Landscape Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 9, pp 1269–1280 | Cite as

Landscape patterns of avian habitat use and nest success are affected by chronic gas well compressor noise

  • Clinton D. FrancisEmail author
  • Juan Paritsis
  • Catherine P. Ortega
  • Alexander Cruz
Research Article


Anthropogenic noise is becoming a dominant component of soundscapes across the world and these altered acoustic conditions may have severe consequences for natural communities. We modeled noise amplitudes from gas well compressors across a 16 km2 study area to estimate the influence of noise on avian habitat use and nest success. Using species with noise responses representative of other avian community members, across the study area we estimated gray flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii) and western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica) occupancy, and gray flycatcher nest success, which is highly dependent on predation by western scrub-jays. We also explore how alternative noise management and mitigation scenarios may reduce area impacted by noise. Compressor noise affected 84.5% of our study area and occupancy of each species was approximately 5% lower than would be expected without compressor noise. In contrast, flycatcher nest success was 7% higher, reflecting a decreased rate of predation in noisy areas. Not all alternative management and mitigation scenarios reduced the proportion of area affected by noise; however, use of sound barrier walls around compressors could reduce the area affected by noise by 70% and maintain occupancy and nest success rates at levels close to those expected in a landscape without compressor noise. These results suggest that noise from compressors could be effectively managed and, because habitat use and nest success are only two of many ecological processes that may change with noise exposure, minimizing the anthropogenic component of soundscapes should be a conservation priority.


Anthropogenic noise Occupancy patterns Natural gas well compressor Nest success Soundscape 



We thank our research assistants for field and lab support, especially R. Kennedy, N. Kleist, and P. Nylander, and BLM Farmington Field Office Biologist J. Hansen. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for useful suggestions and comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. This study was primarily supported by NSF DDIG (# IOS 0910092), BLM, through the Colorado Plateau Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit, ConocoPhillips, Williams Energy, and University of Colorado Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, plus the Animal Behavior Society, Southwestern Association of Naturalists, Colorado Field Ornithologists, Edna Baily Sussman Foundation, Mountain Studies Institute, and an Ariel Appleton Research Fellowship with support from the Wells Fargo Foundation. C.D.F. was also supported by the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent, NSF EF-0905606).


  1. Barber JR, Crooks KR, Fristrup KM (2010) The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends Ecol Evol 25:180–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayne EM, Hobson KA (2001) Effects of habitat fragmentation on pairing success of ovenbirds: importance of male age and floater behavior. Auk 118:380–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 22:1186–1193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonier F, Martin PR, Wingfield JC (2007) Urban birds have broader environmental tolerance. Biol Lett 3:670–673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowker KA (2007) Barnett Shale gas production, Fort Worth basin: issues and discussion. AAPG Bull 91:523–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bureau of Land Management [BLM] (2003) Farmington resource management plan with record of decision. Bureau of Land Management, US Department of Interior, Farmington Field Office, FarmingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Curry RL, Peterson AT, Langen TA (2002) Western Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma californica). In: Poole A (ed) The birds of North America online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available from Accessed 22 January 2011
  9. Egnor SER, Wickelgren JG, Hauser MD (2007) Tracking silence: adjusting vocal production to avoid acoustic interference. J Comp Physiol A 193:477–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Engler TW, Brister BS, Chen H-Y, Teufel LW (2001) Oil and gas resource development for San Juan basin. Report to Bureau of Land Management, Albuquerque Field Office, AlbuquerqueGoogle Scholar
  11. ESRI (2008) ArcGis 9.3. ESRI, RedlandGoogle Scholar
  12. Forman RTT, Reineking B, Hersperger AM (2002) Road traffic and nearby grassland bird patterns in a suburbanizing landscape. Environ Manage 29:782–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Francis CD, Ortega CP, Cruz A (2009) Noise pollution changes avian communities and species interactions. Curr Biol 19:1415–1419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Francis CD, Ortega CP, Cruz A (2011) Vocal frequency change reflects different responses to anthropogenic noise in two suboscine tyrant flycatchers. Proc Royal Soc B. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1847
  15. Gross K, Pasinelli G, Kunc HP (2010) Behavioral plasticity allows short-term adjustment to a novel environment. Am Nat 176. doi: 10.1086/655428
  16. Habib L, Bayne EM, Boutin S (2007) Chronic industrial noise affects pairing success and age structure of Overbirds Seiurus aurocapilla. J Appl Ecol 44:176–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halfwerk W, Holleman LJM, Lessells CM, Slabbekoorn H (2011) Negative impact of traffic noise on avian reproductive success. J Appl Ecol 48:210–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holmes RT, Marra PP, Sherry TW (1996) Habitat-specific demography of breeding black-throated blue warblers (Dendroica caerulescens): implications for population dynamics. J Anim Ecol 65:183–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kargbo DM, Wilhelm RG, Campbell DJ (2010) Natural gas plays in the Marcellus Shale; challenges and potential opportunities. Environ Sci Technol 44:5679–5684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lowther PE (1993) Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater). In: Poole A (ed) The birds of North America online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available from Accessed January 2011
  21. Nemeth E, Brumm H (2009) Blackbirds sing higher-pitched songs in cities: adaptation to habitat acoustics or side-effect of urbanization? Anim Behav 78:637–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (2009). Available from
  23. Pacifici K, Simons TR, Pollock KH (2008) Effects of vegetation and background noise on the detection process in auditory avian point-count surveys. Auk 125:600–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parris KM, Velik-Lord M, North JMA (2009) Frogs call at a higher pitch in traffic noise. Ecol Soc 14:25. Available from Google Scholar
  25. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  26. Rabin LA, Coss RG, Owings DH (2006) The effects of wind turbines on antipredator behavior in California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Biol Conserv 131:410–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reijnen R, Foppen R, ter Braak C, Thissen J (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 32:187–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rheindt FE (2003) The impact of roads on birds: does song frequency play a role in determining susceptibility to noise pollution? J Ornithol 144:295–306Google Scholar
  29. Saether B-E (1990) Age-specific variation in reproductive performance of birds. Curr Ornithol 7:251–283Google Scholar
  30. Schafer RM (1977) The soundscape: our sonic environment and the tuning of the world. Destiny Books, Rochester, VermontGoogle Scholar
  31. Shaffer TL (2004) A unified approach to analyzing nest success. Auk 121:526–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Slabbekoorn H, Bouton N (2008) Soundscape orientation: a new field in need of sound investigation. Anim Behav 76:e5–e8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Slabbekoorn H, Halfwerk W (2009) Behavioural ecology: noise annoys at community level. Curr Biol 19:R693–R695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Slabbekoorn H, Peet M (2003) Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 424:267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sterling JC (1999) Gray Flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii). In: Poole A, (ed) The birds of North America online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Available from Accessed September 2010
  36. Vermeij MJA, Marhaver KL, Huijbers CM, Nagelkerken I, Simpson SD (2010) Coral larvae move toward reef sounds. PLoS One 5:e10660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clinton D. Francis
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Juan Paritsis
    • 2
  • Catherine P. Ortega
    • 3
  • Alexander Cruz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUCB 334, University of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Department of Geography, Biogeography Laboratory, UCB 260University of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  3. 3.San Juan Institute of Natural and Cultural ResourcesFort Lewis CollegeDurangoUSA
  4. 4.National Evolutionary Synthesis CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations