Opinion
Taking the Animals’ Perspective Regarding Anthropogenic Underwater Sound

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.05.002Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Much of the current regulation and mitigation of the effects of anthropogenic sound is based on a very limited dataset.

  • Future regulation and mitigation must be approached from the perspective of the animals. Which sounds affect the animals adversely, and what is the nature of these effects?

  • Considerable data (and funding to get that data) is needed, particularly for fishes and invertebrates, before regulation and mitigation can be properly applied.

  • Regulators and investigators should work together to develop a plan of action that focuses on the most important questions, to inform ways to protect animals and develop appropriate mitigation and regulation, and to inform the most effective way(s) to answer those questions.

  • Future work should focus on a limited number of species, key research questions, and experimental approaches that allow easy comparison of data across studies, species, and sound sources.

Anthropogenic (man-made) sound has the potential to harm marine biota. Increasing concerns about these effects have led to regulation and mitigation, despite there being few data on which to base environmental management, especially for fishes and invertebrates. We argue that regulation and mitigation should always be developed by looking at potential effects from the perspectives of the animals and ecosystems exposed to the sounds. We contend that there is currently a need for far more data on which to base regulation and mitigation, as well as for deciding on future research priorities. This will require a process whereby regulators and researchers come together to identify and implement a strategy that links key scientific and regulatory questions.

Section snippets

Regulation and Anthropogenic Sound

Marine mammals, fishes, and many aquatic invertebrates use sound for communication and/or gaining information about their environment (Box 1). Indeed, because sound propagates far better in water than in air, it provides information to animals from far greater distances, and under a wider range of environmental conditions, than do other sensory stimuli (e.g., [1,2]). Interference with an animal’s ability to detect sounds may affect its fitness and survival and thus have adverse impacts (see

Anthropogenic Sound and Its Potential Impacts

Increased exploitation of the marine environment by sound-producing activities such as geophysical research, sonars, powered vessels, and energy exploration and production (Figure 1) has resulted in concerns that these (and other) underwater sounds could have substantial effects on aquatic life. The possible adverse effects on animals of anthropogenic sounds include death, physical injury, impairment of hearing, physiological stress, and changes in behaviour (Table 1). Behavioural effects can

Regulation and Mitigation of Anthropogenic Sounds

Due to concerns about anthropogenic sound, there have been associated increases in (i) the extent of research directed at understanding the potential impacts of these sounds on animals, populations, and ecosystems; (ii) attempts to develop regulations and guidelines to protect animals from increased sound levels; and (iii) research and development of ways to potentially mitigate these sounds. Mitigation involves taking steps to reduce how harmful or damaging sounds can be.

In this context, there

Where Has All the Research Gone?

It is now evident that the effectiveness of any sound regulation and mitigation depends mainly on knowledge of how the sound affects aquatic life. The problem is, however, that current knowledge is heavily skewed in one direction – towards marine mammals, often referred to as ‘charismatic megafauna,’ as shown by an informal analysis of recent studies.

To informally quantify the level of work on various taxa, we examined the distribution of papers at the last four meetings on the ‘Effects of

Why the Research Disparity?

Certainly, one reason for this disparity in research is that marine mammals have a large ‘fan base.’ This interest by the public gets translated into pressure on regulators and funding agencies to concentrate on supporting marine mammal work. In the USA, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (Public Law 92-522) provides these animals with strong protection and prohibits their removal from US waters and by US citizens on the high seas.

In contrast, perhaps except for salmon, sharks, and Nemo, a

Concluding Remarks: What Must be Done?

It is our view that it has become critical to conduct research that will enable aquatic industries and regulators to better understand, and then to reduce or eliminate, the effects of anthropogenic sounds on the physical conditions, physiology, and behaviour of aquatic animals, and especially to mitigate those sounds that might impact their population dynamics (see Outstanding Questions). One of the problems for those concerned with anthropogenic sound, or attempting to make sound-generating

Acknowledgements

We thank our colleagues Jill Lewandowski, Amy Scholik-Schlomer, and Mark Tasker for very valuable comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. We also thank two reviewers and the editor of TREE for suggestions that very much helped us to improve the manuscript.

Glossary

Dose–response assessment
the relationship between the sound exposure level and the magnitude of the response (e.g., effect).
Effects
changes caused by sound exposure that are a departure from a prior state, condition, or situation, which is called the ‘baseline’ condition (from [39]).
Impacts
biologically significant effects (see definition) that reflect a change whose direction, magnitude, and/or duration is sufficient to have consequences for the fitness of individual fish or populations of fishes

References (61)

  • F. Thomsen

    WODA technical guidance on underwater sound from dredging

  • F. Thomsen

    Cetacean stock assessments in relation to exploration and production industry activity and other human pressures: review and data needs

    Aquat. Mamm.

    (2011)
  • A.D. Hawkins

    Information gaps in understanding the effects of noise on fishes and invertebrates

    Rev. Fish Biol. Fish.

    (2015)
  • B.W. Elliott

    Critical information gaps remain in understanding impacts of industrial seismic surveys on marine vertebrates

    Endanger. Species Res.

    (2019)
  • B.L. Southall

    Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: updated scientific recommendations for residual hearing effects

    Aquat. Mamm.

    (2019)
  • H. Slabbekoorn

    Man-made sounds and animals

  • A.N. Popper

    ASA S3/SC1

  • National Marine Fisheries Service

    2018 Revision to: Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0): Underwater Thresholds for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts

    (2018)
  • T. Götz

    Overview of the impacts of anthropogenic underwater sound in the marine environment

    OSPAR Biodivers. Ser.

    (2009)
  • M. André

    Low-frequency sounds induce acoustic trauma in cephalopods

    Front. Ecol. Environ.

    (2011)
  • I.T. Jones

    Impulsive pile driving noise elicits alarm responses in squid (Doryteuthis pealeii)

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2019)
  • L. Roberts et al.

    Finding a home in the noise: cross-modal impact of anthropogenic vibration on animal search behaviour

    Biol. Open

    (2019)
  • R.D. Day

    Seismic air guns damage rock lobster mechanosensory organs and impair righting reflex

    Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.

    (2019)
  • M. Solé

    Evidence of Cnidarians sensitivity to sound after exposure to low frequency underwater sources

    Sci. Rep.

    (2016)
  • M. Solé

    Offshore exposure experiments on cuttlefish indicate received sound pressure and particle motion levels associated with acoustic trauma

    Sci. Rep.

    (2017)
  • A.B. Gill

    Potential interactions between diadromous fishes of U.K. conservation importance and the electromagnetic fields and subsea noise from marine renewable energy developments

    J. Fish Biol.

    (2012)
  • I. Nagelkerken

    Consequences of anthropogenic changes in the sensory landscape of marine animals

  • A. Engås

    Effects of seismic shooting on local abundance and catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)

    Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

    (1996)
  • I. Boyd

    The Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammals: A Draft Research Strategy

    (2008)
  • P.K. McGregor

    Anthropogenic noise and conservation

  • Cited by (46)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    4

    All authors contributed equally to this paper

    @

    Twitter: @UMDScience (A.N. Popper) and @dhigroup (F. Thomsen).

    View full text