Using a “sonic net” to deter pest bird species: Excluding European starlings from food sources by disrupting their acoustic communication

Pest avian wildlife is responsible for substantial economic damage every year in the United States. Previous technologies used to deter starlings have generally failed because birds quickly habituate to startle regimes. In this study, conducted from May to July 2013, we focused on altering the foraging behavior of the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), a pest bird that is responsible for crop losses and also poses notable risk for bird–aircraft strikes. The goal of our project was to develop an effective system to limit starlings' use of a food patch. Using nonlinear ultrasonic parametric arrays, we broadcast a directional sound that overlapped in frequency with starling vocalizations and was contained in a specific area, creating a “net.” We hypothesized that the “sonic net” would disturb acoustic communication for starlings, causing them to leave and feed elsewhere. Using wild-caught starlings in a large aviary, we deployed the sonic net over one food patch while leaving another food patch unaltered, and assessed their presence and feeding for three consecutive days. The sonic treatment decreased starlings' presence at the treated food patch, on average by 46%. Additionally, we assessed whether the sonic net disrupted the birds' response to an alarm call. When under the sonic net, starlings did not respond to the alarm call, suggesting that the sonic net disrupted acoustic communication. The sonic net is a promising new method of decreasing foraging activity by pest bird species. © 2015 The Wildlife Society.

[1]  D. Pimentel,et al.  Environmental and Economic Costs of Nonindigenous Species in the United States , 2000 .

[2]  M. Yoneyama,et al.  The audio spotlight: An application of nonlinear interaction of sound waves to a new type of loudspeaker design , 1983 .

[3]  J. Krebs,et al.  Predator detection and avoidance by starlings under differing scenarios of predation risk , 2006 .

[4]  H. Brumm,et al.  Acoustic Communication in Noise , 2005 .

[5]  Caitlin R. Kight,et al.  How and why environmental noise impacts animals: an integrative, mechanistic review. , 2011, Ecology letters.

[6]  Kevin R Crooks,et al.  The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. , 2010, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[7]  Mary Bomford,et al.  SONIC DETERRENTS IN ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL: A REVIEW OF DEVICE TESTS AND EFFECTIVENESS , 1990 .

[8]  E. Fernández-Juricic,et al.  Wildlife collisions with aircraft: a missing component of land-use planning for airports. , 2009 .

[9]  L. Giraldeau,et al.  Group Foraging: The Skill Pool Effect and Frequency-Dependent Learning , 1984, The American Naturalist.

[10]  D. Pimentel,et al.  Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States , 2005 .

[11]  D. Kroodsma,et al.  Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds , 1997 .

[12]  C. Clark,et al.  Foraging and Flocking Strategies: Information in an Uncertain Environment , 1984, The American Naturalist.

[13]  J. Swaddle,et al.  Female zebra finches prefer unfamiliar males but not when watching noninteractive video , 2006, Animal Behaviour.

[14]  Frank Joseph Pompei,et al.  The Use of Airborne Ultrasonics for Generating Audible Sound Beams , 1999 .

[15]  R. Haven Wiley,et al.  Signal Detection and Animal Communication , 2006 .

[16]  R. J. F. Smith,et al.  Evolution of Alarm Signals: Role of Benefits of Retaining Group Members or Territorial Neighbors , 1986, The American Naturalist.

[17]  Clinton D. Francis,et al.  Noise Pollution Filters Bird Communities Based on Vocal Frequency , 2011, PloS one.

[18]  John Allan,et al.  A Heuristic Risk Assessment Technique for Birdstrike Management at Airports , 2006, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[19]  John L. Quinn,et al.  Noise, predation risk compensation and vigilance in the chaffinch Fringilla coelebs , 2006 .

[20]  M. Hinders,et al.  Benign exclusion of birds using acoustic parametric arrays , 2013 .

[21]  L. Giraldeau,et al.  Public information cues affect the scrounging decisions of starlings , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[22]  Caitlin R. Kight,et al.  Anthropogenic noise is associated with reductions in the productivity of breeding Eastern Bluebirds (Sialia sialis). , 2012, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[23]  P. P. Woronecki,et al.  INEFFECTIVENESS OF FIVE COMMERCIAL DETERRENTS FOR NESTING STARLINGS , 1998 .

[24]  Thomas Caraco,et al.  Risk‐Sensitivity and Foraging Groups , 1981 .

[25]  L. Clark,et al.  Degradation Studies of the Non-lethal Bird Repellent, Methyl Anthranilate , 1996 .

[26]  P. Marler,et al.  Avian alarm calling: Is there an audience effect? , 1986, Animal Behaviour.

[27]  A. Groothuis.  Advances in the Study of Behavior , 1993 .

[28]  G. Klump,et al.  Acoustic Behaviour of Birds and Mammals in the Predator Context; I. Factors Affecting the Structure of Alarm Signals. II. The Functional Significance and Evolution of Alarm Signals , 2010 .

[29]  E. Fernández-Juricic,et al.  Avian visual system configuration and behavioural response to object approach , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[30]  Linda B. Penry,et al.  EUROPEAN STARLINGS: A REVIEW OF AN INVASIVE SPECIES WITH FAR-REACHING IMPACTS , 2007 .

[31]  D. Caccamise.  European Starling Fidelity to Diurnal Activity Centers: Role of Foraging Substrate Quality , 1991 .

[32]  Woon-Seng Gan,et al.  A review of parametric acoustic array in air , 2012 .

[33]  R. Stahl,et al.  Comparison of two models for estimating mortality from baitings with Compound DRC-1339 Concentrate avicide , 2013 .

[34]  E. Tillman,et al.  Evaluation of Bird Shield™ as a blackbird repellent in ripening rice and sunflower fields , 2005 .