Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 415–427 | Cite as

Impacts of traffic noise on anuran and bird communities

  • Maria Isabel Herrera-Montes
  • T. Mitchell Aide
Article

Abstract

Anurans and birds rely on sound for a number of social behaviors. Species that use roadside habitats are exposed to traffic noise that can mask important social signals and directly affect the community diversity and composition. We evaluate the impact of traffic noise on anuran and bird species richness, species occurrence, and composition in Puerto Rico, where there is a high density of highways and cars that generate high levels of noise pollution. We compared paired forest sites near (100 m, n = 20, dB > 60) and far (>300 m, n = 20, dB < 60) from highways, with similar vegetation structure, but different levels of noise. We found that the anuran community was not affected by traffic noise. In contrast, bird species richness and occurrence were significantly lower in sites near the highway, and bird species composition also varied significantly. Bird species with low-frequency songs were only detected in sites far from highways. The differences in the ecology and communication behavior between anurans and birds could explain these results. Anurans mainly call at night, when traffic activity was low. In contrast, bird singing activity occurs during the day and overlaps with the high levels of traffic noise. In addition, in natural habitats, Puerto Rican anurans occur at high densities and form noisy choruses (>80 dB), which may allow them to tolerate high levels of anthropogenic noise.

Keywords

Anthropogenic noise effects Anurans Frog Birds Changes in community composition Highways Urban areas 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Laura May-Collado and Joseph Wunderle for their comments on the manuscript. We thank A.P. Valencia, C. Sanfiorenzo, A. Herrera-Montes, J. Figueroa, S.V. Ramirez, B. Hilje, J. Fonseca and C.A. Rodriguez for their help in the field. We thank C. Milan and the ARBIMON team for their advice with recorders and recording software analysis. We thank P. Rincon and the International Institute of Tropical Forestry (IITF), USDA Forest Service, Puerto Rico for their help with the map. The research was funded by National Science Foundation (BDI 0640143), Junta de Calidad Ambiental de Puerto Rico and Ford Motor Company. Finally, we appreciate the comments and suggestions of two anonymous reviewers and the Editor that helped us improve the manuscript.

Supplementary material

11252_2011_158_MOESM1_ESM.doc (74 kb)
Appendix 1 (DOC 74 kb)

References

  1. Acevedo MA, Restrepo C (2008) Land-cover and land-use change and its contribution to the large-scale organization of Puerto Rico’s bird assemblages. Diversity and Distributions 14:114–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acevedo MA, Villanueva-Rivera IJ (2006) Using automated digital recording systems as a effective tools for the monitoring of birds and amphibians. Wild Life Society Bulletin 34:211–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alicea-Pou J, Viñas-Curiel O, Cruz-Vizcarrondo W, Alomar O (2006) Monitoring of the environmental noise level in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Junta de Calidad Ambiental de Puerto RicoGoogle Scholar
  4. Amézquita A, Höld W, Lima AP, Castellanos L, Erdtmann LK, Araújo MC (2006) Masking interference and the evolution of the acoustics communication system in the Amazonian dendrobatid frog Allobates femoralis. Evolution 60:1874–1887PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barber JR, Crooks KR, Fristrup KM (2010) The cost of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:180–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bee MA, Swanson EM (2007) Auditory masking of anuran advertisement calls by highway traffic noise. Animal Behaviour 74:1765–1776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benitez-López A, Alkemade R, Verweij PA (2010) The impact of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: a meta-analysis. Biological Conservation 143:1307–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergen F, Abs M (1997) Etho-ecological study of the singing activity of the blue tit Parus caeruleus, great tit Parus major and chaffinch Fringilla coelebs. Journal für Ornithologie 138:451–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berglund B, Lindvall T (1995) Community noise. Archives of the Center for Sensory Research 2:1–195Google Scholar
  10. Bermúdez-Cuamatzin E, Ríos-Chelén AA, Gil D, Garcia CM (2009) Strategies of song adaptation to urban noise in the house finch: syllable pitch plasticity or differential syllable use. Behaviour 146:1269–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boeckle M, Preininger D, Höld W (2009) Communication in noisy environments I: acoustic signals of Staurois latopalmatus Boulenger 1887. Herpetologica 65:154–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brumm H (2004) The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. Journal of Animal Ecology 73:434–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brumm H, Slabbekoorn H (2005) Acoustic communication in noise. Advances in Study of Behavior 35:151–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brumm H, Slater PJB (2006) Ambient noise, motor fatigue, and serial redundancy in chaffinch song. Behavior Ecology and Sociobiology 60:475–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brumm H, Schmidt R, Schrader L (2009) Noise-dependent vocal plasticity in domestic fowl. Animal Behavior 78:741–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Departamento de Transportación y Obras Públicas de Puerto Rico DTOP (2009) http://www.dtop.gov.pr/
  17. Dooling RJ, Popper A (2007) The effect of highway noise on birds. The California Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  18. Dorcas ME, Price SJ, Walls SC, Barichivich WJ (2009) Auditory monitoring of anuran populations. In: Dood CK Jr (ed) Amphibian ecology and conservation: a hand book of techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 281–298Google Scholar
  19. Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2008) The relative effects of highway traffic and forest cover on anuran populations. Biological Conservation 141:35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ewel JJ, Whitmore JL (1973) The ecological life zones of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Institute of Tropical Forestry, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
  21. Forman RTT, Deblinger RD (2000) The ecological highway-effect zone of a Massachusetts U.S.A. suburban highway. Conservation Biology 14:36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Francis CD, Ortega CP, Cruz A (2009) Noise pollution changes avian communities and species interactions. Current Biology 19:1415–1419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fuller RA, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Daytime noise predicts nocturnal singing in urban robins. Biology Letters 3:368–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans: common problems and diverse solutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  25. Gould W, Alarcó C, Fevold B, Jiménez ME, Martinuzzi S, Potts G, Solórzano M, Ventosa E (2007) Puerto Rico Gap Analysis Project–Final Report. USGS, Moscow ID and the USDA FS International Institute of Tropical Forestry, Río Piedras, PR. 157 p and 8 appendicesGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoelzel AR (1986) Song characteristics and response to playback of male and female robins Erithacus rubecula. Ibis 128:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaiser K, Hammers JL (2009) The effect of anthropogenic noise on male advertisement call rate in the neotropical treefrog, Dendropsophus triangulum. Behaviour 146:1053–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCune B, Grace JB (2002) PC-ORD: multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 5. User’s guide. MjM Software Design, Glendel Beach, OregonGoogle Scholar
  29. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspot for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Narins P (1995) Frog communication. Scientific American 273:62–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOOA (2010) http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=sju
  32. Pardieck KL, Meyers JM, Pagán M (1996) Surveys of Puerto Rican Screech-Owl populations in large-tract and fragmented forest habitats. The Wilson Bulletin 108:776–782Google Scholar
  33. Parris KM, Schneider A (2008) Impacts of traffic noise and traffic volume on birds of highway side habitats. Ecol Soc 14:29 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art29/ Google Scholar
  34. Parris KM, Velik-Lord M, North JMA (2009) Frogs call at a higher pitch in traffic noise. Ecol Soc 14:25 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art25/ Google Scholar
  35. Peris SJ, Pescador M (2004) Effects of traffic noise on passerine populations in Mediterranean wooded pastures. Applied Acoustics 65:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Raffaele HA (1989) A guide to the birds of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 254 pGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 highways. Journal of Applied Ecology 32:187–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rheindt FE (2003) The impact of highways on birds: does song frequency play a role in determining susceptibility to noise pollution? Journal of Ornithology 114:295–306Google Scholar
  39. Rivero JA (1998) Los anfibios y reptiles de Puerto Rico. Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico. San Juan, Puerto Rico. 510 ppGoogle Scholar
  40. Slabbekoorn H (2004) Habitat-dependent ambient noise: consistent spectral profiles in two African forest types. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 116:3727–3733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Slabbekoorn H, Peet M (2003) Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 424:267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Slabbekoorn H, Ripmeester EAP (2008) Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation. Molecular Ecology 17:72–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stewart MM, Woolbright LL (1996) Amphibians. In: Reagan DP, Waide RW (eds) The food web of a tropical rain forest. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 273–320Google Scholar
  44. Stone E (2000) Separating the noise from the noise: a finding in support of the ¨niche hypothesis¨, that birds are influenced by human-induced noise in natural habitats. Anthrozoos 13:225–231Google Scholar
  45. Suarez-Rubio M, Thomlinson JR (2009) Landscape and patch-level factor influence bird communities in an urbanized tropical island. Biological Conservation 142:1311–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sun JWC, Narins PM (2005) Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect de amphibian call rates. Biological Conservation 121:419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Warren PS, Katti M, Ermann M, Brazel A (2006) Urban bioacoustics: it’s not just noise. Animal Behaviour 71:491–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wood WE, Yezerinac SM (2006) Song sparrow Melospiza melodia song varies with urban noise. Auk 123:650–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wunderle JM, Diaz A, Velasquez I, Scharrón R (1987) Forest openings and the distribution of understory birds in a Puerto Rican rainforest. The Wilson Bulletin 99:22–37Google Scholar
  50. Zimmerman GM, Goetz H, Mielke PW Jr (1985) Use of an improved statistical method for group comparisons to study effects of prairie fire. Ecology 66:606–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Isabel Herrera-Montes
    • 1
  • T. Mitchell Aide
    • 1
  1. 1.Biology DepartmentUniversity of Puerto RicoSan JuanUSA

Personalised recommendations