Animal occurrence and space use change in the landscape of anthropogenic noise

Chen, Hsiang Ling; Koprowski, John L.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.003

Cited by 33 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Future marine conservation and management efforts critically rely upon our understanding of the acoustic environment as perceived by animals, the spatial and temporal patterns of disturbance, and immediate and chronic responses of animals to disturbance ( Chen and Koprowski, 2015 ). Adaptive management of acoustic disturbance requires evaluation of mitigation methods such as ramp-up or mitigation zones, which require sonar shut-down ( Dolman et al, 2009 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lack of behavioural responses of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) indicate limited effectiveness of sonar mitigation

Wensveen

Kvadsheim

Lam

et al. 2017

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exposure to underwater sound can cause permanent hearing loss and other physiological effects in marine animals. To reduce this risk, naval sonars are sometimes gradually increased in intensity at the start of transmission (‘ramp-up’). Here, we conducted experiments in which tagged humpback whales were approached with a ship to test whether a sonar operation preceded by ramp-up reduced three risk indicators – maximum sound pressure level (SPLmax), cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) and minimum source–whale range (Rmin) – compared with a sonar operation not preceded by ramp-up. Whales were subject to one no-sonar control session and either two successive ramp-up sessions (RampUp1, RampUp2) or a ramp-up session (RampUp1) and a full-power session (FullPower). Full-power sessions were conducted only twice; for other whales we used acoustic modelling that assumed transmission of the full-power sequence during their no-sonar control. Averaged over all whales, risk indicators in RampUp1 (n=11) differed significantly from those in FullPower (n=12) by −3.0 dB (SPLmax), −2.0 dB (SELcum) and +168 m (Rmin), but not significantly from those in RampUp2 (n=9). Only five whales in RampUp1, four whales in RampUp2 and none in FullPower or control sessions avoided the sound source. For RampUp1, we found statistically significant differences in risk indicators between whales that avoided the sonar and whales that did not: −4.7 dB (SPLmax), −3.4 dB (SELcum) and +291 m (Rmin). In contrast, for RampUp2, these differences were smaller and not significant. This study suggests that sonar ramp-up has a positive but limited mitigative effect for humpback whales overall, but that ramp-up can reduce the risk of harm more effectively in situations when animals are more responsive and likely to avoid the sonar, e.g. owing to novelty of the stimulus, when they are in the path of an approaching sonar ship.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lack of behavioural responses of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) indicate limited effectiveness of sonar mitigation

Wensveen

Kvadsheim

Lam

et al. 2017

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the increasing pressures on wild places, particularly in the world's tropics, PAM is particularly attractive because of the many ways that it can be used to reveal and measure human impacts on animal populations over large areas and long time periods (e.g. Hatch & Fristrup 2009;Chen & Koprowski 2015;Nowacek et al 2015). PAM can also assess the effectiveness of implemented conservation strategies, which are often broadly applied without any data on effectiveness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acoustic monitoring for conservation in tropical forests: examples from forest elephants

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The accelerating loss of biodiversity worldwide demands effective tools for monitoring animal populations and informing conservation action. In habitats where direct observation is difficult (rain forests, oceans), or for cryptic species (shy, nocturnal), passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) provides cost‐effective, unbiased data collection. PAM has broad applicability in terrestrial environments, particularly tropical rain forests. Using examples from studies of forest elephants in Central African rain forest, we show how PAM can be used to investigate cryptic behaviour, mechanisms of communication, estimate population size, quantify threats, and assess the efficacy of conservation strategies. We discuss the methodologies, requirements, and challenges of obtaining these data using acoustics. Where applicable, we compare these methods to more traditional approaches. While PAM methods and associated analysis are maturing rapidly, mechanisms are needed for processing the dense raw data efficiently with standard computer hardware, speeding development of detection algorithms, and harnessing communication networks to move data from the field to research facilities. Passive acoustic monitoring is a viable and cost‐effective tool for conservation and should be incorporated in monitoring schemes much more broadly. The capability to quickly assess changes in behaviour, population size, and landscape use, simultaneously over large geographical areas, makes this approach attractive for detecting human‐induced impacts and for assessing the success of conservation strategies.

show abstract

“…For these species, sound variation at small spatial scales could influence how organisms use space. In particular, given potentially negative effects of noise on animals (reviewed in [ 6 , 25 ]), organisms should pay attention to spatial variation in noise and avoid it where and when possible (e.g., [ 12 , 13 , 53 , 54 ]). For example, noise interferes with the ability of foraging animals to detect predators (e.g., [ 9 ]), therefore, if given the choice, we predict that organisms preferentially forage in quieter areas where detection probability may be higher or to adjust scanning frequency based on variation in noise.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncovering Spatial Variation in Acoustic Environments Using Sound Mapping

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals select and use habitats based on environmental features relevant to their ecology and behavior. For animals that use acoustic communication, the sound environment itself may be a critical feature, yet acoustic characteristics are not commonly measured when describing habitats and as a result, how habitats vary acoustically over space and time is poorly known. Such considerations are timely, given worldwide increases in anthropogenic noise combined with rapidly accumulating evidence that noise hampers the ability of animals to detect and interpret natural sounds. Here, we used microphone arrays to record the sound environment in three terrestrial habitats (forest, prairie, and urban) under ambient conditions and during experimental noise introductions. We mapped sound pressure levels (SPLs) over spatial scales relevant to diverse taxa to explore spatial variation in acoustic habitats and to evaluate the number of microphones needed within arrays to capture this variation under both ambient and noisy conditions. Even at small spatial scales and over relatively short time spans, SPLs varied considerably, especially in forest and urban habitats, suggesting that quantifying and mapping acoustic features could improve habitat descriptions. Subset maps based on input from 4, 8, 12 and 16 microphones differed slightly (< 2 dBA/pixel) from those based on full arrays of 24 microphones under ambient conditions across habitats. Map differences were more pronounced with noise introductions, particularly in forests; maps made from only 4-microphones differed more (> 4 dBA/pixel) from full maps than the remaining subset maps, but maps with input from eight microphones resulted in smaller differences. Thus, acoustic environments varied over small spatial scales and variation could be mapped with input from 4–8 microphones. Mapping sound in different environments will improve understanding of acoustic environments and allow us to explore the influence of spatial variation in sound on animal ecology and behavior.

show abstract

Animal occurrence and space use change in the landscape of anthropogenic noise

Cited by 33 publications

References 56 publications

Lack of behavioural responses of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) indicate limited effectiveness of sonar mitigation

Lack of behavioural responses of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) indicate limited effectiveness of sonar mitigation

Acoustic monitoring for conservation in tropical forests: examples from forest elephants

Uncovering Spatial Variation in Acoustic Environments Using Sound Mapping

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About