Use acoustic devices to deter marine and freshwater mammals from an area to reduce noise exposure

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    65%
  • Certainty
    60%
  • Harms
    20%

Study locations

Key messages

  • Four studies evaluated the effects of using acoustic devices to deter marine and freshwater mammals from an area to reduce noise exposure. Two studies were in the North Sea (Germany), one study was in the Great Belt (Denmark) and one was in Faxaflói Bay (Iceland).

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES)

  • Behaviour change (4 studies): Three studies (including two controlled and one before-and-after study) in the North Sea and the Great Belt found that using acoustic devices to deter mammals from an area at a wind farm construction site or pelagic sites reduced the activity and sightings of harbour porpoises at distances of 1–18 km from the devices. One before-and-after study in Faxaflói Bay found that when an acoustic device was deployed from a boat, minke whales swam away from the device, increased their swimming speed, and swam more directly.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A controlled study in 2009 of a pelagic area in the North Sea, Germany (Brandt et al. 2013) found that deploying an active acoustic device reduced harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena echolocation activity and sightings at distances up to 7.5 km from the device. The average percentage of minutes/h with porpoise activity was lower with the acoustic device turned on than turned off at distances of 0 m (0.1% vs 2.6% respectively), 750 m (0.6% vs 4%), 3 km (2.5% vs 10.2%) and 7.5 km (0.1% vs 3.1%) from the device. The difference was not significant at 1.5 km (1.1% vs 2.4%) or 5 km (0.8% vs 0.9%). Fewer porpoises were observed in the study area with the device turned on (average 0.3 porpoises/km2) than off (average 4 porpoises/km2). In July–November 2009, an acoustic device (Lofitech Seal Scarer) was tested by deploying it from an anchored boat 80 km offshore, 7–10 m below the water surface. The device was turned on (emitting 0.5 second pulses at a frequency of 14 kHz) for 10 x 4-h trials, each separated by at least four days with the device turned off (silent). Sixteen acoustic detectors arranged in a star pattern recorded porpoise echolocation clicks at distances of 0 m, 750 m, 1.5 km, 3 km, and 7.5 km from the acoustic device. Data were compared for 3 h before and 3 h during each of the 10 trials. On 10 August 2009, two observers recorded porpoise sightings along 30 aerial transects over a 990 km2 area before and after the acoustic device was turned on.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A randomized, controlled study in 2010–2011 of a pelagic site in the Great Belt, Denmark (Brandt et al. 2013) found that when an active acoustic device was deployed, fewer harbour porpoises Phocoena phocoena were sighted within 1 km of the device. The average number of porpoise sightings was lower with the acoustic device turned on than turned off at distances of 0–150 m (0 vs 2 sightings/4h respectively), 151–450 m (0 vs 8 sightings/h) and 451–1,000 m (0.3 vs 20 sightings/h) from the device. Six porpoises also avoided the active device at distances of 1.1–2.4 km, and six porpoises had no obvious reaction at distances of 2.1–3.3 km (see original paper for details). In May–August 2010, an acoustic device (Lofitech Seal Scarer) was tested by deploying it from an anchored boat 150 m offshore, 4 m below the surface in water 2–15 m deep. The device was randomly turned on (emitting 0.6 second pulses at 14.5 kHz with random pauses of <1–90 seconds) or off (silent) during a total of seven and four days respectively. Porpoises within 1 km were observed and tracked with a theodolite from a cliff. Additional observations were made during three days in September 2010 and one day in August 2011, in which the device was deployed 1.1–3.3 km offshore and activated for 15 x 5-minute intervals.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A before-and-after study in 2013 at a wind farm construction site in the North Sea, Germany (Dähne et al. 2017) found that using acoustic devices reduced harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena activity prior to pile driving within 18 km of the site. At distances of 1.5–12 km and 15–18 km from the site, the average percentage of minutes with porpoise clicks detected was lower during periods in which acoustic devices were used (1.5–12 km: 1–5%; 15–18 km: 3%) compared to before devices were used (1.5–12 km: 4–7%; 15–18 km: 5%). At distances of 12–15 km, the difference was not significant (before: 4%; during: 3%). In February–December 2013, acoustic devices were used during 0.5–4 h periods prior to pile driving for 80 wind turbine foundations. Acoustic devices were Aquatec AQUAmark 100 pingers (emitting sounds at 20–160 kHz) and a Lofitech Seal Scrammer (emitting 0.5 second sounds at 14 kHz). Twelve acoustic detectors placed 1–31 km from the site recorded porpoise echolocation clicks for periods before (3 h) and during acoustic device use (0.5–4 h) for each of the 80 foundations.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A before-and-after study in 2016 of a pelagic area in Faxaflói Bay, Iceland (McGarry et al. 2017) found that when an acoustic device was deployed, minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata swam away from the device, increased their swimming speed and swam more directly than before the device was deployed, although two of seven returned to the area soon after the device was turned off. All of 15 minke whales swam away from the acoustic device during 15 minutes in which it was active. The average swimming speed of the 15 tracked whales was greater while the device was active (15 km/h) than before (8 km/h), and the whales swam more directly (data reported as directness indices). Two of seven whales tracked for 30 minutes after the device was turned off returned to the area within 10–15 minutes. In August–September 2012, an acoustic device (Lofitech Seal Scarer) was deployed at a potential wind farm site during 15 trials from a 4.2-m rigid inflatable boat at distances of 300–1,500 m from minke whales. During each trial, the device was turned on (emitting 500 ms pulses at random intervals and frequencies of 10–20 kHz) for 15 minutes. Each of 15 whales was tracked from a research vessel using a video system for 45 minutes before, 15 minutes during and 30 minutes after (seven whales only) the device was activated.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Berthinussen, A., Smith, R.K. and Sutherland, W.J. (2021) Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Conservation Evidence Series Synopses. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation
Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Conservation - Published 2021

Marine and Freshwater Mammal Synopsis

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust