A recent article in the online publication Science 2.0 focuses on a recent paper published by Bill Ellison, Chris Clark, Adam Frankel, and myself in the journal Conservation Biology <for a description and link to this article, please see: <https://sea-inc.net/2012/01/10/science-magazine-article-on-tag-analysis-and-socal-brs-efforts/>
The recent media piece on the Ellison et al. (2011) paper was written by Caitlin Kight and is entitled “Rethinking Marine Acoustic Ecology Research: Is It Time For A Change?” The full article can be found online at: <http://www.science20.com/anthrophysis/rethinking_marine_acoustic_ecology_research_it_time_change-87358> and the first few paragraphs are given below:
“Conservationists and managers are always looking to collect more and better data in order to verify that their policies are appropriate and biologically sound. This is particularly true when the policies are applied in environments undergoing rapid or constant change, and when those policies were originally based on relatively small amounts of data–two descriptions that reflect the situation in marine habitats exposed to anthropogenic noise.
According to a team of bioacousticians writing in the most recent issue of Conservation Biology, most current marine regulations assume that the effects of noise are linked, in a dose-dependent manner, to the strength of the sound pressure level received by the animal. As a result, policies are developed using a “zones of influence concept,” in which there are concentric rings centered on a sound source; animals positioned in the inner rings should suffer the most intense damage, while those in increasingly distant rings should suffer less damage. “Damage,” in this case, is usually thought of as being predominantly physical, ranging from death and burst air bladders to permanent or temporary shifts in hearing thresholds (or, in other words, deafness).
But, the authors argue, studies in terrestrial environments have clearly shown that noise can have more subtle, but equally important, effects on wildlife. For instance, abundance and diversity may shift as animals flee from, or learn to avoid, particularly noisy areas; individuals may alter their behaviors in counterproductive or even dangerous ways; and noise may make important acoustic signals difficult to hear, even in the absence of actual deafness. In short, the researchers write, the current marine noise concept “ignores a diverse suite of environmental, biological, and operation factors” that can impact both perception of, and response to, anthropogenic noise. Thus, they argue, it is necessary to overhaul the system and “[incorporate] context into behavioral-response assessment.”