Multisensor Acoustic Tracking of Fish and Seabird Behavior Around Tidal Turbine Structures in Scotland

Despite rapid development of marine renewable energy, relatively little is known of the immediate and future impacts on the surrounding ecosystems. Quantifying the behavior and distribution of animals around marine renewable energy devices is crucial for understanding, predicting, and potentially mitigating any threats posed by these installations. The Flow and Benthic Ecology 4D (FLOWBEC) autonomous seabed platform integrated an Imagenex multibeam echosounder and a Simrad EK60 multifrequency echosounder to monitor marine life in a 120 $^{\circ}$ sector over ranges up to 50 m, seven to eight times per second. Established target detection algorithms fail within MRE sites, due to high levels of backscatter generated by the turbulent physical dynamics, limiting and biasing analysis to only periods of low current speed. This study presents novel algorithms to extract diving seabirds, fish, and fish schools from the intense backscatter caused by turbulent dynamics in flows of 4 m s$^{{-1}}$. Filtering, detection, and tracking using a modified nearest neighbor algorithm provide robust tracking of animal behavior using the multibeam echosounder. Independent multifrequency target detection is demonstrated using the EK60 with optimally calculated thresholds, scale-sensitive filters, morphological exclusion, and frequency-response characteristics. This provides sensitive and reliable detection throughout the entire water column and at all flow speeds. Dive profiles, depth preferences, predator–prey interactions, and fish schooling behavior can be analyzed, in conjunction with the hydrodynamic impacts of marine renewable energy devices. Coregistration of targets between the acoustic instruments increases the information available, providing quantitative measures including frequency response from the EK60, and target morphology and behavioral interactions from the multibeam echosounder. The analyses draw on deployments at a tidal energy site in Scotland to compare the presence and absence of renewable energy structures across a range of physical and trophic levels over complete spring-neap tidal cycles. These results can be used to inform how animals forage in these sites and whether individuals face collision risks. This quantitative information can de-risk the licensing process and, with a greater mechanistic understanding at demonstration scales, its predictive power could reduce the monitoring required at future arrays.

[1]  Philippe Blondel,et al.  A Self-Contained Subsea Platform for Acoustic Monitoring of the Environment Around Marine Renewable Energy Devices–Field Deployments at Wave and Tidal Energy Sites in Orkney, Scotland , 2016, IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering.

[2]  P. D. Abel,et al.  Ecotoxicology and the marine environment , 1991 .

[3]  L. Rockwood Introduction to population ecology , 2006 .

[4]  Geir Odd Johansen,et al.  Acoustic species identification of schooling fish , 2009 .

[5]  Mark A. Shields,et al.  Marine Renewable Energy Technology and Environmental Interactions , 2014 .

[6]  Harold Barnes,et al.  Oceanography and Marine Biology , 1959 .

[7]  N. Otsu A threshold selection method from gray level histograms , 1979 .

[8]  E. John Simmonds,et al.  Fisheries Acoustics: Theory and Practice , 2005 .

[9]  F. Daunt,et al.  Collision risks between marine renewable energy devicesand mammals, fish and diving birds: report to the Scottish Executive , 2006 .

[10]  Paul S. Bell,et al.  Determining currents from marine radar data in an extreme current environment at a tidal energy test site , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium.

[11]  C. Orme,et al.  In-situ ecological interactions with a deployed tidal energy device; an observational pilot study , 2014 .

[12]  Manuel Barange,et al.  Acoustic identification, classification and structure of biological patchiness on the edge of the Agulhas Bank and its relation to frontal features , 1994 .

[13]  David Ingram,et al.  FLow and Benthic ECology 4D–FLOWBEC : an overview , 2014 .

[14]  John K. Horne,et al.  Acoustic approaches to remote species identification: a review , 2000 .

[15]  James J. Waggitt,et al.  Using a spatial overlap approach to estimate the risk of collisions between deep diving seabirds and tidal stream turbines: A review of potential methods and approaches , 2014 .

[16]  Iain Parnum,et al.  High-frequency multibeam echo-sounder measurements of seafloor backscatter in shallow water: Part 1 - Data acquisition and processing , 2011 .

[17]  Benjamin Williamson,et al.  Quantifying pursuit‐diving seabirds’ associations with fine‐scale physical features in tidal stream environments , 2016 .

[18]  S. Molander,et al.  A Probabilistic Model for Hydrokinetic Turbine Collision Risks: Exploring Impacts on Fish , 2015, PloS one.

[19]  B. Scott,et al.  Comparing nekton distributions at two tidal energy sites suggests potential for generic environmental monitoring , 2016 .

[20]  M. Furusawa,et al.  Effective and accurate use of difference in mean volume backscattering strength to identify fish and plankton , 2002 .

[21]  Pietro Perona,et al.  Automated image-based tracking and its application in ecology. , 2014, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[22]  P. Olive Oceanography and marine biology: an annual review , 1994 .

[23]  K. Foote Calibration of acoustic instruments for fish density estimation : a practical guide , 1987 .

[24]  Benjamin Williamson,et al.  Automatic active acoustic target detection in turbulent aquatic environments , 2017 .

[25]  Mark Bolton,et al.  The use of an unsupervised learning approach for characterizing latent behaviors in accelerometer data , 2016, Ecology and evolution.

[26]  Brian Polagye,et al.  CHALLENGES TO INTEGRATING ACTIVE ACOUSTIC SENSORS , 2015 .

[27]  Andrea E. Copping,et al.  Instrumentation for Monitoring around Marine Renewable Energy Converters: Workshop Final Report , 2014 .

[28]  Christian de Moustier OS-CFAR detection of targets in the water column and on the seafloor with a multibeam echosounder , 2013 .

[29]  Andrea E. Copping,et al.  State of the Science Report: Environmental Effects of Marine Renewable Energy Development Around the World , 2016 .

[30]  John K. Horne,et al.  Sensitivity analysis and parameter selection for detecting aggregations in acoustic data , 2006 .

[31]  Benjamin Williamson,et al.  Predictable hydrodynamic conditions explain temporal variations in the density of benthic foraging seabirds in a tidal stream environment , 2016 .

[32]  Beth E. Scott,et al.  Seabird conservation and tidal stream and wave power generation: Information needs for predicting and managing potential impacts , 2011 .

[33]  Stefan Garthe,et al.  Effects of ship traffic on seabirds in offshore waters: implications for marine conservation and spatial planning. , 2011, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[34]  Hsueh-Jung Lu,et al.  Species identification of fish shoals from echograms by an echo-signal image processing system , 1995 .

[35]  Xavier Lurton,et al.  An Introduction to Underwater Acoustics: Principles and Applications , 2010 .

[36]  X. Lurton An Introduction to Underwater Acoustics , 2002 .

[37]  G. Zydlewski,et al.  Fish Interactions with a Commercial-Scale Tidal Energy Device in the Natural Environment , 2014, Estuaries and Coasts.

[38]  Sebastian Thrun,et al.  Probabilistic robotics , 2002, CACM.

[39]  G. Hastie,et al.  Confusion reigns? A review of marine megafauna interactions with tidal-stream environments , 2015 .

[40]  Pierre Petitgas,et al.  Standard protocols for the analysis of school based data from echo sounder surveys , 2000 .

[41]  James J. Waggitt,et al.  Seabirds and Marine Renewables: Are we Asking the Right Questions? , 2014 .

[42]  Gary D. Melvin,et al.  Multibeam Acoustic Detection of Fish and Water Column Targets at High-Flow Sites , 2014, Estuaries and Coasts.

[43]  Mark L. Tasker,et al.  Counting Seabirds at Sea from Ships: A Review of Methods Employed and a Suggestion for a Standardized Approach , 1984 .