Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Wild harbour porpoises startle and flee at low received levels from acoustic harassment device

  • Siri L. Elmegaard*
  • , Jonas Teilmann
  • , Laia Rojano-Doñate
  • , Dennis Brennecke
  • , Lonnie Mikkelsen
  • , Jeppe D. Balle
  • , Ulrich Gosewinkel
  • , Line A. Kyhn
  • , Pernille Tønnesen
  • , Magnus Wahlberg
  • , Andreas Ruser
  • , Ursula Siebert
  • , Peter Teglberg Madsen
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • Aarhus University
  • Norsk Polarinstitutt
  • University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover
  • University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

73 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Acoustic Harassment Devices (AHD) are widely used to deter marine mammals from aquaculture depredation, and from pile driving operations that may otherwise cause hearing damage. However, little is known about the behavioural and physiological effects of these devices. Here, we investigate the physiological and behavioural responses of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) to a commercial AHD in Danish waters. Six porpoises were tagged with suction-cup-attached DTAGs recording sound, 3D-movement, and GPS (n = 3) or electrocardiogram (n = 2). They were then exposed to AHDs for 15 min, with initial received levels (RL) ranging from 98 to 132 dB re 1 µPa (rms-fast, 125 ms) and initial exposure ranges of 0.9–7 km. All animals reacted by displaying a mixture of acoustic startle responses, fleeing, altered echolocation behaviour, and by demonstrating unusual tachycardia while diving. Moreover, during the 15-min exposures, half of the animals received cumulative sound doses close to published thresholds for temporary auditory threshold shifts. We conclude that AHD exposure at many km can evoke both startle, flight and cardiac responses which may impact blood-gas management, breath-hold capability, energy balance, stress level and risk of by-catch. We posit that current AHDs are too powerful for mitigation use to prevent hearing damage of porpoises from offshore construction.

Original languageEnglish
Article number16691
JournalScientific Reports
Volume13
Issue number1
ISSN2045-2322
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2023

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, Springer Nature Limited.

Funding

Tagging data were collected with help from the pound-net fishermen of Denmark, the section for Marine Mammal Research at Aarhus University (R. Dietz, S. Sveegaard, A. Galatius, M.V. Jensen, L. Renvald, L.D. Twiggs, E.N. Stepien), members from the Marine Bioacoustics Lab and Zoophysiology section at Aarhus University (L. Hermannsen, J.V.d. Hoop, O. Marín, A. Mitseva, P.G. Henriksen, E. Baatrup) with guest students (M. Laeta, S. Crisp, A. Straume). Tag data processing has been facilitated by J. Kaczmarek and ping quantification was greatly aided by M. Ladegaard. Drone data collection was led by University of Southern Denmark (SDU) with help from S. Dirschl, R.R. Guisadi, L. Galvez, using a drone kindly lent from K. Knickmeier and further enabled by L. Kindt-Larsen, DTU-AQUA; The porpoise tracking software for drone recordings has been developed by H.D. Egemose and H.S. Midtiby (SDU); The rib for drone observations was kindly lent from Fjord & Bælt, Kerteminde, Denmark. We are grateful to M. Johnson and C. Findlay for constructive discussions and input to previous versions of the manuscript. Tagging field work was conducted within the project “Impact of underwater noise on marine mammals (UWE)” (FKZ 3515 82 2000), funded by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN). Drone field work was funded by Elite Researcher award from National Danish Research Council to PTM.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Wild harbour porpoises startle and flee at low received levels from acoustic harassment device'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this