Category: Uncategorized

Olympians in Rio: keep your mouths closed! But what are the resident marine animals to do?

By Leila Lemos, Ph.D. Student, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, OSU

August 5th was the Olympic games opening date in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the city where I am from. The opening ceremony was a big success and everybody seems to be enjoying the sporting events and all of the news that the city is offering. However, behind all the colors, magic and joy of this big event, Brazilians are very unsatisfied about hosting an event like this while the whole country is simultaneously dealing with a big educational, health, political and economic crisis at the moment.

Unfortunately, the crisis also affects the environment and is consequently affecting athletes that are competing in our “carioca” waters. Guanabara Bay, more specifically, where the sailing competitions are taking place, receive waters from more than 50 rivers and streams, as displayed below.

Figure 1: Hydrographic map of the Guanabara Bay region, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, showing rivers and streams (in blue) that feed into the Bay.
Figure 1: Hydrographic map of the Guanabara Bay region, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, showing rivers and streams (in blue) that feed into the Bay.

 

Much of the water is not treated and brings sewage and garbage from upstream (Fig.2). Although the government reports that the pollution index in the Bay conforms to national and international standards, and that the areas where competitions are taking place are clean and present no risk to athlete health, public health experts advise athletes to keep their mouth closed whenever they are in contact with the water, as reported by the Independent newspaper (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/2016-rio-olympics-water-feces-athletes -mouth-shut-brazil-a7163021.html). The goal was to clean up 80% of the Bay in time for the Olympic games, however this goal was far from achieved and the “solution” was to install barriers to try to avoid waste and untreated sewage reaching the event area.

Figure 2: Pollution contrasting with the beauty of the Sugar Loaf, one of the main tourist attractions in the city. The photo shows the area where competitions are taking place. Source: http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1027142/brazilian-politician-accused-of-undermining-effort-to-clean-guanabara-bay-by-publicity-seeking-jump-into-water
Figure 2: Pollution contrasting with the beauty of the Sugar Loaf, one of the main tourist attractions in the city. The photo shows the area where competitions are taking place.
Source: http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1027142/brazilian-politician-accused-of-undermining-effort-to-clean-guanabara-bay-by-publicity-seeking-jump-into-water.

 

Bacteria, fecal coliforms and metals occur in the Bay. Professionals from Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), one of the world’s main public health research institutions, found a drug-resistant bacterium in the Bay waters, which is resistant to antibiotics and may cause multiple infections (https://www.rt.com/news/214807-brazil-olympic-venue-superbug/). Metals like mercury, one of the most toxic metals, can also be found in the Bay and shows long-term effects on marine life of the ecosystem.

Guanabara Bay used to be part of the migratory route of Southern right whales (Eubalaena australis), but unfortunately we do not see the whales in the area anymore. We also do not see turtles any longer and populations of prawns are extremely reduced. On the other hand, mussels, biological indicators of ambient pollution due to their sessile and filter-feeding habits, are continuously proliferating in the Bay. These individuals can accumulate high pollutant levels and are not safe to eat when present in polluted areas. However, local fishermen persist in eating mussels and fish from the Bay.

The Guiana dolphin (Sotalia guianensis) is the only mammal that still frequents the Bay waters and, while about 400 Guiana dolphins inhabited the region in the 80s, currently there are only 34 individuals (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-27/rio27s-dolphins-need-olympic-effort-to-survive-toxic-waters/7543544). The project MAQUA, responsible for monitoring the dolphins in the Guanabara Bay, correlated the decline of the population with worsening water quality, fishing and noise, as published in an article in “O Globo”, the main Brazilian newspaper (http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/populacao-de-golfinhos-da-baia-de-guanabara-sofre-reducao-de-90-em-tres-decadas-1-16110633).
In this article they presented pictures of dolphins from the Guiana dolphin population in the Bay, including the unfortunate consequences on human interactions (Fig.3).

Figure 3: Guiana dolphins in Guanabara Bay, Rio de Janeiro. A: some of the remaining individuals of Guiana dolphin population from the Guanabara Bay; B: a dolphin plays with a plastic bag; C: a dolphin that suffered an accident with a nylon yarn when young presents a scar across its whole circumference; D: a dolphin exhibit the absence of the pectoral fin. Source: O Globo, 2015 (http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/populacao-de-golfinhos-da-baia-de-guanabara-sofre-reducao-de-90-em-tres-decadas-1-16110633).
Figure 3: Guiana dolphins in Guanabara Bay, Rio de Janeiro. A: some of the remaining individuals of Guiana dolphin population from the Guanabara Bay; B: a dolphin plays with a plastic bag; C: a dolphin that suffered an accident with a nylon yarn when young presents a scar across its whole circumference; D: a dolphin exhibit the absence of the pectoral fin.
Source: O Globo, 2015 (http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/populacao-de-golfinhos-da-baia-de-guanabara-sofre-reducao-de-90-em-tres-decadas-1-16110633).

 

This dolphin population is living in heavily polluted waters caused solely by human behavior. Although dolphins may distinguish between trash and food, they feed on contaminated fish – a consequence of bioaccumulation.

During my master’s degree at the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, I undertook a toxicological analysis of different species of dolphins (Lemos et al. 2013; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651313003370). We found high levels of different metals, such as mercury and cadmium, in animals along the north coast of Rio de Janeiro. Just like the mussels, dolphins bioaccumulate high pollutant levels in their tissues and organs, primarily via feeding, but also through dermal contact. Metals and other pollutants present in polluted waters, like the Guanabara Bay, enter the food chain and affect multiple trophic levels, compromising health.

Dolphins from the Guanabara Bay are feeding on the same prey as the local fisherman, and act as sentinels of the environment, warning of public health concerns for humans. Just like humans, these dolphins are long-lived and large mammals, but they live every day in these waters and must open their mouths to survive. If we are concerned about human athletes spending a few hours in the water, we should be outraged at the conditions we force marine animals to live in daily in the Rio de Janeiro region. The dolphins have the intrinsic right to live in a non-polluted environment and be healthy.

Recapping and Reflecting on the International Marine Conservation Conference!

By: Amanda Holdman, MS student, Geospatial Ecology and Marine Megafauna Lab & Oregon State Research Collective for Applied Acoustics, MMI

The GEMM Lab recently returned from the 4th International Marine Conservation Congress (IMMC4) in St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, and it was a whirlwind of activity to say the least. The flights were long and the morning coffee was scarce, but the setting was beautiful and plenty of scientific fun was had! The IMCC conferences are the largest international academic conferences on marine conservation and the theme of this year’s conference was to “Make Science Matter”, or in my interpretation “to use conservation science to drive policy change and implementation”. Over five days we were exposed to a flood of new ideas, hypothesis, methods/techniques, analyses and findings – even presenting our own!

Leigh, Florence, and I were all slated to give a talk on the opening day of presentations. Leigh presented on her new method for analyzing animal movement data in space and time, Florence on the effects of vessel activities on gray whales, and myself on the habitat use of harbor porpoise off of the Oregon Coast.

The conference was filled with non-stop talks, lunch sessions that incorporated workshops, student activities with plenary speakers, and an evening activity planned for every night. Short breaks during the conference shenanigans allowed for some exploring of the St. John’s area including Signal Hill, Cape Spear, and the George Street Festival. Highlights included humpback mom and calf, fin whales (my first time seeing them), dozens of seabirds I wish I could identify and some popular Canadian music.

IMG_0204View from Signal Hill, where the first transatlantic wireless signal was received in 1901.

IMG_0224 The Arkells playing at the George St. Festival.

IMG_0244 Light house at Cape Spear – the Eastern most point of North America!

The conference was an awesome place to learn, meet and network with new friends, and catch up with some familiar faces. For Florence and I, our research fit perfectly into the theme of the IMCC conference. Being able to translate results of our work into relevant actions that can lead to improved marine conservation was an amazing feeling. Entering the academic sphere for the first time can be daunting, but the IMCC community was friendly, open and dedicated. Having others outside of our OSU family take an interest in our research truly shows that all of our hard work has paid off. We received great feedback and even some suggestions we could incorporate into our manuscript submissions! Definitely not something to be taken for granted!

On a more personal note, my talk, “The spatio-temporal distribution and ecological drivers of harbor porpoise off of the Oregon coast” seemed to be well received, I was honored to be awarded runner up for best student presentation by the conference!

IMG_0257

I would not have received this award if it was not for Leigh, my committee members, OSU, and my lab mates. I couldn’t have been more proud of our lab and the feedback that we received at IMCC.

But now, the stress is over, the audience is gone, I’m still riding my high but I’ve found a moment of quietness on the plane ride home to analyze myself. I’ve been to a few regional conferences, and have been lucky enough to attend two large international conferences. However, now that I am nearing the end of graduate school (23 months down, 4 to go), it thus seems like a sensible time to reflect on how to make the most of these trips and experiences.

Apart from managing our research projects and scientific writing in graduate school, we are faced with the big challenge of presenting our research to a range of audiences. Oral presentations are one of the most important ways in which we communicate scientific results to other scientists and to be honest, NOTHING paralyses me more than having to present my work – or so I thought.

I am no stranger to sweaty palms and a racing heart. Whether it’s 5 people, 50 people, or 500 people – public speaking has always been a gut wrenching experience for me. When it comes to presentations, my flight response is in full swing, and the only thing that keeps me from running away from the presentation is that I would be more embarrassed fleeing than just giving the presentation.

However, gradual exposure and better practice over the past couple of years has helped me get over my fear of public speaking. I can’t say that I never get nervous when I have to speak in front of other people, but now my fear is controllable. Now, when I feel myself starting to get anxious I remember that while these feelings are very much real, they do not mean that I cannot give a good talk. The trick for me was learning to be separate from my anxiety by acknowledging it and allowing myself to have that feeling, and then deciding that even with that feeling I can move forward. It took quite a bit of practice for me not to be overwhelmed by these feelings of anxiety – but I’m happy to report that presenting in large groups DOES get easier with practice!

So for me, speaking at IMCC granted me with a sense of confidence, perhaps even a career-changing affirmative opportunity. Scouting out your audience or the room you speak in advance, writing your talk well before the delivery date, and practicing it numerous times reduces an enormous amount of pre-presentation jitters.  I’ve learned how to manage the jitters in order to give a good presentation. In fact, I think public speaking can even be fun in addition to being a great way to spread your message!

Doing a masters (Or PhD) means you constantly challenge yourself and improve your skills. As I continue to encounter new situations and tackle new challenges, I expect that I will go through more cycles of lag and growth as I did with public speaking. I hope that I will have the perspective and patience to appreciate the lag times as integral parts of my development. The IMCC conference was only a snapshot of a major high, but it was an important milestone of my scientific career and personal journey.

Here’s a few more pictures from the beautiful St. Johns! IMG_0253Jelly bean row!

IMG_0193Eating lunch and overlooking the harbor at Signal Hill.

IMG_0273Boat houses at Quidi Vidi Harbour.

 

Papahānaumokuākea: soon to be the world’s largest marine protected area?

By Erin Pickett, MS student, Oregon State University

On January 29, 2016, a group of native Hawaiian community leaders and conservation practitioners wrote a letter of request to President Barack Obama asking him to expand Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument1

Papahānaumokuākea is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and at the time of its creation in 2006, it became the world’s largest fully protected marine area2. The monument encompasses 140,000 square miles and surrounds the Northwestern Hawaiian Island (NWHI) chain, which extends about 2000 km northwest from the main Hawaiian Islands to Kure atoll (see map below). This monument was originally created through use of the Antiquity Act of 1906, which grants the President of the United States the authority to protect valuable public land through the establishment of a national monument3. The initial letter of request sent to President Obama in January called on the President to use his executive power to expand Papahānaumokuākea marine national monument.

This letter of request was put simply. The letter writers believed that as an island boy himself, President Barack Obama understands the importance of the ocean to the people of Hawai’i, especially future generations. This letter and the discussions that have since followed it, emphasize not only the biological value of conserving this large swath of marine habitat, but also the cultural significance of preserving such a place. In the field of marine biology we don’t traditionally think of marine protected areas (MPAs) as “…cultural seascapes that have meaning and significance in the formation and perpetuation of oceanic identity4,” however in the case of the expansion of Papahānaumokuākea, cultural justification is aptly interwoven with biological conservation. The proposed expansion of this marine protected area is especially significant to me for this reason.

While I am not native Hawaiian, much of my life is tied to the ocean. My personal life and my current career as a master’s student of marine science are driven by aloha and malama ‘āina. These two concepts are core tenets of Hawaiian culture and they describe a profound love (aloha) and deep respect and sense of caring (malama) for the āina, or land. I have never felt more aloha or such a strong sense of caring for a place than for Papahānaumokuākea.

Papahānaumokuākea is a sacred place; a place where the Hawaiian people believe life began. Today, the islands, atolls and the surrounding ocean within the monument continue to create and sustain vast quantities of life, in the form of marine species. The use of the monument is limited to cultural, scientific and educational activities, while activities such as commercial fishing and deep-sea mining are prohibited4,5. One primary benefit of large MPAs is that they improve the state of an ecosystem by supporting sufficient numbers of large and far-ranging predators6. The waters surrounding the NWHI support high numbers of large fish, sharks, marine mammals and seabirds. A total of 7,000 known species exist here, 25% of which are endemic7. The expansion of this monument would mean greater protection for these species, and for important pelagic habitats such as seamounts. Underwater seamounts are biodiversity hot spots and a vast number of them exist outside of the current boundaries but within the limits of the proposed expansion of the monument. Far ranging top predators such as seabirds would benefit greatly from an expanded protected area that would reduce the chance of interactions with longline fishing vessels. The foraging ranges of many of the 14 million seabirds that exist in the monument extend beyond its current boundaries4,8. The Hawaiian longline fishery is especially dangerous for Laysan and black-footed albatross, and hooks an estimated 1,000-2,000 of each species per year9.

The Laysan albatross, or mōlī, as it is known in Hawaiian, is the species that captured my attention the most during my time in Papahānaumokuākea. In 2010, I worked for the NOAA/NMFS Hawaiian monk seal research program on Laysan Island. While our work on Laysan was focused on the Hawaiian monk seal, it was hard to miss the energy of the presence of the mōlī. We had the opportunity to observe these birds come to the island to make nests, lay eggs and raise their chicks. The incessant sound of hundreds of thousands of albatross whistling and clicking their beaks at their mates and with their chicks is one I will never forget. You can hear these sounds for yourself in a video that Rachael included in a previous blog post about her time on Midway atoll. On Laysan, I had the opportunity to connect deeply with a natural place and this connection reinforced the feeling of aloha ‘aina.

While in the NWHI, we occupied much of our daily life with not only observing and connecting with the wildlife, but also with carrying out conservation activities, such as monitoring the local monk seal population and removing marine debris from beaches. While Laysan is remote, it has not escaped the far reaches of marine plastic pollution (see Rachael’s blog for more on this). Additionally, many of the NWHI are in a perpetual state of restoration and invasive species removal projects. After Laysan, I spent time working on Lisianski Island and then Kure atoll, where we worked tirelessly to eradicate an invasive weed, Verbesina encelioides, and replace it with native plants that we had cultivated. Throughout all of these activities, there was always a feeling that it was our duty to malama ‘aina, to care for and protect these fragile islands and the species that depend on them.

A significant amount of momentum has been gained since January, with one important development being a formal proposal that outlines the main points of this request to the President. These include a request to expand the perimeter of the monument to the limits of the U.S. exclusive economic zone, which lies an additional 150 nm beyond its current boundaries. This expansion would more than quadruple the monument’s current size and make it the world’s largest contiguously protected area. The Obama administration has sent delegates to Hawaii to learn more and has intentions to develop an official federal proposal10. While the timeline of this is unclear, a local coalition of community leaders are actively garnering public support to encourage the Obama administration to sign this expansion into law.

There was a meeting held last night on Kauai to hear public input regarding the proposed expansion of Papahānaumokuākea and because I was not able to attend I was inspired to write this blog to share my thoughts about why I believe further protection of this monument is a pono (moral, just, righteous) decision. The place-based connection I have with Hawai’i and its surrounding waters are what have guided my career in the fields of marine science and conservation. For me, this connection is with Hawai’i, but for you it may your own hometown, island, backyard or nearby mountain peak.

Our love of these places is significant because it facilitates a greater understanding of why they are important to protect. In the field of conservation today, it is especially critical that we foster these types of connections. Preserving wild places, whether they be remote island ecosystems or more easily accessible nature parks, is one way we can ensure that more people have the opportunity to make these connections.

 

References

1 Eagle, N. (2016). Honolulu Civil Beat. Hawaiians Press Obama to Expand NW Islands Marine Monument. Retrieved from http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/02/should-obama-expand-papahanaumokuakea/

2 Pew Charitable Trust. Global Ocean Legacy-Hawaii (2016). Fact sheet.Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument: Expanding protections to conserve Hawaiian culture and biodiversity Retrieved from: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2016/05/papahanaumokuakea-marine-national-monument

3 “Antiquities Act” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 4 March 2016. Web. 2 August 2016.

4 Kerr, J., et al. 2016. PUʻUHONUA: A PLACE OF SANCTUARY. The Cultural and Biological Significance of the proposed expansion for the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument.

5 Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument: Resource Protection. Retrieved from: http://www.papahanaumokuakea.gov/resource/

6 Edgar, Graham J., et al. “Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features.” Nature 506.7487 (2014): 216-220.

7 National Marine Sanctuaries (2016), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Accessed on 01 February 2016: http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/#PM

8 Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument Management Plan 2008; KE Keller, AD Anders, SA Shaffer, MA Kappes, B Flint, and A Friedlander, 2009. Seabirds: A Marine Biogeographic Assessment of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

9 Cousins, K.L., et al. Managing pelagic longline-albatross interactions in the North Pacific Ocean. Retrieved from: http://www.wpcouncil.org/documents/managebird.pdf

10 Eagle, N. (2016). Hawaii Lawmakers To Obama: Don’t Grow Marine Monument. Honolulu Civil Beat. Retrieved from: http://www.civilbeat.org/2016/05/hawaii-lawmakers-to-obama-dont-grow-marine-monument/

 

Sunny south meets windy west

By Lauren Ashley, senior at Savannah State University and current summer intern in the GEMM Lab

Enjoying South Beach, Oregon. Photo by Katherine Bartels
Enjoying South Beach, Oregon. Photo by Katherine Bartels

My name is Lauren Ashley and I am a rising senior from Savannah State University. I am a marine science major, with dreams of becoming a veterinarian. I would have never thought I would experience a summer on the northwest coast. And let me tell you guys, it is a huge adjustment!

I secured an internship with the Living Marine Resources Cooperative Science Center (LMRCSC). I am working in the GEMM Lab at Oregon State University where I am developing an interactive display for the visitor center at the Hatfield Marine Science Center. This display will convey the results from our LMRCSC funded project about the impacts of environmental and climate change on California sea lions and their prey.

I am processing and creating the interactive maps for display through the software ArcGIS 10.3. The amount of challenges I have run into coincide with the amount of things I have learned about the software. The biggest tool I have in my arsenal for problem solving is patience. Somedays, some of the biggest challenges I face, when processing information, seem to have the most simple of solutions, as unconventional and out of the box as they may be. For example, I needed to add a raster depicting the California sea lions forecasted distribution but the files seemed to be incorrect. I went in the conventional way, several times I may add, trying to correct the data. Nothing seemed to work. Eventually my research mentor showed me that the problem could be solve simply by copying the raw data and pasting it to a blank excel file. In a course of a single day the maps can transform based on feedback and edits. And boy does that take time and thought. I am fortunate to be the intern of such a proficient GIS user. Most of what I have learned so far has come at the grace of her teachings.

As I learn to communicate science to a broad audience, most of which have no science background, I have discovered that people learn and process information in many different ways. The biggest challenge thus far is finding a balance where the map conveys information that is not too overwhelming or too broad that it takes away from the true learning outcome. We don’t want to confuse or bore our audience. The outcome of this display is to inform our audience of how environmental change influences the distribution of not just one species at a time, but a community of species through predator and prey interactions.

The very first map that I made for this project, putting it nicely, was terrible. The map, displayed below, had no labeling besides the title whatsoever. The legend was non-existent so even though I knew what the data was no one else knew. And, even though the green shapes of the Pacific northwest were obvious to me, I was told that many viewers would not know that they we looking at Oregon, Washington and Vancouver Island. As time has passed, the maps I produce have developed quite a bit, though I still have many chafes and challenges ahead of me. It is certainly becoming clear to me that effective science communication is a tricky goal.

My first attempt at a map to relate scientific results on sea lion distribution patterns to a general, non-scientific audience.
My first attempt at a map to relate scientific results on sea lion distribution patterns to a general, non-scientific audience.

Upon hearing that this internship, starting in June, would be in Newport, Oregon, my close family and friends grew excited for me, even though I would be away from them for 10 weeks.  I, on the other hand, was not too excited. Truthfully, I was nervous. I did not want to make any assumptions about a place I had barely even heard of.  The southeast USA is my home, and upon arriving in Newport after my four hour flight and a two hour drive I realized that I was transported to a whole new world. Everything was foreign to me, from the living arrangements to the time zone.

The first adjustment I had to make was a time adjustment. In Oregon, I am three hours behind where I usually am, and let me tell you, it is not fun waking up at 3:45 when you are used to waking up at 6:45 ET. To be honest, even after three weeks, I’m still not sure I am completely adjusted to Pacific Time. I have the dark circles to prove it.

Anyone that has ever been to/lived in Georgia can accurately describe the weather in two simple words: HOT and HUMID. I am used to 100 °F days during the summer and here the highest I have yet to experience is 64°F. In other words: I am freezing my tail off! The cold windy days do not usually agree with my choice of attire. I have resorted to wearing long-sleeve shirts and hoodies on a daily basis.

But all of that aside, Oregon is the MOST breathtakingly beautiful place I have ever been to. There is nothing like the Pacific Northwest coast. After my internship is up, I would not be opposed to taking a road trip to explore this whole coast. This first month has consisted of whale watching, hikes along the big creek trails, and long walks on the beach, lots of beer, and plenty of seafood. The atmosphere of this small town is very refreshing compared to life in the city.

At the Yaquina Lighthouse, Photo by Katherine Bartels
At the Yaquina Lighthouse, Photo by Katherine Bartels

Unmanned Aircraft Systems: keep your distance from wildlife!

By Leila Lemos, Ph.D. Student, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, OSU

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) or “drones” are becoming commonly used to observe natural landscapes and wildlife. These systems can provide important information regarding habitat conditions, distribution and abundance of populations, and health, fitness and behavior of the individuals (Goebel et al. 2015, Durban et al. 2016).

The benefits for the use of UAS by researchers and wildlife managers are varied and include reduced errors of population estimations, reduced observer fatigue, increased observer safety, increased survey effort, and access to remote settings and harsh environments (Koski et al. 2010, Vermeulen et al. 2013, Goebel et al. 2015, Smith et al. 2016). Importantly, data gathered from UAS can provide needed information for the conservation and management of several species. Although it is often assumed that wildlife incur minimal disturbance from UAS due to the reduced noise compared to traditional aircraft used for wildlife monitoring (Acevedo-Whitehouse et al. 2010), the impacts of UAS on most wildlife populations is currently unexplored.

Several studies have tried to comprehend the effects of UAS flights over animals and so far there is no evidence of behavioral disturbance. For instance Vermeulen et al. (2013) conducted a study where authors observed a group of elephants’ reaction or warning behavior while a UAS passed ten times over the individuals at altitudes of 100 and 300 meters, and no disturbance was recorded. Furthermore, a study conducted by Acevedo-Whitehouse et al. (2010) reported that six different species of large cetaceans (Bryde’s whale, fin whale, sperm whale, humpback whale, blue whale and gray whale) did not display avoidance behavior when approached by the UAS for blow sampling, suggesting that the system caused minimal distress (negative stress) to the individuals.

However, the fact that we cannot visually see an effect in the animal does not mean that a stress response is not occurring. A study analyzed the effects of UAS flights on movements and heart rate responses of American black bears in northwestern Minnesota (Ditmer et al. 2015). It was observed that all bears, including an individual that was hibernating, responded to UAS flights with increased heart rates (123 beats per minute above the pre-flight baseline). In contrast, no behavioral response by the bears was recorded (Figure 1).

By Leila Lemos, Ph.D. Student, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, OSU Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) or “drones” are becoming commonly used to observe natural landscapes and wildlife. These systems can provide important information regarding habitat conditions, distribution and abundance of populations, and health, fitness and behavior of the individuals (Goebel et al. 2015, Durban et al. 2016). The benefits for the use of UAS by researchers and wildlife managers are varied and include reduced errors of population estimations, reduced observer fatigue, increased observer safety, increased survey effort, and access to remote settings and harsh environments (Koski et al. 2010, Vermeulen et al. 2013, Goebel et al. 2015, Smith et al. 2016). Importantly, data gathered from UAS can provide needed information for the conservation and management of several species. Although it is often assumed that wildlife incur minimal disturbance from UAS due to the reduced noise compared to traditional aircraft used for wildlife monitoring (Acevedo-Whitehouse et al. 2010), the impacts of UAS on most wildlife populations is currently unexplored. Several studies have tried to comprehend the effects of UAS flights over animals and so far there is no evidence of behavioral disturbance. For instance Vermeulen et al. (2013) conducted a study where authors observed a group of elephants’ reaction or warning behavior while a UAS passed ten times over the individuals at altitudes of 100 and 300 meters, and no disturbance was recorded. Furthermore, a study conducted by Acevedo-Whitehouse et al. (2010) reported that six different species of large cetaceans (Bryde’s whale, fin whale, sperm whale, humpback whale, blue whale and gray whale) did not display avoidance behavior when approached by the UAS for blow sampling, suggesting that the system caused minimal distress (negative stress) to the individuals. However, the fact that we cannot visually see an effect in the animal does not mean that a stress response is not occurring. A study analyzed the effects of UAS flights on movements and heart rate responses of American black bears in northwestern Minnesota (Ditmer et al. 2015). It was observed that all bears, including an individual that was hibernating, responded to UAS flights with increased heart rates (123 beats per minute above the pre-flight baseline). In contrast, no behavioral response by the bears was recorded (Figure 1).
Figure 1: (A) Movement rates (meters per hour) of an adult female black bear with cubs prior to, during, and after a UAS flight (gray bar); (B) The corresponding heart rate (beats per minute) of the adult female black bear. Source: Modified from Figure 1 from Ditmer et al. 2015.

 

Therefore, behavioral analysis alone may not be able to describe the complete effects of UAS on wildlife, and it is important to consider other possible stress responses of wildlife.

Regarding marine mammals, only a few studies have systematically documented the effects of UAS on these animals. A review of these studies was produced by Smith et al. (2016) and the main factors influencing behavioral disturbance were identified as (1) noise and visual stimulus (from the UAS or its shadow), and (2) flight altitude of the UAS. Thus, studies that approach marine mammals closely with UAS (e.g., blow sampling in cetaceans) should be closely monitored for behavioral reactions because the noise level and visual stimulus will likely be increased.

Fortunately, when UAS work is applied to cetaceans and sirenians (manatees and dugongs) the air-water interface acts as a barrier to sound so these animals are unlikely to be acoustically disturbed by UAS. However, acoustic detection and response are still possible when an animal’s ears are exposed in the air during a surfacing event.

The best way to minimize stress responses in wildlife is to use caution while operating UAS at any altitude. According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “UAS can also be disruptive to both people and animals if not used safely, appropriately, or responsibly”. Therefore, since 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has required UAS operators in the United States to have a certified and registered aircraft, a licensed pilot, and operational approval, known as Section 333 Exemption (Note: in late August 2016, the 333 will be replaced by a revision to part 107). These authorizations require an air worthiness statement or certificate and registered aircraft. Public entities, like Oregon State University, operate under a certificate of authorization (COA.) As a public entity OSU certifies its own aircraft and sets standards for UAS operators. These permit requirements discourage illegal operations and improves safety.

Regarding marine mammals, all UAS operators should also be aware of The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972. This law makes it illegal to harass marine mammals in the wild, which may cause disruption to behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. A close UAS approach has the potential to cause harassments to marine mammals, thus federal guidelines recommend keeping a safe distance from these animals in the wild. The required vertical distance is 1000 ft for most marine mammals, but increases for endangered animals such as the North Atlantic right whales with a required buffer of 1500 ft (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/uas.html). Therefore, NOAA evaluates all scientific research that use UAS within 1000 ft of marine mammals in order to ensure that the benefits outweigh possible hazards. NOAA distributes research permits accordingly.

Of course, with new technology the rules are always changing. In fact, last week the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the FAA finalized the first operational rules for routine commercial use of small UAS. These new guidelines aim to support new innovations in order to spur job growth, advance critical scientific research and save lives, and are designed to minimize risks to other aircraft and people and property on the ground. These new regulations include several requirements (e.g., height and speed restrictions) and hopefully allow for a streamlined system that enables beneficial and exciting wildlife research.

For my PhD project we are using UAS to collect aerial images from gray whales in order to describe behavioral patterns and apply a photogrammetry methodology. Through these methods we will determine the overall body condition and health of the individuals for comparison to variable ambient ocean noise levels. This project is conducted in collaboration with the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Lab.

Since October 2015, we have conducted 31 over-flights of gray whales using our UAS (DJI Phantom 3) and no behavioral disturbance has been observed. When over the whale(s) we generally fly between 25 and 40 m above the animals. We have a FAA certified UAS operator and fly under our NOAA/NMFS permit 16111. Prior to each flight we ensure that the weather conditions are safe, the whales are behaving normally, and that no on-lookers from shore or other boats will be disturbed.

Here is a video showing the launch and retrieval of the UAS system, our research vessel, the surrounding Oregon coastline beauty and gray whale individuals. The video includes some interesting footage of a gray whale foraging over a shallow reef, indicating that this UAS flight did not disturb the animal’s natural behavior patterns.

We all have the responsibility to help keep wildlife safe. Here in the GEMM Lab, we commit to using UAS safely and responsibly, and aim to use this new and exciting technology to continue our efforts to better protect and understand marine mammals.

 

References

Acevedo‐Whitehouse K, Rocha‐Gosselin A and Gendron D. 2010. A novel non‐invasive tool for disease surveillance of free‐ranging whales and its relevance to conservation programs. Anim. Conserv. 13(2):217–225.

Ditmer MA, Vincent JB, Werden LK, Tanner JC, Laske TG, Iaizzo PA, Garshelis DL and Fieberg JR. 2015. Bears Show a Physiological but Limited Behavioral Response to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Current Biology 25:2278–2283.

Durban JW, Moore MJ, Chiang G, Hickmott LS, Bocconcelli A, Howes G, Bahamonde PA, Perryman WL and Leroi DJ. 2016. Photogrammetry of blue whales with an unmanned hexacopter. Marine Mammal Science. DOI: 10.1111/mms.12328.

Goebel ME, Perryman WL, Hinke JT, Krause DJ, Hann NA, Gardner S and LeRoi DJ. 2015. A small unmanned aerial system for estimating abundance and size of Antarctic predators. Polar Biol. 38(5):619-630.

Koski WR, Abgrall P and Yazvenko SB. 2010. An inventory and evaluation of unmanned aerial systems for offshore surveys of marine mammals. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. 11(3):239–247.

NOAA. Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Responsible Use to Help Protect Marine Mammals. In: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/uas.html. Accessed in: 06/12/2016.

Smith CE, Sykora-Bodie ST, Bloodworth B, Pack SM, Spradlin TR and LeBoeuf NR. 2016. Assessment of known impacts of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) on marine mammals: data gaps and recommendations for researchers in the United States1 J. Unmanned Veh. Syst. 4:1–14.

Vermeulen C, Lejeune P, Lisein J, Sawadogo P and Bouché P. 2013. Unmanned aerial survey of elephants. PLoS One. 8(2):e54700.

 

SeaBASS 2016

By Samara Haver, MSc student, OSU Fisheries and Wildlife, ORCAA Lab

As a graduate student in bioacoustics (the study of noise produced by biological sources), my education is interdisciplinary. Bioacoustics is a relatively small field, and (together with my peers) I am challenged to find my way through coursework in ecology, physiology, physics, oceanography, statistics, and engineering to learn the background information that I need to develop and answer research questions (since this is my first post for the GEMM lab, here is a little more information about my interests). While this challenge (for all young bioacousticians) presents itself a little differently at all universities, the information gap is essentially the same. Hence, just over 6 years ago, Dr. Jennifer Missis-Old and Dr. Susan Parks recognized a need to fill this gap for graduate students in bioacoustics and created SeaBASS, a BioAcoustics Summer School.

This year, for the 4th iteration of the week-long program, I was lucky to have the opportunity to attend SeaBASS. I first heard about SeaBASS as a research assistant in Dr. Sofie Van Parijs’s passive acoustics group at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, but the workshop is limited to graduate students only so I had to wait until I was officially enrolled in grad school to apply. My ORCAA lab-mates, Niki, Selene, and Michelle are all alumni of SeaBASS (read Miche’s re-cap from 2014 here ) so by the time I was preparing for my trip to upstate NY this summer to attend, I had a pretty good idea of what was to come.

As expected, the week was packed. I flew to the East Coast a few days early to visit our fearless ORCAA leader, Holger, at the Bioacoustics Research Program at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, so I was lucky to be somewhat adjusted to EST by the time I arrived at Syracuse on Sunday afternoon. After exploring the campus, it was time for official SeaBASS programming to begin. Our first class, an “Introduction to Acoustics and Proportion”, began early on Monday morning. In the afternoon and through the rest of the week we also learned about active acoustics (creating a sound in the water and using the echo to detect animals or other things) and marine mammal physiology, echolocation, communication, and behavior. We also heard about passive acoustics (listening to existing underwater sounds), including the different types of technology being used and its application for population density estimation. On Friday afternoon, the final lecture covered the effects of noise on marine mammals.

Samara1 Some SeaBASS-ers testing the hypothesis that humans are capable of echolocation.

In addition to the class lectures given by each instructor, we also heard individual opinions about “hot topics” in bioacoustics. This session was my favorite part of the week because we (the students) had the opportunity to hear from a number of accomplished scientists about what they believe are the most pressing issues in the field. Unlike a conference or seminar, these short talks introduced (or reinforced) ideas from researchers in an informal setting, and among our small group it was easy to hear impressions from other SeaBASS-ers afterwards. As a student I spend a lot of my time working alone; my ORCAA labmates are focused on related acoustic projects, but we do not overlap completely. The best part of SeaBASS was sharing ideas, experiences, and general camaraderie with other students that are tackling questions very similar to my own.

Samara2 SeaBASS 2016

Although a full week of class would be plenty to take in by itself, our evenings were also filled with activities. We (students) shared posters (this was mine ) about our individual research projects, listened to advice about life as a researcher in the field, attended a Syracuse Chiefs baseball game, and at the end of each day reflected on our new knowledge and experiences over pints. So, needless to say, I returned home to Oregon completely exhausted, but also with refreshed excitement about my place in the small world of bioacoustics research.

Samara3 Luckily we had beautiful weather for the baseball game!

Samara4

 

Sonic Sea asks “can we turn down the volume before it’s too late?”

By: Amanda Holdman, MS student, Geospatial Ecology and Marine Megafauna Lab & Oregon State Research Collective for Applied Acoustics, MMI

It was March 15th, 2000; Kenneth Balcomb was drinking coffee with his new summer interns in the Bahamas when a goose-beaked whale stranded on a nearby beach. Balcomb, a whale researcher and former U.S. Navy Officer, gently pushed the whale out to sea but the beaked whale kept returning to the shore. He continued this process until a second beaked whale stranding was reported further down the beach; and then a third. Within hours, 17 cetaceans had stranded in the Bahamas trying to escape ‘something’ in the water, and Kenneth Balcomb was determined to solve the mystery of the mass stranding. The cause, he eventually learned, was extreme noise – sonar tests from Navy Warships.

The world is buzzing with the sounds of Earth’s creatures as they are living, interacting, and communicating with one another, even in the darkest depths of the oceans. Beneath the surface of our oceans lies a finely balanced, living world of sound. To whales, dolphins and other marine life, sound is survival; the key to how they navigate, find mates, hunt for food, communicate over vast distances and protect themselves against predators in waters dark and deep. Yet, this symphony of life is being disrupted and sadly destroyed, by today’s increasing noise pollution (Figure 1). Human activities in the ocean have exploded over the past 5 decades with ocean noise rising by 3db per decade (Halpern et al. 2008). People have been introducing more and more noise into the ocean from shipping, seismic surveys for oil and gas, naval sonar testing, renewable energy construction, and other activities. This increased noise has significant impacts on acoustically active and sensitive marine mammals. However, as the Discovery Chanel’s new documentary Sonic Sea points out “The biggest thing about noise in the ocean is that humans aren’t aware of the sound at all.” The increase of ocean noise has transformed the delicate ocean habitat, and has challenged the ability of whales and other marine life to prosper and survive.

June blogFigure 1: Anthropogenic sources contributing to ocean soundscapes and the impacts on marine megafauna survival (sspa.se)

Like the transformative documentary from 10 years ago, An Inconvenient Truth, which highlighted the reality and dangers of climate change, Sonic Sea aims to inform audiences of increased man-made noise in the oceans and the harm it poses to marine animals. The Hatfield Marine Science Center and Oregon Chapter of the American Cetacean Society offered a free, premier showing of the award-winning documentary followed by a scientific panel discussion. The panel featured Dave Mellinger, Joe Haxel, and Michelle Fournet of Oregon State University’s Cooperative Institute for Marine Resources Studies (CIMRS) marine bioacoustics research along with GEMM Lab leader, Leigh Torres, of the Marine Mammal Institute.

Sonic Sea introduces us to this global problem of ocean noise and offers up solutions for change. The film uncovers how better ship design, speed limits for large ships, quieter methods for under water resource exploration, and exclusion zones for sonar training can work to reduce the noise in our oceans. However, these efforts require continued innovation and regulatory involvement to bring plans to action.

Around the world the scientific community, policymakers and authorities such as The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the European Union (EU), the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and other authorities have increasingly pressed for the reduction of noise.  NOAA, which manages and protects marine life in United States waters, is trying to reduce ocean noise through their newly released Ocean Noise Strategy Roadmap, where the challenge is dealt with as a comprehensive issue rather than a case-by-case basis. This undersea map is a 10-year plan that aims to identify areas of specific importance for cetaceans and the temporal, spatial, and frequency of man-made underwater noise. After obtaining a more comprehensive scientific understanding of the distributions and effects of noise in the ocean, these maps can help to develop better tools and strategies for the management and mitigation of ocean noise.

Sonic Sea states “we must protect what we love” but then asks “how we can love it if we don’t understand it?” Here at GEMM Lab and the Marine Mammal Institute, we are trying to understand marine species ecology, distributions and behavioral responses to anthropogenic impacts. One of the suggestions Sonic Sea makes to reduce the impact of ocean noise is to restrict activity in biologically sensitive habitats. Therefore, we must know where these important areas are. In an ideal world, we would have a good inventory of data on the marine animals present in a region and when these animals breed, birth and feed. Then we could use this information to guide marine spatial planning and management to keep noise out of important habitats. My thesis project aims to provide such baseline information on harbor porpoise distribution patterns within a proposed marine energy development site. By filling knowledge gaps about where marine animals can be found and why certain habitats are critical, conservation efforts can be more directed and effective in reducing threats, such as ocean noise, to marine mammals.

Noise in our oceans is hard to observe, but its effects are visibly traumatic and well-documented. Unlike other sources of pollution to our oceans, (climate change, acidification, plastic pollution), which may take years, decades or centuries to dissipate, reducing ocean noise is rather straight forward. “Like a summer night when the fireworks end, our oceans can quickly return to their natural soundscape.” Ocean noise is a problem we can fix. To quiet the world’s waters, we all need to raise our voices so policy makers hear of this problem. That’s what Sonic Sea is all about: increasing awareness of this growing threat and building a worldwide community of citizen advocates to help us turn down the volume on undersea noise. If we sit back and do nothing to mitigate oceanic noise pollution, the problem will likely worsen. I highly suggest watching Sonic Sea.  Then, together, we can speak up to turn down the noise that threatens our oceans — and threatens us all.

Sonic Sea airs TONIGHT (6/8) for World Ocean’s Day on Animal Planet  at 10pm ET/PT!

On niche partitioning and the Ohio State Buckeyes

By: Erin Pickett, MS student, Biotelemetry and Behavioral Ecology Laboratory & GEMM Lab, MMI

Buckeye anecdote

I recently found myself sitting at a Sunday brunch at the Westin in Washington, D.C., talking to my uncle about my research on the foraging ecology of penguins. Our entire extended family had gathered for a cousin’s wedding, and it was the first family gathering in a long time that I had been able to attend due to always being “out on some island”, as my cousin puts it. In fact, I got a shout-out during one of the dinner reception speeches for coming all the way from Antarctica for the wedding.

My uncle asked me about my research while our surrounding family members sipped their coffee and OJ and recounted the highlights of the previous night’s wedding reception. This conversation with my uncle was the first I’d had with a family member all weekend that had progressed past my ‘elevator speech’ of what I was studying in school. After I described my research questions about resource partitioning between Adelie and gentoo penguins, my uncle glanced around the room full of family members and said to me, “You know what….”? And then he went on to describe his thoughts about how our aunts, uncles, cousins and in-laws all occupied distinct niches within our family.

The definition of the word niche is broad, and for this reason it can be used to describe the roles of younger siblings, matriarchs, sisters, and Ohio State Buckeye fans within their families or communities. Take for example my entire family on the dance floor chanting O-H-I-O during the bands requisite rendition of “Hang on Sloopy” at the wedding reception. As Buckeyes, we were occupying a role distinct from that of the bride’s family, who are Notre Dame Fans. Within our immediate families, the roles of every sibling and parent are further differentiated. My uncle and I looked around the room and saw a family who despite a wide range of personalities and football allegiances, was managing to enjoy a pretty good time together!

Ecological niche theory and sympatric penguins

In ecology, the term niche is used to describe the ecological role that a species occupies within an ecosystem (Hutchinson 1957). The concept of an ecological niche is typically used in ecology to describe how similar species coexist within the same space. This coexistence is made possible through segregation mechanisms that facilitate resource partitioning, such as spatial or temporal differences in foraging location, or dietary segregation (Pianka 1974). With this in mind, the main objective of my master’s research is to quantify the ecological niches of Adelie and gentoo penguins in terms of space, time and diet, in order to investigate whether foraging competition is occurring between these two species. You’ll find more background on this project here.

The first step in my investigation of resource partitioning was to assess the extent and consistency of dietary overlap between these two species. The diets of Adelie and gentoo penguins vary regionally, but along the Antarctic Peninsula the prey of both species is typically dominated by Antarctic krill. This was the case when I studied the diets of these two species at Palmer Station in Antarctica. I also found that both species consume the same size classes of krill and that this was consistent across both low and high prey availability years (Figure 1).

Size class frequency distribution of Antarctic krill found in penguin diet samples (2010-2015). Krill size class bins shown on x-axis and proportions depicted on y-axis
Figure 1. Length-frequency distribution of Antarctic krill found in penguin diet samples (2010-2015). Krill size class bins shown on x-axis with the proportion of those size classes depicted on the y-axis. Palmer LTER unpublished data.

The next step of my project is to assess the foraging habits and space-use patterns of these two species. They share food, but do they forage in the same areas? I am in the process of analyzing spatial data obtained from satellite and TDR (time depth recording) tags temporarily attached to Adelie and gentoo penguins during the breeding season to determine the core foraging areas. I am using kernel density estimate (KDE) techniques to visually and quantitatively determine the size and extent of spatial overlap between both species foraging areas (Figure 2).

Figure 2.
Figure 2. An example plot of 3D kernel density estimates outlining 95% and 50% volume contours of foraging penguins during the 2010 breeding season. Orange and green depict the core foraging areas of gentoo and Adelies, respectively. Horizontal axes show northing and easting values and depth is shown in meters on the vertical axis.

The KDE method allows me to turn hundreds of satellite tag derived location points into a probability density surface which depicts where an animal is most likely to be found (Kie et al. 2010).  2D KDEs are sufficient to describe the ranges of many terrestrial animals, however, 3D KDEs are a more appropriate description of the space-use patterns of diving seabirds. By failing to incorporate the depth at which these two species are foraging, 2D KDEs might overestimate the extent of spatial overlap between two species who are foraging in the same location but at different depths. Similar to other studies (Cimino et al. 2016 & Wilson 2010), I am finding that Adelie and gentoo penguins may be partitioning resources by foraging at different depths, with gentoo penguins diving deeper than Adelies. By foraging at different depths, these two species are limiting foraging competition.

While I am working on these analyses, I am also thinking about my next step, which will be to determine whether foraging niche overlap between Adelie and gentoo penguins is a function of prey availability. Resource availability is a critical component of niche segregation. When resources are abundant, there is typically a higher tolerance for niche overlap (Pianka 1974, Torres 2009). Conversely, niches may become more distinct as resources decrease and successfully partitioning these resources will become more important to minimize competition. In order to address the effect of resource availability on niche partitioning between Adelie and gentoo penguins, I will be comparing their foraging niches during years of both low and high prey availability. This will allow me to truly evaluate the potential occurrence of foraging competition between these two species.

Conclusion

I’ll keep you updated on my progress with data analysis in future blogs, but before I go I’ll share one last piece of wisdom about niche theory that I’ve learned from my family. There is a niche for everyone unless you are a Michigan fan, then no amount of spatial or dietary partitioning in a room full of Ohio State Buckeyes will save you.

References 

Cimino, Megan A., et al. “Climate-driven sympatry may not lead to foraging competition between congeneric top-predators.” Scientific reports 6 (2016).

Hutchinson, G.E. “Concluding remarks. Population Studies: Animal Ecology and Demography.” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 22 (1957): 415-427.

Kie, John G., et al. “The home-range concept: are traditional estimators still relevant with modern telemetry technology?” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 365.1550 (2010): 2221-2231.

Pianka, Eric R. “Niche overlap and diffuse competition.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 71.5 (1974): 2141-2145.

Torres, Leigh G. “A kaleidoscope of mammal, bird and fish: habitat use patterns of top predators and their prey in Florida Bay.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 375 (2009): 289-304.

Are Oregon gulls trash birds?

By Stephanie Loredo, MSc student

“Violent” and “greedy” are words often used to describe gulls in populous areas where food or trash are readily available.  Humans are used to seeing gulls in parking lots, parks, and plazas eating left over crumbs. Many people have even experienced menacing gulls ripping food away from their hands. Anecdotes like these have caused people to have negative perceptions of gulls. But could the repulsive attitude towards these birds be changed with evidence that not all gulls are the same? Well, Oregon may be home to an odd bunch.

Last year, the Seabird Oceanography Lab in conjunction with the GEMM Lab began putting GPS trackers on western gulls (Laurus occidentalis) off the Oregon Coast. One of the goals was to determine where gulls scavenge for food while raising chicks: at sea or on land in association with humans. We were particularly interested to see if western gulls in Oregon would behave similarly to western gulls in California, some of which make trips to the nearest landfill during the breeding season to bring not only food but also potentially harmful pathogens back to the colony.

During the 2015 breeding season, 10 commercially brand ‘i-gotU’ GPS data loggers were placed on gulls from ‘Cleft-in-the-Rock’ colony in Yachats, Oregon. The tags provided GPS locations at intervals of two minutes that determined the general habitat use areas (marine vs. terrestrial). After a two-week period, we were able to recapture six birds, remove tags, and download the data.   We found that these western gulls stayed close to the colony and foraged in nearby intertidal and marine zones (Figure 1). Birds showed high site faithfulness by visiting the same foraging spots away from colony. It was interesting to see that inland habitat use did not extend past 1.3 miles from shore and the only waste facility within such boundaries did not attract any birds (Figure 1). Tagged birds never crossed the 101 Highway, but rather occurred at beaches in state parks such as Neptune and Yachats Ocean Road.

Figure 1. Tracks from 6 western gulls, each color representing a unique bird, from the Cleft-in-the-Rock colony carrying micro-GPS units.
Figure 1. Tracks from 6 western gulls, each color representing a unique bird, from the Cleft-in-the-Rock colony carrying micro-GPS units.

While it is hard to determine whether gulls avoided anthropogenic sources of food at the beach, preliminary analysis shows a high percentage of time spent in marine and intertidal habitat zones by half of the individuals (Figure 2). At a first glance, this is not as much as it seemed on the tracking map (Figure 1), but it nonetheless confirms that these gulls seek food in natural areas. Moreover, time spent at the colony is represented as time spent on coastal habitat on the graph, and thus “coastal” foraging values are over represented. To get a more exact estimate of coastal habitat use, future analysis will have to exclude colony locations and distinguish foraging versus resting behaviors.

Figure 2. Bar plot of the percentage of time spent in three distinct habitats for each gull carrying a GPS unit. The three-letter code represents the unique Bird ID.
Figure 2. Bar plot of the percentage of time spent in three distinct habitats for each gull carrying a GPS unit. The three-letter code represents the unique Bird ID.

‘Cleft-in-the-Rock’ is unique and its surroundings may explain why there was high foraging in intertidal and marine zones rather than within city limits. (The Cleft colony can also be tricky to get to, with a close eye on the tide at all times – See video below).  The colony site is close to the Cape Perpetua Scenic Area and surrounded by recently established conservation zones: the Cape Perpetua Marine Reserve Area, Marine Protected Area, and Seabird Protected Area (Figure 1).  Each of these areas has different regulatory rules on what is allowed to take, which you can read about here. The implication of these protected areas in place means there is more food for wildlife!  Moreover, the city of Yachats has a small population of 703 inhabitants (based on 2013 U.S Census Bureau). The small population allows the city to be relatively clean, and the waste facility is not spewing rotten odors into the air like in many big cities such as Santa Cruz (population of 62,864) where our collaborative gull study takes place. Thus, in Yachats, there is more limited odor or visual incentive to attract birds to landfills.

Field crew descends headland slope to reach ‘Cleft-in-the-Rock’ gull island in Yachats, OR (colony can be seen in distance across the water). The team must wear wetsuits and carry equipment in dry bags for protection during water crossing.

In order to determine whether gull habitat use in Yachats is a trend for all western gulls in Oregon, we need to track birds at more sites and for a longer time. That is why during the breeding season of 2016, we will be placing 30 new tags on gulls and include a new colony into the study, ‘Hunters Island’. The new colony is situated near the Pistol River, between Gold Beach and Brookings in southern Oregon, and it is part of the Oregon Islands Wildlife Refuge.

We will have 10 ‘i-gotU’ tags (Figure 3) and 20 CATS tags (Figure 4), the latter are solar powered and can collect data for several weeks, months, and hopefully even years! These tags do not need to be retrieved for data download; rather data can be accessed remotely, providing minimal disturbance to the gulls and colony. With long-term data, we can explore further into the important feeding areas for western gulls, examine rates of foraging in different habitats, and determine how extensive intertidal and marine foraging is throughout the year.

Figure 3. Taping an i-gotU tag for temporary attachment on the tail feathers of a gull.
Figure 3. Taping an i-gotU tag for temporary attachment on the tail feathers of a gull.

 

Figure 4. Rehearsing the placement and harness attachment of a CATS tag which must be secured on the bird‘s back, looping around the wings and hips.

We are excited to kick start our field season in the next couple of weeks and see how well the new tags work. We know that some questions will be solved and many new questions will arise; and we cannot wait to start this gull-filled adventure!

References

Osterback, A.M., Frechette, D., Hayes, S., Shaffer, S., & Moore, J. (2015). Long-term shifts in anthropogenic subsidies to gulls and implications for an imperiled fish. Biological Conservation, 191: 606–613.

An update on Oregon’s sound sensitive marine mammal, the harbor porpoise.

By Amanda Holdman, M.S. Student

Marine renewable energy is developing at great speeds all around the world. In 2013, the Northwest Marine Renewable Energy Center (NMREC) chose Newport, Oregon as the future site of first utility-scale, grid-connected wave energy test site in the United States – The Pacific Marine Energy Center (PMEC). The development of marine energy holds great potential to help meet our energy needs – it is renewable, and it is predicted that marine energy sources could fulfill nearly one-third of the United States energy demands.

Wave energy construction in Newport could begin as early as 2017. Therefore, it is important to fully understand the potential risks and benefits of wave energy as the industry moves forward. Currently, there is limited information on wave energy devices and the potential ecological impacts that they may have on marine mammals and their habitats. In order to assess the effects of wave energy, pertinent information needs to be collected prior to the installation of the devices.

This is where I contribute to the wave energy industry in Oregon.

Harbor porpoise are a focal species when it comes to renewable energy management; they are sensitive to a range of anthropogenic sounds at very low levels of exposure and may show behavioral responses before other marine mammals, making them a great indicator species for potential problems with wave energy. Little is known about harbor porpoise in Oregon, necessitating the need to look at the fine scale habitat use patterns of harbor porpoise within the proposed wave energy sites.

I used two methods to study harbor porpoise presence and activity in coastal waters: visual boat surveys, and passive acoustic monitoring. Visual surveys have a high spatial resolution and a low temporal resolution, meaning you can conduct visual boat surveys over a wide area, but only during daylight hours. Whereas acoustic surveys have opposite characteristics; you can conduct surveys during all hours of the day, however, the range of the acoustic device is only a few hundred meters. Therefore, these methods work well together to gain complimentary information about harbor porpoise. These methods are crucial for collecting baseline data on harbor porpoise distribution, and providing valuable information for understanding, managing, and mitigating potential impacts.

Bi-monthly standard visual line-transect surveys were conducted for two full years (October 2013-2015), while acoustic devices were deployed May – October 2014. Field work ended last October, and since then, data analysis efforts have uncovered  seasonal, diel, and tidal patterns in harbor porpoise occurrence and activity.

Harbor porpoises in Oregon are thought to be seasonally migratory. With the onset of spring, coinciding with the start of the upwelling season, porpoise are thought to move inshore and abundance increases into the summer. Most births also occur during the late spring and summer. With the return of winter, porpoise are thought to leave the coastal waters and head out to the deeper waters (Dohl 1983, Barlow 1988, Green et al. 1992).

Results from my data support this seasonal trend. Both visual survey and acoustic recording data document the general pattern of peak porpoise presence occurring in the summer months of June and July, with a gradual decline of detections into the fall (Fig. 1 & 2).

1

Figure 1: Overall, from our acoustic surveys we see a large increase from May to June, suggesting the arrival of harbor porpoise to coastal waters. From July, we see a slow decline into the fall months, suggestive of harbor porpoise moving offshore.

2

Figure 2: Our data from visual surveys mimic those of our acoustic surveys. We see a large increase of porpoises from May to June and then a decline into the fall. We had very low survey effort in July, due to rough seas.  If we were able to survey more, it is likely we would have seen more harbor porpoise during this time.

Using acoustic recorders, we are able to get data on harbor porpoise occurrence throughout all hours of the day, regardless of weather conditions. We deployed hydrophones in two locations – one in a near-shore REEF habitat located 4 km from shore, and the second in the middle of the South Energy Testing Site (SETS) 12 km off-shore. These two sites differ in depth and habitat type. The REEF habitat is 30 m deep and has a rocky bottom as a habitat type, while SETS is 60 m deep and has a sandy bottom. When we compare the two sites (Figure 3), we can see that harbor porpoise have a preference for the REEF site.

Additionally, we are also able to get some indices of behavior from acoustic recordings. Equivalent to sonar or radar, marine mammals use echolocation (high frequency sounds) to communicate and navigate. Marine mammals, specifically odonotocetes, also use echolocation to locate prey at depth when there is very little or no light. Porpoises use a series of clicks during their dives, and as the porpoise approach their prey, the clicks become closer and closer together so they sound like a continuous buzz. When studying echolocation patterns in odontocetes we typically look at the inter-click-intervals (ICIs) or the time between clicks. When ICIs are very close together (less than 10 ms apart) it is considered a foraging behavior or a buzz. Anything greater than 10 ms is classified as other (or clicks in this figure).

Click_Buzz_bargraph.

Figure 3: We see harbor porpoise clicks were detected about 27% of the time at the REEF, but only 18% at SETS. Potential feeding was also higher at the REEF site (14%) compared to (4%) at SETS.

Not only did we find patterns in foraging behavior between the two sites, we also found foraging patterns across diel cycles and tidal cycles:

  1. We found a tendency for harbor porpoise to forage more at night (Figure 4).
  2. The diel pattern of harbor porpoise foraging is stronger at the SETS than the REEF site (Figure 4). This result may be due to the prey at the SETS (sandy bottom) exhibiting vertical migration with the day and night cycles since prey there do not have alternative cover, as they would in the rocky reef habitat.
  3. At the reef site, we see a relationship between increased foraging behavior and low tide (Figure 5).

ratio

Figure 4: When analyzing data for trends in foraging behavior across different sites and diel cycles, we use a ratio of buzzes to clicks, so that we incorporate both echolocation behaviors in one value. This figure shows us that the ratio of buzzes to clicks is pretty similar at the REEF site across diel periods, but there is more variation at the SETS site, with more detections at night and during sunrise.

blog_5

Figure 5: Due to the circular nature of tides rotating between high tide and low tide, circular histograms help to observe patterns. In this figure, we see a large preference for harbor porpoise to feed during low tide. We are unclear why harbor porpoise may prefer low tide, but the relationship may be due to minimal current movement that could enhance feeding opportunities for porpoises.

Overall, the combination of visual surveys and passive acoustic monitoring has provided high quality baseline data on harbor porpoise occurrence patterns. It is results like these that can help with decisions regarding wave energy siting, operation and permitting off of the Oregon Coast.

REFERENCES

Barlow, J. 1987. Abundance estimation for harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) based on ship surveys along the coasts of California, Oregon and Washington. SWFC Administrative Report LJ-87-05. Southwest Fishery Center, La Jolla, CA. 36pp.

Dohl, T.P., Guess, R.C., Dunman, M.L. and Helm, R.C. 1983, Cetaceans of central and northern California, 1980-83: status, abundance, and distribution. Final Report to the Minerals Management Service, Contract 14-12-0001-29090. 285pp.

Green, G.A., Brueggeman, J. J., Grotefendt, R.A., Bowlby, C.E., Bonnel, M. L. and Balcomb, K.C. 1992. Cetacean distribution and abundance off Oregon and Washington, 1989-1990. Chapter 1 In Oregon and Washington Marine Mammal and Seabird Surveys. Ed. By J. J. Brueggeman. Minerals Management Service Contract Report 14-12-0001-30426.