Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 561–572 | Cite as

Urban noise affects song structure and daily patterns of song production in Red-winged Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus)

  • Lyndsay A. Cartwright
  • Dallas R. Taylor
  • David R. Wilson
  • Patricia Chow-Fraser
Article

Abstract

Traffic noise is becoming a more prominent fixture in urban environments as cities and highways expand to accommodate the growing human population. Birds, in particular, rely heavily on vocal communication and have recently been shown to change the structure of their signals in response to environmental noise. Our objective was to determine the impact of traffic noise on Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) song structure and song timing. We recorded bird songs using a directional microphone and installed permanent recording devices to monitor daily song patterns at both high traffic noise sites and low traffic noise sites throughout southern Ontario, Canada. Our results indicate that at sites with high traffic noise, Red-winged Blackbirds sing songs with fewer introductory syllables, which are an important component of individual recognition and repertoire formation. In addition, the typical diurnal singing pattern of birds associated with noisy urban sites is more homogeneous than that of birds associated with quiet rural marshes. In the early morning and evening, singing effort was higher at rural sites than at urban sites, while in the midday singing effort at urban sites was higher than at rural sites. Birds at our noisy urban sites appear to be avoiding acoustic masking by increasing song production during the quiet part of the day and decreasing song production during the noisy rush hour periods. Based on our results, urban noise is impacting communication structure and the daily pattern of song production in a marsh-nesting species. These results have important implications for avian conservation and land use planning for urban development.

Keywords

Urbanization Birds Song Marshes Traffic 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the significant contributions of the Royal Bank of Canada Blue Water Fund and the continued support from McMaster University over the years. Thank you to the landowners of the marshes including the Credit River Conservation Authority, Hamilton Conservation Authority, Royal Botanical Gardens and Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for providing valuable comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. We are most grateful for assistance in the field and support from M. Cvetkovic, G. Fraser, J. Gilbert, C. Markle, L. Meng, C. Sommer, Y. Yee and all of the members of the Chow-Fraser lab for your support.

References

  1. Acevedo MA, Villanueva-Rivera LJ (2006) Using automated digital recording systems as effective tools for the monitoring of birds and amphibians. Wildl Soc Bull 34:211–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barber JR, Crooks KR, Fristrup KM (2010) The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends Ecol Evol 25:180–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bird Studies Canada (2012) Bird surveys overview. Great Lakes Marsh Monitoring Program. http://www.bsc-eoc.org/volunteer/glmmp. Accessed 15 February 2012
  4. Brenowitz EA (1981) The effect of stimulus presentation sequence on the response of re-winged blackbirds in playback studies. Auk 98:355–360Google Scholar
  5. Brenowitz EA (1982) Long-range communication of species identity by song in the re-winged blackbird. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 10:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown TJ, Handford P (2003) Why birds sing at dawn: the role of consistent song transmission. Ibis 145:120–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brumm H (2004) The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. J Anim Ecol 73:434–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fuller RA, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Daytime noise predicts nocturnal singing in urban robins. Biol Lett 3:368–370PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guindon B, Zhang Y, Lopez R, Silk L (2009) Urban density. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference Proceedings 2008. Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Niagara Falls, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  10. Halfwerk W, Holleman LJM, Lessells CM, Slabbekoorn H (2011) Negative impacts of traffic noise on avian reproductive success. J Appl Ecol 48:210–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanna D, Blouin-Demers G, Wilson DR, Mennill DJ (2011) Anthropogenic noise affects song structure in red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). J Exp Biol 214:3549–3556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hofmann N (2001) Urban consumption of agricultural land. Rural and small town Canada Analysis Bulletin 3Google Scholar
  13. Howard RD (1974) The influence of sexual selection and interspecific competition on Mockingvird song (Mimus polyglottos). Evolution 28:428–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hu Y, Cardoso GC (2010) Which birds adjust the frequency of vocalizations in urban noise? Anim Behav 79:863–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krebs JR (1977) The significance of song repertoires: the beau geste hypothesis. Anim Behav 25:475–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leonard ML, Horn AG (2008) Does ambient noise affect growth and begging call structure in nestling birds? Behav Ecol 19:502–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marzluff JM (2001) Worldwide urbanization and its effects on birds. In: Marzluff JM, Bowman R, Donnelly R (eds) Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, pp 19–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Parris KM, Schneider A (2009) Impacts of traffic noise and traffic volume on birds of roadside habitats. Ecol Soc 14:29Google Scholar
  19. Patricelli GL, Blickley JL (2006) Avian communication in urban noise: causes and consequences of vocal adjustment. Auk 123:639–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Potvin DA, Parris KM, Mulder RA (2011) Geographically pervasive effects of urban noise on frequency and syllable rate of songs and calls in silvereyes (Zosterops lateralis). Proc R Soc Biol Sci 278:2464–2469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rheindt F (2003) The impact of roads on birds: does song frequency play a role in determing susceptibility to noise pollution? J Ornithol 144:295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Slabbekoorn H, den Boer-Visser A (2006) Cities change the songs of birds. Curr Biol 16:2326–2331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Slabbekoorn H, Peet M (2003) Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 424:267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Slabbekoorn H, Ripmeester EAP (2007) Bird song and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation. Mol Ecol 17:72–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Slater PJB (1978) Beau gest has problems. Anim Behav 26:304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Swaddle JP, Page LC (2007) High levels of environmental noise erode pair preferences in zebra finches: implications for noise pollution. Anim Behav 74:363–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Swiston KA, Mennill DJ (2009) Comparison of manual and automated method for identifying target sounds in audio recordings of pileated, pale-billed and putative ivory-billed woodpeckers. J Field Ornithol 80:42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Verzijden MN, Ripmeester EAP, Ohms VR, Snelderwaard P, Slabbekoorn H (2010) Immediate spectral flexibiligy in singing chiffchaffs during experimental exposure to highway noise. J Exp Biol 213:2575–2581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Warren PS, Katti M, Ermann M, Brazel A (2006) Urban bioacoustics: it’s not just noise. Anim Behav 71:491–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wiley RH (1994) Errors, exaggeration, and deception in animal communication. In: Real LA (ed) Behavioural mechanisms in evolutionary ecology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 157–189Google Scholar
  31. Wood WE, Yezerinac SM (2006) Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) song varies with urban noise. Auk 123:650–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yasukawa K (1981) Song repertoires in the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus): a test of the beau geste hypothesis. Anim Behav 29:114–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lyndsay A. Cartwright
    • 1
  • Dallas R. Taylor
    • 1
  • David R. Wilson
    • 2
  • Patricia Chow-Fraser
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations