Effects of the alpha ventus offshore test site on pelagic fish

  • Sören Krägefsky


At present, all studies on the impact of offshore windfarms on pelagic fish are restricted to a narrow survey area of a localised windfarm and surrounding reference areas. The same applies for investigations at the alpha ventus offshore windfarm. These include surveys on the distribution of pelagic fish in alpha ventus and the surrounding area based on hydroacoustic measurements, addressing immediate attraction and repulsion effects of offshore windfarms. The effect of changes in food supply was addressed as a single effect by analysis of the gut content of pelagic fish in and outside alpha ventus. The study was performed over the period from August 2008 to April 2012. The survey covers a period before construction, during construction and during operation of the windfarm, in different seasons (spring, summer and autumn). The study further includes an evaluation of the survey methods, including development of a stationary measuring system for hydroacoustic long-term monitoring of fish.


Wind Turbine Pelagic Fish German Bight Horse Mackerel Pile Driving 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alheit J, Pohlmann T, Casini M, Greve W, Hinrichs R, Mathis M, Vorberg R, Wagner, C (2012). Climate variability drives anchovies and sardines into the North and Baltic Seas. Progress in Oceanography 96:128–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson MH (2011). Offshore windfarms – ecological effects of noise and habitat alteration on fish. PhD thesis, Department of Zoology, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  3. Bohnsack JA (1989). Are High Densities of Fishes at Artificial Reefs the Result of Habitat Limitation or Behavioral Preference? Bulletin of Marine Science 44:631–645.Google Scholar
  4. Caltrans (2001). Pile Installation Demonstration Project. Fisheries Impact Assessment, Caltrans Contract 04A0148. San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project.Google Scholar
  5. Dempster T & Taquet M (2004). Fish aggregation device (FAD) research: gaps in current knowledge and future directions for ecological studies. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 14:21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Derweduwen J, Vandendriessche S, Willems T, Hostens K (2012). The diet of demersal and semi-pelagic fish in the Thorntonbank windfarm: tracing changes using stomach analyses data Offshore windfarms in the Belgian part of the North Sea. In: Degraer S, Brabant R, Rumes B (Eds.), pp. 73–84.Google Scholar
  7. Formicki K & Winnicki A (1998). Reactions of fish embryos and larvae to constant magnetic fields. Italian Journal of Zoology 65:479–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gill A & Bartlett M (2010). Literature review on the potential effects of electromagnetic fields and subsea noise from marine renewable energy developments on Atlantic salmon, sea trout and European eel. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report 401.Google Scholar
  9. Helvey M (2002). Are southern California oil and gas platforms essential fish habitat? ICES Journal of Marine Science 59:266–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ITAP (2011). Messungen von Unterwasserschall beim Bau der Windenergieanlagen im Offshore-Testfeld alpha ventus. Abschlussbericht zum Monitoring nach StUK 3 in der Bauphase, pp. 1–48.Google Scholar
  11. Kasumyan AO (2008). Sounds and sound production in fishes. Journal of Ichthyology 48:981–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kingsford MJ (1993). Biotic and abiotic structure in the pelagic environment: importance to small fishes. Bulletin of Marine Science 53:393–415.Google Scholar
  13. Love M, Caselle J, Snookm L (1999). Fish assemblages on mussel mounds surrounding seven oil platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Maria Basin. Bulletin of Marine Science 65:497–513.Google Scholar
  14. May J (2005). Post-construction results from the North Hoyle offshore windfarm. Paper for the Copenhagen offshore wind international conference, Project Management Support Services Ltd., pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  15. Metcalfe J, Holford B, Arnold G (1993). Orientation of plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in the open sea: evidence for the use of external directional clues. Marine Biology 117:559–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mitson RB & Knudsen HP (2003). Causes and effects of under-water noise on fish abundance estimation. Aquatic Living Resources 16:255–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mueller-Blenkle C, McGregor P, Gill A, Andersson M M, Metcalfe J, Bendall V, Sigray P, Wood D, Thomsen F (2010). Effects of Pile-driving Noise on the Behaviour of Marine Fish. COWRIE Ref: Fish 06-08, Technical Report 31st March 2010.Google Scholar
  18. Nishi T & Kawamura G (2005). Anguilla japonica is already magnetosensitive at the glass eel phase. Journal of Fish Biology 67:1213–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oestman R & Earle C (2012.) Effects of Pile-Driving Noise on Oncorhynchus mykiss (Steelhead Trout). In Popper, AN, Hawkins A (Eds.) Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. Springer, New York, pp. 263–265.Google Scholar
  20. Purser J & Radford A (2011). Acoustic Noise Induces Attention Shifts and Reduces Foraging Performance in Three-Spined Sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). PLoS ONE 6(2) e17478. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reubens J, Degraer S, Vincx, M (2011). Aggregation and feeding behaviour of pouting (Trisopterus luscus) at wind turbines in the Belgian part of the North Sea. Fisheries Research 108:223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Richardson WJ, Greene CR Jr, Malme CI, Thomson DH (1998). Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Walker M, Kirschvink J, Chang S, Dizon A (1984). A candidate magnetic sense organ in the Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares. Science 224:751–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang X, Xu L, Chen Y, Zhu G, Tian S, Zhu J (2012). Impacts of fish aggregation devices on size structures of skipack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis. Aquatic Ecology 46(3): 342–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zintzen V, Massin C, Norro A, Mallefet J (2006). Epifaunal Inventory of Two Shipwrecks from the Belgian Continental Shelf. Hydrobiologia 555:207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sören Krägefsky
    • 1
  1. 1.Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine ResearchBremerhavenGermany

Personalised recommendations