Response of Eurasian otters (Lutra lutra) to underwater acoustic harassment device sounds.
AHD
Behavioural response
Feeding disruption
Fish farm
Fishery
Habitat exclusion
Seal scarer
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Feb 2024
29 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
29
11
2023
accepted:
23
02
2024
medline:
1
3
2024
pubmed:
1
3
2024
entrez:
29
2
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Seal scarers (or acoustic harassment devices, AHDs) are designed to deter seals from fishing gear and aquaculture operations, as well as to prevent seals from entering rivers to avoid predation on valuable fish. Our study investigated the potential effects of AHDs on non-target species, specifically the Eurasian otters (Lutra lutra), by testing the reaction of two rehabilitated otters to simulated AHDs sounds at 1 and 14 kHz, with a received sound intensity of 105-145 dB re 1 µPa rms. The 1 kHz sounds were used to investigate alternative frequencies for scaring seals without scaring otters. The otters reacted to both 1 and 14 kHz tonal signals when retrieving fish from a feeding station 0.8 m below the surface. Their diving behaviour and time to extract food progressively increased as sound intensity increased for all tested sound levels. Notably, the sound levels used in our tests were significantly lower (40-80 dB) than the source levels from commercial AHDs. These findings highlight the importance of caution when using AHDs in river and sea habitats inhabited by otters, as AHDs can change their behaviour and potentially result in habitat exclusion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38424202
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-55481-z
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-55481-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4988Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Treves, A. & Karanth, U. Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Cons. Biol. 17(6), 1491–1499 (2003).
doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00059.x
Graham, I. M., Harris, R. N., Denny, B., Fowden, D. & Pullan, D. Testing the effectiveness of an acoustic harassment device for excluding seals from Atlantic salmon rivers in Scotland. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66, 860–864 (2009).
doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsp111
Rauschmayer, F., Wittmer, H. & Berghöfer, A. Institutional challenges for resolving conflicts between fisheries and endangered species conservation. Mar. Pol. 32, 178–188 (2008).
doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2007.09.008
Quick, N. J., Middlemas, S. J. & Armstron, J. D. A survey of antipredator controls at marine salmon farms in Scotland. Acuaculture 230(1–4), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00428-9 (2004).
doi: 10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00428-9
Westerberg, H., Lunneryd, S.-G., Wahlberg, M. & Fjälling, A. Reconciling fisheries activities with the conservation of seals through the development of new fishing gear: A case study from the Baltic fishery—grey seal conflict. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 20, 587–597 (2006).
Svels, K. et al. Mitigating a social conflict between seal, conservation and fisheries in the Baltic Sea: multilevel and synergistic approaches. TemaNord 569, 25 (2022).
Olsen, M. T., Galatius, A. & Härkönen, T. The history and effects of seal-fishery conflicts in Denmark. Mar. Ecol. Progress Series 595, 233–243. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12510 (2018).
doi: 10.3354/meps12510
Boustany, A. M. et al. Examining the potential conflict between sea otter recovery and Dungeness crab fisheries in California. Biol. Conserv. 2, 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108830 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108830
Elmeros, M., Hammershøj, M., Madsen, A. B. & Søgaard, B. Recovery of the otter lutra lutra in Denmark Monitored by field surveys and collection of Carcasses. Hystrix It. J. Mamm. 17(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-17.1-4361 (2006).
doi: 10.4404/hystrix-17.1-4361
Koelewijn, H. P. et al. The reintroduction of the Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) into the Netherlands: Hidden life revealed by noninvasive genetic monitoring. Conserv. Genet. 11(2), 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-010-0051-6 (2010).
doi: 10.1007/s10592-010-0051-6
Mayer, K. et al. Surrogate rearing a keystone species to enhance population and ecosystem restoration. Oryx. 55(4), 535–545. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319000346 (2021).
doi: 10.1017/S0030605319000346
Fjälling, A., Wahlberg, M. & Westerberg, H. Acoustic harassment devices reduce seal interaction in the Baltic salmo-trap net fishery. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 63, 1751–1758 (2006).
doi: 10.1016/j.icesjms.2006.06.015
Jacobs, S. R. & Terhune, J. R. The effectiveness of acoustic harassment devices in the Bay of Fundy, Canada: seal reactions and a noise exposure model. Aq. Mamm. 28, 147–158 (2002).
Taylor, V. J., Johnston, D. W. & Verboom, W. C. Acoustic harassment device (AHD) use in the aquaculture industry and implications for marine mammals. Proc. Inst. Acoust. 19, 267–275 (1997).
Terhune, J. M., Hoover, C. L. & Jacobs, S. R. Potential detection and deterrence ranges by harbour seals of underwater harassment devices (AHD) in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 33, 176–183 (2002).
doi: 10.1111/j.1749-7345.2002.tb00492.x
Morton, A. B. & Symonds, H. K. Displacement of Orcinus orca (L.) by high amplitude sound in British Columbia, Canada. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 59, 71–80 (2002).
doi: 10.1006/jmsc.2001.1136
Olesiuk, P. F., Nichol, L. M., Sowden, M. J. & Ford, J. K. B. Effect of the sound generated by an acoustic harassment device on the relative abundance and distribution of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in Retreat Passage, British Columbia. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 18, 843–862 (2002).
doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2002.tb01077.x
Brandt, M. J. et al. Far-reaching effects of a Seal Scarer on Harbour Porpoises, Phocoena Phocoena. Aq. Cons. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 23(2), 222–232 (2013).
doi: 10.1002/aqc.2311
Schaffeld, T. et al. The use of seal scarers as a protective mitigation measure can induce hearing impairment in harbour porpoises. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 146(6), 31893707 (2019).
doi: 10.1121/1.5135303
Elmegaard, S. L. et al. Wild harbour porpoises startle and flee at low received levels from acoustic harassment device. Sci. Rep. 13, 16691. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43453-8 (2023).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-43453-8
pubmed: 37794093
pmcid: 10550999
Voigt, M. B., Hackenbroich, C., Krüger, H. H., Liebau, A. & Esser, K. H. The in-air auditory thresholds of the eurasian otter Lutra lutra, L 1758) as determined by auditory brainstem responses. Hear. Res. 381, 107774 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2019.107774
pubmed: 31408801
Ghoul, A. & Reichmuth, C. Hearing in the sea otter (Enhydra lutris): auditory profiles for an amphibious marine carnivore. J. Comp. Physiol. A 200, 967–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-014-0943-x (2014).
doi: 10.1007/s00359-014-0943-x
Madsen, B. Bevar odderen. En håndbog I odderbeskyttelse. Miljøministeriet, Skov- og Naturstyrelsen, 41 (1990).
Søgaard, B. & Madsen, A. B. Management plan for the otter (Lutra lutra) in Denmark. Miljø- og Energiministeriet, Skov- og Naturstyrelsen (1996).
Madsen, A. B. & Prang, A. Habitat factors and the presence or absence of otters Lutra lutra in Denmark. Act. Theriol. 46(2), 171–179 (2001).
doi: 10.1007/BF03192426
Loy, A. et al. The Italian action plan for the endangered Eurasian otter Lutra lutra. Hystrix 21(1), 19–33 (2010).
Council Directive 92/4/ECC (1992).
Götz, T. & Janik, V. M. Target-specific acoustic predator deterrence in the marine environment. Anim. Conserv. Zool. Soc. Lond. 18, 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12141 (2014).
doi: 10.1111/acv.12141
Au, W. W. & Hastings, M. C. Principles of Marine Bioacoustics (Springer, 2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78365-9 .
doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-78365-9
Proakis, J. G. & Manolakis, D. G. Digital Signal Processing 3rd edn, 1104 (Pearson, 2006).
Kruuk, H., Conroy, J. W. H. & Moorhouse, A. Seasonal reproduction, mortality and food of otters (Lutra lutra L.) in Shetland. Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond. 58, 263–278 (1987).
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013). ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org/ .
Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016). ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org .
Nolet, B. A., Wansink, D. E. H. & Kruuk, H. Diving of Otters (Lutra lutra) in a Marine Habitat: Use of depths by a single-prey loader. J. Anim. Ecol. 62(1), 22–32 (1993).
doi: 10.2307/5479
Heffner, R. S. & Heffner, H. E. Hearing in mammals: The least weasel. J. Mamm. 66, 745–755 (1985).
doi: 10.2307/1380801
Kelly, J. B., Kavanagh, G. L. & Dalton, J. C. H. Hearing in the ferret (Mustela putorius): thresholds for pure tone detection. Hear. Res. 24, 269–275 (1984).
doi: 10.1016/0378-5955(86)90025-0
Moore, P. W. B. & Schusterman, R. J. Audiometric assessment of northern fur seals Callorhinus ursinus. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 3, 31–53 (1987).
doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.1987.tb00150.x
Reichmuth, C., Holt, M. M., Mulsow, J., Sills, J. M. & Southall, B. L. Comparative assessment of amphibious hearing in pinnipeds. J. Comp. Phys. 199, 491–507 (2013).
doi: 10.1007/s00359-013-0813-y
Yurk, H. & Trites, A. W. Experimental attempts to reduce predation by harbor seals on out-migrating juvenile salmonids. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 129, 1360–1366 (2000).
doi: 10.1577/1548-8659(2000)129<1360:EATRPB>2.0.CO;2
Reeves, R. R., Reed, F. A. & Nortabartolo di Sciara, G. Report of the Workshop on Interactions Between Dolphins and Fisheries in the Mediterranean: Evaluation of Mitigation Alternatives (Istituto Centrale Per La Rocerca Scientifica E Tecnologca Al Mare (ICRAM), 2001).
Gordon, J. & Northridge, S. Potential impacts of acoustic deterrent devices on Scottish marine wildlife. Cottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F01AA404 (2002).
Lepper, P. A., Turner, V. L. G., Goodson, A. D. & Black, K. D Sound levels and spectra emitted by three commercial aquaculture anti-predator devices. In Delft, The Netherlands. Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on Underwater Acoustics, ECUA (2004).
Shapiro, A. D. et al. Transmission loss patterns from acoustic harassment and deterrent devices do not always follow geometrical spreading predictions. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 25, 53–67 (2009).
doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2008.00243.x
Götz, T. & Janik, V. M. Acoustic deterrent devices to prevent pinniped depredation: efficiency, conservation concerns and possible solutions. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 492, 285–302. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10482 (2013).
doi: 10.3354/meps10482