Mitigating the Impact of Sea Duck Predation on PEI

Mussel Farms

Funding in part provided by PEI DFARD and NRC-IRAP

Contents

Agenda ............................................................................................................................................ 3

Workshop Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 4

Discussion Questions ...................................................................................................................... 5

R&D Priorities ................................................................................................................................ 8

Presentations ................................................................................................................................... 9

Agenda

9:00-9:10 Welcome & Objectives of the Workshop - Peter Warris, PEIAA

9:10 - 9:40 Review of PEI based Sea Duck mitigation research and development

efforts - DFARD

Additional

to the

original

agenda

Predation by Diving Ducks at Mussel Culture Sites in PEI:

Quantification of Effects and Development of Mitigative

Techniques - Dr Diana J. Hamilton (via teleconference)

9:40-10:10 Breakout groups / guided discussion

Coffee Break

10:30 -

10:50

Development of eider ducks electronic monitoring and mitigation

technology to avoid predation on mussel lines - AANS

10:50 -

11:10

Breakout groups / guided discussion

11:10 -

11:30

Status update of Sea Duck population and pertinent regulations -

Keith McAloney, CWS (Atlantic Region)

11:30 -

12:30

Breakout groups / guided discussion

Additional to the agenda “Predation by Diving Ducks at Mussel Culture Sites in P.E.I. : Quantification of Effects and Development of Mitigative Techniques” presented via teleconference by Dr Diana J. Hamilton.

Workshop Objectives

The predation on mussel farms by varying species of sea ducks has been on ongoing problem for decades. The issue had been somewhat sidelined as a priority in PEI due to the arrival of a number of aquatic invasive species, starting in the late nineties. This industry workshop was arranged due to an increasing number of reports from mussel growers regarding the levels of predation on mussel seed and the subsequent efforts to deter such. The workshop objectives were to:

· Review of past projects and a discussion regarding what results from them warrant further investigation.

· Discuss on current industry practices, what is seen as effective and are there other techniques that could be tried.

· Discuss future research and development projects and what knowledge gaps need to be addressed

· Discuss the legalities of sea duck mitigation

Discussion Questions

Each workshop attendee was given a copy of these questions. They were also used to guide the discussion. Here we have tried to capture their responses and the relevant discussion.

Session 1: Current situation and past project review: 1. In general terms describe the impact that sea duck predation has had on your

mussel operation (number of years, amount of crop lost etc) • Usually lose 10-15 lines of seed a year

• Crop and seed damage on an annual basis since the 90’s • 2009, lost 50%, 2010 40%. 2011 total loss, birds cleaned crop in three

days 2. Has the level of predation changed over the last five years?

• Length of predation period is determined by weather conditions (ice)

• Range has expanded to new areas (Malpeque, Rustico, Covehead and South East)

• Increased over the last five years 3. Have past projects provided you with the information you needed and have you

adopted any of the equipment/techniques developed? • Socking later

• Scaring on lease • Chasing is a common approach and has been effective but noise makers

seem to be a short term solution • Activity on the lease will keep the birds away

4. Off the past projects presented, or that you are aware off, what approaches to dealing with the sea duck issue in your opinion warrant further investigation?

• Socking material • Underwater sonic deterrents

• Lighting deterrents

Session 2: Current industry practices: 1. In general terms describe the methods you have tried and also currently use to

deal with sea duck predation on your mussel operation.

• Chasing with boats • Propane cannons

2. How effective are they? What in your opinion are some of the problems with these methods?

3. Have you had anyone complain about these activities or are you aware of any complaints made to your industry association or government regulators?

• Yes, multiple complaints about noise from propane cannons 4. Have you altered your activities in response to these complaints or can you

think of some changes you could make to reduce the possibility of this negative interaction?

• Timing of propane cannon (not at night) 5. Are there any modifications to existing methods that you would like to try out

and would you be interested in project funding support to do so?

Session 3: Future research and development projects: 1. When would you consider a way of dealing with sea duck predation a success,

how would you measure it? • Less damage • Less labour required for scaring activities

• When there are mussels left in the water to harvest 2. What alternative ideas do you want to see tried and is this a project you would

be interested in? • Lure crops using waste seed • Baiting, attracting ducks to a central area

• Test sites for trying new approaches • Monofilament strands between the seed lines

• Barrier netting (used in Norway, but species specific)

• GPS and or some form of electronic tagging, possibly integrated with targeted scaring

• Nursery sites to protect seed (resocking) • Falconry / eagles to control bird populations

3. What potential road blocks (e.g. legislation, public complaints) do you see resulting from these new approaches?

4. What other information do we need to find out in order to create better methods of dealing with this issue, what are the knowledge gaps?

• Different duck species have different behaviours, feeding patterns, for example night feeding is a particular special circumstance

• Breeding and migration patterns

• Study on whether population abundance has increased • Identification sheet for growers

R&D Priorities

Alternative Deterrents

Propane Cannon in Maine (modified to be less intrusive)

Use of falconry / other birds of prey

Phoenix wailer / underwater speakers

Flashing lights

Barriers

Netting (very species specific)

Protective socking / biodegradable materials

Techniques

Collaborative approach to development of common “scare technique” (Dr Podolski’s proposal)

GPS / Electronic tagging to track / detect - integrated with scaring systems

Nursery site

Baited “lure” areas

Knowledge Gaps

Bird behaviour

Migration patterns

Presentations

Review of Sea Duck Mitigation Efforts

A Ramsay, B Gillis & N MacNair

Predation by Diving Ducks at Mussel Culture Sites in PEI: Quantification of Effects and Development of Mitigative Techniques

DJ Hamilton, M Dionne, J-S Lauzon-Guay, MA Barbeau, AW Diamond and GJ Robertson

Development of eider ducks electronic monitoring and mitigation technology to avoid predation on mussel lines

B Hancock (AANS)

Ducks and Mussel Aquaculture

Keith McAloney (Canadian Wildlife Services, Atlantic Region)

Review of Sea Duck Mitigation Efforts A Ramsay, B Gillis & N MacNair

Review of Sea Duck Mitigation Efforts

Sea Duck WorkshopA Ramsay*, B Gillis & N MacNairPEI Aquaculture Division

Sea Duck WorkshopHoward Johnson Dutch Inn

January 12, 2011

Hi t f D k P d tiHistory of Duck PredationFirst Encounter

• Mussel loss observed on newly socked mussels (Fall 1993 Tracadie)(Fall 1993, Tracadie)– Post-mortem of ducks

indicated they had consumed large amounts of mussel seed

– Duck species implicated:p p• Long-tailed duck• Black Scoters• White-winged scotersWhite winged scoters• Scaup

History of Duck PredationHistory of Duck PredationAn Increasing Problem

• Ducks migrate from rivers that freeze over first to• Ducks migrate from rivers that freeze over first to open areas in the Southeastern part of the province

• Climate change and late ice cover prolonged the• Climate change and late ice cover prolonged the duck problem into January

• Spring duck predation has become an issue in theSpring duck predation has become an issue in the last 10 years (mainly Scaup)

• Scaup more abundant on north shoreScaup more abundant on north shore (Brackley…Rustico and Covehead)

• Ducks have learned to feed at night because of gdaytime scaring activities

Response to Duck Problem

• Working group formed in 1994

I d t DFO P i– Industry, DFO, Province, CWS

• Surveys of Duck Su veys o ucPopulations– Aerial & boat– Number by species &

location

• Mitigation efforts initiatedMitigation efforts initiated

Mitigation EffortsMitigation EffortsVisual Deterrents

• Birds eye • Eaglesg• Silhouette• Scary man

S• Scarecrow• Chasing

– Airplane– Organization critical

• Laser

Mitigation EffortsMitigation EffortsAcoustic Deterrents – Phase I

• Phoenix wailer• Pyrotechnics

• Propane Cannons• Chasing

Airplane– Airplane– Organization critical

Mitigation EffortsMitigation EffortsAcoustic Deterrents – Phase II

• Contracted Jon Lien (animal• Contracted Jon Lien (animal behaviourist, MUN)– Boat engine sound deterred duck

feedingfeeding

• High Amplitude Acoustic Devices• Underwater Playback System• Surveys duck migration patterns• Contracted Smith Sound

– Develop an acoustic scaring deviceDevelop an acoustic scaring device– Duck Off - above water system that

projected pre- recorded sounds underwater

• Technical and weather related problems• Covered small area

Mitigation EffortsMitigation EffortsBay Management Plans

• Individuals contracted to chase ducksIndividuals contracted to chase ducks

• Delaying mussel socking close to ice cover

C i l AND i h• Continual presence AND scaring on the water is a duck deterrent

Mitigation EffortsMitigation EffortsBiodegradable Socking Material

• Experimented with Experimented with several types

• Results were varied– Some too constricting

– Others bio-degraded too fast/slow allowing for duck predation

Mitigation EffortsBiodegradable Socking Material

Protective Socking Experiment Fall 1998 Rustico Bay Grand Pere PointRustico Bay - Grand Pere Point

Description Sock Type

GDIC-001 Mussock French 6- Italian #930GDIC 001 Mussock 56

French 620PPC

Italian #930 (Control)

# Seed at socking (Nov 4) 990 990 900 990

# S d t H t (D 15) 449 397 725 289# Seed at Harvest (Dec 15) 449 397 725 289

Seed Loss (%) 55 60 20 71

Seed Remaining (%) 45 40 80 29

Theoretical weight of mussels remaining per foot of sock at harvest (lbs)

3 2.6 4.8 1.9

GDIC-001: 100% cotton over Italian #930Mussock 56: 100 % cotton over Italian #930French 6-20PPC Mytidouble: biodegradable cotton intermesh with looped stitchItalian #930:standard plastic sock unprotectedNote: 10 replicate socks per treatment deployed

Mitigation EffortsBiodegradable Socking Material

Protective Socking Experiment Fall 1999 Rustico Bay Grand Pere PointRustico Bay - Grand Pere Point

D i ti N b 3 J 20 T t l S d

Comparison of mussel seed densities at initial socking (03NOV1999) and at collection (20JAN2000) for each of 6 treatments deployed in Rustico Bay

Description November 3 1999

January 20 2000

Total Seed Loss %

French 620-PPC 253 125 50.6

IMP Yellow Duonet 368 178 51.6

IMP S36-1023 248 118 52.4

Italian #930 (Control) 273 147 46.2

GDI C001 (100% cotton + Italian #930

288 188 34.7#930

GDI (50% cotton:50% polyester + Italian #930

243 245 0

Mitigation EffortsMitigation EffortsBiodegradable Socking Material

* Problem combining socking material and protective sleeve

Mitigation EffortsMitigation EffortsBiodegradable Socking Material

Duck off protective socking material pre-cut and sealed at bottom

“Zipper Sock”

Mitigation EffortsMitigation EffortsDiana Hamilton Study

• Late socking provides partial but not adequate protection from predation.

• Socking at high density especially with small• Socking at high density, especially with small mussels, will not increase yield.

• Bird prefer smaller mussels, but can eat all mussel d iseed sizes.

• Night feeding is confirmed, so scaring techniques will not be effective.

• Scaup are potentially a bigger problem because of greater abundance and related shake-off.

Mitigation EffortsMitigation EffortsCurrent

• Bio degradable socking material has not advanced• Bio-degradable socking material has not advanced to commercial use

• Delay mussel sockingDelay mussel socking • Propane cannons

– Noise complaints in populated areas

• Chasing• Dr Pedoski (Peter)• Maine Underwater Acoustics• Some areas continue to struggle with duck

d tipredation

Predation by Diving Ducks at Mussel Culture Sites in PEI: Quantification of Effects and Development of Mitigative Techniques DJ Hamilton, M Dionne, J-S Lauzon-Guay, MA Barbeau, AW Diamond and GJ Robertson

Predation by Diving Ducks at Mussel Culture Sites in P.E.I. : Quantification of Effects and

Development of Mitigativep gTechniques

D. J. Hamilton, M. Dionne, J.-S. Lauzon-Guay, M. A. Barbeau, A. W. Diamond, and , , y, , ,G. J. Robertson.(from presentation given in 2003 to PEI mussel growers and interested parties)

Goals Identify the relationship between ducks and

the mussel industry.t e usse dust yHow have ducks responded to expansion of

mussel aquaculture?What sizes are they selecting?

Identify and test effectiveness of various ymitigative techniques.Will socking mussels of different sizes and/or g

densities help?

Is protective socking effective?p g

Assess the impact of the above techniques on mussel growth and survivalon mussel growth and survival.Does the protective socking material break

down and allow mussels to migrate out?down and allow mussels to migrate out?

Relationship between ducks and th l i d t

m usse l land ings

the mussel industryx

1000

Kg

)

15000

ance 1500

2000m usse l land ings F a ll yea rs vs G rea te r S caup F a ll yea rs vs Long -T a iled

sel l

and

ing

s (x

10000

Du

ck a

bu

nd

a

1000

Mu

ss

0

5000

0

500

F a ll yea rs

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

00

Duck abundance has increased as the industry has expanded.

Mussels shaken off versus availabilityCovehead Bay

40 Fallen off Small mussel socks (n=180)

cy %

)

25

30

35Small mussel socks (n 180)Large mussel socks (n=180)

req

uen

c

15

20

25

Fr

5

10

15

0-1013-14

17-1821-22

25-2629-30

33-3437-38

41-420

5

Mussel size (mm)

13 14 21 22 29 30 37 38

Damage scale of Covehead socksg

100

s S k ith ll l ( 29)

60

80

of

sock

s Socks with small mussels (n=29)Socks with large mussels (n=25)

40

60

rcen

t o

0

20Pe

0 0 0 0 00

0-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100

Estimated loss of migrated mussels (%)

Conclusion: Ducks like smaller mussels

Experimental manipulationsExperimental manipulations

MethodsMethods Worked in 2 sites (St. Peters and New London) in

2001; added Brackley Bay in 20022001; added Brackley Bay in 2002.

Socked mussels in 3 seed sizes (1/8, 1/4, and 1/2 inch widths) two densities (high and low) andinch widths), two densities (high and low), and protective versus regular socking material (2002).

Quantified predation losses by comparing mussel Quantified predation losses by comparing mussel densities in experimental socks versus those covered by predator cages.y p g

Assessed effects of manipulations on mussel growth and survival by following 2001 mussels g y gthrough harvest and 2002 mussels through August 2003.

Socks with cages

Socks (uncaged)

ExperimentalExperimentalset-up

Duck exclosuresexclosures

Starting in 2002, monitored the protective socking material g gfor effectiveness against ducks by comparing protected socks (modified Go Deep material) with unprotected socks (regular Go Deep material).( g p )

Assessed impact of the protective layer on migration of mussels to the outside of socks, and subsequent growth of mussels inside and outside socksmussels inside and outside socks.

Underwater monitoring

Duck observations

Bays froze in early December, hired commercial divers to retrieve socks from under the ice in late January.

Maintain the Brackley site through mid-y gMay 2003, facilitating monitoring for duck effects in spring.p g

Result:Ducks fed heavily in Brackley Bay in

spring, providing good data and a test ofspring, providing good data and a test of the protective material.

Results

Effects of Predation and Size Selectivity

Brackley Bay Italian socks Ducks were t l i

800

1000

1200

pe

r fo

ot Oct 02 (initial)

Jan 03

May 03

strongly size-selective, removing

400

600

800

f m

us

se

l p

May 03 removing most small mussels,

0

200

Low High Low High Low High

# o

f

1/8" 1/2"1/4"

,many mid-sized ones,

Density Seed size

1/8" 1/2"1/4" and few large ones.

Italian material against predationBrackley Bay, May 2003

1400 Mussel

density did

800

1000

1200

s p

er

foo

t No cage

Cage

density did not seem to

400

600

of m

ussels

influence selectivity.

0

200

Low High Low High Low High

#

DensitySeed size

1/8" 1/2"1/4"

Did the protective material fare any better?

Brackley Bay GoDeep socks Protective

socking did not

1000

1200

er

foo

t Oct 02 (initial)

Jan 03

socking did not reduce duck predation for

400

600

800

mu

ss

el p

e May 03 small seed, and had only a slight beneficial

0

200

400

1/8" 1/4" 1/2" 1/8" 1/4" 1/2"

# o

f m slight beneficial

effect for medium seed1/8 1/4 1/2 1/8 1/4 1/2

Seed size Sock type

Regular Doublemedium seed.

Effectiveness on large seed yp gcould not be assessed.

Go Deep material against predation Protectivep g pBrackley Bay, May 2003

1200

Protective material resulted in

800

1000

er

foo

t No cage

Cage

higher densities,

400

600

f m

ussel p

e

probably because mussels did

0

200

1/8" 1/4" 1/2" 1/8" 1/4" 1/2"

# o mussels did

not fall out immediately1/8 1/4 1/2 1/8 1/4 1/2

Seed sizeSock type

Regular Go Deep Double Go Deep

immediately after socking.

yp

St. Peters Bay – Go Deep SockingSt. Peter's Bay GoDeep socks

Caged

800

t

Oct 02 (initial)

Jan 03

May 03

July 03

Aug 03

St. Peter's Bay GoDeep socks

800

ot

Oct 02 (initial)

Jan 03

May 03

July 03

Aug 03

200

400

600

mu

ss

el p

er f

oo

t Aug 03

200

400

600

of

mu

ss

el p

er

foo Aug 03

0

200

1/8" 1/4" 1/2" 1/8" 1/4" 1/2"

# o

f

Regular Double

0

200

1/8" 1/4" 1/2" 1/8" 1/4" 1/2"

# o

Regular Double

Seed size Sock type

Seed size Sock type

No predation effects on either regular or double socking, so effectiveness of the socking material as g, ga deterrent to ducks is untested.

New London Bay – Go Deep Socking

New London Bay GoDeep socksCaged

Oct 02 (initial)

Jan 03

New London Bay GoDeep socks

800Oct 02 (initial)

Jan 03

400

600

800

ss

el p

er

foo

t

May 03

July 03

Aug 03

CC

400

600

us

se

l pe

r fo

ot

Jan 03

May 03

Jul-03

Aug-03

0

200

1/8" 1/4" 1/2" 1/8" 1/4" 1/2"

# o

f m

us

Regular Double

CC

0

200

1/8" 1/4" 1/2" 1/8" 1/4" 1/2"

# o

f m

u

Regular Double

Seed size Sock type

Regular Double

Seed size Sock type

Regular Double

No predation effects on either regular or double socking.g

Double socking produced slightly higher densities, but effects declined over time.

Did the protective socking keep mussels inside socks during the period of vulnerability to ducks ?p y

Was there a difference inWas there a difference in effectiveness across size classes?

Migration of mussels to the outside of socks -Brackley Bay GoDeep Socks, 1/8" musselsBrackley Bay

Double caged

p

200

250

300

us

se

ls /

foo

t

Double uncaged

Regular caged

Regular uncaged 0

50

100

150

v v v

# o

f m

igra

ted

mu

Regular uncaged

02

-No

v

16

-No

v

30

-No

v

14

-De

c

28

-De

c

11

-Ja

n

25

-Ja

n

Date

GoDeep Socks, 1/4" mussels GoDeep Socks 1/2" musselsGoDeep Socks, 1/4 mussels

80

100

120

ussels

/ fo

ot

GoDeep Socks, 1/2 mussels

80

100

120

ss

els

/ fo

ot

0

20

40

60

v v v c c n n# o

f m

igra

ted

mu

0

20

40

60

v v v c c n n# o

f m

igra

ted

mu

s

02-N

ov

16-N

ov

30-N

ov

14-D

ec

28-D

ec

11-J

an

25-J

an

Date

02

-No

v

16

-No

v

30

-No

v

14

-De

c

28

-De

c

11

-Ja

n

25

-Ja

n

Date

#

Migration of mussels to the outside of socks -New London Bay GoDeep Socks 1/8" musselsNew London Bay GoDeep Socks, 1/8 mussels

60

70

80

90

se

ls /

foo

t

Double caged

0

10

20

30

40

50

# o

f m

igra

ted

mu

s

Double uncaged

Regular caged

Regular uncaged 0

15

-No

v

29

-No

v

13

-De

c

27

-De

c

10

-Ja

n

24

-Ja

n

Date

#

GoDeep Socks, 1/4" mussels

Regular uncaged

GoDeep Socks, 1/4 mussels

50

60

70

80

90

ss

els

/ fo

ot

GoDeep Socks, 1/2" mussels

80

100

120

se

ls /

foo

t

0

10

20

30

40

50

# o

f m

igra

ted

mu

s

20

40

60

# o

f m

igra

ted

mu

ss

0

15

-No

v

29

-No

v

13

-De

c

27

-De

c

10

-Ja

n

24

-Ja

n

Date

#

0

15

-No

v

29

-No

v

13

-De

c

27

-De

c

10

-Ja

n

24

-Ja

n

Date

#

St. Peter's BayG D k J 03GoDeep socks, Jan 03

140

160

oo

t

Double caged

Double uncaged

80

100

120

mu

ss

el p

erf

o

Regular caged

Regular uncaged

20

40

60

80o

f m

igra

ted

m

0

20

1/8'' 1/4'' 1/2''

Mussel size

# o

Double socking failed to keep small and di l i id k t ll b tmedium mussels inside socks at all, but was

somewhat helpful for large mussels.

Clearly ducks consumed the mussels that were t t i d i id th knot retained inside the socks.

Double socking material against predation, Brackley Bay, May 2003

1200

Mi t d t id

600

800

1000

pe

r fo

ot

Migrated outside

Inside sock

200

400

600

mu

ss

els

p

0

200

# o

f m

1/8" 1/2"1/4"

N CCC NN

No Cage / CageSeed size

Is double socking material degrading as anticipated?

Brackley BayDouble Socking resistence Initial (Oct 2002)

Jan 2003

300

400

500

SE

(g

) May 2003

100

200

300

Wei

gh

t +

/-

0

1/8" 1/4" 1/2"

S d i (i h )

W

Seed size (inches)

No - suggesting that if it had managed to keep gg g gmussels in, they may have had trouble getting out to grow.

St. Peter's BayDouble Socking resistence

Initial (Oct 2002)

Jan 2003

May 2003 Strength of

200

300

400

500

+/-

SE

(g

)

May 2003

Aug 2003

Strength of material declined

0

100

200

1/8" 1/4" 1/2"

We

igh

t

initially (presumably b th

Seed size (inches)

New London Bay

because the cotton component

Double Socking resistence

400500

E (g

)

Initial (Oct 2002)

Jan 2003

May 2003

Aug 2003

component degraded), but leveled off after

0100200300400

Weig

ht +/- S

E

that. Degradation

i t t0

1/8" 1/4" 1/2"

Seed size (inches)

W was consistent across sites.

Effects of experimentalEffects of experimental manipulations on mussel

growth and survivalgrowth and survival

40

45

m)

New London2002 Go Deep

25

30

35

se

l le

ng

th (

mm Small Double

Small GoDeep

Medium Double

Medium GoDeep

Large Double

2002 – Go Deep

Double socking

10

15

20

Sep-02 Jan-03 May-03 Sep-03

Mu

ss Large Double

Large GoDeep

gslightly slowed mussel growth

p y p

Date

0.3

and reduced tissue content for large mussels

0.15

0.2

0.25

su

e m

as

s (

g)

Small Double

Small GoDeep

Medium Double

Medium GoDeep

large mussels, but had no effect on small and

0

0.05

0.1

Dry

tis

s p

Large Double

Large GoDeep

on small and medium seed.

Effects declined Sep-02 Jan-03 May-03 Sep-03

Dateby August 2003.

St. Peters2002 Go Deep

40

45

m)

Small Double 2002 – Go Deep

20

25

30

35

ss

el l

en

gth

(m

m Small Double

Small GoDeep

Medium Double

Medium GoDeep

Large Double

Negati e effects10

15

20

Sep-02 Jan-03 May-03 Sep-03

Mu

s

Large GoDeep Negative effects of double socking on mussel growth

Date

0.3

on mussel growth and tissue content

0.15

0.2

0.25

ue m

ass (g)

Small Double

Small GoDeep

Medium Double

Medium GoDeep

disappeared by August 2003.

0

0.05

0.1

Dry

tis

s Medium GoDeep

Large Double

Large GoDeep

0

Sep-02 Jan-03 May-03 Sep-03

Date

Growth inside versus outside double socks

30

35

40

45

th (

mm

)

Small out

Small in

M di t

New London

15

20

25

30

Mu

ss

el l

en

gt

Medium out

Medium in

Large out

Large in

Growth of mussels trapped inside double10

May July

Date

inside double socking material was clearly

30

35

40

45

gth

(m

m)

Small out

Small in

Medium out

St. Peters

was clearly inhibited.

15

20

25

30

Mu

ss

el l

en

g Medium out

Medium in

Large out

Large in

10

May July

Date

Problem – mussel malformations

10% of mussels looked like this.

Conclusions

Duck-mussel interactions Duck abundance has increased with mussel Duck abundance has increased with mussel

landings, and is concentrated in areas with high aquaculture levels.g q

Ducks are size-selective, preferring small mussels. Mussel density on socks does not appear to be a factor in prey selection.

Shake off is an issue for Scaup, but not Long-tailed ducks.

Ducks feed at night.

Effectiveness of deterrentsThe protective double socking is completelyThe protective double socking is completely

ineffective for small mussel seed and only partially helpful for medium seed becausepartially helpful for medium seed because mussels migrated out of it too quickly. Even among large seeds, the majority migrated out before the predation threat disappeared.

Socking late and/or with large seed in vulnerable areas may help, but will not solve the problem.

B d th l f d k t f d t thBased on the slowness of ducks to feed at the Brackley site, lure crops are not promising.

Effects of manipulations on musselsProtective socking does not break down asProtective socking does not break down as

anticipated, trapping a small proportion of mussels inside socks. If it had kept more insidemussels inside socks. If it had kept more inside initially, this could have posed a problem.

Mussels inside socks grow more slowly than g ythose outside, resulting is a small reduction in average mussel size for double versus regular Go Deep socks containing large seed.

Suggestions

Try a protective material with smaller mesh and less polyester (to facilitatemesh and less polyester (to facilitate faster breakdown).

Sock late and with large mussels when Sock late and with large mussels when possible in vulnerable areas.

If d ti i b d d If predation is very bad and space permits, lines could be moved around on

l i l b i d kan annual or semi-annual basis – ducks may have more trouble finding mussels ththen.

Acknowledgements Funding Funding AquaNet, Canadian Wildlife Service, Science Horizons

(Environment Canada), NSERC, University of New Brunswick

In kind support PEI Aquaculture Alliance (Crystal McDonald Stephen PEI Aquaculture Alliance (Crystal McDonald, Stephen

Stewart, Bob Fortune, Blaine Thibeau, Robert Murphy, Gary Rodgers)

PEI D t t f Fi h i d A lt (Ri h d PEI Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture (Richard Gallant, Bob Thompson, Brian Gillis, Neil McNair)

CWS (Keith MacAloney, Andrew Hicks)

DFO (Sandra Gaudet)

ACWERN

R h i t t Research assistants Ashley Sprague, Terra McMullen, Julien Mainguy, Andrea

Simmons, Annie Tam, Tara Marshall

Development of eider ducks electronic monitoring and mitigation technology to avoid predation on mussel lines

B Hancock (AANS)

Duck Detection ProjectDuck Detection Project

Aquaculture Association of Nova Scotia

The ProblemThe Problem

• 18 sites in three separate harbours on the18 sites in three separate harbours on the eastern shore of Nova Scotia

• Severe duck predation on 8 of these sites• Severe duck predation on 8 of these sites throughout the entire year

O l d i i i• Only proven deterrent was maintaining a dedicated duck scaring vessel at each harbour.

• Duck scaring is costly, boring and can be dangerous.

The IdeaThe Idea

• An effective duck scaring strategy mustAn effective duck scaring strategy must include continuous monitoring – 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year.

• Only a small percentage of time is spent ‘scaring ducks’, most of the time is spent watching.

• Could an electronic monitoring system be developed to detect the arrival of ducks on a lease?

Proposed SolutionProposed Solution

• Put together with the Dal ID LabPut together with the Dal ID Lab.

• Develop an electronic duck sensing device that could detect the arrival of ducks on anthat could detect the arrival of ducks on an aquaculture site and remotely notify someone of the detectionof the detection.

• Must work in all conditions, be remotely d d b hpowered, and be cheap. 

How to Detect a DuckHow to Detect a Duck

1 ultrasonics (acoustic reflection)1. ultrasonics (acoustic reflection)

2. passive infrared (sensing of energy radiated by an object relative to its background)by an object relative to its background)

3. radar (reflected or obstructed microwave )energy)

4. vision (image processing or video signal processing)

5. sonar (underwater acoustics)( )

Site TrialsSite Trials

ResultsResults

• Two trials – one in Country Harbour and oneTwo trials  one in Country Harbour and one in Marie Joseph.

• Equipment was swamped in Country Harbour• Equipment was swamped in Country Harbour and consequently there were no results.

P d l i M i J h• Poor deployment in Marie Joseph. Inconclusive results.

RecommendationsRecommendations

• More field trials to better define the unwaterMore field trials to better define the unwater sound signature of the ducks.

• Design more robust equipment that could be• Design more robust equipment that could be brought to a pre‐production prototype.

Ducks and Mussel Aquaculture Keith McAloney (Canadian Wildlife Services, Atlantic Region)

Ducks and Mussel Aquaculture

PEI Aquaculture WorkshopCharlottetown, PE January 12, 2012

Jurisdictional Responsibility

• 1916 - US and Britain on behalf of Canada signed Migratory Bird Treaty

• 1917 - Migratory Bird Convention Act passed in Canada This act and the resulting Migratory Bird Canada. This act and the resulting Migratory Bird Regulations give the Government of Canada jurisdiction over migratory birds. Wildlife Enforcement Division, Environmental Conservation Branch of EC is responsible for enforcing those regulations

Migratory Bird Concerns

. Changes in migration patterns

. Conflicts between aquaculture and species at risk such as Roseate Tern

I t t i f d h i if i it i . Impacts to marine food chain if carrying capacity is exceeded.

. Loss of breeding, migration, and wintering habitat

Tracadie Bay Mussel Leases

Harbour

Tracadie

218A N D

TRACADIE BAY MUSSEL LEASES

Queens

TRACADIE

GRAND

CORRANBAN

Bed

f or d

Road

Dougan

219

Ellis

Island

219

D onaldston

Ro

ad

Point

Dockies

Kellys

Point

MILLCOVE

Ro

ad

Road

DONALDSTON

Point

R oad

Point

Queens

BLOOMING

Old

Blo

om

ing

POINT

219

Donaldston

218

TRACADIE BAY

Po

int

Ro

ad

C O R R A N B A N

C A D I E

D o c k i e s

E l l i s

I s l a n d

Q u e e n s

P o i n t

P o i n t

P o i n t

K e l l y s

P O I N T

B L O O M I N

M I L L C O V E

D O N A L D S T O N

T R A C A

General Status Of Sea Ducks

• The 15 species sea ducks are the most poorly understood group of North American waterfowl.

• Even the most basic natural history• Even the most basic natural history information is unknown for some species.

• There are few reliable population indices or estimates of annual productivity for any of the species.

General Status Of Sea Ducks

• Analysis of existing population and harvest surveys indicate that there are declines in 10 of the 15 species of North American sea ducks.

lati

on

(x1

000)

1800

2000

2200

2400

Scoters: A Cause for International Concern

60-70%

Year

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Bre

edin

g S

easo

n P

op

ul

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Source: Slattery DUC

Decline in Common Eiders, NB

History of Sea Duck Surveys in PEI

• Waterfowl surveys have been conducted in coastal areas of PEI since 1960s.

• Surveys of aquaculture lease areas began in 1998in 1998.

• Monthly fall and winter coastal surveys: 2000-2006.

• Irregular surveys since 2006.

Historic surveys(quality unknown)Historic surveys

(quality unknown) quac

ultu

re s

ites

quac

ultu

re s

ites

atic

sur

veys

atic

sur

veys

ar s

urve

ysar

sur

veys

(quality unknown)(quality unknown)

Foc

us o

n aq

Foc

us o

n aq

Sys

tem

aS

yste

ma

Irre

gula

Irre

gula

Sea Ducks Surveys in PEISurvey Coverage

418

417

415

414

393

391

390389

388387

385

386

384

383

382

381

394

395

416

0 10 20

kilometers

413

414

412

411

409

407

408

406

404

405

403

398

402

392

391396

397

410

Eiders - Fall(maximum count)

500 to 1,000 (2)250 to 500 (4)50 to 250 (4)10 to 50 (4)

1 to 10 (4)0 to 0 (5)

Eider - Winter(maximum count)

500 to 1,000 (1)50 to 250 (4)10 to 50 (7)

1 to 10 (4)0 to 0 (7)

Scoters - Fall(maximum count)

500 to 1,000 (2)250 to 500 (4)50 to 250 (9)10 to 50 (5)

1 to 10 (1)0 to 0 (2)

Scoter - Winter(maximum count)

250 to 500 (2)50 to 250 (11)10 to 50 (4)

1 to 10 (1)0 to 0 (5)

Long-tails - Fall(maximum count)

500 to 1,000 (6)250 to 500 (2)50 to 250 (10)10 to 50 (3)

0 to 0 (2)

Long-tails - Winter(maximum count)

1,000 to 2,000 (1)500 to 1,000 (3)250 to 500 (3)50 to 250 (11)10 to 50 (2)1 to 10 (1)0 to 0 (2)

Scaup - Fall(maximum count)

2,000 to 4,000 (3)1,000 to 2,000 (1)

500 to 1,000 (2)250 to 500 (1)50 to 250 (3)10 to 50 (4)0 to 0 (9)

Scaup - Winter(maximum count)

1,000 to 2,000 (1)500 to 1,000 (1)250 to 500 (4)50 to 250 (3)1 to 10 (1)0 to 0 (13)

CWS Policy on Damage to Aquaculture

• Kill permits will not be issued for ducks depredating mussels.

• As of September 2000 there is a national policy for scare permits which states that CWS must be scare permits which states that CWS must be consulted on siting, recommended mitigation measures must be applied, and state of the art protection measures must be employed before scare permit are issued.

Permits Respecting Birds Causing Damage or Danger

• Section 24 (1) – Any person may, without a permit, use equipment, other than an aircraft or firearm, to scare birds that are causing or likely to cause damage to crops or other property

• 24 (2) The chief game officer of a province, in concurrence with the Director, may grant a permit to any person residing in the province to use an aircraft or firearms, in the area designated and in the time specified in the permit, for the purpose of scaring migratory birds that are causing or likely

Section 24 continued

• to cause damage to crops or other property in the area.

• 24 (3) No person shall, while scaring migratory birds pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) kill wound or take pursuant to subsection (1) or (2), kill, wound, or take such birds

MBR’s Section 26

• 26. (1) A game officer may, with the prior concurrence of the Regional Director, issue to a person who owns, leases, or manages an area of land, a permit that describes the area and authorizes that person and his describes the area and authorizes that person and his nominees to scare or kill within that area migratory birds that are causing or are likely to cause damage therein.

MBR’s Section 27

• (2) No person while acting under the authority of a permit issued under section 25 or 26 shall use decoys, duck or goose calls or blinds or other means of concealment

• (3) Where a permit is issued under section 25 or 26 to kill ( ) pmigratory birds that are causing or are likely to cause damage to crops, no person mentioned in the permit shall

• (b) discharge a firearm within 50 meters of any water area.

Scaring as a Means of Crop Protection

• To date the preferred method of controlling duck depredation on mussels has been scaring

• Scaring is expensive labour intensive and• Scaring is expensive, labour intensive and usually short lived as ducks acclimatize and techniques must be varied.

• Standard scaring techniques are useless for night feeding ducks

Scaring- continued

• Use of auditory scaring devices at night is unacceptable to local residents

• Sea Ducks and Scaup are species whose populations are in decline and expandedpopulations are in decline and expanded aquaculture with scaring will impact habitat availability and may lead to increased scrutiny under CEA and some site rejections

Alternatives to Scaring

• Protective culture techniques such as protective socking and use of nursery areas which make mussels less vulnerable will permit waterfowl and mussels to co-exist inpermit waterfowl and mussels to co exist in same habitat.

Take Home Message

• For aquaculture to be sustainable and duck populations maintained; it cannot be ducks or mussels

• It must be ducks and mussels• It must be ducks and mussels