Reactions of penned herring and cod to playback of original, frequency-filtered and time-smoothed vessel sound

Engås, Arill; Misund, Ole Arve; Soldal, Aud Vold; Horvei, Berit; Solstad, Arne

doi:10.1016/0165-7836(94)00317-p

Cited by 32 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The video images and hydrophone signals were monitored during the experiments and recorded synchronously on the video and audio tracks of the camera. The video images were scrutinized for changes in swimming and schooling behavior, following Engås et al (1995), as group pattern, vertical swimming and overall response and an estimate of the number of fish reacting is given (Table II). Group pattern was defined as shoaling (random orientations within the aggregation) or schooling (polarized orientations within the aggregation) (Pitcher, 1983).…”

Section: Optical Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavior of captive herring exposed to naval sonar transmissions (1.0–1.6 kHz) throughout a yearly cycle

Doksæter

Handegard

Godø

et al. 2012

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus, is a hearing specialist, and several studies have demonstrated strong responses to man-made noise, for example, from an approaching vessel. To avoid negative impacts from naval sonar operations, a set of studies of reaction patters of herring to low-frequency (1.0-1.5 kHz) naval sonar signals has been undertaken. This paper presents herring reactions to sonar signals and other stimuli when kept in captivity under detailed acoustic and video monitoring. Throughout the experiment, spanning three seasons of a year, the fish did not react significantly to sonar signals from a passing frigate, at received root-mean-square sound-pressure level (SPL) up to 168 dB re 1 μPa. In contrast, the fish did exhibit a significant diving reaction when exposed to other sounds, with a much lower SPL, e.g., from a two-stroke engine. This shows that the experimental setup is sensitive to herring reactions when occurring. The lack of herring reaction to sonar signals is consistent with earlier in situ behavioral studies. The complexity of the behavioral reactions in captivity underline the need for better understanding of the causal relationship between stimuli and reaction patterns of fish.

show abstract

Section: Optical Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavior of captive herring exposed to naval sonar transmissions (1.0–1.6 kHz) throughout a yearly cycle

Doksæter

Handegard

Godø

et al. 2012

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such methods present great advantages for studying these populations (see MacLennan and Simmonds, 1992;Fréon and Misund, 1999;Rivoirard et al, 2000;and others), but there are drawbacks, among which is the avoidance of survey vessels by schools of small pelagic fish. Previous studies have shown that fish schools present highly variable avoidance patterns, depending on factors such as vessel noise (Goncharov et al, 1989;Soria et al, 1996Soria et al, , 2003Fernandes et al, 2000), trawl noise (Ona and Godø, 1990), taxonomy and physiological status (Misund, 1993;Engås et al, 1995), and fish learning (Pyanov, 1993;Soria et al, 1993). When it exists, avoidance induces a bias that must be evaluated in abundance estimates (Misund and Coetzee, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Three-dimensional structure and avoidance behaviour of anchovy and common sardine schools in central southern Chile

Gerlotto¹,

Castillo²,

Saavedra³

et al. 2004

ICES Journal of Marine Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Espejo, M., and Cotel, P. 2004. Three-dimensional structure and avoidance behaviour of anchovy and common sardine schools in central southern Chile. e ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61: 1120e1126.We studied the avoidance behaviour and three-dimensional (3-D) structure of anchovy (Engraulis ringens) and common sardine (Strangomera bentincki) schools mixed in high concentrations in a coastal area of central southern Chile. Observations were carried out during an acoustic survey in January 2002 by means of a vertical echosounder and a multibeam sonar. The sonar harvested around 900 series of 3-D school images, and 3000 2-D school images were collected with the echosounder. The results showed that all fish aggregations presented the same internal structure, but different global morphologies, from single small schools (with length three times the height) on the edges of the distribution to large dense layers (length more than seven times the height) in its centre. Observation of avoidance in the vertical and horizontal planes indicated that limited vertical diving occurred close to the ship ( fish dive from the surface to the 5e10-m depth layer below the vessel), while no horizontal avoidance was observed.

show abstract

“…These investigations showed that fish respond to sound in highly variable ways, depending on the nature of the sound, the species investigated, and the experimental methodology. Many different kinds of sound may evoke a reaction, even at modest sound levels: swimming reactions were noted at a received-sound level of ~120 to 130 dB re 1 µPa when vessel noise was played back to herring and cod (Engås et al 1995), and also at comparatively low sound levels when wind-generated noise was played back to sole Solea solea (Lagardère et al 1994). However, in many studies it is not known if fish become habituated when exposed to modest sound levels for prolonged time periods.…”

Section: Fish Reaction To Soundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hearing in fish and their reactions to sounds from offshore wind farms

Wahlberg¹,

Westerberg²

2005

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current knowledge on detection of, and reaction to, sound by fish is reviewed, with special emphasis on underwater noise from offshore wind farms. The detection distance to wind farms for 3 species of fish representing various hearing capabilities varies between 0.4 and 25 km at wind speeds of 8 to 13 m s -1. The detection distance depends on the size and number of windmills, the hearing abilities of the fish, background noise level, wind speed, water depth and type of sea bottom. The noise from windmills may decrease the effective range for sound communication of fish; however, it is not known to what extent this decrease affects the behaviour and fitness of fish. Windmill noise does not have any destructive effects upon the hearing abilities of fish, even within distances of a few metres. It is estimated that fish are consistently scared away from windmills only at ranges shorter than about 4 m, and only at high wind speeds (higher than 13 m s -1 ). Thus, the acoustic impact of windmills on fish is restricted to masking communication and orientation signals rather than causing physiological damage or consistent avoidance reactions. These conclusions must be viewed with great caution, however, as the existing data are prone to large uncertainties. Further studies on more detailed measurements of the sound-field and of fish behaviour around windmills are needed. KEY WORDS: Bioacoustics · Detection range · Fish communication · Hearing in fish · Sea-based wind farm Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisherMar Ecol Prog Ser 288: [295][296][297][298][299][300][301][302][303][304][305][306][307][308][309] 2005 underwater noise, and did not take into consideration new and more detailed measurements of sounds from offshore windmills by Degn (2000), Fristedt et al. (2001) and Ingemansson (2003). In addition, recent studies have shown that continuous exposure to sound of high intensity can cause inner ear damage to fish (Hastings et al. 1996, McCauley et al. 2003. It seems important to re-evaluate the possible impact of windmill noise on fish in the light of these new studies.The present review begins with an outline of some important principles of underwater acoustics, with special emphasis on hearing in fish and their reaction to sound. Subsequently, the possible effects of windmill sounds on fish are evaluated in terms of detection distances, communication masking and damage to hearing. SOUND AND FISH Underwater sound: decibelsSome issues of acoustics relevant to our discussion are not readily available in the acoustic literature. The important concepts of near and far fields are particularly confusing. Bioacousticians use these terms to describe either acoustic interference or range-dependent variations in acoustic impedance. Below we clarify the difference between these fields, as well as other technical issues important when discussing sound from windmills. Most of what is treated here has been synthesised from a variety of textbooks and reviews, especially thos...

show abstract

Reactions of penned herring and cod to playback of original, frequency-filtered and time-smoothed vessel sound

Cited by 32 publications

References 11 publications

Behavior of captive herring exposed to naval sonar transmissions (1.0–1.6 kHz) throughout a yearly cycle

Behavior of captive herring exposed to naval sonar transmissions (1.0–1.6 kHz) throughout a yearly cycle

Three-dimensional structure and avoidance behaviour of anchovy and common sardine schools in central southern Chile

Hearing in fish and their reactions to sounds from offshore wind farms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About