cCMB FUTURE SCIENCE BRIEF
Dose-response assessment — Chapter 3
Much knowledge has been gained in the past 13 years on noise
effects, especially on behavioural responses in marine mammals,
*hanks to ground-breaking technology, large-scale and coordinated
Aeld efforts, and targeted funding. However, our understanding
of effects on fishes and especially invertebrates is lagging behind.
Important gaps remain in our knowledge on health effects of noise
across all taxa. Finally, we have extremely limited understanding
GAP / BARRIER
Effects of noise on fish and invertebrates.
Understanding the hearing capabilities of baleen whales, fish and
invertebrate species.
Masking
Physiological and physical effects of noise exposure and its impacts on
the health of marine organisms.
Ecosvystem effects of noise / Cumulative impacts
Risk characterization — Chapter 3
Since the Position Paper by Boyd et al., (2008), there has been an
intense effort to further develop and apply practical frameworks to
estimate the biological consequences of noise exposure. Cumulative
impact assessments should be undertaken strategically with a long-
GAP / BARRIER
The mechanisms for, and biological consequences of, displacement/
behavioural change in marine mammals and fishes due to exposure to
high-intensity impulsive sound (e.g. pile-driving and airguns).
Cumulative impacts
about the population consequences of noise impacts. In this
context we need to refocus our attention to ecosystem effects of
noise, i.e. how does noise affect the different components of the
food web, such as invertebrates and fishes that can then in turn
affect marine mammals? The list of gaps and actions is presented
in detail below:
ACTIONS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE
Identify key species/groups for studies of effects of sound exposure on
fishes and invertebrates, considering protection status, sensitivity to
sound, commercial importance and methodological practicability (ie.
:agging of benthic species and echosounder investigations on pelagic
:axa).
Studies on hearing sensitivity in baleen whales, and selected fish and
'nvertebrate species, in units relevant for the study species (e.g. pressure,
particle motion).
Dedicated field and modelling studies investigating how acoustic
habitats change over time, and identification of the risk of masking to
individuals and populations.
Depending on taxa (see Annex 2), dedicated studies including PTS, TTS
and other parameters such as physiological stress. Priorities for marine
mammals are extrapolation of PTS and stress; priorities for fishes
are stress; and priorities for invertebrates are a basic description of
physiological impacts.
Dedicated studies including multi-species investigations, predator-prey
nteractions and addressing the question of how noise impacts combine
with other stressors.
term perspective and in collaboration with governments, industry
and research laboratories. However, many questions remain open
on this topic:
ACTIONS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE
Further studies on behavioural response in fishes and marine mammals
leading to displacement with associated population consequences
{PCAD/PCoD). Priorities are effects on recruitment (e.g. disorientation of
‘arvae, displacement of adult fishes from spawning areas and potential
knock-on effects on fisheries), and displacement of marine mammals
from vital habitats (feeding and breeding grounds).
These studies should quantify dose-response relationships for
behavioural response as a function of noise exposure. For these
studies, it is important to have a good prior understanding of
baseline movements, activity and energy budgets and any regional/
environmental differences, feeding rates, and probability of response.
Further development of frameworks and empirical studies to allow
assessment of population-level effects from cumulative impacts of noise
and other pressures. This includes the further refinement of population
models and reducing assumptions by collecting field data on species’
movements, energy budgets and responses to noise.
