Daily change and acoustical characteristics of underwater noise on a submerged sea tunnel in Jinhae Bay, Korea

진해만 침매터널 상부의 수중소음의 일변화 및 음향적 특성

  • SHIN, Hyeon-Ok (Division of Marine Production System Management, Pukyong National University)
  • 신현옥 (부경대학교 해양생산시스템관리학부)
  • Received : 2015.08.20
  • Accepted : 2015.08.31
  • Published : 2015.08.31


Jinhae Bay located in the southern of Korean Peninsular is an important spawning area in Korea. By some preliminary studies it was measured several times that adult Pacific codes (Gadus microcephalus) were passed (swimming layer: 15 to 18 m) over a submerged sea tunnel (sea bottom: about 30 m) rather than another immigration route when the Pacific codes were tagged surgically with an acoustic transmitters and released inside of the Bay. There is a possibility that the Pacific codes and the other fishes use the route on the sea tunnel as an immigration route are affected by a human-generated underwater noise around the sea tunnel due to the sea tunnel traffic. On this study the 25-hour measurements of the underwater noise level by water layer were conducted with a hydrophone attached on a portable CTD and an underwater noise level meter during four seasons, and the acoustical characteristics of the underwater noise was analyzed. The mean traffic volume for one hour at the sea tunnel on the spring was shown the largest value of 1,408 [standard deviation (SD): 855] vehicles among four seasons measurement. The next one was ordered on the autumn [1,145 (SD: 764)], winter [947 (SD: 598)] and summer [931 (SD: 558)] vehicles. Small size vehicle was formed 84.3% of the traffic volume, and ultra-small size, medium size, large size and extra-large size of the vehicle were taken possession of 8.7%, 3.2%, 2.0% and 1.8%, respectively. On the daily change of the noise level in vertical during four seasons the noise level of 5 m-layer was shown the highest value of 121.2 (SD: 3.6) dB (re $1{\mu}Pa$), the next one was 10 m-layer [120.7 (SD: 3.5)], 2 m- and 15 m-layer [120.3 (SD: 3.5 to 3.7)] and 1 m-layer [119.2 (SD: 3.6)] dB (re $1{\mu}Pa$). In relation with the seasonal change of the noise level the average noise level measured during autumn was shown the highest value of 123.9 (SD: 2.6) dB (re $1{\mu}Pa$), the next was during summer [121.4 (SD: 3.2)], spring [118.0 (SD: 3.4)] and winter [116.5 (SD: 5.1)] dB (re $1{\mu}Pa$). In results of eigenray computation when the real bathymetry data (complicate shape of sea bed) was applied the average number of eigenray was 2.68 times (eigenrays: 11.03 rays) higher than those of model bathymetry (flat and slightly sloped sea bottom). When the real bathymetric data toward inside (water depth becomes shallow according to a distance between the source of noise and hydrophone) of the Bay was applied on the eigenrays calculation the number of the eigenray was 1.31 times (eigenrays: 12.49 rays) larger than the real bathymetric data toward outside (water depth becomes deep with respect to the distance). But when the model bathymetric data toward inside of the Bay was applied the number of the eigenray was 1.05 times (eigenrays: 4.21 rays) larger than the model bathymetric data toward outside.


Supported by : 부경대학교


  1. Bailey H, Senior B, Simmons D, Rusin J, Picken G and Thompson PM. 2010. Assessing underwater noise levels during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm and its potential effects on marine mammals. Mar Pollut Bull 60, 888-897. (doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.01.003)
  2. Hawkins AD. 2011. Effect of human-generated sound on fish. Elsevier Inc., Scotland, UK. (doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-374545-3.00014-5)
  3. Hirst AG and Rodhouse PG. 2000. Impacts of geophysical seismic surveying on fishing success. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 10, 113-118.
  4. Merchant ND, Pirotta E, Barton TR and Thompson PM. 2014. Monitoring ship noise to assess the impact of coastal developments on marine mammals. Mar Pollut Bull 78, 85-95. (doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.058)
  5. Popper AN and Hastings MC. 2009. The effects of human-generated sound on fish. Integr Zool 4, 43-52.
  6. Popper AN and Hastings MC. 2009. The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. J Fish Biol 75, 455-489.
  7. Robert B. 2012. Enviromentally adaptive noise estimation for active sonar. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University.
  8. Slabbekoonn H, Bouton N, Opzeeland I, Coers A, Cate C and Popper AN. 2010. A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends Ecol Evol 25(7), 419-427. (doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.04.005)
  9. Slabbekoonn H and Bouton N. 2008. Soundscape orientation: a new field in need of sound investigation. Anim Behav 76, e5-e8.
  10. Tougaard J. 2015. Underwater noise from a wave energy converter is unlikely to affect marine mammals. PLOS ONE 10(7), 1-7. (doi: 10.1371/journalpone.0132391)
  11. Urick RJ. 1983. Principles of Underwater Sound. 3rdedition. McGraw-Hill,NewYork,U.S.A.,pp201-221.
  12. Wartzok D. 2013. Marine mammals and ocean noise. Elsevier Inc., Scotland, UK. (doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.09333-7)
  13. Williams R, Ashe E, Blight L, Jasny M and Nowlan L. 2014. Marine mammals and ocean noise: future directions and information needs with respect to science, policy and law in Canada. Mar Pollut Bull 86, 29-38. (doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.05.056)