Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Common urban birds continue to perceive predator calls that are overlapped by road noise

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent studies suggest that songbird communication is negatively affected by anthropogenic noise. However, much of the current literature focuses on inter- and intra-sexual communication. Songbirds also use acoustic cues for many other functional behaviors. One example associated with fitness consequences is the identification of predatory threats through acoustic cues. To test the effect of anthropogenic noise on detection of acoustic cues, we compared the rates of seven anti-predator behavioral responses in urban dwelling songbirds foraging at bird feeders when exposed to playback of calls from predatory Cooper’s hawks under quiet conditions, and when overlapped with road noise. Only a single behavior, freeze response, decreased significantly when calls were overlapped with noise. However, freeze responses occurred in only a small percentage of playback trials, raising some question regarding the biological relevance of this observed difference. Overall, our results suggest that common urban songbirds are relatively successful at perceiving acoustic signals associated with predator presence. Whether this ability is commonplace amongst songbird species is unknown and warrants additional study. However, if this trait is not widespread, it may be an additional characteristic determining which bird species can inhabit noisy areas.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bayne EM, Hobson KA (2002) Effects of red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) removal on survival of artificial songbird nests in boreal forest fragments. Am Midl Nat 147:72–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benitez-Lopez 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 

  • Brumm H (2004) The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. J Anim Ecol 73:434–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brumm H, Slabbekoorn H (2005) Acoustic communication in noise. Adv Stud Behav 35:151–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso GC (2014) Nesting and acoustic ecology, but not phylogeny, influence passerine urban tolerance. Glob Chang Biol 20:803–810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain DE, Glue DE, Toms MP (2009) Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus presence and winter bird abundance. J Ornithol 150:247–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis OE, Rosenfield RN, Bielefeldt J (2006) Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii). In: Poole A (ed) The birds of North America, No. 75. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, New York

  • Dabelsteen T, Larson ON, Pedersen SB (1993) Habitat-induced degradation of sound signals - quantifying the effects of communication sounds and bird location on blur ratio, excess attenuation, and signal-to-noise ratio in blackbird song. J Acoust Soc Am 93:2206–2220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn EH, Tessaglia DL (1994) Predation of birds at feeders in winter. J Field Ornithol 65:8–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Foppen R, Reijnen R (1994) The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. 2. Breeding dispersal of male willow warblers (Phylloscopus trochilus) in relation to the proximity of a highway. J Appl Ecol 31:95–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freeberg TM, Lucas JR (2002) Receivers respond differently to chick-a-dee calls varying in note composition in Carolina chickadees, Poecile carolinensis. Anim Behav 63:837–845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller RA, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Daytime noise predicts nocturnal singing in urban robins. Biol Lett 3:368–370

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gill SA, Bierema AM (2013) On the meaning of alarm calls: a review of functional reference in avian alarm calling. Ethology 119:449–461

    Article  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, Lessells CM, Slabbekoorn H (2011) Negative impact of traffic noise on avian reproductive success. J Appl Ecol 48:210–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson DI, Waller B (2005) Evaluation of the noise characteristics of Minnesota pavements. Minnesota Department of Transportation

  • Hollen LI, Radford AN (2009) The development of alarm call behaviour in mammals and birds. Anim Behav 78:791–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu Y, Cardoso GC (2010) Which birds adjust the frequency of vocalizations in urban noise? Anim Behav 79:863–867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kight CR, Saha MS, Swaddle JP (2012) Anthropogenic noise is associated with reductions in the productivity of breeding eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Ecol Appl 22:1989–1996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klump GM, Shalter MD (1984) Acoustic behavior 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. J Comp Ethol 66:189–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroodsma DE (1989) Suggested experimental designs for song playbacks. Anim Behav 37:600–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson EA (2008) Effects of urban development on breeding bird diversity: the role of diet and migration. Thesis, College of William and Mary

  • Leavesley AJ, Magrath RD (2005) Communicating about danger: urgency alarm calling in a bird. Anim Behav 70:365–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lengagne T (2008) Traffic noise affects communication behaviour in a breeding anuran, hyla arborea. Biol Conserv 141:2023–2031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas JR, Schraeder A, Jackson C (1999) Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis) vocalization rates: effects of body mass and food availability under aviary conditions. Ethology 105:503–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luther D, Gentry K (2013) Sources of background noise and their influence on vertebrate acoustic communication. Behaviour 150:1045–1068

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahurin EJ, Freeberg TM (2009) Chick-a-dee call variation in carolina chickadees and recruiting flockmates to food. Behav Ecol 20:111–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marzluff JM, Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (2001) Worldwide urbanization and its effects on birds. In: Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Academic Publishers, Kluwer, pp 19–47

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McGregor PK (2005) Animal communication networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mcgregor PK, Peake TM (2000) Communication networks: social environments for receiving and signalling behaviour. Acta Ethol 2:71–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison M (1986) Bird populations as indicators of environmental change. Curr Ornithol 429–451

  • Noirot IC, Brittan-Powell EF, Dooling RJ (2011) Masked auditory thresholds in three species of birds, as measured by the auditory brainstem response. J Acoust Soc Am 129:3445–3448

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  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 

  • Popper AN (2003) Effects of anthropogenic sounds on fishes. Fisheries 28:24–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proppe DP, Sturdy CB, St Clair CC (2013) Anthropogenic noise decreases urban songbird diversity and may contribute to homogenization. Glob Chang 19:1075–1084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn JL, Whittingham MJ, Butler SJ, Cresswell W (2006) Noise, predation risk compensation and vigilance in the chaffinch Fringilla coelebs. J Avian Biol 37:601–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reijnen R, Foppen R, Terbraak C, Thissen J (1995) The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. 3. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads. J Appl Ecol 32:187–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rheindt 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaef KM, Mumme RL (2012) Predator vocalizations alter parental return time at nests of the Hooded Warbler. Condor 114:840–845

  • Schank JC, Koehnle TL (2009) Pseudoreplication is a pseudoproblem. J Comp Psychol 123:421–433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siemers BM, Schaub A (2011) Hunting at the highway: traffic noise reduces foraging efficiency in acoustic predators. Proc Roy Soc B 278:1646–1652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sih A (2013) Understanding variation in behavioural responses to human-induced rapid environmental change: a conceptual overview. Anim Behav 85:1077–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skiba R (2000) Possible “rain call” selection in the chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs) by noise intensity - an investigation of a hypothesis. J Ornithol 141:160–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Slabbekoorn H (2013) Songs of the city: noise-dependent spectral plasticity in the acoustic phenotype of urban birds. Anim Behav 85:1089–1099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slabbekoorn H, Peet M (2003) Ecology: birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise - great tits hit the high notes to ensure that their mating calls are heard above the city’s din. Nature 424:267–267

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slater PJB (2003) Fifty years of bird song research: a case study in animal behaviour. Anim Behav 65:633–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanback MT, Powell EM (2010) Predator vocalizations affect foraging trade-offs of northern cardinals. Wilson J Ornithol 122:168–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swaddle JP, Page LC (2007) High levels of environmental noise erode pair preferences in zebra finches: implications for noise pollution. Anim Behav 74:363–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thayer Birding Software (2001) The cornell lab of ornithology's guide to birds of North America. Naples, Florida

  • Verzijden MN, Ripmeester EAP, Ohms VR, Snelderwaard P, Slabbekoorn H (2010) Immediate spectral flexibility in singing chiffchaffs during experimental exposure to highway noise. J Exp Biol 213:2575–2581

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weatherhead PJ, Blouin-Demers G (2004) Understanding avian nest predation: why ornithologists should study snakes. J Avian Biol 35:185–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whelan CJ, Wenny DG, Marquis RJ (2008) Ecosystem services provided by birds. Year Ecol Conserv Biol 1134:25–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley RH, Richards DG (1982) Sound transmission and signal detection. In: DE Kroodsma and EH Miller (eds) Acoustic communication in birds: production, perception, and design features of sounds. Academic press, 132–181

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded through an equipment grant from the Cargill Fund (DSP) and through support from the Calvin College Science Division (DSP, DP, JK). Research was approved by and conducting under the guidelines set forth by the Calvin College Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. We would like to thank the many members of the greater Grand Rapids community who graciously allowed us to utilize their bird feeding stations in this study. We would also like the editorial staff and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This paper was produced in accordance with the ethical standards set forth by Urban Ecosystems. No animals were harmed as a result of this experiment and all procedures were approved by the Calvin College Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Funding sources were from the Cargill Grant and Calvin College Science Division, and the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Lastly, all authors contributed substantially to all aspects of the work and are fully informed of the current submission to Urban Ecosystems.

Author information

Author notes

  1. D. Pettinga

    Present address: Colorado State University, 1177 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA

  2. J. Kennedy

    Present address: Illinois College of Optometry, 3241 S Michigan Ave. #540, Chicago, IL, 60616, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biology Department, Calvin College, 1726 Knollcrest Circle, S.E., Grand Rapids, MI, 49546, USA

    D. Pettinga, J. Kennedy & D. S. Proppe

Authors
  1. D. Pettinga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Kennedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. S. Proppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. S. Proppe.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Online Resource 1

Species-specific results broken down by treatment (noise/quiet). Each behavior is treated separately. Flight scores range between 0 and 3, with higher numbers representing more immediate departure from the feeder upon playback. Pecks is presented as the mean number of pecks after playback. The remaining behaviors are represented as presence/absence (0–1, with higher scores representing greater presence of the behavior). Where sufficient sample size and deviation allowed, t-test results are presented. (XLSX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pettinga, D., Kennedy, J. & Proppe, D.S. Common urban birds continue to perceive predator calls that are overlapped by road noise. Urban Ecosyst 19, 373–382 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-015-0498-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-015-0498-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation