4.7 Article

Underwater sound levels in the Canadian Arctic, 2014-2019

Journal

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
Volume 168, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112437

Keywords

Ambient sound levels; Climate change; Passive acoustic monitoring; Ship traffic; Soundscape; Underwater noise

Funding

  1. Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  2. Defence Research and Development Canada Atlantic
  3. Fisheries Joint Management Committee
  4. Oceans North
  5. World Wildlife Fund
  6. Government of Nunavut
  7. Nunavut Fisheries Association
  8. Scripps Institution of Oceanography
  9. W. Garfield Weston Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Climate change has reduced summer sea ice in the Arctic, allowing for increased underwater noise. Sound pressure levels increase with wind speed, decrease with ice concentration and air temperature, and also increase with the number of ships per day.
The Arctic has been a refuge from anthropogenic underwater noise; however, climate change has caused summer sea ice to diminish, allowing for unprecedented access and the potential for increased underwater noise. Baseline underwater sound levels must be quantified to monitor future changes and manage underwater noise in the Arctic. We analyzed 39 passive acoustic datasets collected throughout the Canadian Arctic from 2014 to 2019 using statistical models to examine spatial and temporal trends in daily mean sound pressure levels (SPL) and quantify environmental and anthropogenic drivers of SPL. SPL (50 & ndash;1000 Hz) ranged from 70 to 127 dB re 1 mu Pa (median = 91 dB). SPL increased as wind speed increased, but decreased as both ice concentration and air temperature increased, and SPL increased as the number of ships per day increased. This study provides a baseline for underwater sound levels in the Canadian Arctic and fills many geographic gaps on published underwater sound levels.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available