» Articles » PMID: 37794093

Wild Harbour Porpoises Startle and Flee at Low Received Levels from Acoustic Harassment Device

Abstract

Acoustic Harassment Devices (AHD) are widely used to deter marine mammals from aquaculture depredation, and from pile driving operations that may otherwise cause hearing damage. However, little is known about the behavioural and physiological effects of these devices. Here, we investigate the physiological and behavioural responses of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) to a commercial AHD in Danish waters. Six porpoises were tagged with suction-cup-attached DTAGs recording sound, 3D-movement, and GPS (n = 3) or electrocardiogram (n = 2). They were then exposed to AHDs for 15 min, with initial received levels (RL) ranging from 98 to 132 dB re 1 µPa (rms-fast, 125 ms) and initial exposure ranges of 0.9-7 km. All animals reacted by displaying a mixture of acoustic startle responses, fleeing, altered echolocation behaviour, and by demonstrating unusual tachycardia while diving. Moreover, during the 15-min exposures, half of the animals received cumulative sound doses close to published thresholds for temporary auditory threshold shifts. We conclude that AHD exposure at many km can evoke both startle, flight and cardiac responses which may impact blood-gas management, breath-hold capability, energy balance, stress level and risk of by-catch. We posit that current AHDs are too powerful for mitigation use to prevent hearing damage of porpoises from offshore construction.

Citing Articles

Current species protection does not serve its porpoise-Knowledge gaps on the impact of pressures on the Critically Endangered Baltic Proper harbour porpoise population, and future recommendations for its protection.

Koschinski S, Owen K, Lehnert K, Kaminska K Ecol Evol. 2024; 14(9):e70156.

PMID: 39267689 PMC: 11392595. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.70156.


Response of Eurasian otters (Lutra lutra) to underwater acoustic harassment device sounds.

Stepien E, Galatius A, Hansen K, Nabe-Nielsen J, Teilmann J, Wahlberg M Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):4988.

PMID: 38424202 PMC: 10904746. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-55481-z.

References
1.
Sorensen P, Wisniewska D, Jensen F, Johnson M, Teilmann J, Madsen P . Click communication in wild harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Sci Rep. 2018; 8(1):9702. PMC: 6018799. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-28022-8. View

2.
Dyndo M, Wisniewska D, Rojano-Donate L, Madsen P . Harbour porpoises react to low levels of high frequency vessel noise. Sci Rep. 2015; 5:11083. PMC: 4476045. DOI: 10.1038/srep11083. View

3.
Macaulay J, Rojano-Donate L, Ladegaard M, Tougaard J, Teilmann J, Marques T . Implications of porpoise echolocation and dive behaviour on passive acoustic monitoring. J Acoust Soc Am. 2023; 154(4):1982-1995. DOI: 10.1121/10.0021163. View

4.
Gotz T, Pacini A, Nachtigall P, Janik V . The startle reflex in echolocating odontocetes: basic physiology and practical implications. J Exp Biol. 2020; 223(Pt 5). PMC: 7075047. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.208470. View

5.
Mikkelsen L, Hermannsen L, Beedholm K, Madsen P, Tougaard J . Simulated seal scarer sounds scare porpoises, but not seals: species-specific responses to 12 kHz deterrence sounds. R Soc Open Sci. 2017; 4(7):170286. PMC: 5541550. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.170286. View