task group 11 report—underwater noise and other forms of energy. Available at http://www.ices.dk/projects/MSFD/TG11final.pdf
  8. Thompson P, Brookes K, Cheney B, Graham I, Barton T (2012) Assessing the potential impact of oil and gas exploration operations on cetaceans in the Moray Firth. Third-year report prepared for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), Scottish Government, Collaborative Offshore Wind Research Into the Environment (COWRIE), and Oil & Gas UK by the Institute of Biological & Environmental Sciences, Aberdeen UniversityGoogle Scholar
  9. Tougaard J, Buckland S, Robinson S, Southall B (2013) An analysis of potential broad-scale impacts on harbour porpoise from proposed pile driving activities in the North Sea. Report of an expert group convened under the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives, Marine Evidence Group, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Tougaard J, Carstensen J, Teilmann J, Skov H, Rasmussen P (2009) Pile driving zone of responsiveness extends beyond 20 km for harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena (L.)). J Acoust Soc Am 126:11–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Joint Nature Conservation CommitteeAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options