The quantitative relation between ambient soundscapes and landscape development intensity in North Central Florida
- 25 Downloads
It is widely accepted that wildlife is subjected to detrimental human noise within urban landscapes but little is known about how the intensity of land use changes soundscapes.
The objective of this research was to produce quantitative associations between characteristics of ambient soundscapes and land use intensity. These relations were used to examine the 2 kHz demarcation between anthrophony and biophony and compare the impact of different sized contributing areas on ambient soundscape characteristics.
This study related the surrounding land use intensity of 67 sites in north central Florida (USA) to several metrics describing their recorded soundscapes. Land use intensity was measured remotely at three scales using the landscape development intensity index (LDI).
The analysis revealed that the LDI index had a statistically significant effect on soundscape characteristics after controlling for important factors such as climate, season, and attenuation due to hard ground. The trends between LDI and soundscape confirmed that human generated sounds are loud, continuous, and occupy low frequencies. The evenness of the sound distribution decreased with landscape intensity and LDI correlated significantly with sound below 3 kHz. Land use intensity within a 100 and 500-m radius contributing area were most closely related to soundscape metrics.
LDI is a tool with the potential to predict the extent and intensity of anthropogenic noise disturbance on wildlife from remote sensing data. The utility of this tool allows for widespread application to identify and mitigate conflicts in the acoustic realm between human noise and wildlife.
KeywordsDevelopment intensity Soundscape Noise disturbance Biophony Anthrophony Technophony LDI index Power spectral density Remote sensing Ambient sound
The authors thank Gary Siebein, Peter Frederick, Barron Henderson, Erica Hernandez, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. This research project received support from the HT Odum Center for Wetlands.
- Bioacoustics Research Program (2011) Raven Pro: Interactive Sound Analysis Software (Version 14) [Computer software]. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, IthicaGoogle Scholar
- Bouchard M (2009) Wetland resources of Eastern South Dakota; drainage patterns, assessment techniques, and predicting future risks. South Dakota State University, South DakotaGoogle Scholar
- Charif RA, Waack AM, Strickman LM (2010) Raven pro 1.4 user’s manual. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, IthicaGoogle Scholar
- Dooling RJ, Popper A (2007) The effects of highway noise on birds. Environmental BioAcoustics LLC, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
- ESRI (2014) ArcGIS desktop: release 10.3. Environmental Systems Research Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
- FGDL Metadata Explorer (2015) University of Florida GeoPlan Center, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
- Fore LS (2004) Development and testing of biomonitoring tools for macroinvertebrates in Florida streams. Statistical Design, Seattle, Washington. A report for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, p 62Google Scholar
- Fore LS (2005) Assessing the biological condition of Florida lakes: development of the lake vegetation index (LDV). Statistical Design, Seattle, Washington. A report for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, p 29 & AppendixesGoogle Scholar
- Forman RTT, Sperling D, Bissonette JA, Clevenger AP, Cutshall CD, Dale VH, Fahrig L, France R, Goldman CR, Heanue K, Jones JA, Swanson FJ, Turrentine T, Winter TC (2003) Road ecology: science and solutions. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- ISO (1993) Acoustics—Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors—part 1: calculation of the absorption of sound by the atmosphere (Standard No. 9613-1). International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- ISO (1996) Acoustics—Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors—part 2: general method of calculation (Standard No. 9613-2). International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- Joo W (2009) Environmental acoustics as an ecological variable to understand the dynamics of ecosystems. Dissertation. Michigan State UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Matsinos YG, Mazaris AD, Papadimitriou KD, Mniestris A, Hatzigiannidis G, Maioglou D, Pantis JD (2008) Spatio-temporal variability in human and natural sounds in a rural landscape. Landsc Ecol 23:945–959Google Scholar
- Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2007) Wetlands, 4th edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
- Napoletano BM (2004) Measurement, quantification and interpretation of acoustic signals within an ecological context. Dissertation. Michigan State UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Odum HT (1996) Environmental accounting: emergy and environmental decision making. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Qi J, Gage SH, Joo W, Napoletano BM, Biswas S (2008) Soundscape characteristics of an environment: a new ecological indicator of ecosystem Health. Wetland and water resource modeling and assessment: a watershed perspective. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, pp 201–214Google Scholar
- Schafer MR (1977) The tuning of the world. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- SJRWMD (2012) St. Johns River water supply impact study (Technical Publication SJ2012-1). St. Johns River Water Management District, PalatkaGoogle Scholar
- Stacier CA, Spector DA, Horn AG (1996) The dawn chorus and other diel patterns in acoustic signaling. Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Cornell University Press, pp 426–453Google Scholar
- StataCorp (2013) Stata statistical software: release 13. StataCorp LP, College StationGoogle Scholar
- Truax B (2001) Acoustic communication, 2nd edn. Ablex, WestportGoogle Scholar