General behaviour

Captive mackerel in this experiment did not show any prominent reactions in terms of swimming speed, diving or schooling dynamics to seismic air guns at received sound pressure SPL from 146 to 171 dB re 1µPa and SEL of 124 to 151 dB re 1µPa²s (bandpassfiltered 5-400 Hz, measured at hydrophone 1 inside pen). The corresponding particle acceleration ranged from 0.02 to maximum of 0.15 ms^-2.

The fish did however show reactions by conducting collective responses in terms of rapid swimming up and down in the net pen during incidental waves hitting the net pen, demonstrating the fish`s ability to react as well as the nature of typical collective responses.

All though no sudden responses, both the videoscoring and the total sv (from echosounder) did show an increase in school cohesion from baseline level (Pre) to the time of maximum exposure (CPA), indicating the schooling dynamic to change over time during exposure.

Data from the echosounder and measurement of swimming speed for succeeding blocks on the same batch (blocks 6, 7, 8) of fish indicate that both swimming speed and schooling dynamic seem to slightly change over time, with fish swimming faster and more cohesive for each succeeding block.

This may potentially be a response to the repeated exposure.

When the fish was exposed a seismic air gun firing at closer range (90 m), thus increasing the received SPL to 184 dB re 1µPa and SEL to 160 dB re 1µPa²s (bandpassfiltered 5-400 Hz, measured at

hydrophone 1 inside pen), reactions in terms of changes in school mode, from carousel swimming to searching behaviour. The mackerel was than seen to swim up and down the net pen at increased speed.

However, this behaviour was also seen as the source ship backed towards the pen to get into position.

4.6 Measurements at aquaculture farms

The IMR scientist who monitored the videos from the fish farm live during experiments, did not report any unusual behaviour, and no stress or abnormal behaviour. Employees from the fish farm, watching together with the scientist, agreed on this, and did nor see any form of unusual behaviour. was

obvious during constant monitoring during the experiments. All videos were later carefully scrutinized visually, one by one. The number of visual observations, both at the fish farm and later form the videos, are rather high and in none of them show any response among the fish. Table 11 list the number of net pens observed

Behavioural effects of seismic dose escalation exposure on captive mackerel (Scomber scombrus)

4 Results

Table 11: Results from visual observations at fish farms and videos Table indicate the number of net pens observed and number of responses noted during the observations done in real time at the fish farms during exposure, as well as number of net pens and responses during the later scrutinizing of videos.

There was work going on in one cage with Rainbow trout and one with salmon, Table 12. In some of the cages at Skorpo there was trouble with the video cameras. One did not work at all and other of them falling out. This is listed as “Cam.error” in Table 12. In some cases, the recording unit used did not work, or did not manage to record video image from all the cages, this is listed as “No rec.” in the tables. The block number and date refers to Table 11 and the observations are all done during seismic dose escalation.

Skorpo (Rainbow trout) Observations at fish farm Visual scrutinizing of video Response start seismic non in 18 of 18 observed pens non in 18 of 18 observed pens Response at CPA non in 16 of 16 observed pens non in 16 of 16 observed pens Response after CPA non in 17 of 17 observed pens non in 17 of 17 observed pens Kyrholmen (Salmon) Observations at fish farm Visual scrutinizing of video Response start seismic non in 12 of 12 observed pens non in 7 of 7 observed pens Response at CPA non in 12 of 12 observed pens non in 7 of 7 observed pens Response after CPA non in 12 of 12 observed pens non in 12 of 12 observed pens Flatøyflu (Salmon) Observations at fish farm Visual scrutinizing of video Response start seismic non in 12 of 12 observed pens non in 9 of 9 observed pens Response at CPA non in 12 of 12 observed pens non in 8 of 8 observed pens Response after CPA non in 12 of 12 observed pens non in 8 of 8 observed pens

Table 12: Detailed results from visual video scrutinizing.

Response start seismic Cam.error non Cam.error non non non

Response at CPA Cam.error non Cam.error non non non

Behavioural effects of seismic dose escalation exposure on captive mackerel (Scomber scombrus)

4 Results

Flatøyflu (Salmon)

Cage nr: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Block 9, run 1 (25/11)

Camera depth: 27m 18m 8m 19m

Response start seismic No rec. No rec. non non non non

Response at CPA No rec. No rec. No rec. non non non

Response after CPA No rec. No rec. No rec. non non non

Block 10, run 1 (25/11)

Camera depth 26m 3m 18m 8m 19m

Response start seismic No rec. non non non non non

Response at CPA No rec. non non non non non

Response after CPA No rec. non non non non non