Advertisement

Tracking Technologies for Quantifying Marine Mammal Interactions with Tidal Turbines: Pitfalls and Possibilities

  • Gordon D. Hastie
  • Douglas M. Gillespie
  • Jonathan C. D. Gordon
  • Jamie D. J. Macaulay
  • Bernie J. McConnell
  • Carol E. Sparling
Chapter
Part of the Humanity and the Sea book series (HUMSEA)

Abstract

Currently, there is great uncertainty surrounding the environmental impacts of tidal turbines on marine mammals; one major concern derives from the potential for physical injury through direct contact with the moving structures of turbines. Collecting data to quantify these risks is challenging and methods for measuring movements underwater and interactions with turbines are limited. However, potential tools include a small number of cutting-edge technologies that are being used increasingly for research and monitoring; these include animal-borne telemetry, and active and passive acoustic tracking. Recent developments in these technologies are described along with their means of application in measuring fine-scale movements and avoidance or evasion responses by marine mammals around turbines. From a risk-characterization perspective, each technique can provide information to inform risk assessments or help parametrize collision risk models; however, each has its associated benefits and drawbacks and it is clear that, in isolation, none of them can provide all the data needed to address the problem. The three approaches appear highly complementary, with the strengths of one complementing the weaknesses in others; the solution to characterizing the risks posed by tidal turbines is likely to be a combination of such techniques.

Keywords

Collision risk Marine mammals Passive acoustics Sonar Telemetry Tidal energy 

References

  1. Akamatsu T, Teilmann J, Miller LA, Tougaard J, Dietz R, Wang D, Wang K et al (2007) Comparison of echolocation behaviour between coastal and riverine porpoises. Deep Sea Res II: Top Stud Oceanog 54:290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argos (2008) Argos userʼs manual. CLS Argos, ToulouseGoogle Scholar
  3. Au WWL (1996) Acoustic reflectivity of a dolphin. J Acoust Soc Am 99:3844–3848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benoit-Bird KJ, Au WL (2003a) Hawaiian spinner dolphins aggregate midwater food resources through cooperative foraging. J Acoust Soc Am 114:2300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benoit-Bird KJ, Au WL (2003b) Prey dynamics affect foraging by a pelagic predator (Stenella longirostris) over a range of spatial and temporal scales. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 53:364–373Google Scholar
  6. Benoit-Bird KJ, Wursig B, McFadden CJ (2004) Dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) foraging in two different habitats: active acoustic detection of dolphins and their prey. Mar Mamm Sci 20:215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callaghan J (2006) Future marine energy results of the Marine Energy Challenge: cost competitiveness and growth of wave and tidal stream energy. Carbon Trust Report. pp 40. http://www.oceanrenewable.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/futuremarineenergy.pdf
  8. Carlson TJ, Watson BE, Elster JL, Copping AE, Jones ME, Watkins M, Jepsen R et al (2012) Assessment of strike of adult killer whales by an OpenHydro tidal turbine blade. Report to the US Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05–76RL01830Google Scholar
  9. Chappell O, Leaper R, Gordon J (1996) Development and performance of an automated harbour porpoise click detector. Rep Int Whal Comm 46:587–594Google Scholar
  10. Clark CW, Ellison WT, Beeman K (1985) Progress report on the analysis of the spring 1985 acoustic data regarding migrating bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus, near Point Barrow, Alaska. Rep Int Whal Comm 36:587–597Google Scholar
  11. Clausen KT, Wahlberg M, Beedholm K, Deruiter S, Madsen PT (2010) Click communication in harbour porpoises Phocoena phocoena. Bioacoustics 20:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis RW, Fuiman LA, Williams TM, Collier SO, Hagey WP, Kanatous SB, Kohin S et al (1999) Hunting behaviour of a marine mammal beneath the Antarctic fast ice. Science 283:993–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doksæter L, Godø OR, Olsen E, Nøttestad L, Patel R (2009) Ecological studies of marine mammals using a seabed-mounted echosounder. ICES J Mar Sci 66:1029–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dunn JL (1969) Airborne measurements of the acoustic characteristics of a sperm whale. J Acoust Soc Am 46:1052–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freitag LE, Tyack PL (1993) Passive acoustic localisation of the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin using whistles and echolocation clicks. J Acoust Soc Am 93:2197–2205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fristrup KM, Hatch LT, Clark CW (2003) Variation in humpback whale song (Megaptera novaeangliae) song length in relation to low-frequency sound broadcasts. J Acoust Soc Am 113:3411–3424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gillespie D, Chappell O (2002) An automatic system for detecting and classifying the vocalisations of harbour porpoises. Bioacoustics 13:37–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gillespie D, Gordon J, McHugh R, McLaren D, Mellinger DK, Redmond P, Thode A et al (2008) PAMGUARD: semiautomated open source software for real-time acoustic detection and localisation of cetaceans. Proc Inst Acoust 30:67–75.Google Scholar
  19. Gonzalez-Socoloske D, Olivera-Gomez LD (2012) Gentle giants in dark waters: using side-scan sonar for manatee research. Open Remote Sens J 5:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gonzalez-Socoloske D, Olivera-Gomez LD, Ford RE (2009) Detection of free-ranging West Indian manatees Trichechus manatus using side-scan sonar. Endang Species Res 8:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gordon J, Thompson D, Leaper R, Gillespie D, Pierpoint C, Calderan S, Macauley J et al (2011) Assessment of risk to marine mammals from underwater marine renewable devices in Welsh waters. Phase 2. Studies of marine mammals in Welsh highly tidal waters. Report produced for the Welsh Assembly Government, Document JER3688R100707JG, by EcologicUK. pp 126Google Scholar
  22. Hastie GD (2012). Tracking marine mammals around marine renewable energy devices using active sonar. SMRU Ltd, St Andrews Report to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Report SMRUL-DEC-2012–002Google Scholar
  23. Hastie GD, Donovan C, Götz T, Janik VM (in press) Behavioural responses by grey seals (Halichoerusgrypus) to high frequency sonar. Mar Poll BullGoogle Scholar
  24. Hastie GD, Wilson B, Thompson PM (2006) Diving deep in a foraging hotspot: acoustic insights into bottlenose dolphin dive depths and feeding behaviour. Mar Biol 148:1181–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herzing DL (1996) Vocalizations and associated underwater behavior of free-ranging Atlantic spotted dolphins, Stenella frontalis and bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus. Aquat Mamm 22:61–79Google Scholar
  26. Janik VM, Van Parijs SM, Thompson PM (2000) A two-dimensional acoustic localization system for marine mammals. Mar Mamm Sci 16:437–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jensen ME, Miller LM (1999) Echolocation signals of the bat Eptesicus serotinus recorded using a vertical microphone array: effect of flight altitude on searching signals. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 47:60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson MP, Tyack PL (2003) A digital acoustic recording tag for measuring the response of wild marine mammals to sound. J Ocean Eng 28:3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kastelein RA, Bunskoek P, Hagedoorn M, Au WWL, de Haan D (2002) Audiogram of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) measured with narrow-band frequency-modulated signals. J Acoust Soc Am 112:334–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kozak G, (2006) Side scan sonar target comparative techniques for port security and MCM Q-Route requirements. Report to L-3 Communications Klein Associates, IncGoogle Scholar
  31. Leaper R, Chappell O, Gordon JCD (1992). The development of practical techniques for surveying sperm whale populations acoustically. Rep Int Whal Comm 42:549–560Google Scholar
  32. Lewis T, Gillespie D, Matthews LJ, Danbolt M, Leaper R, McLanaghan R, Moscrop A (2007) Sperm whale abundance estimates from acoustic surveys of the Ionian Sea and Straits of Sicily in 2003. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 87:353–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lonergan ME, Duck CD, Thompson D, Moss S (2011) British grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) numbers in 2008; an assessment based on using electronic tags to scale up from the results of aerial surveys. ICES J Mar Sci 68:2201–2209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lonergan ME, Fedak M, McConnell B (2009) The effects of interpolation error and location quality on animal track reconstruction. Mar Mamm Sci 25:275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Love RH (1973) Target strengths of humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae. J Acoust Soc Am 54:1312–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Madsen PT, Payne R, Kristiansen NU, Wahlberg M, Kerr I, Mohl B (2002) Sperm whale sound production studied with ultrasound time/depth-recording tags. J Exp Biol 205:1899–1906Google Scholar
  37. Mate B, Mesecar R, Lagerquist B (2007) The evolution of satellite-monitored radio tags for large whales: one laboratoryʼs experience. Deep Sea Res II: Top Stud Oceanog 54:224–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McConnell BJ, Fedak M, Hooker SK, Patterson T (2010) Telemetry. In: Boyd IL, Bowen WD, Iverson SJ (eds) Marine mammal ecology and conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 222–262Google Scholar
  39. McConnell BJ, Fedak MA, Lovell P, Hammond PS (1999) Movements and foraging areas of grey seals in the North Sea. J Appl Ecol 36:573–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McConnell BJ, Lonergan ME, Dietz R (2012) Interactions between seals and offshore wind farms. The Crown Estates Report 41Google Scholar
  41. Nøttestad L, Ferno A, Mackinson S, Pitcher TJ, Misund OA (2002) How whales influence herring school dynamics in a cold-front area of the Norwegian Sea. ICES J Mar Sci 59:393–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Richardson WJ, Greene CR, Malme CI, Thompson DH, Moore SE, Wursig B (1991) Effects of noise on marine mammals. LGL Ecological Research Association Inc., TX, for the US Department of the InteriorGoogle Scholar
  43. Ridoux V, Guinet C, Liret C, Creton P, Steenstrup R, Beauplet G (1997) A video sonar as a new tool to study marine mammals in the wild: measurements of dolphin swimming speed. Mar Mamm Sci 13:196–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shiomi K, Narazaki T, Sato K, Shimatani K, Arai N, Ponganis PJ, Miyazaki N (2010) Data-processing artefacts in three-dimensional dive path reconstruction from geomagnetic and acceleration data. Aquat Biol 8:299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shiomi K, Sato K, Mitamura H, Arai N, Naito Y, Ponganis PJ (2008) Effect of ocean current on the dead-reckoning estimation of 3-D dive paths of emperor penguins. Aquat Biol 3:265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Similä T, Ugarte F (1993) Surface and underwater observations of cooperatively feeding killer whales in northern Norway. Can J Zool 71:1494–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Southall BL, Bowles AE, Ellison WT, Finneran JJ, Gentry RG, Greene CH, Kastak D et al (2007) Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquat Mamm 33:411–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sveegaard S, Teilmann J, Tougaard J, Dietz R, Mouritsen KN, Desportes G, Siebert U (2011) High-density areas for harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) identified by satellite tracking. Mar Mamm Sci 27:230–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thorner JE (1990). Approaches to sonar beamforming. In Southern Tier Technical Conference; Proceedings of the 1990 IEEE, pp 69–78Google Scholar
  50. Tyack PL, Zimmer WMX, Moretti D, Southall BL, Claridge DE, Durban JW, Clark CW et al (2011) Beaked whales respond to simulated and actual Navy sonar. PLoS ONE 6:e17009. doi:17010.11371/journal.pone.0017009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Villadsgaard A, Wahlberg M, Tougaard J (2007) Echolocation signals of wild harbour porpoises Phocoena phocoena. J Exp Biol 210:56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Watkins WA, Schevill WE (1972) Sound source location by arrival-times on a non-rigid three-dimensional hydrophone array. Deep-Sea Res 19:691–706Google Scholar
  53. Wilson B, Batty RS, Daunt F, Carter C (2007) Collision risks between marine renewable energy devices and mammals, fish, and diving birds. Report to the Scottish Executive Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, Scotland PA37 1QAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gordon D. Hastie
    • 2
    • 1
  • Douglas M. Gillespie
    • 1
  • Jonathan C. D. Gordon
    • 1
  • Jamie D. J. Macaulay
    • 1
  • Bernie J. McConnell
    • 1
  • Carol E. Sparling
    • 2
  1. 1.Sea Mammal Research Unit, Scottish Oceans Institute, School of BiologyUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUK
  2. 2.SMRU Marine Ltd, New Technology Centre, North HaughUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUK

Personalised recommendations