Synthesis of Noise Effects Synthesis of Noise Effects on Wildlife Populationson Wildlife Populations

Paul KaselooPaul Kaseloo

Department of BiologyDepartment of Biology

Virginia State UniversityVirginia State University

PurposePurpose

To create a review and literature database To create a review and literature database that could be used to review the effects of that could be used to review the effects of noise (particularly road noise) on wildlifenoise (particularly road noise) on wildlife

Covers animals (invertebrate and Covers animals (invertebrate and vertebrate) – greatest amount of vertebrate) – greatest amount of information deals with birds and mammalsinformation deals with birds and mammals

BackgroundBackground

It has been estimated (in part based on It has been estimated (in part based on the estimates of the effects on birds) that the estimates of the effects on birds) that 20% of the land area of the United 20% of the land area of the United States is ecologically affected by public States is ecologically affected by public roadsroads

(Forman, 2000; Cons. Biol. 14:31-35)(Forman, 2000; Cons. Biol. 14:31-35)

QuestionsQuestions

What is known about the response of birds What is known about the response of birds to road noise?to road noise?

What are the implications of these What are the implications of these findings?findings?

What future work could be considered to What future work could be considered to answer outstanding questions?answer outstanding questions?

Effect DistanceEffect Distance

The distance from the road up to the point The distance from the road up to the point where reduced density was recordedwhere reduced density was recorded

Early workEarly work

Avoidance (i.e. reduced breeding density) by at Avoidance (i.e. reduced breeding density) by at least two grassland species (lapwing and black-least two grassland species (lapwing and black-tailed godwit) tailed godwit) Rural road (Effect distance ~ 500-600 m) with Rural road (Effect distance ~ 500-600 m) with 50 vehicles/day50 vehicles/dayHighway (Effect distance ~ 1600-1800 m) with Highway (Effect distance ~ 1600-1800 m) with 54,000 vehicles/day54,000 vehicles/day

(van der Zande et al., 1980; Biol. Cons. 18:299-321)(van der Zande et al., 1980; Biol. Cons. 18:299-321)

Woodland birds Woodland birds

A study of 43 bird species (in deciduous and A study of 43 bird species (in deciduous and coniferous forests) found reduced breeding coniferous forests) found reduced breeding densities of 26 species (60%) with effect densities of 26 species (60%) with effect distances that increase with the amount of distances that increase with the amount of traffic:traffic:

40–1500 m at 10,000 vehicles/day40–1500 m at 10,000 vehicles/day

70-2800 m at 60,000 vehicles/day70-2800 m at 60,000 vehicles/day

(Reijnen et al., 1995; J. Appl. Ecol. 32:187-202)(Reijnen et al., 1995; J. Appl. Ecol. 32:187-202)

Woodland birds (cont…)Woodland birds (cont…)

In a multi-year study 17 of 23 species In a multi-year study 17 of 23 species studied showed a decrease in breeding studied showed a decrease in breeding density near the road in at least one year density near the road in at least one year (40-52,000 vehicles/day)(40-52,000 vehicles/day)

This effect was reduced (only 4 species) in This effect was reduced (only 4 species) in years with high population densityyears with high population density

Woodland birdsWoodland birds

High overall population levels will lead to High overall population levels will lead to underestimation of the quality of the underestimation of the quality of the habitat (i.e. would not see the effect in habitat (i.e. would not see the effect in years of high density)years of high density)

(Reijnen and Foppen, 1995; J. Appl. Ecol. 32:481-(Reijnen and Foppen, 1995; J. Appl. Ecol. 32:481-491)491)

(Reijnen et al., 1997; Biodiv. Cons. 6:567-581)

Grassland BirdsGrassland Birds

Similar to the earlier study 7 of 12 species Similar to the earlier study 7 of 12 species studied showed a reduction in breeding studied showed a reduction in breeding density adjacent to roadsdensity adjacent to roads

The effect distances varied with species The effect distances varied with species and increased with traffic densityand increased with traffic density

Grassland birds (cont…)Grassland birds (cont…)

Effect distances ranged between:Effect distances ranged between:

20-1700 m at 5,000 vehicles/day20-1700 m at 5,000 vehicles/day

65-3530 m at 50,000 vehicles/day65-3530 m at 50,000 vehicles/day

(Reijnen et al., 1996; Biol. Cons. 75:255-(Reijnen et al., 1996; Biol. Cons. 75:255-260)260)

Grassland Birds (cont…)Grassland Birds (cont…)

Five years of data on birds (mainly based on two species Five years of data on birds (mainly based on two species - bobolinks and meadowlarks) near Boston found:- bobolinks and meadowlarks) near Boston found:

Effect distances:Effect distances:3,000-8,000 vehicles/day – none3,000-8,000 vehicles/day – none8,000-15,000 vehicles/day – 400 m 8,000-15,000 vehicles/day – 400 m

(breeding only) (breeding only)15,000-30,000 vehicles/day – 700 m15,000-30,000 vehicles/day – 700 m≥≥30,000 vehicles/day – 1200 m30,000 vehicles/day – 1200 m

(Forman et al., 2002; Environ. Manage. 29:782-800)(Forman et al., 2002; Environ. Manage. 29:782-800)

Previous RecommendationsPrevious Recommendations

Sound levels above about 50 dB(A)Sound levels above about 50 dB(A)

Estimate effect distances of about Estimate effect distances of about 1000 m1000 m

(Reijnen et al., 1997; Biodiv. Cons. 6:567-581)(Reijnen et al., 1997; Biodiv. Cons. 6:567-581)

Other Possible CausesOther Possible Causes

Visual disturbanceVisual disturbanceAir pollutionAir pollutionMicroclimatic effectsMicroclimatic effectsRoad killRoad killIncreased attraction of predatorsIncreased attraction of predators

Unlikely to have an effect at the distances Unlikely to have an effect at the distances reportedreported

(Forman et al., 2002; Environ. Manage. 29:782-800)(Forman et al., 2002; Environ. Manage. 29:782-800)

Other ConsiderationsOther Considerations

Not all species appear sensitiveNot all species appear sensitive(e.g. Study in Spain estimated ~ 15% of breeding bird (e.g. Study in Spain estimated ~ 15% of breeding bird species sensitive, although total density did not differ at species sensitive, although total density did not differ at different levels of traffic)different levels of traffic)

(Peris and Pescador, 2004; Appl. Acoustics 65:357-366)(Peris and Pescador, 2004; Appl. Acoustics 65:357-366)

Some species become more common near roads Some species become more common near roads (ecotonal environment)(ecotonal environment)

(Michael et al., 1976; Proc. 1(Michael et al., 1976; Proc. 1st st Nat. Symp. Environ. Conc.) Nat. Symp. Environ. Conc.)

(Ferris, 1979; J. Wildl. Manage. 43:421-427)(Ferris, 1979; J. Wildl. Manage. 43:421-427)(Adams and Geis, 1981; FHWA/RD-81/067)(Adams and Geis, 1981; FHWA/RD-81/067)

Other ConsiderationsOther Considerations

Some species breed well even in Some species breed well even in noisy environments (e.g. California noisy environments (e.g. California gnatcatchers)gnatcatchers)

(Awbrey et al., 1995; Inter-noise 65:971-(Awbrey et al., 1995; Inter-noise 65:971-974)974)

Other ConsiderationsOther Considerations

Rights-of-way have been shown to provide Rights-of-way have been shown to provide breeding habitat for some species (e.g. breeding habitat for some species (e.g. pheasants, ducks, passerines) – pheasants, ducks, passerines) – particularly in areas of disturbance such as particularly in areas of disturbance such as agricultural areasagricultural areas

(Warner and Joselyn, 1986; J. Wildl. Manage. 50:525-(Warner and Joselyn, 1986; J. Wildl. Manage. 50:525-532)532)

(Oetting and Cassel, 1971; J. Wildl. Manage. 35:774-781)(Oetting and Cassel, 1971; J. Wildl. Manage. 35:774-781)(Voorhees and Cassel, 1980; J. Wildl. Manage. 44:155-(Voorhees and Cassel, 1980; J. Wildl. Manage. 44:155-

163)163)(Laursen, 1981; Biol. Cons. 20:59-68)(Laursen, 1981; Biol. Cons. 20:59-68)(Warner, 1992; Biol. Cons. 59:1-7)(Warner, 1992; Biol. Cons. 59:1-7)

MechanismsMechanisms

It has been found that higher-pitched It has been found that higher-pitched frequencies in bird songs may make frequencies in bird songs may make species less susceptible to noise effects species less susceptible to noise effects from roads implying masking as a from roads implying masking as a causative mechanismcausative mechanism

(Rheindt 2003; J. f(Rheindt 2003; J. füür Ornith. 144:295-306)r Ornith. 144:295-306)

MechanismsMechanisms

Birds in noisier urban environments also Birds in noisier urban environments also increased amplitude of songs when increased amplitude of songs when background noise increased background noise increased

(Brumm, 2004; J. Anim. Ecol. 73:434-440)(Brumm, 2004; J. Anim. Ecol. 73:434-440)

Important QuestionsImportant Questions

Is noise alone sufficient to cause the effect Is noise alone sufficient to cause the effect seen?seen? – It has been established that it is It has been established that it is notnot the the

presence of a road, but the level of traffic that presence of a road, but the level of traffic that influences the densities of birds, presumably influences the densities of birds, presumably due to noise because of the distances due to noise because of the distances involvedinvolved

– Will mitigation of noise alone be sufficient to Will mitigation of noise alone be sufficient to change the response?change the response?

(Reijnen et al., 1997; Biodiv. Cons. 6:567-581)

Future ResearchFuture Research

Can noise (as opposed to noise with Can noise (as opposed to noise with associated traffic) cause the same effect? associated traffic) cause the same effect? (i.e. can mitigation of noise be expected to (i.e. can mitigation of noise be expected to reduce the effect zone)reduce the effect zone)

Will reduction in noise lead to a return of Will reduction in noise lead to a return of affected species? (How long until this affected species? (How long until this response is seen?)response is seen?)

Future ResearchFuture Research

What are the proximate effects of noise on What are the proximate effects of noise on birds?birds?– Masking of vocalization?Masking of vocalization?– Physiological changes?Physiological changes?– Locomotor activity?Locomotor activity?– Behavioral patterns?Behavioral patterns?

Future ResearchFuture Research

Can we see areas where noise mitigation Can we see areas where noise mitigation (for other purposes) has altered species (for other purposes) has altered species composition compared to areas without composition compared to areas without mitigation?mitigation?

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

Undergraduate research assistant Undergraduate research assistant Katherine TysonKatherine Tyson

Paul Garrett @ FHWA for support and Paul Garrett @ FHWA for support and adviceadvice

Funded through FHWA cooperative Funded through FHWA cooperative agreement DTFH61-03-H-00123agreement DTFH61-03-H-00123

Questions?Questions?