About 80% of international trade goods are transported by ships (UNCTAD, 2019)..

Erbe, C.

Peel, D.

Redfern, J.V.

Smith, J.N.

English

Research Repository

EDITORIALpublished: 21 August 2020doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00637Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 1 August 2020 | Volume 7 | Article 637Edited and reviewed by:Laura Airoldi,University of Padova ChioggiaHydrobiological Station, Italy*Correspondence:Christine Erbec.erbe@curtin.edu.auSpecialty section:This article was submitted toMarine Conservation andSustainability,a section of the journalFrontiers in Marine ScienceReceived: 07 July 2020Accepted: 13 July 2020Published: 21 August 2020Citation:Erbe C, Smith JN, Redfern JV andPeel D (2020) Editorial: Impacts ofShipping on Marine Fauna.Front. Mar. Sci. 7:637.doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00637Editorial: Impacts of Shipping onMarine FaunaChristine Erbe 1*, Joshua Nathan Smith 2, Jessica V. Redfern 3 and David Peel 41Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia, 2Centre for Sustainable AquaticEcosystems, Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia, 3 Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life, NewEngland Aquarium, Boston, MA, United States, 4Data61, CSIRO, Hobart, TAS, AustraliaKeywords: ship noise, ship strike risk, collision, marine mammal, biofouling, oil spill, shipping impactEditorial on the Research TopicImpacts of Shipping on Marine FaunaSHIP TRAFFIC IN THE OCEAN KEEPS INCREASINGAbout 80% of international trade goods are transported by ships (UNCTAD, 2019). Over the 49years from 1970 to 2018, the volume of global seaborne trade increased by a factor 4.41 (Figure 1).The number of ships and the size of ships have also been increasing (Figure 1).AT THE SAME TIME, CONCERN OVER ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS OF SHIPPING IS INCREASINGThese include chemical pollution of water and air (from fuel spills, waste dumping, and exhaust;Lachmuth et al., 2011; Endres et al., 2018; Arzaghi et al., 2020; Czermański et al., 2020), biofoulingon hulls and invasive species (from discharge of ballast water; Jones, 2009), noise pollution in waterand air (Wysocki et al., 2006; Badino et al., 2016; Erbe, Marley, et al.), and collision with marinefauna (Jägerbrand et al., 2019; Pirotta et al., 2019; UNCTAD, 2019). Shipping potentially impacts(directly or indirectly) a great range of marine taxa, not just locally but globally.RESEARCH INTO THE EFFECTS OF SHIP TRAFFIC ANDMANAGEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATED RISKS ARE TYPICALLYCOMPARTMENTALIZED BY TYPE OF IMPACTYet the impacts may be cumulative and they may be linked. For example, quieter ships mightbe harder for animals to detect (i.e., detected over shorter ranges) and thus may represent ahigher risk of collision. Faster ships may traverse animal habitat in less time, but at a cost ofincreased fuel consumption (hence exhaust), higher noise emission levels, and an increased riskof fatal collision. As Leaper highlights, reduced vessel speed could be financially prudent while alsoreducing greenhouse gas emission, ship noise, and ship strike risk.THERE IS POTENTIAL BENEFIT FROM A MORE HOLISTICAPPROACH TO STUDYING AND MANAGING THE IMPACTS OFSHIPPINGIn this special issue, we’ve therefore brought together research on the diverse impacts of shipping,on a variety of marine fauna, with examples from the equatorial regions to both poles (Figure 2).1https://unctadstat.unctad.org/EN/BulkDownload.html (accessed June 7, 2020).Erbe et al. Editorial: Impacts of Shipping on Marine FaunaFIGURE 1 | Volume of global goods unloaded from ships (in million tons), dead weight of ships (in million tons), and number of ships1.FIGURE 2 | Infographic on the potential impacts of shipping addressed in this special issue: ship strike (Arregui et al.; Calambokidis et al.; Aschettino et al.; Cloyedet al.; Flynn and Calambokidis; Gende et al.; Greig et al.; Keen et al.; Leaper; Peltier et al.; Redfern et al.; Schoeman et al.; Szesciorka et al.; Silber and Adams; Smithet al.), ship noise (Chion et al.; Erbe, Dähne et al.; Erbe, Marley et al.; Heenehan et al.; Joy et al.; Leaper; Silber and Adams), gas emission (Leaper; Silber and Adams),chemical spill (Silber and Adams), introduced pests (Hayes et al.), and induced flushing (i.e., seabird disturbance, Fliessbach et al.).SEVERAL ARTICLES IN THIS SPECIALISSUE PROVIDE AN INTRODUCTION TOAND OVERVIEW OF THE DIFFERENTTYPES OF IMPACTHayes et al. review the risks of biofouling and ballast waterdischarge and associated management strategies. While theirhistorical overview focuses on Australia and New Zealand,international guidelines and conventions are presented, and theefficacy, practicality and costs of treatment options are discussed.Erbe, Marley, et al. provide an overview of ship noise generationand propagation, and the impacts on marine mammals: changeof behavior, auditory masking, and stress. Study challenges,knowledge gaps, and research needs are discussed. Schoemanet al. present a global review of vessel collisions withmarine faunaand found that 75 marine species are affected by ship collisions,including whales, dolphins, porpoises, dugongs, manatees, whalesharks, sharks, seals, sea otters, sea turtles, penguins, and fish.Information about collisions with species other than large whalesis scarce and Schoeman et al. recommend establishing species-specific necropsy protocols and creating a ship-strike database forsmaller species to fill this data gap.Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 2 August 2020 | Volume 7 | Article 637Erbe et al. Editorial: Impacts of Shipping on Marine FaunaTHE BEHAVIOR OF ANIMALS AFFECTSVULNERABILITY TO POTENTIAL IMPACTSCalambokidis et al. show baleen whales can exhibit differentialvulnerability to ship strike based on their movement patterns,swimming, and diving behavior during the day (Figure 3),although diurnal patterns showed a commonality of greatervulnerability at night. The same diurnal risk of collision wasfound for fin whales by Keen et al. who identify seasonalimplications of risk with higher risk during winter wherenighttime duration is longer, particularly at high latitudes.Cloyed et al. show that manatees are exposed to interactionswith a range of vessels, from large commercial to smallrecreational vessels, and understanding manateee migrationpatterns and use of shipping channels is integral to linking andmitigating risk between the offshore and nearshore environment.Similarly, Aschettino et al. document an affinity to high-traffic areas by humpback whales. Despite the overlap ofshipping routes with animal habitat and the associated risksof collision and noise exposure, Szesciorka et al. demonstratefor Eastern North Pacific blue whales the importance ofthe animals’ behavioral response in their ability to avoidserious impacts, such as mortality from vessel strike. Fliessbachet al. developed a disturbance vulnerability index (DVI) for26 seabird species in Northwestern Europe accounting forshyness, escape costs, and compensatory potential. The DVIcan be used with distribution data to identify areas vulnerableto disturbance.DETERMINING THE RISKS POSED BYSHIPPING IS THE FIRST STEP INENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTSVessel operations need to be documented and monitored,as Silber and Adams did in the Arctic, which is a marineecosystem experiencing increased opportunities for maritimeactivities in historically inaccessible areas. Greig et al. examinedsome of the issues with speed calculated from AutomaticIdentification System (AIS) data, which are used in ship-strike risk analysis. While understanding the magnitude of shipstrike rates globally is notoriously difficult because they oftenoccur offshore and go unnoticed, Peltier et al. demonstratethe importance of monitoring marine mammal strandingsand undertaking necropsies to allow an assessment of therisk of collision. However, when carcasses are in advancedstages of decomposition, it is challenging to distinguishwhether trauma occurred ante- or post-mortem. Arregui et al.demonstrate that fat emboli detection can be a feasible,reliable, and accurate forensic tool to determine ante-mortemship strikes in stranded whales, even in decomposed tissueskept in formaldehyde for long periods of time. Heenehanet al. suggest that soundscape monitoring is useful to assessnoise impacts and determine co-occurrence of marine faunaand ships.THE RISKS OF COLLISION AND NOISEIMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATEDRedfern et al. explored the consequences of interannualvariability on ship-strike risk. They found that areas containingthe highest predicted number of whales were generally thesame across years. Consequently, either nearshore or offshoreship traffic consistently had the highest risk for each whalespecies. The consistency in risk suggests that static spatialmanagement measures (e.g., changing shipping lanes, creatingareas to be avoided, and seasonal speed reductions) can providean effective means of mitigating risk in their study area. Smithet al. identified differences in ship strike risk based on thereproductive status of female humpback whales. They foundthat temporal dynamics in whale movement within a breedingseason could affect risk, which can be countered by changes inwhale density, and that common mitigation measures (e.g., re-routing shipping lanes) are not always possible. Studies havealso assessed the possibility of reducing risk through “activewhale avoidance” defined as a mariner making operationaldecisions to reduce the chance of collision with a sightedwhale. Gende et al. generated a conceptual model of activewhale avoidance and explored the model using observationsof humpback whales surfacing in the proximity of large cruiseships and simulations run in a full-mission bridge simulator andcommonly used pilotage software. They identified several optionsfor enhancing whale avoidance and conclude that active whaleavoidance is a feasible yet underdeveloped tool for reducingcollision. The practicality and effectiveness of placing marinemammal observers on commercial vessels were examined byFlynn and Calambokidis.Chion et al. compiled a large dataset of published ship noiselevels from the literature and demonstrate that reducing speedis a means of achieving lower noise emission levels for anyspecific ship class and size category. Voluntary commercialvessel slowdown reduced underwater noise and associated “lostforaging time” despite increased transit duration in Joy et al. ’sstudy on endangered southern resident killer whales (Orcinusorca), which used field measurements and modeling.While this special issue collates articles on various types ofshipping impact, on a diversity of taxa, in equatorial to polarregions, commonalities in identified knowledge gaps and researchneeds have been identified. Risk assessments utilize both shipdistribution data (i.e., AIS) and species distribution information.Developments are needed in AIS coverage and accuracy. Abetter understanding of species distributions is also needed.Uncertainty needs to be considered in risk assessments. Thisincludes uncertainty due to temporal variability (as examinedin Redfern et al.), spatial uncertainty (e.g., AIS positionaluncertainty), sampling and measurement error, and modeluncertainty. Cumulative risk models are needed to assess riskover successive exposures in space and time, and to combinethe potentially synergistic impacts of shipping. Understandinghow impacts interact and accumulate will improve mitigationsolutions by increasing our understanding of when reducing oneimpact may reduce or increase other impacts.Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 3 August 2020 | Volume 7 | Article 637Erbe et al. Editorial: Impacts of Shipping on Marine FaunaFIGURE 3 | Photo of a blue whale in front of a large vessel off California on 4 September 2014. Photo taken by John Calambokidis of Cascadia Research, as part ofthe diurnal ship strike risk assessment (Calambokidis et al.).MANAGING THE IMPACTS OF SHIPPINGREQUIRES COLLABORATION AMONGSTSTAKEHOLDERS AND ACROSSPOLITICAL BORDERSThe shipping industry, marine scientists, environmental groups,government regulators, socio-economists, etc., need to worktogether to improve outcomes for all stakeholders and theenvironment. Political borders never line up with habitatsor environmental regions, necessitating collaboration amongcountries on guidelines and regulations. Examples include theEuropean Marine Strategy Framework Directive (van der Graafet al., 2012) and the Protocol on Environmental Protectionof the Antarctic Treaty, which was the framework for theimpact assessment of underwater noise in Antarctica by Erbe,Dähne, et al.. As our understanding of the potential impacts ofshippingmatures, international standards can ensure consistencyin research, mitigation, and management.At a time when shipping is continuing to increase,we believe the articles in this special issue highlight theimportant issues facing our global society and serveas a starting point for managing the potential impactsof shipping.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSCE prepared the first draft and created Figure 1. JS createdFigure 2. All authors summarized 5, 6 articles each and approvedthe final version of this Editorial.FUNDINGThis work was undertaken in part for the Marine BiodiversityHub, a collaborative partnership supported through fundingfrom the Australian Government’s National EnvironmentalScience Programme.REFERENCESArzaghi, E., Sajid, Z., and Abbassi, R. (2020). Advanced methodsfor environmental risk assessment in offshore operations MethodsChem. Process Saf. 4, 321–354. doi: 10.1016/bs.mcps.2020.04.002Badino, A., Borelli, D., Gaggero, T., Rizzuto, E., and Schenone, C. (2016).Airborne noise emissions from ships: experimental characterization ofthe source and propagation over land. Appl. Acoust. 104, 158–171.doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2015.11.005Czermański, E., Pawłowska, B., Oniszczuk-Jastrzabek, A., and Cirella,G. T. (2020). Decarbonization of maritime transport: analysis ofexternal costs. Front. Energy Res. 8:28. doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2020.00028Endres, S., Maes, F., Hopkins, F., Houghton, K., Mårtensson, E. M., Oeffner, J.,et al. (2018). A new perspective at the ship-air-sea-interface: the environmentalimpacts of exhaust gas scrubber discharge. [Review]. Front. Mar. Sci. 5:139.doi: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00139Jägerbrand, A. K., Brutemark, A., Barthel Svedén, J., and Gren, I.-M. (2019). Areview on the environmental impacts of shipping on aquatic and nearshoreecosystems. Sci. Tot. Environ. 695:133637. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133637Jones, G. (2009). “Chapter 2: The battle against marine biofouling: a historicalreview,” in Advances in Marine Antifouling Coatings and Technologies, edsC. Hellio and D. Yebra (Cambridge, MA: Woodhead Publishing), 19–45.doi: 10.1533/9781845696313.1.19Lachmuth, C. L., Barrett-Lennard, L. G., Steyn, D. Q., and Milsom, W. K. (2011).Estimation of southern resident killer whale exposure to exhaust emissionsFrontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 4 August 2020 | Volume 7 | Article 637Erbe et al. Editorial: Impacts of Shipping on Marine Faunafrom whale-watching vessels and potential adverse health effects and toxicitythresholds. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 792–805. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.01.002Pirotta, V., Grech, A., Jonsen, I. D., Laurance, W. F., and Harcourt,R. G. (2019). Consequences of global shipping traffic formarine giants. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 39–47. doi: 10.1002/fee.1987UNCTAD (2019). Review of Maritime Transport. Geneva: United NationsConference on Trade and Development.van der Graaf, A. J., Ainslie, M. A., Andre, M., Brensing, K., Dalen,J., Dekeling, R. P. A., et al. (2012). European Marine StrategyFramework Directive–Good Environmental Status (MSFD GES): Reportof the Technical Subgroup on Underwater Noise and Other Forms ofEnergy (JRC Scientific and Technical Report). Brussels: TSG Noise &Milieu Ltd.Wysocki, L. E., Dittami, J. P., and Ladich, F. (2006). Ship noise andcortisol secretion in European freshwater fishes. Biol. Conserv. 128, 501–508.doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.020Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in theabsence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as apotential conflict of interest.Copyright © 2020 Erbe, Smith, Redfern and Peel. This is an open-access articledistributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided theoriginal author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the originalpublication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with theseterms.Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 5 August 2020 | Volume 7 | Article 637

Editorial: Impacts of shipping on marine fauna

https://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/57633/1/Marine%20fauna.pdf

Editorial: Impacts of shipping on marine fauna

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Repository