Wild Harbour

Product Information

Tougaard, J., Damsgaard Henriksen, O. & Miller, L. A. Underwater noise from three types of offshore wind turbines: estimation of impact zones for harbor porpoises and harbor seals. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125(6), 3766–3773 (2009). Noren, S. R., Kendall, T., Cuccurullo, V. & Williams, T. M. The dive response redefined: Underwater behavior influences cardiac variability in freely diving dolphins. J. Exp. Biol. 215, 2735–2741 (2012). Todd, V. L. G. et al. Prediction of marine mammal auditory-impact risk from Acoustic Deterrent Devices used in Scottish aquaculture. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 165, 112171 (2021). Patterson, I. A. et al. Evidence for infanticide in bottlenose dolphins: an explanation for violent interactions with harbour porpoises? Proc. R. Soc. B 265, 1167–70 (1998). In Japan, almost 25% of fishing operators use gillnets, mostly in a small-scale gillnet fishery (vessel size of up to 5 gross tons). Especially in Hokkaido, gillnets are the most-operated fishing gear, used by more than 3 000 fishing operator households [ 25]. Around Japan, harbour porpoises are distributed mainly nearshore off Hokkaido [ 26– 29]. The Stranding Network Hokkaido (SNH), a local stranding network organised by scientists, museum curators, and fishers managed by the corresponding author M.T.F., has been collecting information on gill net bycatch along the Hokkaido coast. According to the stranding reports disclosed from SNH ( https://kujira110.com), one gillnet fisher (S. K., a co-author) reported up to 10 harbour porpoises bycatches occurred in his bottom-gillnets up to 10 times year -1. Although the total number of bycatch and incidence around Hokkaido remain unknown, because there is no obligation to report the total number of bycatch incidences. It is assumed that a substantial number of harbour porpoises are taken as bycatch around Hokkaido, drowning in gillnets could be one of the most significant threats for harbour porpoises in the Hokkaido area.

Dawson, S. M. C. and Communication: The behavioural and social contexts of Hector’s Dolphin vocalisations. Ethology 88, 265–276 (1991). Benoit-Bird, K. J., Dahood, A. D. & Würsig, B. Using active acoustics to compare lunar effects on predator–prey behavior in two marine mammal species. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 395, 119–135 (2009). Kastelein, R. A., Hoek, L., de Jong, C. A. F. & Wensveen, P. J. The effect of signal duration on the underwater detection thresholds of a harbor porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena) for single frequency-modulated tonal signals between 0.25 and 160 Khz. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128(5), 3211–3222 (2010).Villadsgaard, A., Wahlberg, M. & Tougaard, J. Echolocation signals of wild harbour porpoises, Phocoena phocoena. J. Exp. Biol. 210(1), 56–64 (2007). Stedt, J. et al. Diurnal and lunar effects on acoustic detections of harbour porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena) around Kullaberg, Sweden. In: Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the European Cetacean Society, 2015 March 23–25, St Julian’s Bay, Malta. Abstract number ACO-16 (2015).

Yoshida YM, Morisaka T, Sakai M, Iwasaki M, Wakabayashi I, Seko A, et al. Sound variation and function in captive Commerson’s dolphins ( Cephalorhynchus commersonii). Behav Process. 2014;108: 11–19. King, S. L., Guarino, E., Keaton, L., Erb, L. & Jaakkola, K. Maternal signature whistle use aids mother-calf reunions in a bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus. Behav. Processes 126, 64–70 (2016). Kastelein RA, de Haan D, Staal C. Behaviour of harbour porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena) in response to ropes. In: Nachtigall PE, Lien J, Au WWL, Read AJ (eds) Harbour porpoises: laboratory studies to reduce bycatch. De Spli Publishers, Woerden, p 91–156; 1995.

Follow us on social media!

Ohizumi H, Kuramochi T, Amano M, Miyazaki N. Prey switching of Dall’s porpoise Phocoenoides dalli with population decline of Japanese pilchard Sardinops melanostictus around Hokkaido, Japan. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2000;200: 265–275. Prey distribution often affects the movements or presence of porpoises [ 45]. Harbour porpoises are known to be highly adaptive and opportunistic in their foraging ecology [ 41], and their movements and presence are affected by prey fish distributions [ 45]. It is natural that the distribution of harbour porpoises in this sea area is also affected by prey distribution. Although no direct evidence is available, the occurrence of porpoises around the net was probably related to the distribution of forage fishes, including Ammodytes sp. Murray KT, Read AJ, Solow AR. The use of time/area closures to reduce bycatches of harbour porpoises: lessons from the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet fishery. J Cetacean Res Manag. 2000;2: 135–141.

Vinther M, Larsen F. Updated estimates of harbour porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena) bycatch in the Danish North Sea bottom-set gillnet fishery. J Cetacean Res Manag. 2004;6: 19–24. Wahlberg, M., Delgado-García, L. & Kristensen, J. H. Precocious hearing in harbour porpoise neonates. J. Comp. Physiol. 203(2), 121–132 (2017). Hildebrand, J. Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 395, 5–20 (2009). Discussing the demise of Freight Books, Sinclair added: "We are sad to see Freight being wound up, and had hoped that a buyer would emerge over the past few months. That has not happened. It is sad to see a company disappear from the publishing landscape in Scotland and to see the effect it has had on all concerned. We put our efforts into helping Freight find a buyer and to help them with publishing issues as they emerged so it is a blow that they have not managed to do so, and that most of the authors will be without a home for their titles, in the short term at least.” Wild Harbour knows where every individual fish that they sell has come from: the time it was caught; the boat it was landed on; its ‘catch area’ (where it was caught). Honesty is a ‘top priority’. ‘Fish is something we need to be careful with and look after’R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2018).

Leeney RH, Dia IM, Dia M. Food, pharmacy, friend? Bycatch, direct take and consumption of dolphins in West Africa. Hum Ecol. 2015;43: 105–118. Cantor A. SAS survival analysis techniques for medical research, Second Edition. SAS Institute, North Carolina; 2003. Wright, A. J. et al. Possible causes of a harbour porpoise mass stranding in Danish waters in 2005. PLoS ONE 8, e55553 (2013). Siebert, U., Jepson, P. D. & Wohlsein, P. First indication of gas embolism in a harbour porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena) from German waters. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 59, 441–444 (2013).Shepherd’s and Macpherson’s journeys to the Cairngorms could not be more different in tone or emphasis, but both writers find, whether focusing on life or death, a way of inhabiting the world. Wild Harbour , in a way unlike the vast majority of apocalyptic fictions, shows ways to live with disaster, even if that life is fleeting and contingent. Previous studies have investigated the reaction of harbour porpoises to nets, demonstrating that both captive [ 48] and wild harbour porpoises [ 34] will avoid nets in a short distance (<100 m). In contrast, the current study shows active foraging activity by harbour porpoises around a bottom-gillnet, while the detection range may be larger than 100m. The behaviour of porpoises is best observed under actual circumstances where bycatches are occurring because environmental factors such as prey availability affect the seasonal and diel occurrence of cetaceans [ 45]. Additional studies at actual fishery grounds are needed to determine the factors governing the incidence of bycatch. Furthermore, it is important to recognise the environmental conditions that affect the behaviour of porpoises, particularly prey distributions and movements. Teilmann, J., Larsen, F. & Desportes, G. Time allocation and diving behaviour of harbour porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena) in Danish and adjacent waters. J. Cetacean Res. Manag. 9, 201–210 (2007). Culik, B., von Dorrien, C., Müller, V. & Conrad, M. Synthetic communication signals influence wild harbour porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena) behaviour. Bioacoustics 24(3), 201–221 (2015).