Noise Pollution Filters Bird Communities Based on Vocal Frequency

Background Human-generated noise pollution now permeates natural habitats worldwide, presenting evolutionarily novel acoustic conditions unprecedented to most landscapes. These acoustics not only harm humans, but threaten wildlife, and especially birds, via changes to species densities, foraging behavior, reproductive success, and predator-prey interactions. Explanations for negative effects of noise on birds include disruption of acoustic communication through energetic masking, potentially forcing species that rely upon acoustic communication to abandon otherwise suitable areas. However, this hypothesis has not been adequately tested because confounding stimuli often co-vary with noise and are difficult to separate from noise exposure. Methodology/Principal Findings Using a natural experiment that controls for confounding stimuli, we evaluate whether species vocal features or urban-tolerance classifications explain their responses to noise measured through habitat use. Two data sets representing nesting and abundance responses reveal that noise filters bird communities nonrandomly. Signal duration and urban tolerance failed to explain species-specific responses, but birds with low-frequency signals that are more susceptible to masking from noise avoided noisy areas and birds with higher frequency vocalizations remained. Signal frequency was also negatively correlated with body mass, suggesting that larger birds may be more sensitive to noise due to the link between body size and vocal frequency. Conclusions/Significance Our findings suggest that acoustic masking by noise may be a strong selective force shaping the ecology of birds worldwide. Larger birds with lower frequency signals may be excluded from noisy areas, whereas smaller species persist via transmission of higher frequency signals. We discuss our findings as they relate to interspecific relationships among body size, vocal amplitude and frequency and suggest that they are immediately relevant to the global problem of increases in noise by providing critical insight as to which species traits influence tolerance of these novel acoustics.

[1]  C. ten Cate,et al.  Low-frequency songs lose their potency in noisy urban conditions , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  Eliot A. Brenowitz,et al.  The Role of Body Size, Phylogeny, and Ambient Noise in the Evolution of Bird Song , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[3]  Sarah E. Goodwin,et al.  Effects of Traffic Noise on Occupancy Patterns of Forest Birds , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[4]  C. D. Francis,et al.  EffECTS Of gAS-wEll-COmPRESSOR NOiSE ON THE AbiliTy TO dETECT biRdS dURiNg SURVEyS iN NORTHwEST NEw mExiCO , 2012 .

[5]  Clinton D. Francis,et al.  Noise Pollution Changes Avian Communities and Species Interactions , 2009, Current Biology.

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

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

[8]  P. Tubaro,et al.  Body mass and habitat correlates of song structure in a primitive group of birds , 2002 .

[9]  S. Nowicki,et al.  Chapter 11 – Performance limits on birdsong , 2004 .

[10]  Erin M. Bayne,et al.  Chronic industrial noise affects pairing success and age structure of ovenbirds Seiurus aurocapilla , 2006 .

[11]  H. Brumm The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird , 2004 .

[12]  H. Slabbekoorn,et al.  Fluid dynamics: Vortex rings in a constant electric field , 2003, Nature.

[13]  H. Brumm,et al.  Birds and Anthropogenic Noise: Are Urban Songs Adaptive? , 2010, The American Naturalist.

[14]  K. Pollock,et al.  Effects of Vegetation and Background Noise on the Detection Process in Auditory Avian Point-Count Surveys , 2008 .

[15]  W. Babisch,et al.  Stress hormones in the research on cardiovascular effects of noise. , 2003, Noise & health.

[16]  Paul R. Martin,et al.  Urban birds have broader environmental tolerance , 2007, Biology Letters.

[17]  Wouter Halfwerk,et al.  Negative impact of traffic noise on avian reproductive success , 2011 .

[18]  Clinton D. Francis,et al.  Different behavioural responses to anthropogenic noise by two closely related passerine birds , 2011, Biology Letters.

[19]  H. Slabbekoorn,et al.  Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation , 2008, Molecular ecology.

[20]  W. J. van der Weijden,et al.  The impact of roads on the densities of four bird species in an open field habitat—evidence of a long-distance effect , 1980 .

[21]  Gail L. Patricelli,et al.  AVIAN COMMUNICATION IN URBAN NOISE: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF VOCAL ADJUSTMENT , 2006 .

[22]  F. Rheindt The impact of roads on birds: Does song frequency play a role in determining susceptibility to noise pollution? , 2003, Journal für Ornithologie.

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

[24]  Gonçalo C. Cardoso,et al.  Are bird species that vocalize at higher frequencies preadapted to inhabit noisy urban areas , 2009 .

[25]  J. Gillooly,et al.  The energetic basis of acoustic communication , 2010, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[26]  D. Todt,et al.  Acoustic communication in noise: regulation of call characteristics in a New World monkey , 2004, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[27]  Philippe Clergeau,et al.  Does Urbanization Filter Birds on the Basis of Their Biological Traits , 2008 .

[28]  R. Hinde,et al.  Advances in the study of behavior , 1966 .

[29]  H. Slabbekoorn,et al.  Birdsong and male—male competition: Causes and consequences of vocal variability in the collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) , 2002 .

[30]  Hansjoerg P. Kunc,et al.  Behavioral Plasticity Allows Short‐Term Adjustment to a Novel Environment , 2010, The American Naturalist.

[31]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach , 2001 .

[32]  C.J.F. ter Braak,et al.  The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. Ill. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads , 1995 .

[33]  K. Dimakopoulou,et al.  Hypertension and Exposure to Noise Near Airports: the HYENA Study , 2007, Environmental health perspectives.

[34]  P. Marler,et al.  Nature's Music: The Science of Birdsong , 2004 .

[35]  Clinton D. Francis,et al.  Vocal frequency change reflects different responses to anthropogenic noise in two suboscine tyrant flycatchers , 2011, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[36]  G. Cardoso Loudness of birdsong is related to the body size, syntax and phonology of passerine species , 2010, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[37]  P. Tubaro,et al.  Acoustic frequencies and body mass in new world doves , 1998 .

[38]  T. Schoener Sizes of Feeding Territories among Birds , 1968 .

[39]  Stan Boutin,et al.  Impacts of Chronic Anthropogenic Noise from Energy‐Sector Activity on Abundance of Songbirds in the Boreal Forest , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.