Sound settlement: noise surpasses land cover in explaining breeding habitat selection of secondary cavity‐nesting birds

Abstract

Birds breeding in heterogeneous landscapes select nest sites by cueing in on a variety of factors from landscape features and social information to the presence of natural enemies. We focus on determining the relative impact of anthropogenic noise on nest site occupancy, compared to amount of forest cover, which is known to strongly influence the selection process. We examine chronic, industrial noise from natural gas wells directly measured at the nest box as well as site-averaged noise, using a well-established field experimental system in northwestern New Mexico. We hypothesized that high levels of noise, both at the nest site and in the environment, would decrease nest box occupancy. We set up nest boxes using a geospatially paired control and experimental site design and analyzed four years of occupancy data from four secondary cavity-nesting birds common to the Colorado Plateau. We found different effects of noise and landscape features depending on species, with strong effects of noise observed in breeding habitat selection of Myiarchus cinerascens, the Ash-throated Flycatcher, and Sialia currucoides, the Mountain Bluebird. In contrast, the amount of forest cover less frequently explained habitat selection for those species or had a smaller standardized effect than the acoustic environment. Although forest cover characterization and management is commonly employed by natural resource managers, our results show that characterizing and managing the acoustic environment should be an important tool in protected area management.

Zebra finches show spatial avoidance of near but not far distance traffic noise

“…In combination with raised vigilance levels in noisy conditions (Quinn et al, 2006;Chan et al, 2010), this may further impact fitness prospects in noisy areas. Hence, avoiding noisy areas (given a choice) might well be beneficial for the birds and is in line with observed distribution patterns in the field in different songbird species (Parris & Schneider, 2009;Arévalo & Newhard, 2011;Goodwin & Shriver, 2011;Herrera-Montes & Aide, 2011;Proppe et al, 2013) and with avoidance patterns of (experimentally induced) noisy nest boxes (Kleist et al, 2017;Injaian et al, 2018a) or stopover sites near an experimental 'phantom road ' (McClure et al, 2013).…”

Effects of ambient noise on zebra finch vigilance and foraging efficiency

“…If noise reduces foraging intake rates then we would expect animals to spend more time in quiet areas than noisy ones. Animals have been shown to avoid noisy areas when making breeding habitat decisions [36, 37], but few studies exist examining how noise affects choice of foraging location (but see: [6, 20, 38–40]).…”

Why conservation biology can benefit from sensory ecology

“…type. Yet recent work found that variation in the acoustic environment better explained breeding distributions of two species than did gradients in vegetation 19 , emphasizing the benefits of examining existing dogma with a sensory lens. Reimagining conservation to include sensory perspectives conveys pragmatic benefits.…”