Seasonal habitat‐based density models for a marine top predator, the harbor porpoise, in a dynamic environment

Gilles, Anita; Viquerat, Sacha; Becker, Elizabeth A.; Forney, Karin A.; Geelhoed, S.C.V.; Haelters, J.; Nabe‐Nielsen, Jacob; Scheidat, Meike; Siebert, Ursula; Sveegaard, Signe; Beest, Floris M. van; Bemmelen, R.S.A. van; Aarts, Geert

doi:10.1002/ecs2.1367

Cited by 76 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The map of the harbour porpoise in Gilles et al (2016) has a much higher resolution than the map of the harbour porpoise of Aquamaps ( Figure 8). The AquaMaps grid cel has a 0.5° cSquares resolution.…”

Section: Harbour Porpoisementioning

confidence: 97%

“…Geelhoed et al, 2013;Geelhoed & Van Polanen Petel 2011;Gilles et al 2016;Hammond et al, 2002;2013;Jones et al, 2013;Kirkwood et al 2014Kirkwood et al , 2016. These data and the resulting distribution maps are described for each of the species separately in the subsections below.…”

Section: Spatial Distributions and Migration Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gilles et al (2016) combined the large-scale international SCANS II survey with the more frequent, small-scale national surveys to produce seasonal distribution maps for the harbour porpoise in the North Sea. Gilles et al (2016) aggregated a set of survey data of the harbour porpoise, collected in the UK (SCANS II, Dogger Bank), Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark, to develop seasonal habitat-based density models for the central and southern North Sea. Visual survey data were collected over 9 years (2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013).…”

Section: Harbour Porpoisementioning

confidence: 99%

“…These fine-scale maps of harbour porpoise distribution are relevant for marine spatial planning and suitable to assess risks of human activities at sea. The study by Gilles et al (2016) currently presents the most comprehensive, seasonal habitat-based estimates of porpoise density in the North Sea, and it is intended to support the management of anthropogenic impacts. Gilles et al (2016) recommend a SCANS-type survey with larger spatial coverage to be undertaken on a more regular basis (e.g., every 6-8 year).…”

Section: Harbour Porpoisementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study by Gilles et al (2016) currently presents the most comprehensive, seasonal habitat-based estimates of porpoise density in the North Sea, and it is intended to support the management of anthropogenic impacts. Gilles et al (2016) recommend a SCANS-type survey with larger spatial coverage to be undertaken on a more regular basis (e.g., every 6-8 year). Additionally, knowledge of species-habitat relationships should be improved to aid the assessment of stock status and trends.…”

Section: Harbour Porpoisementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Cumulative effects assessment: proof of concept marine mammals

Piet¹,

Boon²,

Jongbloed³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Piet, G.J 1 ., Boon, A 2 . Jongbloed, R 1 ., van der Meulen, M 2 ., Tamis, J 1 . van der Wal, J.T 1 .Teal ,L SummaryThis development of the framework and approach for a Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) is based on a literature review. From this we adopted several definitions that guided this development.• A CEA is understood as "a systematic procedure for identifying and evaluating the significance of effects from multiple sources/activities and for providing an estimate on the overall expected impact to inform management measures. The analysis of the causes (source of pressures and effects), pathways and consequences of these effects on receptors is an essential and integral part of the process".• Cumulative effects are "the incremental impact of the action when added to the other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions". In this approach we only consider a (cumulative) effect significant if it has an impact on a relevant ecosystem component.Therefore our framework and approach for a CEA is based on all human activities that may have a potential impact on any relevant (from a policy perspective) ecosystem component at an appropriate spatio-temporal scale.The literature also identified some key challenges that need to be addressed for CEA to evolve into a consistent, appropriate tool to assist decision-making. These challenges included• A clear distinction of the receptor-led CEA from the dominating stressor-led Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) approaches and• Enabling CEA to provide ecosystem-relevant information at an appropriate regional scale.Therefore this CEA is explicitly developed to be a receptor-led and fully integrated framework, i.e.involving multiple occurrences of multiple pressures (from single and/or different sources) on multiple receptors, as opposed to other existing approaches dealing with only a subset of those pressures or receptors, hence our use of the phrase iCEA for integrated CEA. As a proof of concept for this iCEA we selected one receptor, the ecosystem component marine mammals.From the literature review we adopted (and slightly modified) a risk-based framework for defining and undertaking cumulative effects assessments which is aligned to the work in the OSPAR IntersessionalCorrespondence Group on Cumulative (ICG-C) Effects and the ICES Working Group on IntegratedAssessments of the North Sea (WGINOSE), thereby ascertaining this framework and approach is wellplaced within ongoing international North Sea initiatives. Furthermore, the CEA framework in this study should contribute to national North Sea policymaking, with a specific focus on the Marine Strategy framework Directive (MSFD). This literature review is presented in Chapter 1.Our iCEA framework consists of four phases each corresponding to a chapter in this report:1. Conception. This is where purpose and scope are defined (see Chapter 2). 3. Execution (importance). Here we establish the relative importance of each impact chain using a risk-based approach that calculates "Impact Risk", i.e. the contribution of...

show abstract

Section: Harbour Porpoisementioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Spatial Distributions and Migration Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Harbour Porpoisementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Harbour Porpoisementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Harbour Porpoisementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Cumulative effects assessment: proof of concept marine mammals

Piet¹,

Boon²,

Jongbloed³

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Echolocation activity of harbour porpoises, Phocoena phocoena, shows seasonal artificial reef attraction despite elevated noise levels close to oil and gas platforms

Clausen

Teilmann

Wisniewska

et al. 2021

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Harbour porpoises frequently alter their behaviour in response to underwater sound from shipping, seismic surveys, drilling and marine renewables. Less well understood is the response of porpoises to sounds emitted from oil and gas (O&G) platforms during routine operations. 2. The responses are not easily predicted as platforms can act simultaneously and to varying degree as a source of disturbance through noise and attraction through an artificial reef effect with increased prey abundance and diversity. 3. To investigate the presence and feeding behaviour of harbour porpoises around platforms, autonomous acoustic loggers were placed for up to 2 years, at 21 stations 0-25.6 km from the largest platform in the Danish North Sea. 4. Harbour porpoises were detected at all distances year round in two distinct seasonal activity patterns. During July-January, porpoises were attracted to the platform as indicated by high foraging activity within 800 m of the platform. Echolocation activity levels were up to twofold higher than those observed at 3.2-9.6 km from the platform. 5. Similar high echolocation activity was observed 200 m from neighbouring offshore installations located within 15 km, regardless of their size, during May-July. 6. This study shows that porpoises may be attracted to offshore O&G platforms despite confirmed elevated underwater noise and are likely exploiting higher prey abundance in the vicinity of such structures. This is possibly due to increased prey availability created by the combined effect of the artificial reef formed by the underwater structure and the local protected area around all platforms where fishery is banned. 7. Hard substrate and untouched seabed are rare and valuable habitats to many organisms in heavily trawled waters like the North Sea, and the ecological importance of these structures should be considered in the development of decommissioning strategies. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

show abstract

Conservation of transnational species: The tensions between legal requirements and best scientific evidence

Pinn

Macleod²,

Tasker³

2021

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. This paper describes the tensions between the legal requirements for conservation and the most beneficial biological practice for mobile transnational marine species, using the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in European Atlantic waters as a case study. 2. Harbour porpoise are the smallest and one of the most abundant cetaceans occurring throughout the European continental shelf waters, and are affected by human activities occurring in the same waters, especially certain fishing activities. 3. The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (the Bern Convention) and its implementing legislation the Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora 92/43/EEC (i.e. the Habitats Directive) are the main legal drivers for species conservation throughout the European Union. They aim for the long-term achievement of favourable conservation status and make provision for the use of two conservation measures: protected areas and strict protection measures. The strict protection measures aim to ensure that all forms of deliberate killing are prevented, and that where incidental killing and capture occurs, it does not have a negative effect on conservation status.4. The conservation of harbour porpoise is currently dependent upon tackling the key issue of bycatch in fisheries. However, in challenges to Member States on their application of the Habitats Directive, the European Commission has chosen to focus on site designation rather than the implementation of the strict protection measures required to monitor and, where necessary, reduce bycatch. 5. This tension between a legal focus on the designation of protected areas instead of tackling threats such as bycatch has potentially led to negative conservation consequences for harbour porpoise and, in part, may explain why wider marine biodiversity has continued to deteriorate in Europe.

show abstract

Seasonal habitat‐based density models for a marine top predator, the harbor porpoise, in a dynamic environment

Cited by 76 publications

References 72 publications

Cumulative effects assessment: proof of concept marine mammals

Cumulative effects assessment: proof of concept marine mammals

Echolocation activity of harbour porpoises, Phocoena phocoena, shows seasonal artificial reef attraction despite elevated noise levels close to oil and gas platforms

Conservation of transnational species: The tensions between legal requirements and best scientific evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About