{"id":1300,"date":"2023-10-16T21:33:23","date_gmt":"2023-10-17T01:33:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ewemodel\/?post_type=chapter&p=1300"},"modified":"2025-10-30T08:58:20","modified_gmt":"2025-10-30T12:58:20","slug":"marine-renewable-energy-and-aquaculture","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ewemodel\/chapter\/marine-renewable-energy-and-aquaculture\/","title":{"raw":"Marine renewable energy and aquaculture","rendered":"Marine renewable energy and aquaculture"},"content":{"raw":"

Modeling the effect of the installation of marine renewable energy devices (MREDs) and aquaculture sites on the surrounding ecosystem is challenging. Deployment of structures for offshore renewable energy (ORE) and farming (e.g., cages) can lead to exclusion zones, limiting the access to the area for users such as shipping, fishing and tourism[footnote]Alexander, K.A., Potts, T., Wilding, T.A., 2013. Marine renewable energy and Scottish west coast fishers: Exploring impacts, opportunities and potential mitigation. Ocean & Coastal Management 75, 1\u201310. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ocecoaman.2013.01.005<\/a>[\/footnote] [footnote]Jay, S., 2010. Planners to the rescue: Spatial planning facilitating the development of offshore wind energy. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60, 493\u2013499. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.marpolbul.2009.11.010<\/a>[\/footnote] [footnote]Nobre, A., Pacheco, M., Jorge, R., Lopes, M.F.P., Gato, L.M.C., 2009. Geo-spatial multi-criteria analysis for wave energy conversion system deployment. Renewable Energy 34, 97\u2013111. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.renene.2008.03.002<\/a>[\/footnote][footnote]Punt, M.J., Groeneveld, R.A., van Ierland, E.C., Stel, J.H., 2009. Spatial planning of offshore wind farms: A windfall to marine environmental protection? Ecological Economics, The DPSIR framework for Biodiversity Assessment 69, 93\u2013103. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ecolecon.2009.07.013<\/a>[\/footnote] \u00a0as well as \u2018artificial reefs\u2019 effect with the presence of new structures that can supply nursery areas and feeding grounds for fish species (Petersen and Malm, 2006; Wilhelmsson et al., 2006). Larvae and juveniles can disperse from these sites to the surrounding area leading to a \u2018spill-over effect\u2019, enhancing local production[footnote]Sale, P.F., Cowen, R.K., Danilowicz, B.S., Jones, G.P., Kritzer, J.P., Lindeman, K.C., Planes, S., Polunin, N.V.C., Russ, G.R., Sadovy, Y.J., Steneck, R.S., 2005. Critical science gaps impede use of no-take fishery reserves. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20, 74\u201380. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.tree.2004.11.007<\/a>[\/footnote].<\/p>\r\n

MREDs can negatively impact species indirectly, by changing habitat properties, as well as directly, by causing collision risks with moving turbine components[footnote]Benjamins, S., Masden, E., Collu, M., 2020. Integrating Wind Turbines and Fish Farms: An Evaluation of Potential Risks to Marine and Coastal Bird Species. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 8, 414. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/jmse8060414<\/a>[\/footnote] [footnote]Vanermen, N., Courtens, W., Walle, M.V.D., Verstraete, H., Stienen, E., 2019. Seabird monitoring at the Thornton Bank offshore wind farm: Final displacement results after 6 years of post-construction monitoring and an explorative Bayesian analysis of common guillemot displacement using INLA. in<\/em> Environmental impacts of offshore wind farms in the Belgian part of the North Sea: Marking a decade of monitoring, research and innovation. RBINS<\/a> p 85\u2013116.[\/footnote]. For diving species, there is also the risk of collision with static underwater structures[footnote]Grecian, W.J., Inger, R., Attrill, M.J., Bearhop, S., Godley, B.J., Witt, M.J., Votier, S.C., 2010. Potential impacts of wave-powered marine renewable energy installations on marine birds. Ibis 152, 683\u2013697. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1474-919X.2010.01048.x<\/a>[\/footnote]. Moreover, these devices can also produce continuous low frequency noise that propagates in the air as well as underwater causing dislocations of acoustically-sensitive species[footnote]Bailey, H., Senior, B., Simmons, D., Rusin, J., Picken, G., Thompson, P.M., 2010. Assessing underwater noise levels during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm and its potential effects on marine mammals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60, 888\u2013897. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.marpolbul.2010.01.003<\/a>[\/footnote] [footnote]Brandt, M.J., Diederichs, A., Betke, K., Nehls, G., 2011. Responses of harbour porpoises to pile driving at the Horns Rev II offshore wind farm in the Danish North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 421, 205\u2013216. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3354\/meps08888<\/a>[\/footnote] [footnote]Madsen, P.T., Wahlberg, M., Tougaard, J., Lucke, K., Tyack, P., 2006. Wind turbine underwater noise and marine mammals: implications of current knowledge and data needs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 309, 279\u2013295. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3354\/meps309279<\/a>[\/footnote] [footnote]Tougaard, J., Henriksen, O.D., Miller, L.A., 2009. Underwater noise from three types of offshore wind turbines: Estimation of impact zones for harbor porpoises and harbor seals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125, 3766\u20133773. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1121\/1.3117444<\/a>[\/footnote] (Bailey et al., 2010; Brandt et al., 2011; Madsen et al., 2006; Tougaard et al., 2020, 2009).<\/p>\r\n

Serpetti et al.[footnote]Serpetti, N., Benjamins, S., Brain, S., Collu, M., Harvey, B.J., Heymans, J.J., Hughes, A.D., Risch, D., Rosinski, S., Waggitt, J.J., Wilson, B., 2021. Modeling Small Scale Impacts of Multi-Purpose Platforms: An Ecosystem Approach. Frontiers in Marine Science 8, 778. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fmars.2021.694013<\/a>[\/footnote] evaluated the impact of wind farms as a MRED on the West Coast of Scotland by assessing the impact of the low frequency noise produced by the operational wind turbine (see section 6.8 below) and by assessing the seabird spatial dislocation caused by the presence of the offshore wind turbines (OWTs). Three species within the seabird functional group (representing 45% of the total biomass) of the previously published West Coast of Scotland model[footnote]Serpetti, N., Baudron, A.R., Burrows, M.T., Payne, B.L., Helaou\u00ebt, P., Fernandes, P.G., Heymans, J.J., 2017. Impact of ocean warming on sustainable fisheries management informs the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. Sci Rep 7, 13438. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41598-017-13220-7<\/a>[\/footnote], were assumed to show significant spatial dislocation caused by the wind turbines[footnote]Serpetti et al. 2021, op.cit.<\/em>[\/footnote] The Ecospace results estimated a significant decrease in seabird biomass of 8% within an 8 km2<\/sup> region set around the OWTs site (Table 1). In the same study, the impact of salmon farming was also tested. The attraction of predators by the farms and the organic enrichment of detritus by deposition of wasted feed and feces on the seabed below and surrounding the fish farms was simulated (Table 1). The spatial distribution of top predators (large fish and seabirds) affected the marine ecosystem through top-down control pathways causing the decline of their prey within the area. Similarly, changes in bottom-up controls were included through detritus enrichment and cascaded through the food web causing the increases of infauna, epifauna and other benthic species (Fig. 14). The spatial distributions of infauna and epifauna also showed larger diffused footprints in relation to the detritus enrichment footprint proportional to their dispersal rates (30 km\/year for epifauna, and 3 km\/year for infauna)<\/p>\r\nTable 1. Mean relative annual biomasses changes of selected functional group for different selected scenarios (modified from Serpetti et al.[footnote]Serpetti et al. 2021, op.cit.<\/em>[\/footnote])<\/small>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n

Functional group<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

A: Operational wind farm<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

B: Predator attraction by fish farm<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

B+: Detritus organic enrichment<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Seabirds<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

-8.1%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

3.6%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

3.6%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Cod<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

-0.7%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

10.1%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

11.1%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Haddock<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

-0.9%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

5.9%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

7.1%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Whiting<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

-5.0%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

5.4%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

5.7%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Saithe<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

0.0%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

20.8%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

20.9%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Flatfish<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

0.0%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

-0.1%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

0.0%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Herring<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

0.0%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

-0.1%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

-0.1%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Poor_cod<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

0.0%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

0.0%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

-1.2%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Sandeel<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

0.2%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

-0.4%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

-0.1%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Sprat<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

0.1%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

-0.3%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

-0.2%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Nephrops<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

0.0%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

-0.1%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

-1.5%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Lobster<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

0.1%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

-0.4%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

-3.1%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Velvet_crab<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

0.0%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

0.0%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

1.8%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Infauna<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

0.0%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

0.0%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

2.2%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Epifauna<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

0.0%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

-0.2%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

10.3%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

\r\n

Detritus<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

0.0%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

0.0%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n

\r\n

3.3%<\/p>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n

<\/td>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n

\"image\"<\/p>\r\n

Figure 1. Relative biomasses spatial distribution of detritus, infauna and epifauna showing the relative foot-print increases of detritus, infauna and epifauna (modified from Serpetti et al.[footnote]Serpetti et al. 2021, op.cit.<\/em>[\/footnote])<\/p>\r\n \r\n

\r\n

Attribution<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

\r\n
\r\n\r\nThis chapter is based on de Mutsert K, Marta Coll, Jeroen Steenbeek, Cameron Ainsworth, Joe Buszowski, David Chagaris, Villy Christensen, Sheila J.J. Heymans, Kristy A. Lewis, Simone Libralato, Greig Oldford, Chiara Piroddi, Giovanni Romagnoni, Natalia Serpetti, Michael Spence, Carl Walters. 2023. Advances in spatial-temporal coastal and marine ecosystem modeling using Ecopath with Ecosim and Ecospace. Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science, 2nd Edition. Elsevier. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/B978-0-323-90798-9.00035-4<\/a>, adapted with permission, License Number 5651431253138.\r\n\r\nRather than citing this chapter, please cite the source.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"

Modeling the effect of the installation of marine renewable energy devices (MREDs) and aquaculture sites on the surrounding ecosystem is challenging. Deployment of structures for offshore renewable energy (ORE) and farming (e.g., cages) can lead to exclusion zones, limiting the access to the area for users such as shipping, fishing and tourism[1]<\/sup><\/a> [2]<\/sup><\/a> [3]<\/sup><\/a>[4]<\/sup><\/a> \u00a0as well as \u2018artificial reefs\u2019 effect with the presence of new structures that can supply nursery areas and feeding grounds for fish species (Petersen and Malm, 2006; Wilhelmsson et al., 2006). Larvae and juveniles can disperse from these sites to the surrounding area leading to a \u2018spill-over effect\u2019, enhancing local production[5]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

MREDs can negatively impact species indirectly, by changing habitat properties, as well as directly, by causing collision risks with moving turbine components[6]<\/sup><\/a> [7]<\/sup><\/a>. For diving species, there is also the risk of collision with static underwater structures[8]<\/sup><\/a>. Moreover, these devices can also produce continuous low frequency noise that propagates in the air as well as underwater causing dislocations of acoustically-sensitive species[9]<\/sup><\/a> [10]<\/sup><\/a> [11]<\/sup><\/a> [12]<\/sup><\/a> (Bailey et al., 2010; Brandt et al., 2011; Madsen et al., 2006; Tougaard et al., 2020, 2009).<\/p>\n

Serpetti et al.[13]<\/sup><\/a> evaluated the impact of wind farms as a MRED on the West Coast of Scotland by assessing the impact of the low frequency noise produced by the operational wind turbine (see section 6.8 below) and by assessing the seabird spatial dislocation caused by the presence of the offshore wind turbines (OWTs). Three species within the seabird functional group (representing 45% of the total biomass) of the previously published West Coast of Scotland model[14]<\/sup><\/a>, were assumed to show significant spatial dislocation caused by the wind turbines[15]<\/sup><\/a> The Ecospace results estimated a significant decrease in seabird biomass of 8% within an 8 km2<\/sup> region set around the OWTs site (Table 1). In the same study, the impact of salmon farming was also tested. The attraction of predators by the farms and the organic enrichment of detritus by deposition of wasted feed and feces on the seabed below and surrounding the fish farms was simulated (Table 1). The spatial distribution of top predators (large fish and seabirds) affected the marine ecosystem through top-down control pathways causing the decline of their prey within the area. Similarly, changes in bottom-up controls were included through detritus enrichment and cascaded through the food web causing the increases of infauna, epifauna and other benthic species (Fig. 14). The spatial distributions of infauna and epifauna also showed larger diffused footprints in relation to the detritus enrichment footprint proportional to their dispersal rates (30 km\/year for epifauna, and 3 km\/year for infauna)<\/p>\n

Table 1. Mean relative annual biomasses changes of selected functional group for different selected scenarios (modified from Serpetti et al.[16]<\/sup><\/a>)<\/small><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Functional group<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

A: Operational wind farm<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

B: Predator attraction by fish farm<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

B+: Detritus organic enrichment<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Seabirds<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-8.1%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.6%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.6%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Cod<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-0.7%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10.1%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11.1%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Haddock<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-0.9%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.9%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.1%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Whiting<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-5.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.4%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.7%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Saithe<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20.8%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20.9%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Flatfish<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-0.1%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Herring<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-0.1%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-0.1%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Poor_cod<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-1.2%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Sandeel<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.2%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-0.4%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-0.1%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Sprat<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.1%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-0.3%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-0.2%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Nephrops<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-0.1%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-1.5%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Lobster<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.1%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-0.4%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-3.1%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Velvet_crab<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.8%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Infauna<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.2%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Epifauna<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

-0.2%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10.3%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Detritus<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.3%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\"image\"<\/p>\n

Figure 1. Relative biomasses spatial distribution of detritus, infauna and epifauna showing the relative foot-print increases of detritus, infauna and epifauna (modified from Serpetti et al.[17]<\/sup><\/a>)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Attribution<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/header>\n

\n
\n

This chapter is based on de Mutsert K, Marta Coll, Jeroen Steenbeek, Cameron Ainsworth, Joe Buszowski, David Chagaris, Villy Christensen, Sheila J.J. Heymans, Kristy A. Lewis, Simone Libralato, Greig Oldford, Chiara Piroddi, Giovanni Romagnoni, Natalia Serpetti, Michael Spence, Carl Walters. 2023. Advances in spatial-temporal coastal and marine ecosystem modeling using Ecopath with Ecosim and Ecospace. Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science, 2nd Edition. Elsevier. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/B978-0-323-90798-9.00035-4<\/a>, adapted with permission, License Number 5651431253138.<\/p>\n

Rather than citing this chapter, please cite the source.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

  1. Alexander, K.A., Potts, T., Wilding, T.A., 2013. Marine renewable energy and Scottish west coast fishers: Exploring impacts, opportunities and potential mitigation. Ocean & Coastal Management 75, 1\u201310. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ocecoaman.2013.01.005<\/a> ↵<\/a><\/li>
  2. Jay, S., 2010. Planners to the rescue: Spatial planning facilitating the development of offshore wind energy. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60, 493\u2013499. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.marpolbul.2009.11.010<\/a> ↵<\/a><\/li>
  3. Nobre, A., Pacheco, M., Jorge, R., Lopes, M.F.P., Gato, L.M.C., 2009. Geo-spatial multi-criteria analysis for wave energy conversion system deployment. Renewable Energy 34, 97\u2013111. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.renene.2008.03.002<\/a> ↵<\/a><\/li>
  4. Punt, M.J., Groeneveld, R.A., van Ierland, E.C., Stel, J.H., 2009. Spatial planning of offshore wind farms: A windfall to marine environmental protection? Ecological Economics, The DPSIR framework for Biodiversity Assessment 69, 93\u2013103. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ecolecon.2009.07.013<\/a> ↵<\/a><\/li>
  5. Sale, P.F., Cowen, R.K., Danilowicz, B.S., Jones, G.P., Kritzer, J.P., Lindeman, K.C., Planes, S., Polunin, N.V.C., Russ, G.R., Sadovy, Y.J., Steneck, R.S., 2005. Critical science gaps impede use of no-take fishery reserves. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20, 74\u201380. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.tree.2004.11.007<\/a> ↵<\/a><\/li>
  6. Benjamins, S., Masden, E., Collu, M., 2020. Integrating Wind Turbines and Fish Farms: An Evaluation of Potential Risks to Marine and Coastal Bird Species. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 8, 414. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/jmse8060414<\/a> ↵<\/a><\/li>
  7. Vanermen, N., Courtens, W., Walle, M.V.D., Verstraete, H., Stienen, E., 2019. Seabird monitoring at the Thornton Bank offshore wind farm: Final displacement results after 6 years of post-construction monitoring and an explorative Bayesian analysis of common guillemot displacement using INLA. in<\/em> Environmental impacts of offshore wind farms in the Belgian part of the North Sea: Marking a decade of monitoring, research and innovation. RBINS<\/a> p 85\u2013116. ↵<\/a><\/li>
  8. Grecian, W.J., Inger, R., Attrill, M.J., Bearhop, S., Godley, B.J., Witt, M.J., Votier, S.C., 2010. Potential impacts of wave-powered marine renewable energy installations on marine birds. Ibis 152, 683\u2013697. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1474-919X.2010.01048.x<\/a> ↵<\/a><\/li>
  9. Bailey, H., Senior, B., Simmons, D., Rusin, J., Picken, G., Thompson, P.M., 2010. Assessing underwater noise levels during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm and its potential effects on marine mammals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60, 888\u2013897. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.marpolbul.2010.01.003<\/a> ↵<\/a><\/li>
  10. Brandt, M.J., Diederichs, A., Betke, K., Nehls, G., 2011. Responses of harbour porpoises to pile driving at the Horns Rev II offshore wind farm in the Danish North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 421, 205\u2013216. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3354\/meps08888<\/a> ↵<\/a><\/li>
  11. Madsen, P.T., Wahlberg, M., Tougaard, J., Lucke, K., Tyack, P., 2006. Wind turbine underwater noise and marine mammals: implications of current knowledge and data needs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 309, 279\u2013295. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3354\/meps309279<\/a> ↵<\/a><\/li>
  12. Tougaard, J., Henriksen, O.D., Miller, L.A., 2009. Underwater noise from three types of offshore wind turbines: Estimation of impact zones for harbor porpoises and harbor seals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125, 3766\u20133773. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1121\/1.3117444<\/a> ↵<\/a><\/li>
  13. Serpetti, N., Benjamins, S., Brain, S., Collu, M., Harvey, B.J., Heymans, J.J., Hughes, A.D., Risch, D., Rosinski, S., Waggitt, J.J., Wilson, B., 2021. Modeling Small Scale Impacts of Multi-Purpose Platforms: An Ecosystem Approach. Frontiers in Marine Science 8, 778. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fmars.2021.694013<\/a> ↵<\/a><\/li>
  14. Serpetti, N., Baudron, A.R., Burrows, M.T., Payne, B.L., Helaou\u00ebt, P., Fernandes, P.G., Heymans, J.J., 2017. Impact of ocean warming on sustainable fisheries management informs the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. Sci Rep 7, 13438. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41598-017-13220-7<\/a> ↵<\/a><\/li>
  15. Serpetti et al. 2021, op.cit.<\/em> ↵<\/a><\/li>
  16. Serpetti et al. 2021, op.cit.<\/em> ↵<\/a><\/li>
  17. Serpetti et al. 2021, op.cit.<\/em> ↵<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":1909,"menu_order":3,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[49],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-1300","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","chapter-type-numberless"],"part":1294,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ewemodel\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1300","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ewemodel\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ewemodel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ewemodel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1909"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ewemodel\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1300\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3183,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ewemodel\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1300\/revisions\/3183"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ewemodel\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/1294"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ewemodel\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1300\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ewemodel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ewemodel\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=1300"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ewemodel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=1300"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/ewemodel\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=1300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}