Show simple item record

Files in this item


Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorGotz, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorJanik, Vincent M.
dc.identifier.citationGotz , T & Janik , V M 2013 , ' Acoustic deterrent devices to prevent pinniped depredation : efficiency, conservation concerns and possible solutions ' , Marine Ecology Progress Series , vol. 492 , pp. 285-302 .
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 67863410
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: cc22e770-1f56-4fa5-80c0-e2b753ee5c1d
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 84887426538
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0001-7894-0121/work/60427869
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0002-4630-3328/work/71221494
dc.description.abstractAcoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) to prevent pinniped predation on fish farms and fisheries are widely used, but show highly varying success. Recently, ADDs have also been highlighted as a conservation concern due to their adverse impact on toothed whales. We review the available literature on the efficiency of commercial ADDs, evaluate the unintended impact on behaviour, communication and hearing of marine life, and suggest solutions based on psychophysiological predictions. The main problems associated with ADDs are a lack of long-term efficiency, introduction of substantial noise pollution to the marine environment and long-term effects on target and non-target species. Odontocetes have more sensitive hearing than pinnipeds at the frequencies where most ADDs operate, which may explain the reported large-scale habitat exclusion of odontocetes when ADDs are used. Furthermore, long-term exposure to ADDs may damage the hearing of marine mammals. Fish and invertebrates have less sensitive hearing than marine mammals and fewer efforts have been made to quantify the effects of noise on these taxa. Solutions can be found by decreasing sound exposure, exploiting neuronal reflex arcs associated with flight behaviour and making use of differences in species’ hearing abilities to increase target specificity. To minimise adverse effects, environmental impact assessments should be carried out before deploying ADDs and only effective and target-specific devices should be used.
dc.relation.ispartofMarine Ecology Progress Seriesen
dc.rights© Inter-Research 2013
dc.subjectAcoustic deterrent deviceen
dc.subjectNoise pollutionen
dc.subjectHearing damageen
dc.subjectTemporary threshold shiften
dc.subjectPermanent threshold shiften
dc.subjectQL Zoologyen
dc.subjectGC Oceanographyen
dc.subjectSDG 14 - Life Below Wateren
dc.titleAcoustic deterrent devices to prevent pinniped depredation : efficiency, conservation concerns and possible solutionsen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPublisher PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Biologyen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Scottish Oceans Instituteen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Sea Mammal Research Uniten
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Marine Alliance for Science & Technology Scotlanden
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Institute of Behavioural and Neural Sciencesen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Centre for Social Learning & Cognitive Evolutionen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Bioacoustics groupen
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record