Progress through collaboration: A case study examining effects of industrial sounds on bowhead whales
Citation
Streever, B., R. P. Angliss, R. Suydam, M. Ahmaogak, C. Bailey, S. B. Blackwell, J. C. George, J. C. R. Greene, R. S. Jakubczak, J. Lefevre, T. L. McDonald, T. Napageak, and W. J. Richardson (2008). “Progress through collaboration: A case study examining effects of industrial sounds on bowhead whales”. In: Bioacoustics 17.1-3, pp. 345-347. DOI: 10.1080/09524622.2008.9753872.
Number of Citations: 1
Abstract
Peer review and collaboration are common in academic research but less so in industry-sponsored environmental studies. This case study describes the multi-year Northstar study of bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) responses to sounds from offshore oil production in Alaska’s Beaufort Sea, presenting it as an example of successful collaboration among parties often perceived to have irreconcilable differences—academic, government, and industry scientists together with representatives of Alaska’s Iñupiat community. After aerial surveys were rejected for low statistical power, an array of directional seafloor hydrophones was used to localize calling whales, with an additional hydrophone recording industrial sound near Northstar, an artificial gravel island about 10 km offshore. Over four years, roughly 100,000 whale calls were localized while industrial source levels fluctuated from about 80 to 140 dB re 1 \(\mu\)Pa—levels generally considered too low to affect behavior. Using quantile regression, the authors found that calls nearest Northstar tended to shift farther offshore when island sounds were strongest, typically during vessel operations. A stakeholder-requested Science Advisory Committee agreed that whales responded to Northstar sounds. The authors identify factors underlying the collaboration’s success—appreciation of traditional knowledge, long-term commitment, questions framed around shared concerns, open communication, attention to statistical power, and low personnel turnover—and note that, despite the success of this dose-response design, before-after/control-impact designs are preferable whenever practicable.