Toward a broader characterization of anthropogenic noise and its effects on wildlife

Gill, Sharon A.; Job, Jacob R.; Myers, Kyle; Naghshineh, Koorosh; Vonhof, Maarten J.

doi:10.1093/beheco/aru219

Cited by 44 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are multiple sources of anthropogenic noise in urbanized areas, including traffic, construction, and aircraft. Noise from different sources can vary in amplitude, duration, and frequency, and each of these features of sound can have different effects on organisms and their behavior (Gill, Job, Myers, Naghshineh, & Vonhof, ; Wiley, ). Anthropogenic noise can directly affect acoustic communication in animals that use auditory cues and signals by masking those sounds (Barber, Crooks, & Fristrup, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Traffic noise and responses to a simulated approaching avian predator in mixed‐species flocks of chickadees, titmice, and nuthatches

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traffic noise likely reaches a wide range of species and populations throughout the world, but we still know relatively little about how it affects anti‐predator behavior of populations. We tested for possible effects of traffic noise on responses to predator acoustic cues in Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor), and white‐breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis) near 14 independent feeding stations in eastern Tennessee. We compared anti‐predator calling and seed‐taking behavior in response to playbacks of predator stimuli (screech owl calls) at sites naturally exposed to traffic noise and at sites that faced relatively little traffic noise. The screech owl call playback was designed to simulate the approach of this dangerous predator to a feeder being used by these small songbirds. We found that chickadees responded consistently to the owl stimuli across different levels of traffic noise. However, titmice, and nuthatches exhibited different behavioral responses to the predator stimulus, suggesting that traffic noise masked these low‐frequency predator calls. Overall, chickadees and nuthatches showed the broadest anti‐predator behavioral responses in comparison to titmice, corroborating earlier published work with an Indiana population. Finally, populations exposed to traffic noise overall seemed less able to detect predator cues potentially masked by that noise, and future work will need to assess likely seasonal variation in these responses as well as species‐level variation in anti‐predator responses in mixed‐species groups.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Traffic noise and responses to a simulated approaching avian predator in mixed‐species flocks of chickadees, titmice, and nuthatches

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The impact of anthropogenic noise is likely to be affected not only by its level, but also by the characteristics of the sound (Slabbekoorn et al, 2010;Gill et al, 2015;Nedelec et al, 2015); man-made noise sources differ greatly in such aspects as frequency range, amplitude fluctuation and temporal structure (Hildebrand, 2009;Gill et al, 2015). For instance, pile-driving and seismic airguns produce intermittent, impulsive sounds, whereas ships produce intermittent but not impulsive sounds, and wind turbines produce more continuous sounds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repeated exposure reduces the response to impulsive noise in European seabass

Radford

Lèbre²,

Lecaillon³

et al. 2016

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human activities have changed the acoustic environment of many terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems around the globe. Mounting evidence indicates that the resulting anthropogenic noise can impact the behaviour and physiology of at least some species in a range of taxa. However, the majority of experimental studies have considered only immediate responses to single, relatively short‐term noise events. Repeated exposure to noise could lead to a heightened or lessened response. Here, we conduct two long‐term (12 week), laboratory‐based exposure experiments with European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) to examine how an initial impact of different sound types potentially changes over time. Naïve fish showed elevated ventilation rates, indicating heightened stress, in response to impulsive additional noise (playbacks of recordings of pile‐driving and seismic surveys), but not to a more continuous additional noise source (playbacks of recordings of ship passes). However, fish exposed to playbacks of pile‐driving or seismic noise for 12 weeks no longer responded with an elevated ventilation rate to the same noise type. Fish exposed long‐term to playback of pile‐driving noise also no longer responded to short‐term playback of seismic noise. The lessened response after repeated exposure, likely driven by increased tolerance or a change in hearing threshold, helps explain why fish that experienced 12 weeks of impulsive noise showed no differences in stress, growth or mortality compared to those reared with exposure to ambient‐noise playback. Considering how responses to anthropogenic noise change with repeated exposure is important both when assessing likely fitness consequences and the need for mitigation measures.

show abstract

“…Previous studies have called for a broader characterization of noise to better understand its effects on wildlife (Pater et al 2009, Francis & Barber 2013, Gill et al 2015. This section expands on these ideas and relates particular noise characteristics and metrics to behavioral responses or perceptions of the noise.…”

Section: Additional Characteristics Of Noise Relevant To Biological Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies provided important comparisons of acoustic metrics to describe acoustic stimuli (Madsen 2005, Leighton 2012, identified sources of misinterpretations when comparing acoustic stimuli (Chapman & Ellis 1998), and recommended metrics, terminology, and techniques for assessing noise impacts on wildlife (Pater et al 2009, Gill et al 2015. The Acoustical Society of America (ASA) and other organizations have developed standards detailing how to conduct and analyze measurements of specific sources and defining appropriate terminology (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing anthropogenic noise to improve understanding and management of impacts to wildlife

McKenna

Shannon²,

Fristrup

2016

Endang. Species. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diverse biological consequences of noise exposure are documented by an extensive literature. Unfortunately, the aggregate value of this literature is compromised by inconsistencies in noise measurements and incomplete descriptions of metrics. These studies commonly report the noise level (in decibels, dB) at which a response was measured. There are many methods to characterize noise levels in dB, which can result in different values depending on the processing steps used. It is crucial that methods used for noise level measurement be reported in sufficient detail to permit replication and maximize interpretation of results, enable comparisons across studies, and provide rigorous foundations for noise management in environmental conservation. Understanding the differences in the acoustic measurements is vital when making decisions about acceptable levels or thresholds for conservation strategies, particularly for endangered species where mistakes can have irreversible consequences. Here we provide a discussion on how different acoustic metrics are derived and recommendations on how to report sound level measurements. Examples of additional measures of noise besides level (e.g. spectral composition, duration) are discussed in the context of providing further insight on the consequences of noise and will potentially help develop effective mitigation. It will never be possible to study all combinations of sources and species. Standardized methods of noise measurement and reporting are necessary to advance syntheses and general models that predict the ecological consequences of noise.

show abstract

Toward a broader characterization of anthropogenic noise and its effects on wildlife

Cited by 44 publications

References 50 publications

Traffic noise and responses to a simulated approaching avian predator in mixed‐species flocks of chickadees, titmice, and nuthatches

Traffic noise and responses to a simulated approaching avian predator in mixed‐species flocks of chickadees, titmice, and nuthatches

Repeated exposure reduces the response to impulsive noise in European seabass

Characterizing anthropogenic noise to improve understanding and management of impacts to wildlife

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About