Oceans of noise - Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

its propagation beyond those declared boundaries into account, including thecreation of buffer zones;7. That an international Code of Conduct be developed for Controlled ExposureExperiments (CEEs); and8. That greater efforts are made to collect and share information relating to thereactions of marine wildlife to marine noise pollution, including comprehensive andco-ordinated collection of data from strandings.Mark SimmondsDirector of ScienceWhale and Dolphin Conservation Society August 2004Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this report, this is a complex topic where knowledge is rapidlydeveloping. We welcome comment and correction to help improve the accuracy of future editions of this report. Commentscan be sent to mark.simmonds@wdcs.org This report reflects the opinions of its authors and editors and, except whereexplicitly stated, as above in the Action Plan, not necessarily those of WDCS.9
1. IntroductionLindy WeilgartThe undersea noise issue has steadily increased in crescendo with a greater awareness of the potentialeffects on marine mammals of military sonars, seismic surveys, shipping and boat traffic,oceanographic experiments, as well as other noise sources. What has made the noise problem sointractable, though, is the inherent difficulty in studying marine mammals, particularly cetaceans, andthe effects of sound on them. Free-ranging whales and dolphins, which are visible above water foronly short periods of time, are notoriously challenging research subjects. The lack of precision inmost cetacean research is best exemplified by population estimates, which can vary over orders ofmagnitude for the same cetacean population, i.e. we can’t even accurately count most populations ofcetaceans with any degree of confidence. To ascertain the effects of noise on marine mammals,however, we must be able to know which sounds they are capable of hearing (something still largelyunknown for the great whales) and how they react to them, if at all. In our assessment of cetaceanreactions, we are usually limited to detecting only the crudest, most obvious, short-term changes inbehaviour. Practically impossible to discern are changes in population characteristics, such as birthand death rates, in response to changing noise levels. Such measures are the best indicators of thepopulation’s welfare and therefore would be vital to obtain before we can be more confident that, forexample, a particular noise source is “harmless” to that population. Even then, however, we cannot beassured that noise levels are not indirectly affecting that population’s prey or ecosystem in such a wayas to have a lag effect on the population in question. Linking changes in population measures tochanges in noise levels is also usually not straightforward, as many other factors (e.g. oceanographic,ecological, etc.) can affect a population’s well-being. As many whale species are exceedingly slowreproducers, any changes in reproductive rates will be difficult to discern. Additionally, lowreproductive rates make whale populations more vulnerable to disturbances as they will be slow torecover.Past studies on the reactions of whales to noise have shown widely divergent responses depending onthe individual, age, sex, and the activity in which the animals were engaged. Again, this presentsproblems in how to interpret reactions correctly. Are whales which enter a loud sound field in order topursue a patch of prey putting themselves at risk of hearing damage or are they truly unaffected?(Hearing damage can occur before the threshold of pain is reached). Do increasing numbers ofanimals at the surface mean that whales are attracted by a noise or are surfacing to seek out the lowersound levels at the surface? What about sounds that aren’t particularly loud, but are nevertheless“grating” or “irritating” to our or whale’s ears because of some indefinable quality?All of these difficulties in ascertaining how whales react to noise mean that results are usually notclear-cut and are very much open to interpretation. This, in turn, becomes problematic when scientistsfunded directly by a noise polluter conclude that the reactions of whales to a noise source are“biologically insignificant”. The scientists’ credibility can suffer under accusations of actual orperceived bias. To avoid such conflicts-of-interest, efforts could be made to have funds directed to anindependent, non-aligned body which would establish priorities for the research, commission it, andreview the results to regulate the original, noise-producing project. In addition, because of theimprecision and uncertainty surrounding studies of the effects of noise on cetaceans, there is a greatneed to proceed in a precautionary manner regarding the deployment of noise sources. Particularlyareas critical to marine mammal feeding or breeding should be kept as free from noise pollution aspossible, even in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence of harm.Although I have portrayed research results on the effects of noise on marine mammals as frequentlyambiguous, there can be no doubt that certain noise sources are harmful, even fatal, to marinemammals. When I first became active in the undersea noise issue, I assumed that, given howdependent cetaceans are on sound, there would be deleterious effects from noise on cetaceans. Afterhaving spent years at sea with whales studying their sounds, I reasoned, “How could it be otherwise?”What I did not assume, though, was that these effects would be immediate and deadly. I often had toendure being called a “Chicken Little,” even by my own colleagues, because they felt I wasoverplaying the potential harm of undersea noise. Sadly, even I was much too optimistic.10
Page 2: Oceans of Noise 2004A WDCS Science
Page 8 and 9: In the US, the deployment of Low Fr
Page 12 and 13: The best evidence for noise being f
Page 14 and 15: Box 1. Characteristics of sound / l
Page 16 and 17: Sound speed (c)The speed (c) of a w
Page 18 and 19: Box 2. The effects of temperature,
Page 20 and 21: 2.1.2. Measuring sound intensityIde
Page 22 and 23: i.e. Equal pressure measurements di
Page 24 and 25: Spherical or Geometrical spreading
Page 28 and 29: 5.0 145Tug pulling loaded barge 1.0
Page 30 and 31: The source used during 3-D surveys
Page 32 and 33: Machinery noisePropulsion machinery
Page 34 and 35: Man-made islands /caissonsFixed pla
Page 36 and 37: 12 3245Drill bit6Figure 3.4. Sound
Page 38 and 39: Transientnoise sourcesAircraftHelic
Page 40 and 41: Results from the aerial surveys con
Page 42 and 43: haemorrhaging in the inner ears and
Page 44 and 45: However they also noted that whales
Page 46 and 47: 4. The Use of Sound by CetaceansChr
Page 48 and 49: seems logical, therefore, that if t
Page 50 and 51: However, despite the reported low a
Page 52 and 53: Kamminga and Wiersma 1981;Akamatsu
Page 54 and 55: SongSocial callsShrieksSlaps0.03-80
Page 56 and 57: anthropogenic factors that make the
Page 58 and 59: 5.3 Longer-term impactsNoise is cle
Page 60 and 61:
5.4 Indirect impactsThe above impac
Page 62 and 63:
decompression sickness (DCS) as see
Page 64 and 65:
6. Examples of regional and nationa
Page 66 and 67:
6.3 ASCOBANS and ACCOBAMSTwo region
Page 68 and 69:
implications and the discussion sho
Page 70 and 71:
7.1. Consideration of Voluntary vs.
Page 72 and 73:
acoustic measurements have been mad
Page 74 and 75:
7.6. Methods of protectionComplianc
Page 76 and 77:
7.6.1 Monitoring7.6.1.1 Visual, aco
Page 78 and 79:
Delory et al. (2002) use Ambient No
Page 80 and 81:
8. ReferencesAburto, A., Rountry, D
Page 82 and 83:
Caldwell, M.C., Caldwell, D.K., and
Page 84 and 85:
Engas, A., Lokkeborg, S., Ona, E. a
Page 86 and 87:
IWC 2002b. Report of the Scientific
Page 88 and 89:
McCauley, R.D. 1994. Seismic Survey
Page 90 and 91:
Potter, J. and Delory, E. 2001. Noi
Page 92 and 93:
Smolker, R.A., Mann, J. and Smuts,
Page 94 and 95:
Watkins, W.A. 1981b. The activities
Page 96 and 97:
ANNEX 1The Application of Marine Po
Page 98 and 99:
an important factor. 13 The judgeme
Page 100 and 101:
in the preparatory work of the LOSC
Page 102 and 103:
practice by the UNEP Governing Coun
Page 104 and 105:
protection and preservation of the
Page 106 and 107:
than international rules, standards
Page 108 and 109:
Four of the twelve regional seas tr
Page 110 and 111:
seismic operations in the Protocol
Page 112 and 113:
ConclusionAt the global level, only
Page 114 and 115:
Art 209 LOSC focuses on both standa
Page 116 and 117:
No State Party may impose condition
Page 118 and 119:
coastal States”. This formulation
Page 120 and 121:
If the IMO makes this determination
Page 122 and 123:
estrictions to vessels operating in
Page 124 and 125:
In the EEZ, in comparison to the te
Page 126 and 127:
Appendix A - Some international ins
Page 128 and 129:
Convention for the Protection of th
Page 130 and 131:
Available at:http://www.unep.ch/sea
Page 132 and 133:
BucharestConventionArticle XIPollut
Page 134 and 135:
environment1. The Contracting Parti
Page 136 and 137:
- that under Article III.8.c) of AC
Page 138 and 139:
e) no sudden or repeated change in
Page 140 and 141:
Ref: Nowacek et al. 2001.Location:
Page 142 and 143:
Location: Arctic• Vocal behaviour
Page 144 and 145:
• Vaquita surfacing duration and
Page 146 and 147:
• 6% of small delphinids (n=264;
Page 148 and 149:
Species type: Boto, Inia geoffrensi
Page 150 and 151:
• Humpback whales appeared tolera
Page 152 and 153:
• Behaviour interpreted as aggres
Page 154 and 155:
• There was no evidence of minke
Page 156 and 157:
• Northern right whales may be ap
Page 158 and 159:
• Migrating gray whales disturbed
Page 160 and 161:
to Ensenada De La Paz, Mexico. Aqua
Page 162 and 163:
distribution of humpback whales, Me
Page 164 and 165:
Richardson, C.R. Greene, C.I. Malme
Page 166 and 167:
Zhou, K., Pilleri, G. and Li, Y. 19
Page 168 and 169:
6. surveys for Cuvier’s beaked wh
show all

Oceans of noise - Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?