Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T07:58:52.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) presence, abundance and distribution over the Dogger Bank, North Sea, in winter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2016

A.-C. Cucknell ,
O. Boisseau ,
R. Leaper ,
R. McLanaghan  and
A. Moscrop
A.-C. Cucknell*
Affiliation:
Song of the Whale team, Marine Conservation Research International, 94 High Street, Kelvedon CO5 9AA, UK
O. Boisseau
Affiliation:
Song of the Whale team, Marine Conservation Research International, 94 High Street, Kelvedon CO5 9AA, UK
R. Leaper
Affiliation:
International Fund for Animal Welfare, 87–90 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7UD, UK
R. McLanaghan
Affiliation:
Song of the Whale team, Marine Conservation Research International, 94 High Street, Kelvedon CO5 9AA, UK
A. Moscrop
Affiliation:
Song of the Whale team, Marine Conservation Research International, 94 High Street, Kelvedon CO5 9AA, UK
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: A.-C. Cucknell, Song of the Whale team, Marine Conservation Research International, 94 High Street, Kelvedon CO5 9AA, UK email: acucknell@mcr-team.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An area in the central North Sea was surveyed in November 2011 in order to estimate the abundance and density of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). A total of 2833 km of pre-determined trackline were acoustically surveyed, of which 28% included visual effort. The poor sighting conditions during the survey limited visual effort and demonstrated the advantage of using acoustic techniques for studying harbour porpoise in winter months. Absolute abundance and density estimates were calculated from acoustic encounter rates using estimates of probability of detection and mean group size. The density of harbour porpoises in the west of the survey area was almost double that in the east, with UK waters to the south-west of the Dogger Bank having the highest density of the area surveyed. The overall acoustic encounter rate was higher than most other surveys in the North Sea. The mean density across the survey area of 0.63 (95% CI 0.27–1.52) individuals km−2 and distribution of porpoises was similar to that documented in the summer suggesting that high abundance of harbour porpoises in the west of the North Sea is not confined to summer months. This information is particularly relevant given plans for the construction of a large offshore wind farm on the UK section of the Dogger Bank; the resulting impacts, including acoustic disturbance from pile driving, will potentially affect substantial numbers of harbour porpoises.

Keywords

acoustic surveyvisual surveydistance samplingpopulation
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 97 , Issue 7 , November 2017 , pp. 1455 - 1465
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Akamatsu, T., Hatakeyama, Y., Kojima, T. and Soeda, H. (1994) Echolocation rates of two harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Marine Mammal Science 10, 401–411.Google Scholar
Akamatsu, T., Teilmann, J., Miller, L.A., Tougaard, J., Dietz, R., Wang, D., Wang, K., Siebert, U. and Naito, Y. (2007) Comparison of echolocation behaviour between coastal and riverine porpoises. Deep-Sea Research II 54, 290–297.Google Scholar
Benke, H., Siebert, U., Lick, R., Bandomir-Krischak, B. and Weiss, R. (1998) The current status of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in German waters. Archive of Fisheries and Marine Research 46, 97–123.Google Scholar
Boisseau, O., Matthews, J.N., Gillespie, D., Lacey, C., Moscrop, A. and El Ouamari, N. (2007) A visual and acoustic survey for harbour porpoises off North-West Africa: further evidence of a discrete population. African Journal of Marine Science 29, 403–410.Google Scholar
Brandt, M., Diederichs, A., Betke, K. and Nehls, G. (2011) Responses of harbour porpoises to pile driving at the Horns Rev II offshore wind farm in the Danish North Sea. Marine Ecological Progress Series 421, 205–216.Google Scholar
Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P. and Laake, J.P. (1993) Distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., Laake, J.L., Borchers, D.L. and Thomas, L. (2001) Introduction to distance sampling: estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Camphuysen, C.J. (2004) The return of the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in Dutch coastal waters. Lutra 47, 113–122.Google Scholar
Carstensen, J., Henriksen, O.D. and Teilmann, J. (2006) Impacts of offshore wind farm construction on harbour porpoises: acoustic monitoring of echolocation activity using porpoise detectors (T-PODs). Marine Ecological Progress Series 321, 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CEFAS, , (2007) Multispecies fisheries management: a comprehensive impact assessment of the sand eel fishery along the English East Coast. CEFAS Contract Report MF0323/01.Google Scholar
Dähne, M., Gilles, A., Lucke, K., Peschko, V., Adler, S., Krügel, K., Sundermeyer, J. and Siebert, U. (2013) Effects of pile-driving on harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) at the first offshore wind farm in Germany. Environmental Research Letters 8, art. 025002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/025002.Google Scholar
Deurs, M.v., Hal, R.v., Henrik, J., Tomczak, M. and Dolmer, P. (2009) A spatially and temporally explicit analysis of beam-trawling on sandeel fishing grounds in the North Sea. INEXFISH: North Atlantic Case Study, Appendix 1.Google Scholar
Forewind (2012) Dogger Bank Creyke Beck Environmental Statement, Chapter 13. Appendix E – Dogger Bank Sandeel Survey Reports. DBSS01.Google Scholar
Forewind (2013) Draft Environmental Statement. Chapter 14, Marine Mammals.Google Scholar
Geelhoed, S.C.V., Scheidat, M., van Bemmelen, R.S.A. and Aarts, G. (2013) Abundance of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) on the Dutch Continental Shelf, aerial surveys in July 2010–March 2011. Lutra 56, 45–57.Google Scholar
Geelhoed, S.C.V., van Bemmelen, R.S.A. and Verdaat, J.P. (2014) Marine mammal surveys in the wider Dogger Bank area summer 2013. Research Report IMARES Wageningen UR – Institute for Marine Resources & Ecosystem Studies, Report No. C016/14.Google Scholar
Gilles, A., Adler, S., Kaschner, K., Scheidat, M. and Siebert, U. (2011a) Modelling of harbour porpoise seasonal density as a function of the German Bight environment: implications for management. Endangered Species Research 14, 157–169.Google Scholar
Gilles, A., Peschko, V., Scheidat, M. and Siebert, U. (2012) Survey for small cetaceans over the Dogger Bank and adjacent areas in summer 2011. Document submitted to 19th ASCOBANS Advisory Committee Meeting, Document AC19/5–08.Google Scholar
Gilles, A., Peschko, V. and Siebert, U. (2011b) Monitoringbericht 2010–2011. Marine Saeugetiere und Seevoegel in der deutschen AWZ von Nord- und Ostsee. Teilbericht marine Saeugetiere – Visuelle Erfassung von Schweinswalen und akustische Erfassung im Seegebiet Doggerbank. Endbericht für das Bundesamt für Naturschutz, pp. 5–73 (plus Anhang).Google Scholar
Gilles, A., Scheidat, M. and Siebert, U. (2009) Seasonal distribution of harbour porpoises and possible interference of offshore wind farms in the German North Sea. Marine Ecological Progress Series 383, 295–307.Google Scholar
Gillespie, D., Berggren, P., Brown, S., Kuklik, I., Lacey, C., Lewis, T., Matthews, J.N., McLanaghan, R., Moscrop, A. and Tregenza, N. (2005) Relative abundance of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from acoustic and visual surveys of the Baltic Sea and adjacent waters during 2001 and 2002. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 7, 51–57.Google Scholar
Gillespie, D., Mellinger, D.K., Gordon, J., McLaren, D., Pedmond, P., McHugh, R., Trinder, P., Deng, X.-Y. and Thode, A. (2009) PAMGUARD: semi-automated, open source software for real-time acoustic detection and localisation of cetaceans. Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 71, 87–100.Google Scholar
Haelters, J., Kerckhof, F., Jacques, T.G. and Degracer, S. (2011) The harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena in the Belgian part of the North Sea: trends in abundance and distribution. Belgian Journal of Zoology 141, 75–84.Google Scholar
Hammond, P.S., Benke, H., Berggren, P., Borchers, D.L., Buckland, S.T., Collet, A., Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., Heimlich-Boran, S., Hiby, A.R., Leopold, M.F. and Øien, N. (2002) Abundance of harbor porpoise and other cetaceans in the North Sea and adjacent waters. Journal of Applied Ecology 39, 361–376.Google Scholar
Hammond, P.S., Macleod, K., Berggren, P., Borchers, D.L., Burt, L., Cañadas, A., Desportes, G., Donovan, G.P., Gilles, A., Gillespie, D., Gordon, J., Hiby, L., Kuklik, I., Leaper, R., Lehnert, K., Leopold, M., Lovell, P., Øien, N., Paxton, C.G.M., Ridoux, V., Rogan, E., Samarra, F., Scheidat, M., Sequiera, M., Siebert, U., Skov, H., Swift, R., Tasker, M.L., Teilmann, J., Van Canneyt, O. and Vázquez, J.A. (2013) Cetacean abundance and distribution in European Atlantic shelf waters to inform conservation and management. Biological Conservation 164, 107–122.Google Scholar
Hastie, G.D., Swift, R.J., Slesser, G., Thompson, P.M. and Turrell, W.R. (2005) Environmental models for predicting oceanic dolphin habitat in the Northeast Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62, 760–770.Google Scholar
Herr, H., Fock, H.O. and Siebert, U. (2009) Spatio-temporal associations between harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and specific fisheries in the German Bight. Biological Conservation 142, 2962–2972.Google Scholar
Herr, H., Gilles, A., Scheidat, M. and Siebert, U. (2005) Distribution of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the German North Sea in relation to density of sea traffic. 12th ASCOBANS Advisory Committee Meeting in Brest, France 2005. Document AC12/Doc 8, 1–6.Google Scholar
Holland, G.J., Greenstreet, S.P.R., Gibb, I.M., Fraser, H.M. and Robertson, M.R. (2005) Identifying sandeel, Ammodytes marinus, sediment habitat preferences in the marine environment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 303, 269–282.Google Scholar
JNCC (2011) Offshore Special Area of Conservation: Dogger Bank. SAC Selection Assessment # 9.0 (26 August 2011).Google Scholar
Kunzlik, P.A., Gauld, J.A. and Hutchenon, J.R. (1986) Preliminary results of the Scottish sandeel tagging project. ICES Conference and Meeting documents 1986/G-7.Google Scholar
Linnenschmidt, M., Teilmann, J., Akamatsu, T., Dietz, R. and Miller, L.A. (2013) Biosonar, dive and foraging activity of satellite tracked harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Marine Mammal Science 29, 77–97.Google Scholar
Macleod, C.D., Santos, M.B., Reid, R.J., Scott, B.E. and Pierce, G.J. (2007) Linking sandeel consumption and the likelihood of starvation in harbour porpoises in the Scottish North Sea: could climate change mean more starving porpoises? Biology Letters 3, 185–188.Google Scholar
Møhl, B. and Anderson, S. (1973) Echolocation: high-frequency component in the click of the harbor porpoise (Phocoena ph. L). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 54, 1368–1373.Google Scholar
Nielsen, T.G., Løkkegaard, B., Richardson, K., Pedersen, F.B. and Hasen, L. (1993) Structure of plankton communities in the Dogger Bank area (North Sea) during a stratified situation. Marine Ecological Progress Series 95, 115–131.Google Scholar
Papandreou-Suppappola, A. and Antonelli, L. (2001) Use of quadratic time-frequency representations to analyze cetacean mammal sounds. Newport, Rhode Island: NUWC-NPT Technical Report.Google Scholar
Peschko, V., Ronnenberg, K., Siebert, U. and Gilles, A. (2016) Trends of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) density in the southern North Sea. Ecological Indicators 60, 174–183.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Richman, N.I., Gibbons, J.M., Turvey, S.T., Akamatsu, T., Ahmed, B., Mahabub, E., Smith, B.D. and Jones, J.P.G. (2014) To see or not to see: investigating detectability of Ganges River dolphins using a combined visual-acoustic survey. PLoS ONE 9, e96811.Google Scholar
Santos, M.B. and Pierce, G.J. (2003) The diet of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the northeast Atlantic. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 41, 355–390.Google Scholar
SMart Wind (2013) Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm Project One, Environmental Statement Volume 5-Offshore Annexes. Annex 5.4.1 Marine Mammal Technical Report.Google Scholar
Teilmann, J. (2003) Influence of sea state on density estimation of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 5, 85–92.Google Scholar
Teilmann, J. and Carstensen, J. (2012) Negative long term effects on harbour porpoises from a large scale offshore wind farm in the Baltic – evidence of slow recovery. Environmental Research Letters 7, 045101. doi:10.1088/1748–9326/7/4/045101.Google Scholar
Teilmann, J., Miller, L.A., Kirketerp, T., Kastelein, R.A., Madsen, P.T., Nielsen, B.K. and Au, W.W.L. (2002) Characteristics of echolocation signals used by a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in a target detection experiment. Aquatic Mammals 28, 275–284.Google Scholar
Teilmann, J., Sveegaard, S., Dietz, R., Petersen, I.K., Berggren, P. and Desportes, G. (2008) High density areas for harbour porpoises in Danish waters. National Environmental Research Institute Technical Report no. 657, University of Aarhus, Denmark, 84 pp.Google Scholar
Thomas, L., Laake, J.L., Rexstad, E., Strindberg, S., Marques, F.F.C., Buckland, S.T., Borchers, D.L., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., Burt, M.L., Hedley, S.L., Pollard, J.H., Bishop, J.R.B. and Marques, T.A. (2009) Distance 6.0. Release “2”. Research Unit for Wildlife Population Assessment, University of St. Andrews, UK. http://www.ruwpa.st-and.ac.uk/distance/ Google Scholar
Thomsen, F., Laczny, M. and Piper, W. (2006) A recovery of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the southern North Sea? A case study off Eastern Frisia, Germany. Helgoland Marine Research 60, 189–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, V.L.G., Pearse, W.D., Tregenza, N.C., Lepper, P.A. and Todd, I.B. (2009) Diel echolocation activity of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) around North Sea offshore gas installations. ICES Journal of Marine Science 66, 734–745.Google Scholar
Tougaard, J., Carstensen, J., Teilmann, J. and Rasmussen, P. (2009) Pile driving zone of responsiveness extends beyond 20 km for harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena (L.)). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126, 11–14. doi:org/10.1121/1.3132523.Google Scholar
Umweltbundesamt (2011) Empfehlung von Lärmschutzwerten bei der Errichtung von OffshoreWindenergieanlagen (OWEA). Umweltbundesamt Dessau, Germany, 6 pp. http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/4118.pdf (15.11.2012).Google Scholar
Verfuβ, U., Miller, L.A. and Schnitzler, H.-U. (2005) Spatial orientation in echolocating harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Journal of Experimental Biology 208, 3385–3394.Google Scholar
Villadsgaard, A., Wahlberg, M. and Tougaard, J. (2007) Echolocation signals of wild harbor porpoises, Phocoena phocoena . Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 56–64.Google Scholar
Vinther, M. and Larsen, F. (2004) Updated estimates of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) bycatch in the Danish North Sea bottom-set gillnet fishery. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 6, 19–24.Google Scholar
Viquerat, S., Herr, H., Gilles, A., Peschko, V., Siebert, U., Sveegaard, S. and Teilmann, J. (2014) Abundance of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the western Baltic, Belt Seas and Kattegat. Marine Biology 161, 745–754. doi: 10.1007/s00227-013-2374-6.Google Scholar
Wright, P.J., Jensen, H. and Tuck, I. (2000) The influence of sediment type on the distribution of the lesser sandeel, Ammodytes marinus . Journal of Sea Research 44, 243–256.Google Scholar