Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Anthropogenic noise exposure in protected natural areas: estimating the scale of ecological consequences

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The extensive literature documenting the ecological effects of roads has repeatedly implicated noise as one of the causal factors. Recent studies of wildlife responses to noise have decisively identified changes in animal behaviors and spatial distributions that are caused by noise. Collectively, this research suggests that spatial extent and intensity of potential noise impacts to wildlife can be studied by mapping noise sources and modeling the propagation of noise across landscapes. Here we present models of energy extraction, aircraft overflight and roadway noise as examples of spatially extensive sources and to present tools available for landscape scale investigations. We focus these efforts in US National Parks (Mesa Verde, Grand Teton and Glacier) to highlight that ecological noise pollution is not a threat restricted to developed areas and that many protected natural areas experience significant noise loads. As a heuristic tool for understanding past and future noise pollution we forecast community noise utilizing a spatially-explicit land-use change model that depicts the intensity of human development at sub-county resolution. For road noise, we transform effect distances from two studies into sound levels to begin a discussion of noise thresholds for wildlife. The spatial scale of noise exposure is far larger than any protected area, and no site in the continental US is free form noise. The design of observational and experimental studies of noise effects should be informed by knowledge of regional noise exposure patterns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barber JR, Crooks C, Fristrup K (2010) The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends Ecol Evol 25:180–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bayne EM, Habib L, Boutin S (2008) Impacts of chronic anthropogenic noise from energy-sector activity on abundance of songbirds in the boreal forest. Conserv Biol 22:1186–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Benítez-López A, Alkemade R, Verweij PA (2010) The impacts of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: a meta-analysis. Biol Conserv 143:1307–1316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bermúdez-Cuamatzin E, Ríos-Chelén AA, Gil D, Garcia CM (2011) Experimental evidence for real-time song frequency shift in response to urban noise in a passerine bird. Biol Lett 23:36–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierwagen B, Theobald DM, Pyke CR, Choate A, Groth AP, Thomas JV, Morefield P (2010) National housing and impervious surface scenarios for integrated climate impact assessments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(49):20887–20892

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blickley JL, Patricelli GL (2011) Impacts of anthropogenic noise on wildlife: research priorities for the development of standards and mitigation. J Int Wildl Law Policy (in press)

  • Blickley JL, Blackwood D, Paticelli GL (2011) Experimental evidence for avoidance of chronic noise exposure by greater sage-grouse. Conserv Biol (in review)

  • Chan AAY-H, Giraldo-Perez P, Smith S, Blumstein DT (2010) Anthropogenic noise affects risk assessment and attention: the distracted prey hypothesis. Biol Lett 6:458–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark CW, Ellison WT, Southall BL, Hatch L, Van Parijs SM, Frankel A, Ponirakis D (2009) Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 395:201–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumyahn SL, Pijanowski BC (2011) Beyond noise mitigation: managing soundscapes as common-pool resources. Landscape Ecol (published online 4 August 2011)

  • Dunn RR, Gavin MC, Sanchez MC, Solomon JN (2006) The pigeon paradox: dependence of global conservation on urban nature. Conserv Biol 6:1814–1816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efroymson RA, Sutter GW (2001) Ecological risk assessment framework for low-altitude aircraft overflights: estimating effects on wildlife. Risk Anal 21:263–274

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2009) Quantifying the road-effect zone: threshold effects of a motorway on anuran populations in Ontario, Canada. Ecol Soc 14(1):24

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), USA (1974a) Population distribution of the United States as a function of outdoor noise level. Report 550/9-74-009

  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), USA (1974b) Information on levels of environmental noise requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. Report 550/9-74-004

  • ESRI (2009) ArcGIS 9.3.1. ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute), Redlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L, Rytwinski T (2009) Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and synthesis. Ecol Soc 14:21. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art21/

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang C, Ling D (2003) Investigation of the noise reduction provided by tree belts. Landsc Urban Plan 63:187–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, USA (1992) Federal agency review of selected airport noise analysis issues

  • Forman RTT (2000) Estimate of the area affected ecologically by the road system in the United States. Conserv Biol 14:31–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT, Reineking B, Hersperger AM (2002) Road traffic and nearby grassland bird patterns in a suburbanizing landscape. Environ Manage 29:782–800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Francis CD, Ortega CP, Cruz A (2009) Noise pollution changes avian communities and species interactions. Curr Biol 19:1415–1419

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Francis CD, Paritsis J, Ortega CP, Cruz A (2011) Landscape patterns of avian habitat use and nest success are affected by chronic gas well compressor noise. Landscape Ecol (published online 3 May 2011)

  • Goodwin SE, Shriver G (2011) Effects of traffic noise on occupancy patterns of forest birds. Conserv Biol 25:406–411

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gross K, Pasinelli G, Kunc HP (2010) Behavioral plasticity allows short-term adjustment to a novel environment. Am Nat 176:456–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Habib L, Bayne EM, Boutin S (2007) Chronic industrial noise affects pairing success and age structure of ovenbirds Seiurus aurocapilla. J Appl Ecol 44:176–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halfwerk W, Holleman LJM, Lesselis CM, Slabbekoorn H (2011) Negative impact of traffic noise on avian reproductive success. J Appl Ecol 48:210–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaliski K, Duncan E (2008, December) Propagation modeling parameters for wind power projects. Sound Vib, pp 12–15

  • Kaliski K, Duncan E, Cowan J (2007, September) Community and regional noise mapping in the United States. Sound Vib, pp 14–17

  • Kerth G, Melber M (2009) Species-specific barrier effects of a motorway on the habitat use of two threatened forest-living bat species. Biol Conserv 142:270–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidd G, Mason CR, Richards VM, Gallun FJ, Durlach NI (2008) Informational masking. In: Yost WA, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Auditory perception of sound sources. Springer, New York, pp 143–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Leu M, Hanser SE, Knick ST (2008) The human footprint in the west: a large-scale analysis of anthropogenic impacts. Ecol Appl 18:1119–1139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch E, Joyce D, Fristrup K (2011) An assessment of noise audibility and sound levels in U.S. National Parks. Landscape Ecol. doi:10.1007/s10980-011-9643-x

  • Mcdonald RI, Forman RTT, Kareiva P, Neugarten R, Salzer D, Fisher J (2009) Urban effects, distance, and protected areas in an urbanizing world. Landsc Urban Plan 93:63–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mennitt DJ, Fristrup K (2011) Methods and accuracy of obtaining calibrated sound pressure levels from consumer digital audio recorders. Appl Acoust (in review)

  • Nemeth E, Brumm H (2010) Birds and anthropogenic noise: are urban songs adaptive? Am Nat 176:467–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowacek DP, Thorne LH, Johnston DW, Tyack PL (2007) Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise. Mamm Rev 37:81–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV, DeAngelis DL, Waide JB, Allen TFH (1986) A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega CP, Francis CD (2011) Effects of gas well compressor noise on ability to detect birds during surveys in the rattlesnake canyon habitat management area, San Juan County, New Mexico. Ornithol Monographs (in press)

  • Pater LL, Grubb TG, Delaney DK (2009) Recommendations for improved assessment of noise impacts of wildlife. J Wildl Manag 73:788–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patricelli GL, Blickley JL (2006) Avian communication in urban noise: causes and consequences of vocal adjustment. Auk 123:639–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne R, Webb D (1971) Orientation by means of long range acoustic signaling in baleen whales. Ann NY Acad Sci 188:110–141

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pijanowski BC, Farina A, Gage SH, Dumyahn SL, Krause BL (2011) What is soundscape ecology? An introduction and overview of an emerging new science. Landscape Ecol (published online 1 May 2011)

  • Reed SE, Boggs JL, Mann JP (2011) SPreAD-GIS: a tool for modeling anthropogenic noise propagation in natural ecosystems. Ecography (in review)

  • Reijnen R, Foppen R (1995) The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. III. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads. J Appl Ecol 32:187–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reijnen R, Foppen R (2006) Impact of road traffic on breeding bird populations. In: Davenport J, Davenport JL (eds) The ecology of transportation: managing mobility for the environment. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 255–274

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reijnen R, Foppen R, Meeuwsen H (1996) The effects of traffic on the density of breeding birds in Dutch agricultural grasslands. Biol Conserv 75:255–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reijnen R, Foppen R, Veenbaas G (1997) Disturbance by traffic as a threat to breeding birds: evaluation of the effect and considerations in planning and managing road corridors. Biodivers Conserv 6:567–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reindt FE (2003) The impact of roads on birds: does song frequency play a role in determining susceptibility to noise pollution? J Ornithol 144:295–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Riitters KH, Wickham JD (2003) How far to the nearest road? Front Ecol Environ 1:125–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripmeester EAP, Mulder M, Slabbekoorn H (2010) Habitat-dependent acoustic divergence affects playback response in urban and forest populations of the European blackbird. Behav Ecol 21:876–883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roedenbeck IA, Fahrig L, Findlay CS, Houlahan JE, Jaeger JAG, Klar N, Kramer-Schadt S, van der Grift EA (2007) The Rauischholzhausen agenda for road ecology. Ecol Soc 12:11. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art11/

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossing TD (ed) (2007) Springer handbook of acoustics. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaub A, Ostwald J, Siemers BM (2008) Foraging bats avoid noise. J Exp Biol 211:3174–3180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer CL (1999) US national park buffer zones: historical, scientific, social and legal aspects. Environ Manage 23:49–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siemers BM, Schaub A (2010) Hunting at the highway: traffic noise reduces foraging efficiency in acoustic predators. Proc R Soc B (published online 17 Nov 2010)

  • Slabbekoorn H, Peet M (2003) Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 424:267

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slabbekoorn H, Ripmeester EAP (2008) Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation. Mol Ecol 17:72–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • St. Clair CC (2003) Comparative permeability of roads, rivers, and meadows to songbirds in Banff National Park. Conserv Biol 17:1151–1160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart CM, Russel WA, Luz GA (1999) Can population density be used to determine ambient noise levels? (Abstract). J Acoust Soc Am 105:942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summers PD, Cunnington GM, Fahrig L (2011) Are the negative effects of roads on breeding birds caused by traffic noise. J Appl Ecol (published online 19 July 2011)

  • Theobald DM (2005) Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecol Soc 10:1. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art32

  • Wade AA, Theobald DM (2009) Residential development encroachment on US protected areas. Conserv Biol 24:151–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Warren PS, Katti M, Ermann M, Brazel A (2006) Urban bioacoustics: it’s not just noise. Anim Behav 71:491–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weilgart LS (2007) The impacts of anthropogenic ocean noise on cetaceans and implications for management. Can J Zool 85:1091–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (1999) Guidelines for community noise. WHO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Brian Pijanowski for the invitation to contribute to this special issue, two anonymous reviewers for their insight and our colleagues in the Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division of the National Park Service for discussion and continued efforts to protect sensory resources.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, Boise State University, Mail Stop 1515, Boise, ID, 83725-1515, USA

    Jesse R. Barber

  2. Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, 1474 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1474, USA

    Chris L. Burdett, Sarah E. Reed, Kevin R. Crooks & Dave M. Theobald

  3. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Colorado State University, 1373 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1373, USA

    Katy A. Warner & Charlotte Formichella

  4. Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division, National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 100, Fort Collins, CO, 80525, USA

    Kurt M. Fristrup

Authors
  1. Jesse R. Barber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris L. Burdett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah E. Reed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katy A. Warner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Charlotte Formichella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kevin R. Crooks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dave M. Theobald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kurt M. Fristrup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesse R. Barber.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (WMV 6903 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (WMV 8622 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 10 kb)

Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 337 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barber, J.R., Burdett, C.L., Reed, S.E. et al. Anthropogenic noise exposure in protected natural areas: estimating the scale of ecological consequences. Landscape Ecol 26, 1281–1295 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9646-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9646-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation