Fish Hearing and the Effects of Underwater Noise

Transcription

1 State of the Science Workshop on Wildlife and Offshore Wind Energy Development, November 14, 2018 Fish Hearing and the Effects of Underwater Noise Arthur N. Popper University of Maryland & Environmental BioAcoustics LLC Presentation 2018 Arthur N. Popper. All rights reserved

2 Why is Hearing Important to Fishes and Humans Communications Extending the world around the animal. Detection of signals: great distances three-dimensions when other senses nonfunctional such as in the dark The Acoustic Scene Auditory system provides acoustic scene analysis

3 Anything interfering with the ability of an animal to detect and use the acoustic scene may result in reduced fitness! Man-made (anthropogenic) sound can interfere with hearing, thereby disrupt use of the acoustic scene!

4 Fish Hearing 4

5 Hearing Thresholds for Select Species Salmo Carassius Perca Adioryx Myripristis Threshold (db re: 1 upa) Frequency in Hz 5

6 General Observations re Fish Hearing All fishes can hear Sound is important in the lives of fishes, even if they don t make sounds Fishes use sound to learn about their environments. Anything that disrupts this ability has a potential impact on survival Much more to learn about fish hearing particularly considering that the >33,000 species show substantial variation in structure of the auditory system There is great variation in hearing capabilities As a consequence, criteria for potential effects of anthropogenic sound on fishes has to take into consideration variation in what fishes detect and how they behave in response to sounds one 6 criteria does not fit all fishes!!!

7 In What Ways can Anthropogenic Sound Impact Fishes (and Other Aquatic Organisms)?

8 Potential Effects of Sound (Function of Sound level & Type) Behavioral Responses Source (any type) Masking Temporary Threshold Shift Physiological Effects Sound level no longer results in any response Mortality Distance from Source Location (Arbitrary Distances) 8 Arthur N. Popper, 2018

9 What do We Actually Know about Effects on Fishes? Very little! Why very little? Not many experiments Hard to produce very loud sounds in the laboratory Do not know if we can extrapolate between: Sound sources Species Caged fish studies are not appropriate to give needed information on behavior 9

10 Potential Effects of Pile Driving During Wind Farm Construction Close to the source, potential for tissue damage and immediate or delayed mortality Distance depends on the intensity of the source signal At greater distances may encounter hearing loss, masking, and/or behavioral effects Know a good deal about physical effects (studies in Popper lab) but very little about behavioral effects 10

11 Current U.S. Criteria NMFS, 2008 Peak SPL: 206 decibels db re 1 µpa SEL cum : 187 db re 1µPa 2 s for fishes > 2 grams SEL cum : 183 db re 1µPa 2 s for fishes < 2 grams Behavioral effects >150 db re 1µPa 11

12 Studies Since 2008 Show that Current Criteria Far too Conservative! Current criteria: Well below levels that actually result in onset of physical effects on multiple species Not based on peer-reviewed science They were meant to be interim until new data available New data is now available and criteria are being updated around the world based on recent recommendations!

13 In 2014 developed interim criteria Based on most recent data Pointed out major gaps in data that are needed to improve on the guidelines Interim criteria being adopted in Europe and other parts of the world More recent literature review (2018) suggests that these criteria are still valid HOWEVER Guidelines still only in terms of sound pressure and not particle motion Many gaps in the criteria where there is not peerreviewed science Also criteria needed for invertebrates (but almost no data)

14 Type of Animal Fish: no swim bladder (particle motion detection) Fish: swim bladder is not involved in hearing (particle motion detection) Fish: swim bladder involved in hearing (primarily pressure detection) Sea turtles Example: Pile Driving Guidelines Mortality and potential mortal injury >219 db SEL cum or >213 db peak 210 db SEL cum or >207 db peak 207 db SEL cum or >207 db peak 210 db SEL cum or >207 db peak Recoverable injury >216 db SEL cum or >213 db peak 203 db SEL cum or >207 db peak 203 db SEL cum or >207 db peak (N) High (I) Low Impairment TTS >>186 db SEL cum >186 db SEL cum 186 db SEL cum (N) High (I) Low Masking (N) Moderate (I) Low (N) Moderate (I) Low (N) High (I) High (F) Moderate (N) High (I) Moderate Behavior (N) High (I) Moderate (N) High (I) Moderate (N) High (I) High (F) Moderate (N) High (I) Moderate Eggs and larvae >210 db SEL cum or >207 db peak (N) Moderate (I) Low (N)Moderate (I) Low (N) Moderate (I) Low (N) Moderate (I) Low 2016 Arthur N. Popper 14

15 General Conclusions re Anthropogenic Sound & Fishes Criteria need continued updating Criteria from 2014 need to be adopted in the US for regulatory issues The most important issue regarding anthropogenic noise concerns behavioral effects Occur at far greater distances from the source Far more animals likely to be affected than show physical effects Problem: very hard to study and cannot be done in the lab! Still have substantial data gaps that need to be filled

16 General Conclusions for Wind Farms and Fishes Sounds from operating wind farms not likely to be detectable by fishes at any substantial distance from the source (probably measured in meters) Construction sounds (esp. pile driving) have the potential to be detectable at great distances and affect fishes Very close to the source (tens of meters) potential physical and physiological effects At greater distances, potential behavioral effects both from water-borne and substrate-borne sound Effects probably species-specific Additional concern is potential impact on invertebrates

17 Further Reading Hawkins, A. D., Pembroke, A. & Popper, A. (2015). Information gaps in understanding the effects of noise on fishes and invertebrates. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 25, Hawkins, A. D. & Popper, A. N. (2016). Developing sound exposure criteria for fishes. In The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life II (Popper, A. N. & Hawkins, A. D., eds.), pp New York: Springer. Hawkins, A. D. & Popper, A. N. (2018). Effects of man-made sound on fishes. In Effects of Anthropogenic Noise on Animals (Slabbekoorn, H., Dooling, R. J., Popper, A. N. & Fay, R. R., eds.), pp New York: Springer Nature. Popper, A. N., Hawkins, A. D., Fay, R. R., Mann, D. A., Bartol, S., Carlson, T. J., Coombs, S., Ellison, W. T., Gentry, R. L., Halvorsen, M. B., Lokkeborg, S., Rogers, P. H., Southall, B., Zeddies, D. & Tavolga, W. A. (2014). ASA S3/SC1. 4 TR-2014 Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles: A Technical Report prepared by ANSI-Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC1 and registered with ANSI. New York: Springer. Popper, A. N. & Hawkins, A. D. (2018). The importance of particle motion to fishes and invertebrates. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 143, to get PDFs: apopper@umd.edu

18 WEBINAR SOUND /AND FISHES (for Decision-Makers) November 27, 2018, noon FREE makers/webinar-series/webinars- 2018

19 Goal: Bring together Regulators Scientists Environmental Groups Industry 5 th International Conference on Goal: Share knowledge and idea across species groups and anthropogenic sources