Literature DB >> 34374143

Predicting the population consequences of acoustic disturbance, with application to an endangered gray whale population.

Elizabeth A McHuron1,2, Lisanne Aerts3, Glenn Gailey4, Olga Sychenko4, Daniel P Costa2, Marc Mangel1,5,6, Lisa K Schwarz1.   

Abstract

Acoustic disturbance is a growing conservation concern for wildlife populations because it can elicit physiological and behavioral responses that can have cascading impacts on population dynamics. State-dependent behavioral and life history models implemented via Stochastic Dynamic Programming (SDP) provide a natural framework for quantifying biologically meaningful population changes resulting from disturbance by linking environment, physiology, and metrics of fitness. We developed an SDP model using the endangered western gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) as a case study because they experience acoustic disturbance on their summer foraging grounds. We modeled the behavior and physiological dynamics of pregnant females as they arrived on the feeding grounds and predicted the probability of female and offspring survival, with and without acoustic disturbance and in the presence/absence of high prey availability. Upon arrival in mid-May, pregnant females initially exhibited relatively random behavior before they transitioned to intensive feeding that resulted in continual fat mass gain until departure. This shift in behavior co-occurred with a change in spatial distribution; early in the season, whales were more equally distributed among foraging areas with moderate to high energy availability, whereas by mid-July whales transitioned to predominate use of the location that had the highest energy availability. Exclusion from energy-rich offshore areas led to reproductive failure and in extreme cases, mortality of adult females that had lasting impacts on population dynamics. Simulated disturbances in nearshore foraging areas had little to no impact on female survival or reproductive success at the population level. At the individual level, the impact of disturbance was unequally distributed across females of different lengths, both with respect to the number of times an individual was disturbed and the impact of disturbance on vital rates. Our results highlight the susceptibility of large capital breeders to reductions in prey availability, and indicate that who, where, and when individuals are disturbed are likely to be important considerations when assessing the impacts of acoustic activities. This model provides a framework to inform planned acoustic disturbances and assess the effectiveness of mitigation strategies for large capital breeders.
© 2021 by the Ecological Society of America.

Entities:  

Keywords:  zzm321990Eschrichtius robustuszzm321990; bioenergetics; individual-based model; population consequences of disturbance; stochastic dynamic programming

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34374143     DOI: 10.1002/eap.2440

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Appl        ISSN: 1051-0761            Impact factor:   4.657


  8 in total

1.  Western gray whales on their summer feeding ground off Sakhalin Island in 2015: who is foraging where?

Authors:  Lisa K Schwarz; Glenn Gailey; Olga Tyurneva; Yuri Yakovlev; Olga Sychenko; Peter van der Wolf; Vladimir V Vertyankin
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2022-10-18       Impact factor: 3.307

2.  Western gray whale behavioral response to seismic surveys during their foraging season.

Authors:  Glenn Gailey; Olga Sychenko; Mikhail Zykov; Alexander Rutenko; Arny Blanchard; Rodger H Melton
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2022-10-18       Impact factor: 3.307

3.  Gray whale density during seismic surveys near their Sakhalin feeding ground.

Authors:  Glenn Gailey; Mikhail Zykov; Olga Sychenko; Alexander Rutenko; Arny L Blanchard; Lisanne Aerts; Rodger H Melton
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2022-10-18       Impact factor: 3.307

4.  Benthic studies adjacent to Sakhalin Island, Russia, 2015 II: energy content of the zoobenthos in western gray whale feeding grounds.

Authors:  Jennifer L Maresh; Arny L Blanchard; Natalia L Demchenko; Ilya Shcherbakov; Lisanne Aerts; Lisa K Schwarz
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2022-10-18       Impact factor: 3.307

5.  Gray whale habitat use and reproductive success during seismic surveys near their feeding grounds: comparing state-dependent life history models and field data.

Authors:  Lisa Schwarz; Elizabeth McHuron; Marc Mangel; Glenn Gailey; Olga Sychenko
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2022-10-18       Impact factor: 3.307

6.  Seismic surveys near gray whale feeding areas off Sakhalin Island, Russia: assessing impact and mitigation effectiveness.

Authors:  H Rodger Melton; Lisanne Aerts; Michael R Jenkerson; Vladimir E Nechayuk; Glenn Gailey; Roberto Racca; Arny L Blanchard; Lisa K Schwarz
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2022-10-18       Impact factor: 3.307

7.  A review of bioenergetic modelling for marine mammal populations.

Authors:  Enrico Pirotta
Journal:  Conserv Physiol       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 3.252

8.  Key questions in marine mammal bioenergetics.

Authors:  Elizabeth A McHuron; Stephanie Adamczak; John P Y Arnould; Erin Ashe; Cormac Booth; W Don Bowen; Fredrik Christiansen; Magda Chudzinska; Daniel P Costa; Andreas Fahlman; Nicholas A Farmer; Sarah M E Fortune; Cara A Gallagher; Kelly A Keen; Peter T Madsen; Clive R McMahon; Jacob Nabe-Nielsen; Dawn P Noren; Shawn R Noren; Enrico Pirotta; David A S Rosen; Cassie N Speakman; Stella Villegas-Amtmann; Rob Williams
Journal:  Conserv Physiol       Date:  2022-08-06       Impact factor: 3.252

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.