bok%3A978-3-658-02462-8.pdf?auth66=1398409209_a0514c2b8e531c058ab8b810a0cad74d&ext=

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Literature93 10of the average stomach fullness determined for referenceareas.Stomach fullness alone does not allow conclusionson the total food gathered in a certain periodof time (e.g. per day). Feeding on zooplankton (lowweight) occurs continuously, while in contrast otherfish (high weight) are preyed sporadically. In viewof strong similarity in diet composition of mackerelcaught inside and outside alpha ventus, however, thelesser stomach fullness invites the assumption thatmackerel inside the windfarm area showed less foodconsumption.There are several possible reasons for decreasedfood gathering. Feeding behaviour maybe disturbed or there may be differences in abundanceand composition of prey. Noise has a potentialimpact on feeding behaviour, but this is rarelystudied in pelagic fish. A study on the behaviourof the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)revealed reduced ability to recognise food,errors in food handling and less efficiency (Purser& Radford 2011). Underwater structures can alsoinfluence the feeding patterns of constantly swimmingmackerel. Disturbance of swimming behaviourand thus of food gathering is nonethelessonly likely in the close vicinity of the underwaterstructures. To further address causes of an apparentdecrease in food consumption, however, it isnecessary to synoptically survey the distributionand species composition of the food organisms ofpelagic fish. These are mainly zooplankton, smallfish and other pelagic organisms. Their distributioncorrelates with hydrographic parameters, issubject to coincidental changes and is possiblyinfluenced by the presence of a windfarm (e.g.occurrence of larvae of hard-substrate-associatedspecies).10.4 PerspectivesThe migration behaviour of pelagic fish makes itimpossible to survey long-term effects of offshorewindfarms at the level of a single windfarm. Withfurther construction of offshore windfarms in theGerman Bight, any survey conducted must take across-windfarm approach, and must include largescalesurveys on distribution and stock size of fishAlheit J, Pohlmann T, Casini M, Greve W, Hinrichs R, Mathis M,Vorberg R, Wagner, C (2012). Climate variability drives anchoviesand sardines into the North and Baltic Seas. Progressin Oceanography 96:128–139.Andersson MH (2011). Offshore windfarms – ecological effectsof noise and habitat alteration on fish. PhD thesis, Departmentof Zoology, Stockholm University.Bohnsack JA (1989). Are High Densities of Fishes at ArtificialReefs the Result of Habitat Limitation or Behavioral Preference?Bulletin of Marine Science 44:631–645.Caltrans (2001). Pile Installation Demonstration Project. FisheriesImpact Assessment, Caltrans Contract 04A0148. SanFrancisco – Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic SafetyProject.Dempster T & Taquet M (2004). Fish aggregation device (FAD)research: gaps in current knowledge and future directionsfor ecological studies. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries14:21–42.Derweduwen J, Vandendriessche S, Willems T, Hostens K (2012).The diet of demersal and semi-pelagic fish in the Thornspeciesas well as long-term measurements usingstationary measuring systems in selected windfarmand reference areas. These long-term measurementsallow for reliable abundance estimates, including forfish in close proximity to wind turbines, and make itpossible to discriminate between long-term trendsand short-term fluctuations.Large-scale surveys and stationary measurementsmust take the form of synoptic surveys coveringlocal abundance and composition of food organismsand hydrographic parameters to be able,for instance, to address the impact on feeding behaviourof fish species. Such synoptic surveys canbe performed using a combination, among othermeasuring techniques, of optical and hydroacousticmeasurements. In the case of ship-based surveys,this can be done with the aid of a towed vehicleequipped with a set of sensors. Synoptic measuringtechniques that allow synoptic surveying areincreasingly used during standard stock assessmentsurveys. Long-term measurements can beperformed with an enhanced version of the abovementionedstationary hydroacoustic measuringsystem, including, among other sensors, an optical(image-based) measuring system for survey of pelagicfood organisms.Literature
94Chapter 10 • Effects of alpha ventus on pelagic fish1234567891011121314151617181920tonbank windfarm: tracing changes using stomach analysesdata. In: Degraer S, Brabant R, Rumes B (Eds.) Offshorewindfarms in the Belgian part of the North Sea., pp. 73–84.Formicki K & Winnicki A (1998). Reactions of fish embryos andlarvae to constant magnetic fields. Italian Journal of Zoology65:479–482.Gill A & Bartlett M (2010). Literature review on the potential effectsof electromagnetic fields and subsea noise from marinerenewable energy developments on Atlantic salmon,sea trout and European eel. Scottish Natural Heritage CommissionedReport 401.Helvey M (2002). Are southern California oil and gas platformsessential fish habitat? ICES Journal of Marine Science59:266–271.ITAP (2011). Messungen von Unterwasserschall beim Bau derWindenergieanlagen im Offshore-Testfeld alpha ventus.Abschlussbericht zum Monitoring nach StUK 3 in der Bauphase,pp. 1–48.Kasumyan AO (2008). Sounds and sound production in fishes.Journal of Ichthyology 48:981–1030.Kingsford MJ (1993). Biotic and abiotic structure in the pelagicenvironment: importance to small fishes. Bulletin of MarineScience 53:393–415.Love M, Caselle J, Snookm L (1999). Fish assemblages on musselmounds surrounding seven oil platforms in the SantaBarbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin. Bulletin of MarineScience 65:497–513.May J (2005). Post-construction results from the North Hoyleoffshore windfarm. Paper for the Copenhagen offshorewind international conference, Project Management SupportServices Ltd., pp. 1–10.Metcalfe J, Holford B, Arnold G (1993). Orientation of plaice(Pleuronectes platessa) in the open sea: evidence for the useof external directional clues. Marine Biology 117:559–566.Mitson RB & Knudsen HP (2003). Causes and effects of underwaternoise on fish abundance estimation. Aquatic LivingResources 16:255–263.Mueller-Blenkle C, McGregor P, Gill A, Andersson M M, MetcalfeJ, Bendall V, Sigray P, Wood D, Thomsen F (2010). Effects ofPile-driving Noise on the Behaviour of Marine Fish. COWRIERef: Fish 06-08, Technical Report 31st March 2010.Nishi T & Kawamura G (2005). Anguilla japonica is already magnetosensitiveat the glass eel phase. Journal of Fish Biology67:1213–1224.Oestman R & Earle C (2012.) Effects of Pile-Driving Noise onOncorhynchus mykiss (Steelhead Trout). In Popper, AN,Hawkins A (Eds.) Advances in Experimental Medicine andBiology. Springer, New York, pp. 263–265.Purser J & Radford A (2011). Acoustic Noise Induces AttentionShifts and Reduces Foraging Performance in Three-Spined Sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). PLoS ONE6(2) e17478. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017478.Reubens J, Degraer S, Vincx, M (2011). Aggregation and feedingbehaviour of pouting (Trisopterus luscus) at wind turbinesin the Belgian part of the North Sea. Fisheries Research108:223–227.Richardson WJ, Greene CR Jr, Malme CI, Thomson DH (1998).Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press.Walker M, Kirschvink J, Chang S, Dizon A (1984). A candidatemagnetic sense organ in the Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares.Science 224:751–753.Wang X, Xu L, Chen Y, Zhu G, Tian S, Zhu J (2012). Impacts offish aggregation devices on size structures of skipack tunaKatsuwonus pelamis. Aquatic Ecology 46(3): 342–352.Zintzen V, Massin C, Norro A, Mallefet J (2006). Epifaunal Inventoryof Two Shipwrecks from the Belgian Continental Shelf.Hydrobiologia 555:207–219.
Page 1 and 2:
Federal Maritime and Hydrographic A
Page 3 and 4:
Cover photos:alpha ventus offshore
Page 5 and 6:
Federal Maritime and Hydrographic A
Page 11 and 12:
XTable of Contents5.3 Learning from
Page 13 and 14:
XIITable of Contents12.5.6 Estimati
Page 15 and 16:
List of AuthorsDr. Sven AdlerSwedis
Page 17 and 18:
List of AuthorsXVIIDr. Jochen Kraus
Page 19 and 20:
List of AuthorsXIXKatharina Teschke
Page 21 and 22:
3 1Current situation of offshoredev
Page 23 and 24:
1.2 • Legal basis of offshore win
Page 26 and 27:
8Chapter 1 • Current situation of
Page 28 and 29:
11 2The Spatial Offshore GridPlan f
Page 30:
2.2 • Accompanying Strategic Envi
Page 34 and 35:
3.2 • Offshore challenges17 3..Fi
Page 36 and 37:
3.3 • Operation of the offshore w
Page 38 and 39:
3.7 • Outlook: alpha ventus as a
Page 40 and 41:
3.7 • Outlook: alpha ventus as a
Page 42 and 43:
26Chapter 4 • The RAVE research i
Page 44 and 45:
28Chapter 4 • The RAVE research i
Page 46 and 47:
31 5Accompanying ecologicalresearch
Page 48 and 49:
5.1 • Environmentally compatible
Page 50 and 51:
5.2 • Identifying environmental r
Page 52 and 53:
Literature37 5..Fig. 5.4 Colonisati
Page 54 and 55: 40Chapter 6 • Conservation featur
Page 60 and 61: 46Chapter 7 • Challenges, results
Page 62 and 63: 48Chapter 7 • Challenges, results
Page 64 and 65: 51 IIMain sectionChapter 8Chapter 9
Page 66 and 67: 53 8Oceanographic andgeological res
Page 68 and 69: 8.2 • Methods55 8. . Fig. 8.1 (a)
Page 70 and 71: 8.2 • Methods57 8era, which then
Page 72 and 73: 8.2 • Methods59 8..Fig. 8.6 Diagr
Page 74 and 75: 8.3 • Results and discussion61 8.
Page 76 and 77: 8.3 • Results and discussion63 8.
Page 78 and 79: Literature65 8Information box: FINO
Page 80 and 81: 68Chapter 9 • Increase of benthic
Page 94 and 95: 83 10Effects of the alpha ventusoff
Page 96 and 97: 10.1 • Introduction85 10..Fig. 10
Page 98 and 99: 10.1 • Introduction87 10Near the
Page 100 and 101: 10.2 • Methods89 10Hydroacoustic
Page 102 and 103: 10.3 • Results and discussion91 1
Page 106 and 107: 95 11Effects of the alpha ventusoff
Page 108 and 109: 11.1 • Introduction97 11. . Fig.
Page 110 and 111: 11.2 • Methods99 11..Fig. 11.3 Ke
Page 112 and 113: 11.3 • Results101 11..Fig. 11.4 D
Page 114 and 115: 11.3 • Results103 11..Fig. 11.7 D
Page 116 and 117: 11.3 • Results105 11..Fig. 11.10
Page 118 and 119: 11.4 • Discussion107 11Generally,
Page 120 and 121: Literature109 11..Fig. 11.13 One of
Page 122 and 123: 111 12Of birds, blades and barriers
Page 124 and 125: 12.3 • Bird migration over the Ge
Page 126 and 127: 12.4 • Methods115 12oping dedicat
Page 128 and 129: 12.4 • Methods117 12VARSVARS (Vis
Page 130 and 131: 12.5 • Results and discussions119
Page 140 and 141: 12.6 • Perspectivesferent viewing
Page 142 and 143: Literature131 12Cooper BA, Day RH,
Page 144 and 145: 134Chapter 13 • Effects of alpha
Page 154 and 155:
144Chapter 13 • Effects of alpha
Page 159:
Literature149 13porpoises (Phocoena
Page 162 and 163:
14.2 • Methods153 14. . Fig. 14.1
Page 164 and 165:
14.1 • Introduction155 14..Table
Page 166 and 167:
14.2 • Methods157 14..Fig. 14.4 T
Page 168 and 169:
14.2 • Methods159 14..Fig. 14.6 T
Page 170 and 171:
14.2 • Methods161 14..Fig. 14.10
Page 172 and 173:
14.3 • Results163 14..Fig. 14.13
Page 174 and 175:
14.3 • Results165 14..Fig. 14.15
Page 176 and 177:
14.4 • Discussion167 1414.4 Discu
Page 178 and 179:
Literature169 1420 km for harbor po
Page 180 and 181:
172Chapter 15 • Underwater constr
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
182Chapter 16 • Noise mitigation
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
193 17Cumulative impactsof offshore
Page 202 and 203:
17.4 • Underwater noise and marin
Page 204 and 205:
Literature197 17..Fig. 17.2 State o
Page 206 and 207:
199BackmatterLinks200Federal Mariti
Page 208:
Links201North Sea and Baltic Sea Mo
show all

bok%3A978-3-658-02462-8.pdf?auth66=1398409209_a0514c2b8e531c058ab8b810a0cad74d&ext=

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?