Advertisement

Harbour Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena): Investigation of Density, Distribution Patterns, Habitat Use and Acoustics in the German North and Baltic Seas

  • Ursula Siebert
  • Harald Benke
  • Guido Dehnhardt
  • Anita Gilles
  • Wolf Hanke
  • Christopher G Honnef
  • Klaus Lucke
  • Stefan Ludwig
  • Meike Scheidat
  • Ursula K Verfuß

Keywords

Auditory Brainstem Response Harbour Seal Aerial Survey Harbour Porpoise International Whaling Commission 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersen S (1970) Auditory Sensitivity of the Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Inv in Cet 2:255–259Google Scholar
  2. Au WWL (1993) The sonar of dolphins. Springer-Verlag, New York Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  3. Benke H, Siebert U (1994) Zur Situation der Kleinwale im Wattenmeer und in der südlichen Nordsee. In: Lozán JL, Rachor E, Reise K, v. Westernhagen H, Lenz W (eds). Warnsignale aus dem Wattenmeer. Blackwell Wissenschaftsverlag, Berlin, pp 309–316Google Scholar
  4. Benke H, Siebert U, Lick R, Bandomir B, Weiss R (1998) The current status of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in German waters. Arch Fish Mar Res 46(2):97–123Google Scholar
  5. Berggren P (1995) A preliminary assessment of the status of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the Swedish Skagerrak, Kattegat and Baltic seas. Paper SC/47/SM50 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee, May 1995, 22 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Börjesson P, Berggren P (1997) Morphometric comparisons of skulls of harbour popoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the Baltic, Kattegat and Skagerrak seas. Can Jour Zool 75:280–287Google Scholar
  7. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L (2001) Introduction to distance sampling. Estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 432 ppzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Caretta JV, Taylor BL, Chivers SJ (2001) Abundance and depth distribution of harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in northern California determined from a 1995 ship survey. Fish Bull 99:29–39Google Scholar
  9. Goodson AD, Kastelein RA, Sturtivant CR (1995) Source levels and echolocation signal characteristics of juvenile harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in a pool. In: Nachtigall PE, Lien J, Au WWL, Read AJ (eds) Harbour porpoises-laboratory studies to reduce bycatch. Vol 1. De Spil Publishers, Woerden, The Netherlands, pp 41–53Google Scholar
  10. Hammond PS, Benke H, Berggren P, Borchers DL, Buckland ST, Collet A, Heide-Jørgensen MP, Heimlich-Boran S, Hiby AR, Leopold MP, Øien N (1995) Distribution and abundance of the harbour porpoise and other small cetaceans in the North Sea and adjacent waters. Final Report, LIFE 92-2/UK/027, 242 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Hammond PS, Berggren P, Benke H, Borchers DL, Collet A, Heide-Jørgensen MP, Heimlich-Boran S, Hiby AR, Leopold MF, Øien N (2002) Abundance of harbour porpoise and other cetaceans in the North Sea and adjacent waters. J of Appl Ecol 39:361–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hiby AR, Hammond PS (1989) Survey techniques for estimating the abundance of cetaceans. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, Special Issue 11:47–80Google Scholar
  13. Huggenberger S, Benke H, Kinze CC (2002) Geographical variation in harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) skulls: support for a separate non-migratory population in the Baltic Proper. Ophelia 56(1):1–12Google Scholar
  14. Hutchinson J, Simmonds M, Moscrop A (1995) The harbour porpoise in the North Atlantic: a case for conservation. Conservation Research Group, University of Greenwich. London, January 1995. Report to Stitching Greenpeace Council: 90 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. IWC (1997) Report of the Sub-Committee on Small Cetaceans, Annex H. Report of the International Whaling Commission 47:169–191Google Scholar
  16. Jepson PD, Baker JR, Allchin CR, Law RJ, Kuiken T, Baker JR, Rogan E, Kirkwood JK (1999) Investigating potential associations between chronic exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls and infectious disease mortality in harbour porpoises from England and Wales. Sci Tot Environ 243/244:339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kamminga C, Engelsma FJ, Terry RP (1999) An adult-like sonar wave shape from a re-habilitated orphaned harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Ophelia 50:35–42Google Scholar
  18. Kaschner K (2001) Harbour porpoises in the North Sea and Baltic — bycatch and current status. Report for the Umweltstiftung WWF — Deutschland: 82 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. Kastelein RA, Bunskoek P, Hagedoorn M, Au WWL (2002) Audiogram of a harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) measured with narrow-band frequencymodulated signals. J Acoust Soc Am 112(1):334–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kinze CC (1995) Exploitation of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Danish waters: a historical review. In: Bjorge A, Donovan GP (eds) Biology of the Phocoenids. Black Bear Press, Cambridge, pp 141–153Google Scholar
  21. Kock KH, Benke H (1996) On the by-catch of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in German fisheries in the Baltic and the North Sea. Arch Fish Mar Res 44(1/2):95–114Google Scholar
  22. Koschinski S (2003) Current knowledge on harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the Baltic Sea. Ophelia 55:167–197Google Scholar
  23. Lockyer C, Kinze C (2000) Status and life history of harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena, in Danish waters. ICES, Copenhagen: pp 1–37Google Scholar
  24. Moreno P, Benke H, Lutter S (1993) Behaviour of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) carcasses in the German Bight: surfacing rate, decomposition and drift routes. In: Bohlken, H, Benke, H, Wulf, J (eds) Untersuchungen über Bestand, Gesundheitszustand und Wanderung der Kleinwalpopulationen (Cetacea) in deutschen Gewässern. FKZ 10805017/11. BMU-Final Report. Institut für Haustierkunde, University of Kiel, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  25. Ødegaard and Danneskiold-Samsøe A/S (2000) Offshore Wind-Turbine Construction. Offshore Pile-Driving Underwater and Above-Water Noise Measurements and Analysis. SEAS Distribution A.m.b.A. und Enron Wind GmbH, Report no. 00.877, Denmark.Google Scholar
  26. Popov VV, Supin AY (1990b) Electrophysiological studies of hearing in some cetaceans and manatee. pp 405–415. In: Thomas JA and Kastelein RA (eds): Sensory Abilities of Cetaceans: Laboratory and Field Evidence. Plenum Press, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Reijnders PJH (1992) Harbour porpoises Phocoena phocoena in the North Sea: Numerical responses to changes in environmental conditions. Netherlands J. Aqua Ecol 26(1):75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Richardson WJ, Greene CR, Jr, Malme CI, Thomson DH (1995) Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Scheidat M, Siebert U (2003) Aktueller Wissensstand zur Bewertung von anthropogenen Einflüssen auf Schweinswale in der deutschen Nordsee. Seevögle 24(3)50–60Google Scholar
  30. Scheidat M, Gilles A, Siebert U (2004) Teilprojekt 2 — Erfassung der Dichte und Verteilungsmuster von Schweinswalen (Phocoena phocoena) in der deutschen Nord-und Ostsee. In: Kellermann A et al. (eds) Marine Warmblüter in Nord-und Ostsee: Grundlagen zur Bewertung von Windkraftanlagen im Offshore-Bereich. FKZ 0327520. Final report. Investment-in-future program of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU). Landesamt für den Nationalpark Schleswig-Holsteinisches Wattenmeer, Tönning. (www.wattenmeer-nationalpark.de)Google Scholar
  31. Schulze G (1996) Die Schweinswale. Neue Brehm Bücherei, Magdeburg, 188 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. Siebert U, Benke H, Schulze G, Sonntag RP (1996) Über den Zustand der Kleinwale. In: Lozán JL, Lampe R, Matthäus W, Rachor E, Rumohr H, von Westernhagen H (eds) Warnsignale aus der Ostsee. Parey Buchverlag, Berlin, pp 242–248Google Scholar
  33. Siebert U, Joiris C, Holsbeek L, Benke H, Failing K, Frese K, Petzinger E (1999) Potential relation between mercury concentrations and necropsy findings in cetaceans from German waters of the North and Baltic Seas. Mar Poll Bull 38:285–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Siebert U, Gilles A, Lucke K, Ludwig M, Benke H, Kock K-H, Scheidat M (accepted) Review of occurrence of the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in German waters — analyses of aerial surveys, incidental sightings and strandings. J Sea ResGoogle Scholar
  35. Teilmann J, Dietz R, Larsen F, Desportes G, Geertsen BM, Andersen LW, Aastrup PJ, Hansen JR, Buholzer L (2004) Satellitsporing af marsvin i danske og tilstødende farvande. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser. Report. DMU 484, pp 1–86. Electronic version: www2.dmu.dk/1_viden/2_Publikationer/3_fagrapporter/abstrakter/abs_484DK.aspGoogle Scholar
  36. Tiedemann R (2001) Stock definition in continuously distributed species using molecular markers and spatial autocorrelation analysis. SC/53/SD3, pp 1–4. London. Paper presented to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling CommissionGoogle Scholar
  37. Tiedemann R, Harder J, Gmeiner C, Haase E (1996) Mitochondrial DNA patterns of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the North and the Baltic Sea. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 61:104–111Google Scholar
  38. Verfuß UK, Schnitzler H-U (2002) Untersuchungen zum Echoortungsverhalten der Schweinswale (Phocoena phocoena) als Grundlage für Schutzmaßnahmen. R+D project: FKZ: 898 86 021, Final report, pp 1–53. Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Dept Animal Physiology, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  39. Verfuß UK, Honnef C, Benke H (2004a) Untersuchungen zur Nutzung ausgewählter Gebiete der Deutschen und Polnischen Ostsee durch Schweinswale mit Hilfe akustischer Methoden. R+D project: FKZ: 901 86 020. Final report, German Oceanographic Museum, Stralsund, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  40. Verfuß UK, Honnef C, Benke H (2004b) Teilprojekt 3–Untersuchungen zur Raumnutzung durch Schweinswale in der Nord-und Ostsee mit Hilfe akustischer Methoden (PODs). In: Kellermann, A et al. (eds) Marine Warmblüter in Nord-und Ostsee: Grundlagen zur Bewertung von Windkraftanlagen im Offshore-Bereich. FKZ 0327520. Final report. Investment-in-future program of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU). Landesamt für den Nationalpark Schleswig-Holsteinisches Wattenmeer, Tönning. (www.wattenmeer-nationalpark.de)Google Scholar
  41. Verfuß UK, Miller LA, Schnitzler H-U (2005) Spatial orientation in echolocating harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). J Exp Biol 208:3385–3394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Verfuß UK, Honnef CG, Benke H (2006) Seasonal and geographical variation of harbour porpoise habitat use in the German Baltic Sea monitored with autonomous echolocation click detectors (T-PODs). In: von Nordheim H, Boedeker D, Krause JC (eds) Advancing towards effective marine conservation in Europe — NATURA 2000 sites in German offshore waters. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  43. Vinther M (1999) Bycatches of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena L.) in Danish set-net fisheries. J Cet Res Manag 1(2):123–135Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ursula Siebert
    • 1
  • Harald Benke
    • 2
  • Guido Dehnhardt
    • 3
  • Anita Gilles
    • 1
  • Wolf Hanke
    • 3
  • Christopher G Honnef
    • 2
  • Klaus Lucke
    • 1
  • Stefan Ludwig
    • 1
  • Meike Scheidat
    • 1
  • Ursula K Verfuß
    • 2
  1. 1.Research and Technology Center (FTZ)Christian-Albrechts-University of KielBüsumGermany
  2. 2.German Oceanographic MuseumStralsundGermany
  3. 3.Department of General Zoology and NeurobiologyRuhr-Universität BochumBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations