Suchergebnisse

This study was partly funded by Beatrice Offshore Wind Ltd. and Moray Offshore Wind Farm (East) Ltd. using equipment previously purchased by UK Department of Energy & Climate Change, Scottish Government, Oil and Gas UK, COWRIE and Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd. P.T. and I.G. were core funded by University of Aberdeen. A.B. was core funded by the collaboration between University of Aberdeen and Marine Scotland Science through the MarCRF PhD studentship. N.M. was core funded by Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Bill Ruck, Moray First Marine and colleagues from the University of Aberdeen for assistance with the data collection. We are also grateful to Drs. Nathan Merchant and Adrian Farcas (CEFAS) for the provision of the data on the noise modeling and their valuable comments during the development of this work. The project benefited at all stages from input provided by the scientific steering groups and stakeholder groups established by UK and Scottish Governments to support the work conducted around these regional oil and gas and renewables projects. FUNDING Financial support for this study was provided through a series of consortia funded projects that involved the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), Scottish Government, Oil and Gas UK Ltd., COWRIE, NatureScot, The Crown Estate, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Beatrice Offshore Wind Ltd., and Moray Offshore Wind Farm (East) Ltd. OFB was funded by the Fundación "la Caixa" (Becas Posgrado, 2015) and their support was greatly appreciated. The authors declare that this study received funding from three commercial developers: Oil and Gas UK Ltd., Beatrice Offshore Wind Ltd., and Moray Offshore Wind Farm (East) Ltd. However, these funding bodies had no input into the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This study was funded by Beatrice Offshore Wind Ltd. (BOWL) using equipment previously purchased by UK Department of Energy & Climate Change, Scottish Government, Oil and Gas UK, COWRIE and Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd. Whilst this study was funded by a commercial developer, Beatrice Offshore Wind Ltd. (BOWL), the funding body had no input into data collection, data analysis or interpretation, or the writing of the paper. Experimental playbacks of ADD were conducted under Animal Licence number 91734 from Scottish Natural Heritage. Moorings for recording devices were licensed by Marine Scotland and consented by the Crown Estate. We thank: MFRAG members for constructive advice; Nick Brockie, Lis Royle, Elizabeth Reynolds and BOWL colleagues for industry data and facilitating fieldwork during windfarm construction; Bill Ruck at Moray First Marine and University of Aberdeen colleagues for support with data collection. We thank Caroline Carter and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on the manuscript. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 746602. GA and SB have been partly funded by Gemini Wind park and the NWO (project ALWPP.2017.003). ; Understanding why animals move as they do when searching for resources is a central question in ecology, and a prerequisite for the development of predictive process-based models for conservation and management. Many species are central-place foragers (CPF). While several models for CPFs have been proposed, they often assume well-defined return rules to the focal point (like breeding). For some CPFs, however, the decisions to return to central sites are governed by multiple interactions between environmental and physiological factors. We present AgentSeal, a behaviour- and physiology-based, spatially explicit, agent-based model. We use harbour seals, a marine CPF, as a case study and focus on individuals outside their breeding and moulting seasons to capture general fine- and large-scale movements and drivers behind CPF. We model movement decisions based on optimal foraging strategy, cognitive and physiological processes in a realistic landscape, coupled with realistic prey distribution and tuned to a range of behavioural and physiological patterns observed at different scales and levels of organisation (pattern-orientated modelling, POM). The model can reproduce energetic, movement and other behavioural patterns such as net energy balance, at-sea and on land site fidelity, daily activity budgets and trip extents. The model reveals the crucial elements needed to model return-trips of CPFs including movement characteristics that vary as a function of local environmental conditions, cognitive mapping of foraging areas as points of attraction in subsequent foraging trips, and physiological requirements defining switches between resting and foraging. We discuss potential applications and extensions of the model, including investigations of fundamental questions in foraging ecology: how spatial distribution and aggregation of resources affect movement of marine CPFs; what are the main drivers behind their at-sea site-fidelity to foraging patches? We also discuss applied objectives such as improving our understanding of population-level consequences of anthropogenic disturbances and ultimately evolving AgentSeal into a practical management tool. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

This project was funded through the DECC Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment Programme using equipment previously purchased by DECC, Scottish Government, Oil and Gas UK, COWRIE and Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd. Scottish Natural Heritage, Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Ltd., MORL, Marine Scotland, The Crown Estate and Highlands and Islands Enterprise all provided funding for photo-identification surveys. Data have been made available in the Dryad repository at https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.g3603. ; The development of risk assessments for the exposure of protected populations to noise from coastal construction is constrained by uncertainty over the nature and extent of marine mammal responses to man-made noise. Stakeholder concern often focuses on the potential for local displacement caused by impact piling, where piles are hammered into the seabed. To mitigate this threat, use of vibration piling, where piles are shaken into place with a vibratory hammer, is often encouraged due to presumed impact reduction. However, data on comparative responses of cetaceans to these different noise sources are lacking. We studied the responses of bottlenose dolphins and harbor porpoises to both impact and vibration pile driving noise during harbor construction works in northeast Scotland, using passive acoustic monitoring devices to record cetacean activity and noise recorders to measure and predict received noise levels. Local abundance and patterns of occurrence of bottlenose dolphins were also compared with a five-year baseline. The median peak-to-peak source level estimated for impact piling was 240 dB re 1 μPa (single-pulse sound exposure level [SEL] 198 dB re 1 μPa2 s), and the r.m.s. source level for vibration piling was 192 dB re 1 μPa. Predicted received broadband SEL values 812 m from the piling site were markedly lower due to high propagation loss: 133.4 dB re 1 μPa2 s (impact) and 128.9 dB re 1 μPa2 s (vibration). Bottlenose dolphins and harbor porpoises were not excluded from sites in the vicinity of impact piling or vibration piling; nevertheless, some small effects were detected. Bottlenose dolphins spent a reduced period of time in the vicinity of construction works during both impact and vibration piling. The probability of occurrence of both cetacean species was also slightly less during periods of vibration piling. This work provides developers and managers with the first evidence of the comparative effects of vibration and impact piling on small cetaceans, enabling more informed risk assessments, policy frameworks, and mitigation plans. In particular, our results emphasize the need for better understanding of noise levels and behavioral responses to vibration piling before recommending its use to mitigate impact piling. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

Acknowledgement This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 746602. GA and SB have been partly funded by Gemini Wind park and the NWO (project ALWPP.2017.003). We would like to thank J. Grecian, D. Thomson, M. Fedak, M. Carter, D. Russell, A. Hall, J. Ransijn, H. Vance and M. Civil for help in model design. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

The collection of visual and acoustic data was funded by the UK Department of Energy & Climate Change, the Scottish Government, Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment (COWRIE) and Oil & Gas UK. Digital aerial surveys were funded by Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd and additional funding for analysis of the combined data sets was provided by Marine Scotland. Collaboration between the University of Aberdeen and Marine Scotland was supported by MarCRF. ; 1. Robust estimates of the density or abundance of cetaceans are required to support a wide range of ecological studies and inform management decisions. Considerable effort has been put into the development of line-transect sampling techniques to obtain estimates of absolute density from aerial- and boat-based visual surveys. Surveys of cetaceans using acoustic loggers or digital cameras provide alternative methods to estimate relative density that have the potential to reduce cost and provide a verifiable record of all detections. However, the ability of these methods to provide reliable estimates of relative density has yet to be established. 2. These methodologies were compared by conducting aerial visual line-transect surveys (n = 10 days) and digital video strip-transect surveys (n = 4 days) in the Moray Firth, Scotland. Simultaneous acoustic data were collected from moored echolocation detectors (C-PODs) at 58 locations across the study site. Density surface modelling (DSM) of visual survey data was used to estimate spatial variation in relative harbour porpoise density on a 4 × 4 km grid. DSM was also performed on the digital survey data, and the resulting model output compared to that from visual survey data. Estimates of relative density from visual surveys around acoustic monitoring sites were compared with several metrics previously used to characterise variation in acoustic detections of echolocation clicks. 3. There was a strong correlation between estimates of relative density from visual surveys and digital video surveys (Spearman's ρ = 0·85). A correction to account for animals missed on the transect line [previously calculated for visual aerial surveys of harbour porpoise in the North Sea was used to convert relative density from the visual surveys to absolute density. This allowed calculation of the first estimate of a proxy for detection probability in digital video surveys, suggesting that 61% (CV = 0·53) of harbour porpoises were detected. There was also a strong correlation between acoustic detections and density with Spearman's ρ = 0·73 for detection positive hours. 4. These results provide confidence in the emerging use of digital video and acoustic surveys for studying the density of small cetaceans and their responses to environmental and anthropogenic change. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Erik Rexstad and Rob Williams for useful reviews of this manuscript. The collection of visual and acoustic data was funded by the UK Department of Energy & Climate Change, the Scottish Government, Collaborative Offshore Wind Research into the Environment (COWRIE) and Oil & Gas UK. Digital aerial surveys were funded by Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd and additional funding for analysis of the combined datasets was provided by Marine Scotland. Collaboration between the University of Aberdeen and Marine Scotland was supported by MarCRF. We thank colleagues at the University of Aberdeen, Moray First Marine, NERI, Hi-Def Aerial Surveying Ltd and Ravenair for essential support in the field, particularly Tim Barton, Bill Ruck, Rasmus Nielson and Dave Rutter. Thanks also to Andy Webb, David Borchers, Len Thomas, Kelly McLeod, David L. Miller, Dinara Sadykova and Thomas Cornulier for advice on survey design and statistical approache. Data Accessibility Data are available from the Dryad Digital Repository: http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.cf04g ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was funded through the DECC Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment Programme using equipment previously purchased by DECC, Scottish Government, Oil and Gas UK, COW-RIE and Moray Offshore Renewables Ltd. Scottish Natural Heritage, Beatrice Offshore Windfarm Ltd., MORL, Marine Scotland, The Crown Estate and Highlands and Islands Enterprise all provided funding for photo-identification surveys. We thank Bill Ruck and col-leagues from University of Aberdeen and Moray First Marine for fieldwork support, and Global Energy, Cromarty Firth Port Authority, and other local stakeholders for information on the construction program. John Hartley, Francesca Marubini, and two anonymous reviewers kindly provided comments on the manuscript. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF