Use ‘soft start’ procedures to deter marine and freshwater mammals to reduce noise exposure

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    55%
  • Certainty
    36%
  • Harms
    10%

Source countries

Key messages

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES)

  • Behaviour change (3 studies): One study in various water bodies around the UK found that a greater proportion of cetaceans (including whales, dolphins and porpoise) avoided or moved away from vessels during ‘soft start’ procedures with seismic airguns compared to when airguns were not firing. One study in the South Atlantic Ocean found that during ‘soft start’ procedures using seismic airguns, a pod of short-finned whales initially moved away but remained within 900 m of the vessel as it passed by. One study in the South Pacific Ocean found that during ‘soft-start’ procedures with a small experimental airgun array, migrating humpback whales slowed their speed towards the vessel but did not significantly alter their course.

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 study in 2008 in a pelagic area in the South Atlantic Ocean, Gabon (Weir 2008) found that during a ‘soft start’ procedure using seismic airguns, a pod of short-finned whales Globicephala macrorhynchus changed course and travelled in the opposite direction to the seismic vessel for several minutes before milling at the water surface or travelling parallel to the vessel. Prior to the ‘soft start’ procedure, a pod of 15 short-finned whales was observed travelling steadily northeast for 24 minutes towards the seismic vessel. Nine minutes after the ‘soft start’ procedure commenced, the whales changed course by 180° and travelled southeast away from the vessel. Three minutes later, the whales were observed milling at the water surface or travelling parallel to the vessel as it passed their location within 900 m. In March 2008, a seismic survey was conducted using a single airgun array (consisting of six airgun strings) towed at a depth of 8.5 m and a speed of 4–5 knots y a 90-m vessel. An automated ‘soft start’ procedure was used with additional airgun signals added every 51 seconds during a 30-minute period. The whale pod was located 900 m away when the ‘soft start’ commenced. An observer on board the survey vessel recorded the position and behaviour of the 15 whales for 24 minutes before and 30 minutes during the ‘soft start’ procedure.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A study in 2011 of a pelagic area in the South Pacific Ocean off the east coast of Australia (Dunlop et al. 2016) found that during ‘soft start’ procedures using seismic airguns, migrating humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae groups slowed their speed but did not significantly alter their course. Overall, migrating humpback whale groups swam more slowly as they approached a vessel during ‘soft start’ procedures compared to before ‘soft starts’ (data reported as statistical model results). However, whale groups did not significantly alter their course during ‘soft starts’. The authors reported a similar response by whale groups to vessels without airguns firing (see original paper for details). During each of 22 trials, a ‘soft start’ procedure was carried out by a 28-m vessel towing a small experimental airgun array (six 20–150 cubic inch air guns) at a speed of 7.4 km/h across a humpback whale migration path. Airguns were progressively activated (at 2,000 psi) during four stages, in which the sound exposure level was increased in steps of 6 dB. Migrating whale groups (1–3 whales) were tracked with a theodolite from two land-based stations and observed from three small research vessels for 1-h before and 30-minutes during the ‘soft start’ procedure during each of the 22 trials in September–October 2011.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A study in 1994–2010 of multiple pelagic areas around the UK (Stone et al. 2017) found that during ‘soft start’ procedures, a greater proportion of cetaceans avoided or moved away from survey vessels compared to when airguns were not firing. A greater proportion of cetaceans (including whales, dolphins, and porpoises) avoided or moved away from survey vessels during ‘soft start’ procedures (200 of 975; 21%) than with no airguns firing (98 of 975; 10%). The same was true when the data were analysed separately for dolphins (Delphinidae) (‘soft start’: 92 of 484, 19%; not firing: 39 of 484, 8%) and Lagenorhynchus spp. only (‘soft start’: 46 of 186, 25%; not firing: 15 of 186, 8%). Data were extracted from reports made by Marine Mammal Observers on board seismic survey vessels in 1994–2010. Observations were made of marine mammals during ‘soft start’ procedures with large airgun arrays (≥50 cubic inch total volume) and during periods when airguns were not firing.

    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 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, 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