Description: Species distribution models (SDMs) relate species information to environmental conditions to predict potential species distributions. The majority of SDMs are static, relating species presence information to long-term average environmental conditions. The resulting temporal mismatch between species information and environmental conditions can increase model inference’s uncertainty. For SDMs to capture the dynamic species-environment relationships and predict near-real-time habitat suitability, species information needs to be spatiotemporally matched with environmental conditions contemporaneous to the species’ presence (dynamic SDMs). Implementing dynamic SDMs in the marine realm is highly challenging, particularly due to species and environmental data paucity and spatiotemporally biases. Here, we implemented presence-only dynamic SDMs for four migratory baleen whale species in the Southern Ocean (SO): Antarctic minke, Antarctic blue, fin, and humpback whales. Sightings were spatiotemporally matched with their respective daily environmental predictors. Background information was sampled daily to describe the dynamic environmental conditions in the highly dynamic SO. We corrected for spatial sampling bias by sampling background information respective to the seasonal research efforts. Independent model evaluation was performed on spatial and temporal cross-validation. We predicted the circumantarctic year-round habitat suitability of each species. Daily predictions were also summarized into bi-weekly and monthly habitat suitability. We identified important predictors and species suitability responses to environmental changes. Our results support the propitious use of dynamic SDMs to fill species information gaps and improve conservation planning strategies. Near-real-time predictions can be used for dynamic ocean management, e.g., to examine the overlap between habitat suitability and human activities. Nevertheless, the inevitable spatiotemporal biases in sighting data from the SO call for the need for improving sampling effort in the SO and using alternative data sources (e.g., passive acoustic monitoring) in future SDMs. We further discuss challenges of calibrating dynamic SDMs on baleen whale species in the SO, with a particular focus on spatiotemporal sampling bias issues and how background information should be sampled in presence-only dynamic SDMs. We also highlight the need to integrate visual and acoustic data in future SDMs on baleen whales for better coverage of environmental conditions suitable for the species and avoid constraints of using either data type alone.

Description: Before piling of offshore wind farm foundations, acoustic harassment devices (AHDs) are used to drive harbor porpoises out of the area where they could suffer injuries. Until 2017, a combination of pingers and seal scarer devices (usually SPL = 174-193 dB re 1 μPa (rms) @ 1m at 1 to 20 kHz depending on the device) was prescribed for mitigation purposes in Germany. However, seal scarers led to decreased porpoise detection rates in much larger distances than intended, when 750 m is usually rendered sufficient to avoid injuries. Therefore, devices specifically designed for mitigation purposes were developed and are prescribed since then. These acoustic porpoise deterrents (APDs; e.g. FaunaGuard Porpoise Module; SPL = 172 dB re 1 μPa (rms) @ 1m at 60 to 150 kHz) aim to keep the animals away from offshore construction sites but should not lead to large-scale disturbance as caused by a seal scarer. Although project-specific evaluations indicated that APDs are effective, a cross-project analysis and a comparison with data from previous piling procedures employing seal scarers were still pending. The present study aimed to fill this gap. Between March 2018 and April 2019, harbor porpoise detection rates were monitored acoustically in four offshore wind farm projects using CPODs before, during and after piling at different distances up to 10 km from piling. APD operation led to a significant decrease in detection rates in the vicinity of the device, indicating the displacement of the animals from a small-scale area. Depending on the wind farm, detection rates during APD operation decreased by 30 to 100% at 750 m distance compared to 6 hours before APD operation. Furthermore, reduced detection rates during APD operation were only observed up to about 2.5 km distance even when the APD was switched on for over 40 minutes. Given that the extent of disturbance to harbor porpoises is lower when using an acoustic porpoise deterrent compared to the seal scarer, we consider that preferential use of an acoustic porpoise deterrent is an improvement to mitigation strategies and an important step forward to a less harmful piling procedure.