Acoustic Tagging of Large Sharks – Potential for Acoustic Interference

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Acoustic Tagging of Large Sharks – Potential for Acoustic Interference CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17) Acoustic tagging of large sharks – Potential for acoustic interference (CS 05-11-17) – Kim Allen independent researcher Citizen science overview This paper is one of a series of unfunded, independent research initiatives that question mainstream science, Animal ethics approaches and Governments’ apparent acceptance of “Validated” science in the area of wildlife electronic tracking. Clearly, the Australian shark issue is extremely contentious as well as political and emotionally charged. Over $100 million has been expended by State and Federal governments in an attempt to find answers and make our beaches safer. Unfortunately, at no stage has a strategic approach been taken to identify the key disciplines of science that need to be considered, assessed, and applied. Significant investment has been directed into the construction and support of wide-scale acoustic receiver arrays and individual sensors as well as significant tagging of large sharks off our coastline for research and public safety. Previous satellite archival tagging programs conducted by CSIRO gave us good insight into shark movements, however since this time despite significant investment minimal progress appears to have been made and the potential risks appear to have been ignored. This CSIRO document clearly outlines the types of tags that are used for shark research, it also clearly defines the recommended protocols that should be used for shark tagging operations. From photographic details shared in the public domain it is clear that shark tagging operations undertaken by Fisheries departments don’t follow these stringent protocols. (www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/2009/bradfordrw a.pdf ) It is extremely difficult for “Unqualified” Citizen scientists to challenge mainstream research particularly given the potential erosion of future funding sources if technical criticism is determined as valid. When any document is presented as a purely scientific paper, it will be challenged by scientists and regulators/politicians who will always “Listen to the science” regardless of its validity. Therefore, this series of information papers attempts to present a clear evidence and fact- based overview of the situation and poses relevant questions. Associated Citizen Science shark research papers – • Acoustic tagging of large sharks – Potential for behavioural changes (CS 06-11-17) • The effectiveness of acoustic tags for research and public safety (CS 03-11-17) • Shark repellents – The case for Australian standards certification (CS 11-09-17) • The effectiveness of above-water shark surveillance measures (CS 04-08-17) • The challenges of reliable underwater shark detection (CS 22-09-17) CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17) Document purpose Highlighting the fact that the “Precautionary Principle” is sometimes not considered when potentially damaging research interventions are used. Seeking the suspension and possible cessation of acoustic tagging for shark research and public safety. Highlighting the deficiencies and disparities of Animal ethics approvals across States and Territories. Ensuring that the existing Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes 8th edition is revised to accurately reflect the number of electronic devices used by researchers and the potential environmental impacts that they may have. Highlighting the need for underwater frequency management and monitoring, particularly in sensitive marine parks where scientists appear to undertake the most marine wildlife tagging. Demonstrating that there is a requirement to sometimes “Challenge” and not just “Listen to” the science! Undertaking research on wildlife is regulated in different ways across state and territory borders depending on whether the species is listed under the Animal welfare act (for that state or territory), there is also consideration applied if the species is protected under the Federal EPBC act. Finally, any research activities should seek and procure Animal ethics approval from a relevant panel informed by the Australian code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes 8th edition1 which should cover all potential risks and consequences of any research interventions. Unfortunately, in the case of the “Tracking the movement of wildlife”, section 3.3.40 simply states “When devices are used to track the movement of wildlife, the weight, design and positioning of attached devices must minimise interference with the normal survival requirements of the animal”. Clearly given the advent and development of numerous electronic devices used extensively in the field by researchers these guidelines fall well short and provide no guidance or background to animal ethics panels to influence their judgements when approving research programs. In the case of large shark tagging programs, there are many significant potential issues arising. This document attempts to illustrate and unpack the key potential issues surrounding the use of long-term ultrasonic tracking tags on large sharks off Australian beaches. CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17) Introduction To understand the implications of using high-power ultrasonic pingers (tracking tags) for research purposes it’s important to consider the issues presented in the marine environment. What is an Acoustic tag A Coded acoustic tag is an electro-mechanical device that emits sequenced high frequency pulses every 60-90 seconds for up to 10 years. These pulses are pre-programmed to represent a unique ID code like a telephone number to identify the aged animal. Acoustic pinger tag External attachment – Surgical implant Construction of acoustic tag The tag is powered by a Lithium polymer battery that energises some electronics (oscillator) to power a ceramic “transducer” that acts like a loudspeaker. This transducer physically vibrates to create the ultrasonic pulses at 69,000 cycles per second (69KHz). CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17) The power levels of these tags ensure that receiver units can detect them up to 400-500 metres away, of course depending on the hearing sensitivity of certain marine mammals these tags could be heard much further away. In summary – The use of these coded tags with a 10-year battery life in the open ocean should deserve special attention! Sound in the ocean Unlike land-based species, marine animals place a high degree of dependence on sound for communicating, predation and navigation. Sound travels around 5 times faster underwater than it does on land. So, its clear to see that anything related to sound underwater requires careful consideration in relation to marine ecology. On land, we have strict regulations regarding radio frequencies and how they are used, in fact we have a government agency2 managing and policing allocated frequencies. Interestingly, land-based species don’t user or rely on these frequencies to survive this is mainly in force for safety and providing structure to ensure that communications remain reliable. Unfortunately, underwater there are no such rules and regulations to monitor and control emissions that can and do have significant impacts on marine species (particularly marine mammals). A range of impulsive noise emitting sources are always considered including defence sonar, seismic surveys, pile driving, dredging and vessel noise. However, the advent of acoustic tags which introduce a periodic noise emission for up to 10 years has not been considered by the regulators. Ultrasonic acoustic tracking tags have been used extensively by research scientists and fisheries agencies for over a decade. Australian researchers are one of the major users of this type of technology for shark (and other marine species) research. It’s important to consider that acoustic tags are electro-mechanical devices that are either attached to or implanted into large sharks for research purposes. Over the last few years, government agencies have attempted to re-purpose and promote this research approach as an enhanced public safety measure to make our beaches safer. CITIZEN SCIENCE – CS 05-11-17) The issues to consider Prior to the production this document, all avenues were explored including comprehensive collaboration with marine acoustics experts to debate and validate concerns raised. For many years fish tagging has served a useful purpose, mainly through the use of plastic numbered tags that were recovered from time to time allowing coarse scale movement and other research data to be collected. On-land, radio and GPS tracking have been successful providing valuable insights into animal movements. Unfortunately, radio waves don’t travel well underwater, so these types of tracking have not been successful. Therefore, the two technologies considered are acoustic and satellite tags. In the case of satellite tags, they are used in two ways to provide periodic positioning of tagged animals. Over the years acoustic tagging of small fish in freshwater environments has been extremely successful. This has been for the following reasons: • The detection ranges are typically small – Across a river for example • Freshwater sound propagation is much better than salt water • High frequency tags can be made much smaller than the lower frequency tags meaning they can be inserted in smaller fish. • The typical frequency used around 400KHz is too high to have any potential for interference with any other wildlife. When ocean-based long term acoustic tracking was considered, the frequency range selected was around 70KHz which although propagating well through open water also happens
Recommended publications
  • The Importance of Sample Size in Marine Megafauna Tagging Studies
    Ecological Applications, 0(0), 2019, e01947 © 2019 by the Ecological Society of America The importance of sample size in marine megafauna tagging studies 1,17 2 3 4 5 6 6 A. M. M. SEQUEIRA, M. R. HEUPEL, M.-A. LEA, V. M. EGUILUZ, C. M. DUARTE, M. G. MEEKAN, M. THUMS, 7 8 9 6 4 10 H. J. CALICH, R. H. CARMICHAEL, D. P. COSTA, L. C. FERREIRA, J. F ERNANDEZ -GRACIA, R. HARCOURT, 11 10 10,12 13,14 15 16 A.-L. HARRISON, I. JONSEN, C. R. MCMAHON, D. W. SIMS, R. P. WILSON, AND G. C. HAYS 1IOMRC and The University of Western Australia Oceans Institute, School of Biological Sciences, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia 6009 Australia 2Australian Institute of Marine Science, PMB No 3, Townsville, Queensland 4810 Australia 3Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, 20 Castray Esplanade, Hobart, Tasmania 7000 Australia 4Instituto de Fısica Interdisciplinar y Sistemas Complejos IFISC (CSIC – UIB), E-07122 Palma de Mallorca, Spain 5Red Sea Research Centre (RSRC), King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal 23955-6900 Saudi Arabia 6Australian Institute of Marine Science, Indian Ocean Marine Research Centre (M096), University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia 6009 Australia 7IOMRC and The University of Western Australia Oceans Institute, Oceans Graduate School, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia 6009 Australia 8Dauphin Island Sea Lab and University of South Alabama, 101 Bienville Boulevard, Dauphin Island, Alabama 36528 USA 9Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, California 95060 USA 10Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales 2109 Australia 11Migratory Bird Center, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, PO Box 37012 MRC 5503 MBC, Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Conducting and Interpreting Fish Telemetry Studies
    Manuscript Click here to access/download;Manuscript;Telemetry considerations RFBF submission REVISED clean.docx Click here to view linked References 1 2 3 4 1 Conducting and interpreting fish telemetry studies: Considerations for researchers and 5 2 resource managers 6 7 8 3 Submission to: Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 9 a,b a c d 10 4 Jacob W. Brownscombe , Elodie Ledee , Graham D. Raby , Daniel P. Struthers , Lee F.G. e a f g 11 5 Gutowsky , Vivian M. Nguyen , Nathan Young , Michael J.W. Stokesbury , Christopher M. 12 6 Holbrookh, Travis O. Brendeni, Christopher S. Vandergootj, Karen J. Murchiek, Kim Whoriskeyl, 13 7 Joanna Mills-Flemmingl, Steven T. Kesselk, Charles C. Kruegerm, Steven J. Cookea 14 15 8 a Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology and Institute of 16 17 9 Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, 18 10 ON, K1S 5B6, Canada 19 20 11 b Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, 1355 Oxford Street, Halifax, NS, B4H 4R2, 21 12 Canada 22 23 13 c Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research, University of Windsor, 2601 Union St., 24 14 Windsor, ON, N9B 3P4, Canada 25 26 d 27 15 Parks Canada, Banff National Park, Box 900, Banff, AB, T1L 1K2, Canada 28 e 29 16 Aquatic Research & Monitoring Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry, 30 17 Trent University, 2140 East Bank Drive, Peterborough, ON, K9L 1Z8, Canada 31 32 18 f Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, 33 19 Canada 34 g 35 20 Department of Biology, Acadia University, 33 Westwood Ave., Wolfville, NS, B4P 2R6, 36 37 21 Canada 38 h 39 22 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 75/Wednesday, April 21, 2021
    21082 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 21, 2021 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Network, and the Wishtoyo Foundation Manning, NMFS, Office of Protected filed a complaint seeking court-ordered National Oceanic and Atmospheric Resources, 301–427–8466. deadlines for the issuance of proposed Administration SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and final rules to designate critical habitat for the CAM, MX, and WNP 50 CFR Parts 223, 224, and 226 Background DPSs of humpback whales. See Center Under the ESA, we are responsible for for Biological Diversity et al. v. National [Docket No. 210415–0080] determining whether certain species are Marine Fisheries Service, et al., No. threatened or endangered, and, to the 3:18–cv–01628–EDL (N.D. Cal.). The RIN 0648–BI06 maximum extent prudent and parties entered into a settlement determinable, designating critical agreement with the approval and Endangered and Threatened Wildlife habitat for endangered and threatened oversight of the court, and subsequently and Plants: Designating Critical species at the time of listing (16 U.S.C. amended the dates specified in the Habitat for the Central America, 1533(a)(3)(A)(i)). On September 8, 2016, original order. The amended settlement Mexico, and Western North Pacific we published a final rule that revised agreement stipulated that NMFS submit Distinct Population Segments of the listing of humpback whales under a proposed determination concerning Humpback Whales the ESA by removing the original, the designation of critical habitat for taxonomic-level species listing, and in these three DPSs to the Federal Register AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries its place listing four DPSs as endangered by September 26, 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Engineering Response of Seaward-Migrating European
    Ecological Engineering 127 (2019) 480–486 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Engineering journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleng Response of seaward-migrating European eel (Anguilla anguilla) to an T infrasound deterrent ⁎ Adam T. Pipera,b, , Paul R. Whitec, Rosalind M. Wrightd, Timothy G. Leightonc, Paul S. Kempa a International Centre for Ecohydraulics Research, Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK b Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, NW1 4RY London, UK c Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK d Environment Agency, Rivers House, Threshelfords Business Park, Inworth Road, Feering CO5 9SE, UK ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Behavioural guidance technologies that employ stimuli to attract or repel fish offer potential to enhance, oreven Behavioural guidance replace, costly physical and mechanical screens traditionally used to protect fish at river infrastructure such as Acoustic telemetry hydropower and water intakes. At these structures, eel can suffer high rates of damage and mortality if entrained Bypass in pumps or turbines, or impinged on screens intended to protect them. This study used acoustic telemetry to Fishway quantify the behavioural response of adult European eel (Anguilla anguilla) to infrasound (12 Hz) under field Fish migration settings. Eel (n = 50) were tracked after release immediately upstream of the forebay of a redundant hydro- power facility. An infrasound deterrent located at the water intake either emitted continuously (ON) or was switched OFF. Treatment (ON/OFF) was alternated nightly over 10 consecutive nights with five eel released during a single trial conducted each night.
    [Show full text]
  • External Attachment of Acoustic Tags to Deepwater Reef Fishes- an Alternate
    This article was downloaded by: [Texas A&M University Corpus Christi] On: 30 June 2015, At: 12:45 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Transactions of the American Fisheries Society Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utaf20 External Attachment of Acoustic Tags to Deepwater Reef Fishes: an Alternate Approach When Internal Implantation Affects Experimental Design Matthew W. Johnsona, Sandra L. Diamondbc & Gregory W. Stunza a Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi, 6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412-5869, USA b Department of Biology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409, USA c School of Science and Health, Hawkesbury Campus, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia Published online: 30 Jun 2015. Click for updates To cite this article: Matthew W. Johnson, Sandra L. Diamond & Gregory W. Stunz (2015) External Attachment of Acoustic Tags to Deepwater Reef Fishes: an Alternate Approach When Internal Implantation Affects Experimental Design, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 144:4, 851-859, DOI: 10.1080/00028487.2015.1042556 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00028487.2015.1042556 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Directions in Research on Beaked Whales
    25th Meeting of the Advisory Committee ASCOBANS/AC25/Inf.5.1 Stralsund, Germany, 17-19 September 2019 Dist.16 August 2019 Agenda Item 5.1 Special Species Sessions Beaked Whales Information Document 5.1 Future Directions in Research on Beaked Whales Action Requested Take Note Submitted by Hooker et al. Note: Delegates are kindly reminded to bring their own document copies to the meeting, if needed. fmars-05-00514 January 23, 2019 Time: 17:10 # 1 REVIEW published: 25 January 2019 doi: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00514 Future Directions in Research on Beaked Whales Sascha K. Hooker1*, Natacha Aguilar De Soto2, Robin W. Baird3, Emma L. Carroll1,4, Diane Claridge1,5, Laura Feyrer6, Patrick J. O. Miller1, Aubrie Onoufriou1,2, Greg Schorr7, Eilidh Siegal1 and Hal Whitehead6 1 Sea Mammal Research Unit, Scottish Oceans Institute, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom, 2 BIOECOMAC Department of Animal Biology, Universidad de La Laguna, San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Spain, 3 Cascadia Research Collective, Olympia, WA, United States, 4 School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, 5 Bahamas Marine Mammal Research Organisation, Abaco, Bahamas, 6 Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada, 7 Marine Ecology and Telemetry Research, Seabeck, WA, United States Until the 1990s, beaked whales were one of the least understood groups of large mammals. Information on northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) and Baird’s beaked whales (Berardius bairdii) was available from data collected during Edited by: Lars Bejder, whaling, however, little information existed on the smaller species other than occasional University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, data gleaned from beach-cast animals.
    [Show full text]
  • 0251 AES Behavior & Ecology, 552 AB, Friday 9 July 2010 Jeff
    0251 AES Behavior & Ecology, 552 AB, Friday 9 July 2010 Jeff Kneebone1, Gregory Skomal2, John Chisholm2 1University of Massachusetts Dartmouth; School for Marine Science and Technology, New Bedford, Massachusetts, United States, 2Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, New Bedford, Massachusetts, United States Spatial and Temporal Habitat Use and Movement Patterns of Neonatal and Juvenile Sand Tiger Sharks, Carcharias taurus, in a Massachusetts Estuary In recent years, an increasing number of neonate and juvenile sand tiger sharks (Carcharias taurus) have been incidentally taken by fishermen in Plymouth, Kingston, Duxbury (PKD) Bay, a 10,200 acre tidal estuary located on the south shore of Massachusetts. There are indications that the strong seasonal presence (late spring to early fall) of sand tigers in this area is a relatively new phenomenon as local fishermen claim that they had never seen this species in large numbers until recently. We utilized passive acoustic telemetry to monitor seasonal residency, habitat use, site fidelity, and fine scale movements of 35 sand tigers (79 – 120 cm fork length; age 0 - 1) in PKD Bay. Sharks were tracked within PKD Bay for periods of 5 – 88 days during September – October, 2008 and June – October, 2009. All movement data are currently being analyzed to quantify spatial and temporal habitat use, however, preliminary analyses suggest that sharks display a high degree of site fidelity to several areas of PKD Bay. Outside PKD Bay, we documented broader regional movements throughout New England. Collectively, these data demonstrate the that both PKD Bay and New England coastal waters serve as nursery and essential fish habitat (EFH) for neonatal and juvenile sand tiger sharks.
    [Show full text]
  • AJ3 – M Fournet, Karpowership Marine Acoustic Ecology Expert Input
    "AJ3" JUDICIAL REVIEW – ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION FOR THREE PROPOSED GAS TO POWER POWERSHIP PROJECTS LED BY KARPOWERSHIP SA (PTY) LTD – MARINE ACOUSTIC ECOLOGY EXPERT INPUT Michelle Fournet, M.S., PhD OVERVIEW: This report contains an expert opinion assessing the scientific soundness of activities relating to three Gas to Power - Powership Projects led by Karpowership SA (PTY) Ltd. The proposed project locations include: (1) Port of Ngqura (on the Southeastern side of South Africa), (2) Richards Bay (near Durban), and (3) in Saldanha Bay (near Cape Town on the West Coast of South Africa). The projects involve the generation of electricity by means of mobile Powerships to be berthed in the marine environment. Additional components of the projects include Floating Storage Regasification Units (FSRU), gas pipelines, and a Liquid Natural GasCarrier (LNGC), which will all interact with marine ecosystems. Specifically, this report is concerned with whether the marine ecology assessments and noise impact assessments (hereafter ‘the studies’) and the associated environmental impact assessment reports (EIAs) adequately assessed the environmental impact of anthropogenic noise and vibrations associated with the proposed projects and associated activities. Noise and vibrations will be broadly addressed, with specific emphasis on suitability of the EIAs to address impacts to the marine environment. These projects collectively rely on a single technical study to predict possible noise levels emanating from the powership, repeat language and mitigation strategies, and rely on the same scientific and technical references. As such, this report will address the three independent EIAs and the associated studies collectively, noting differences in the ecology of the three regions as needed, since site specific assessments of marine noise impacts were omitted from all three EIAs and associated studies.
    [Show full text]
  • River Listening: Acoustic Ecology
    RIVER LISTENING: ACOUSTIC ECOLOGY adopts an acoustic ecology approach by exploring acoustic AND AQUATIC BIOACOUSTICS IN GLOBAL patterns from a holistic perspective that incorporates the physi- RIVER SYSTEMS cal habitat of the river ecosystem [4]. Leah Barclay, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. The scientific grounding for River Listening is led by fresh- Email: <[email protected]>. water ecologist Dr Simon Linke. Dr Linke’s pioneering work in biomonitoring and river conservation planning has been Toby Gifford, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. used by agencies and NGOs from South East Queensland to Email: <[email protected]>. the Congo and he has recently been investigating aquatic bioa- Simon Linke, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. coustics and real-time ecosystem monitoring in freshwater Email <[email protected]>. environments using passive acoustics. Dr Linke believes that classic techniques for measuring aquatic biodiversity are prob- See <mitpressjournals.org/toc/leon/51/3> for supplemental files associated lematic as they potentially injure the study organism (such as with this issue. electrofishing) and can be bias as they only provide a brief balance-unbalance 2015–2016, part 2 Submitted: 21 October 2016 snapshot at the time of observation. He believes that passive Abstract acoustics presents a noninvasive and unexplored approach to River Listening is an interdisciplinary research project exploring the freshwater ecosystem monitoring. This theory is shared by Dr cultural and biological diversity of global river systems through Toby Gifford, the third collaborator on River Listening who is sound. The project examines the creative possibilities of accessible a music technologist and software programmer active in a wide and noninvasive recording technologies to monitor river health and engage local communities in the conservation of global river systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Acoustic Telemetry and Fisheries Management
    INVITED FEATURE ARTICLE Ecological Applications, 0(0), 2017, pp. 1–19 © 2017 by the Ecological Society of America Acoustic telemetry and fisheries management 1,8 2 3 4 GLENN T. C ROSSIN, MICHELLE R. HEUPEL, CHRISTOPHER M. HOLBROOK, NIGEL E. HUSSEY, 5,6 7 4 7 SUSAN K. LOWERRE-BARBIERI, VIVIAN M. NGUYEN, GRAHAM D. RABY, AND STEVEN J. C OOKE 1Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, 1355 Oxford Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia B4H 4R2 Canada 2Australian Institute of Marine Science, PMB 3, Townsville, Queensland 4810 Australia 3U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, Hammond Bay Biological Station, 11188 Ray Road, Millersburg, Michigan 49759 USA 4Department of Biology, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4 Canada 5Florida Fish & Wildlife Research Institute, 100 8th Avenue SE, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 USA 6Fisheries and Aquatic Science Program, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, 7922 North West 71st Street, Gainesville, Florida 32653 USA 7Fish Ecology & Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6 Canada Abstract. This paper reviews the use of acoustic telemetry as a tool for addressing issues in fisheries management, and serves as the lead to the special Feature Issue of Ecological Applica- tions titled Acoustic Telemetry and Fisheries Management. Specifically, we provide an overview of the ways in which acoustic telemetry can be used to inform issues central to the ecology, conservation, and management of exploited and/or imperiled fish species. Despite great strides in this area in recent years, there are comparatively few examples where data have been applied directly to influence fisheries management and policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Ocean Through Sound
    Exploring the Ocean through Sound Jennifer L. Miksis-Olds School of Marine Science & Ocean Engineering, University of New Hampshire Bruce Martin Department of Oceanography, Dalhousie University Abstract Sound is an important sensory modality in the lives of many marine organisms, as sound travels faster and farther than any other sensory signal. Consequently, marine animals ranging from the smallest larvae to the largest whales have evolved mechanisms for both producing and receiving acoustic signals. Innovation in underwater recording technology now permits the remote monitoring of vocalizing animals and the environment without the need to rely on human observers, the physical presence of an ocean observation vessel, or adequate visibility and sampling conditions. Passive acoustic monitoring is an efficient, non- invasive, and relatively low-cost alternative to hands-on exploration that is providing a wealth of information on regional sound sources (biologic, anthropogenic, geophysical), animal behavior, ecosystem dynamics, biodiversity, and impacts of human activity Key Words Soundscape, ambient sound, soundscape ecology, orientation, biodiversity The average depth of the ocean is 4000 m. Light only penetrates the first 100 m, yet life abounds below this photic zone. Marine life establish homes, find food, socialize, mate, and raise young while avoiding predators, all without light. Ocean water is approximately 1000 times denser than air resulting in ocean sound speeds that are approximately five times 1 higher than in air with much
    [Show full text]
  • Forum „Fischschutz Und Fischabstieg“ Arbeitshilfe Zur Standörtlichen
    Gefördert durch: Umweltforschungsplan des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit Forum „Fischschutz und Fischabstieg“ Arbeitshilfe zur standörtlichen Evaluierung des Fischschutzes und Fischabstieges Von Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wolfgang Schmalz FLUSS, Breitenbach/Deutschland Falko Wagner IGF, Jena/Deutschland Damien Sonny Profish, Naninne/Belgien Im Auftrag des Ecologic Institutes gemeinnützige GmbH März 2015 Autoren: SCHMALZ, Wolfgang Dipl.-Biol., FLUSS (Fischökologische und Limnologische Untersu- chungsStelle Südthüringen); Vertreter der Bietergemeinschaft WAGNER, Falko Dr. rer. nat., IGF (Institut für Gewässerökologie & Fischereibiologie Jena) SONNY, Damien Dr. rer. nat., Profish (ProFish Technology SA) unter Mitarbeit von: EBEL, Guntram Dr. rer. agr., BGF (Büro für Gewässerökologie und Fischereibiologie) HÜBNER, Dirk Dr. rer. nat., BFS (Büro für Fisch- und Gewässerökologische Studien) LINDIG, Andreas Dipl.-Biol., IGF (Institut für Gewässerökologie & Fischereibiologie Jena) SCHMALZ, Maria Dipl.-Biol., IWSÖ GmbH (Institut für Wasserwirtschaft Siedlungswas- serbau und Ökologie, Hydrolabor Schleusingen) SCHNEIDER, Jörg Dr. rer. nat., BFS (Büro für Fisch- und Gewässerökologische Studien) Für die fachliche Unterstützung wird gedankt: Forum Fischschutz und der Mitglieder der Lenkungsgruppe siehe http://forum- Lenkungsgruppe des Forums fischschutz.de/lenkungsgruppe HAAS, Christian Dipl.-Ing., I AM HYDRO, Haas & Thumser GbR HASSINGER, Reinhard Dr.-Ing., Universität Kassel, Versuchsanstalt und Prüfstelle für Umwelt-
    [Show full text]