Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:53:29.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) static acoustic monitoring: laboratory detection thresholds of T-PODs are reflected in field sensitivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2008

Line A. Kyhn ,
Jakob Tougaard ,
Jonas Teilmann ,
Magnus Wahlberg ,
Poul B. Jørgensen  and
Nikolaj I. Bech
Line A. Kyhn*
Affiliation:
National Environmental Research Institute, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Aarhus University, Department of Zoophysiology, C.F. Møllers Allé Building 1131, DK-8000 Aarhus, Denmark
Jakob Tougaard
Affiliation:
National Environmental Research Institute, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark
Jonas Teilmann
Affiliation:
National Environmental Research Institute, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark
Magnus Wahlberg
Affiliation:
Aarhus University, Department of Zoophysiology, C.F. Møllers Allé Building 1131, DK-8000 Aarhus, Denmark
Poul B. Jørgensen
Affiliation:
National Environmental Research Institute, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark
Nikolaj I. Bech
Affiliation:
National Environmental Research Institute, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Line A. KyhnNational Environmental Research InstituteFrederiksborgvej 399 DK-4000 RoskildeDenmark email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The T-POD (Timing POrpoise Detector) is a self-contained acoustic data logger used for detecting and monitoring the presence of echolocation clicks of small cetaceans. It has become a standard tool in environmental impact assessments and monitoring programmes. Yet, little is known about the variability in sensitivity and detection range of T-PODs. In this study the field performance of ten v3 T-PODs was compared to detection thresholds measured in a tank. The T-POD thresholds ranged from 123 to 132 dB re 1μPa (pp). The detection thresholds of the ten individual T-PODs were different and the differences increased over time. The more sensitive a T-POD was in the laboratory (i.e. the lower the threshold) the more clicks were recorded by it in the field. Threshold correlated differently to the five analysed T-POD parameters (encounters, encounter duration, waiting time, porpoise positive minutes, clicks per porpoise positive minute). This study demonstrates that individual threshold calibrations of T-PODs are necessary to obtain comparable results when monitoring odontocetes with this tool. Regression equations for relationships between T-POD detection thresholds and study parameters obtained during field trials may allow comparisons of T-PODs with different detection thresholds.

Keywords

passive acoustic monitoringPAMporpoisecephalorhynchus130 kHz clickdata loggersurveyacousticscalibration methodscomparability
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 88 , Special Issue 6: Marine Mammals , September 2008 , pp. 1085 - 1091
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2008

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., Wang, D. and Wang, K. (2005) Off-axis sonar beam pattern of free-ranging finless porpoises measured by a stereo pulse event data logger. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117, 3325–3330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Au, W.W.L. (1993) The sonar of dolphins. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Au, W.W.L., Kastelein, R.A., Rippe, T. and Schooneman, N.M. (1999) Transmission beam pattern and echolocation signals of a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106, 3699–3705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlstrøm, J. (2005) Diel variation in echolocation behaviour of wild harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Marine Mammal Science 21, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstensen, J., Henriksen, O.D. and Teilmann, J. (2006) Impacts of offshore wind farm construction on harbor porpoises: acoustic monitoring of echo-location activity using porpoise detectors (T-PODs). Marine Ecology Progress Series 321, 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, T.M. and Read, A.J. (2004) Echolocation behaviour of harbor porpoises Phocoena phocoena around chemically enhanced gill nets. Marine Ecology Progress Series 279, 275–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, T.M., Read, A.J., Solow, A. and Tregenza, N. (2001) Will harbor porpoises habituate to pingers? Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 3, 81–86.Google Scholar
Culik, B.M., Koshinski, S., Tregenza, N. and Graeme, M.E. (2001) Reactions of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) and herring (Clupea harengus) to acoustic alarms. Marine Ecology Progress Series 211, 255–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dähne, M., Verfuβ, U.K., Diederichs, A., Meding, A. and Benke, H. (2006) T-POD test tank calibration and field calibration. In Proceedings of the Workshop Static Acoustic Monitoring of Cetaceans, 20th Annual meeting of the European Cetacean Society, Gdynia, Poland, 2006. ECS Newsletter No. 46—Special Issue. July 2006.Google Scholar
Jefferson, T.A., Hung, S.K., Law, L., Torey, M. and Tregenza, N. (2002) Distribution and abundance of finless porpoises in Hong Kong and adjacent waters of China. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement 10, 43–55.Google Scholar
Koschinski, S., Culik, B.M., Henriksen, O.D., Tregenza, N., Ellis, G., Jansen, C. and Kathe, G. (2003) Behavioural reactions of free-ranging porpoises and seals to the noise of a simulated 2 MW windpower generator. Marine Ecology Progress Series 265, 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, P.T., Carder, D.A., Beedholm, K. and Ridgway, S.H. (2005) Porpoise clicks from a sperm whale nose—convergent evolution of 130 kHz pulses in toothed whale sonars? Bioacoustics 15, 195–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Møhl, B. and Andersen, S. (1973) Echolocation: high-frequency component in the click of the harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena L.). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 54, 1368–1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teilmann, J. (2000) The behaviour and sensory abilities of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in relation to bycatch in the gillnet fishery. PhD thesis, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.Google Scholar
Teilmann, J. (2003) Influence of sea state on density estimates of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 5, 85–92.Google Scholar
Teilmann, J., Henriksen, O.D. and Carstensen, J. (2001) Porpoise detectors (PODs) as a tool to study potential effects of offshore wind farm on harbor porpoises at Rødsand. Technical Report. NERI, Roskilde, Denmark, 41 pp. Available at: http://www.nystedhavmoellepark.dkGoogle Scholar
Teilmann, J., Miller, L.A., Kirketerp, T., Kastelein, R.A., Madsen, P.T., Nielsen, B.K. and Au, W.W.L. (2002a) Characteristics of echolocation signals used by a harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in a target strength experiment. Aquatic Mammals 28, 275–284.Google Scholar
Teilmann, J., Henriksen, O.D., Carstensen, J. and Skov, H. (2002b) Monitoring effects of offshore windfarms on harbor porpoises using PODs (porpoise detectors). Report request. Commissioned by Tech-wise A/S. National Environmental Research Institute. 95 pp.Google Scholar
Thomsen, F., van Elk, N., Brock, V. and Piper, W. (2005) On the performance of automated porpoise-click-detectors in experiments with captive harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) (L). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118, 37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tougaard, J., Carstensen, J., Bech, N.I. and Teilmann, J. (2006) Final report on the effect of Nysted Offshore Wind Farm on harbour porpoises. National Environmental Research Institute. 65 pp. Available at: http://www.hornsrev.dk/Miljoeforhold/miljoerapporter/Google Scholar
Urick, R.J. (1983) Principles of underwater sonar, 3rd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
Verfuβ, U.K., Honnef, C.G., Meding, A., Dähne, M., Mundry, R. and Benke, H. (2007) Geographical and seasonal variation of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) presence in the German Baltic Sea revealed by passive acoustic monitoring. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 87, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villadsgaard, A., Wahlberg, M. and Tougaard, J. (2007) Echolocation signals of wild harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Journal of Experimental Biology 210, 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, J.H. (1996) Biostatistical analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar