Dr Jason Krumholz 1 Dr Dave Hudson 2 Darby Pochtar 3 Natasha Dickenson 4 Dr Georges Dossot 4 Ed Baker 5 Tara Moll 4 1 McLaughlin Research Corporation Middletown RI ID: 809572
Download The PPT/PDF document "An Analysis of Potential Impacts from Si..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
An Analysis of Potential Impacts from Simulated Vessel Noise and Sonar on Commercially Important Invertebrates
Dr. Jason Krumholz1, Dr. Dave Hudson2, Darby Pochtar3, Natasha Dickenson4, Dr. Georges Dossot4, Ed Baker5 , Tara Moll41McLaughlin Research Corporation, Middletown, RI2 The Maritime Aquarium at Norwalk, Norwalk CT3University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI4 Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Newport, RI5 University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography, Narragansett, RI
Slide2Background
Invertebrates “hear” at 10-1000 Hz* but may “feel” vibration and presssure from other frequencies*. Previous research* indicates sublethal impacts such as:StressDisruption in feedingSluggish return to shelterIncreased energy expenditure
Potentially
additive for species already facing population stress from fisheries
Noise Level
A
bove Ambient (dB re 1µPa @1m, 60 Hz)
*Celi et al. 2015; Filiciotto et al. 2014; Popper et al. 2001;Wale et al. 2013; Edmonds et al. 2016
Reduced Fitness
NOAA, 2012
Slide3The Players:
Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus)American Lobster (Homarus americanus) Present along much of US east coast, along with heavy maritime trafficEstablished methods for assessing behavioral (activity/shelter) and physiological (stress) response
DM Hudson 2017
DM Hudson 2017
Slide4Tank Design
Common design: source on one side, and hydrophone on the otherMore “natural” BUTUneven sound field edge effectspeaks and nulls from reflection“Standing wave tube” design:More uniform sound field
Can quantify both sound pressure and particle motion
Source
Cameras
4 replicate enclosures
From
C
eli
et al. 2015
Slide5Acoustic
Signals
Source
Cameras
4 replicate enclosures
From
C
eli
et al. 2015
Low frequency
–
simulated merchant vessel noise, broadband with significant mechanical-borne harmonics (e.g. 60 Hz). Signals transmitted from a USRD
*
J-11 acoustic projector
.
SPL
of 169-172 dB re 1µPa.
Mid-frequency
–
Repetitious pulsed tones at 1667 Hz and chirps between 2.5-4 kHz with one second duration. Signals transmitted from a
Lubbell
Labs source
.
SPL
of 177-182 dB re 1µPa.
Animals were exposed to two types of transmissions:
*
Underwater Sound Reference Division
Slide6Pen
At low frequencies (below 1 kHz), sound field is uniformAbove 1 kHz, sound field is more complex, including nulls
Pen
Tank Sound Field
Slide7Exposure Treatments
Animals acclimated, exposed (1hr), then monitoredTreatments: ControlBoat Noise Mid Frequency PART 1: Animals measured for:Acute activity/shelter use (Ethovision XT) Physiology (0-7 days, HSP 27, Glucose)PART 2: Interspecific competitionBlue and green crabs only
Behavior analysis (Ethovision
XT)
opaque shelter
Slide8Part 1: Acute Activity Level
C. sapidus One-way ANOVA, p = 0.05aaaa,bba
Slide9Glucose
One-way ANOVA, p = 0.0193One-way ANOVA, p = 0.00357aaaabab
bb
b
b
c
Slide10Glucose
One-way ANOVA, p < 0.001aaaa,cbaaa,b
a
b
b
c
Slide11Part 1: Results Summary
BEHAVIOR: Boat noise = reduced activity significant for C. sapidusHSP 27: no differences, either speciesGLUCOSE:Elevated at 0H, and subsequently decreasing in controls Boat noise = Elevated stress after 24H significant for C. sapidus BOTH SPECIES, strong response to MF @ 7 days
Slide12Part 2: Blue Crab/Green Crab Competition
Assessed interspecific interactions between vessel noise exposed and control blue crabs in the presence of unexposed green crabs Why expose only blue crabs?Blue crabs are broadly distributed(water column, deep channels, intertidal)Green crabs are more commonly found in shallow, intertidal areasBoat noise at potentially damaging levels (>130 dB) does not propagate farBlue crabs are more likely to be exposed toboat noise than green crabs
Slide13Part 2: Methods
H0: Boat noise exposure will not cause a shift in blue crab behavior when presented with a natural competitor Ha: Exposure to boat noise will alter how the blue crabs respond to a competition scenario
Green
Crab
Food
50.8 cm
50.8 cm
S
helter26.7 cm
Blue
Crab
* Not to scale
Slide14Behavioral Observations
Slide15Behavioral Changes in Blue Crab due to Boat Noise Exposure
***One-way ANOVA = p < 0.05
Slide16Part 2: Results Summary
Behavioral impacts with exposure to boat noise include:Increase in aggressive behavior Decrease in feeding behavior Reduced locomotion during testing (significant for C. sapidus only)Behavioral shift could result in decreased fitness
Slide17Future Work:
Acute vs. Chronic
Improve understanding of 7-day glucose spike
Study physiological and behavioral response to long term exposure
Acute response
: crab eventually has ‘normal’ behavior again
Chronic response
: the shift in behavior persists
Slide18Acknowledgements
United States Fleet Forces Command, Laura BuschJoe Iafrate, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division NewportCandace Oviatt, University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography Lisa Kaplan, Quinnipiac UniversityBrianne Neptin, University of Rhode Island
Slide19BACKUP SLIDES
Slide20Methods
Exposure conducted similar to previous experiment 24 hours later, the competition experiments were performed:Acclimated for 1 hour1 hour trialVideo recorded (GoPro) and behaviors categorized with EthovisionXTTrial Setup:Food in one corner and shelter in opposite cornerMatched pairs based on wet weightHypothesis
H0: Boat noise exposure will not cause a shift in blue crab behavior when presented with a natural competitor
H
a
:
Exposure
to boat noise will alter how the blue crabs respond to a competition scenario
Slide21Acoustic pressure levels
Low frequency: Levels 60-1000 Hz show a relatively uniform broadband sound field. Frequency variability on the order of 5 dB.
Mid-frequency
: Chirps vary between 177-182 dB re 1µPa over the exposure area
Sweep/ chirp transitions through a frequency range, which levels out pressure levels over the exposure area.
Slide22Objectives
Create a uniform exposure zone suitable for the biological study’s requirements
Base the tank geometry around a standing wave tube approach
Empirically quantify the acoustic pressure and particle acceleration fields the crustaceans were exposed to.
Methods
Spatially quantify the sound field and in terms of pressure and particle motion between 60Hz and 4
kHz for the entire tank
Measure the acoustic pressure at maximum exposure levels using an F42 reference phone.
Measure the pressure and particle acceleration fields using an acoustic vector sensor
A comprehensive understanding of the sound field employed during exposure trials
Acoustic measurements
5 cm sampling grid!
Slide23Low-frequency pressure and particle motion
Radial dependenceAcoustic vector sensor measurements taken at the pen height, providing acoustic pressure and particle acceleration levels. Source level adjusted for measurement purposes (not indicative of exposure levels). Particle velocity calculated by integrating accelerometer signals. At low frequencies the acoustic wavelength is less than tank diameter. Therefore the acoustic field varies similar to a standing wave tube. Particle acceleration levels at the pen height are stable.
Slide24Low-frequency pressure and particle motion
Vertical dependenceAcoustic vector sensor measurements taken along the vertical dimension of the tank, providing acoustic pressure and particle acceleration levels. Source level adjusted for measurement purposes (not indicative of exposure levels). Particle velocity calculated by integrating accelerometer signals. At low frequencies the acoustic wavelength is less than tank diameter. Therefore the acoustic field varies similar to a standing wave tube. Particle acceleration levels at the pen (35 cm) height are stable. Pen
Slide25Mid-frequency pressure and particle motion
Radial dependenceAcoustic vector sensor measurements taken at the pen height, providing acoustic pressure and particle acceleration levels. Source level adjusted for measurement purposes (not indicative of exposure levels). Particle velocity calculated by integrating accelerometer signals. At mid-frequencies the acoustic wavelength is comparable or shorter than the tank diameter. Therefore the acoustic field varies much more dramatically. Several acoustic modes may exist.
Slide26Mid-frequency pressure and particle motion
Vertical dependenceAcoustic vector sensor measurements taken along the vertical dimension of the tank, providing acoustic pressure and particle acceleration levels. Source level adjusted for measurement purposes (not indicative of exposure levels). Particle velocity calculated by integrating accelerometer signals. PenAt mid-frequencies the acoustic wavelength is comparable or shorter than the tank diameter. Therefore the acoustic field varies much more dramatically. Several acoustic modes may exist.
Slide27Collection Area
Collected crabs from marsh off Galilee Escape Rd, Narragansett RI