Effects of Traffic Noise on Occupancy Patterns of Forest Birds;Efectos del Ruido de Tráfico sobre los Patrones de Ocupación de Aves de Bosque

Conservation Biology

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 406-411

  Goodwin, Sarah E ^a,b   Shriver, W Gregory ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

Avian communication; Masking; Roads; Song; Urban

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECT; BIOACOUSTICS; BIRD; BREEDING SITE; FOREST COVER; FOREST EDGE; FREQUENCY-MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; HABITAT QUALITY; NOISE POLLUTION; PROBABILITY; SIGNALING; URBAN TRANSPORT; VOCALIZATION;

ACOUSTICS; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIRD; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DENSITY; TRAFFIC NOISE; TREE; VOCALIZATION;

ACOUSTICS; ANIMALS; BIRDS; NOISE, TRANSPORTATION; POPULATION DENSITY; TREES; VOCALIZATION, ANIMAL;

ANIMALIA; AVES; COCCYZUS AMERICANUS; SITTA CAROLINENSIS;

EID: 79952728720     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01602.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Anderson, D. R., and K. P. Burnham 2002. Avoiding pitfalls when using information-theoretic methods. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:912-918.
2. Beeman, K. 2002. SIGNAL 4.0. Engineering Design, Belmont, Massachusetts
3. Benitez-Lopez, A., R. Alkemade, and P. A. Verweij 2010. The impacts of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: a meta-analysis. Biological Conservation 143:1307-1316.
4. Blair, R. 1996. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecological Applications 6:506-519.
5. Brennan, S. P., and G. D. Schnell 2007. Multiscale analysis of tyrannid abundances and landscape variables in the Central Plains, USA. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119:631-647.
6. Brumm, H., and D. Todt 2002. Noise-dependent song amplitude regulation in a territorial songbird. Animal Behaviour 63:891-897.
7. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson 2002. Model selection and multi-model inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer Science and Business Media, New York
8. Debinski, D. M., and R. D. Holt 2000. A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conservation Biology 14:342-355.
9. Dooling, R. J. 1982. Auditory perception in birds. Kroodsma. Pages 95-130 in D. E., and E. H. Miller, editors. Acoustic communication in birds. Volume 1. Academic Press, New York
10. Emlen, J. 1974. Urban bird community in Tucson, Arizona - derivation, structure, regulation. Condor 76:184-197.
11. ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). 2004. ArcGIS. Version 9.0. ESRI, Redlands, California
12. Forman, R. T. T., B. Reineking, and A. M. Hersperger 2002. Road traffic and nearby grassland bird patterns in a suburbanizing landscape. Environmental Management 29:782-800.
13. Friesen, L. E., P. F. J. Eagles, and R. J. Mackay 1995. Effects of residential development on forest-dwelling neotropical migrant songbirds. Conservation Biology 9:1408-1414.
14. Fuller, R. A., P. H. Warren, and K. J. Gaston 2007. Daytime noise predicts nocturnal singing in urban robins. Biology Letters 3:368-370.
15. Hines, J. E. 2006. Presence 2.2. USGS-Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland
16. Hosmer, D. W., and S. Lemeshow 2000. Applied logistic regression. 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York
17. Hu, Y., and G. C. Cardoso 2009. Are bird species that vocalize at higher frequencies preadapted to inhabit noisy urban areas? Behavioral Ecology 20:1268-1273.
18. International Bird Census Committee. 1970. An international standard for a mapping method in bird census work recommended by the International Bird Census Committee. Audubon Field Notes 24:722-726.
19. Klump, G. A. 1996. Bird communication in the noisy world. Pages 321-338 in D. E. Kroodsma, and E. H. Miller, editors. Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Comstock Publishing, Ithaca, New York
20. MacKenzie, D. I., J. D. Nichols, G. B. Lachman, S. Droege, J. A. Royle, and C. A. Langtimm 2002. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248-2255.
21. Nowacek, D. P., L. H. Thorne, D. W. Johnston, and P. L. Tyack 2007. Response of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise. Mammal Review 37:81-115.
22. Patricelli, G. L., and J. L. Blickley 2006. Avian communication in urban noise: causes and consequences of vocal adjustment. Auk 123:639-649.
23. Pellet, J., and B. R. Schmidt 2005. Monitoring distributions using call surveys: estimating site occupancy, detection probabilities and inferring absence. Biological Conservation 123:27-35.
24. Reijnen, R., and R. Foppen 1995. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. 4. Influence of population-size on the reduction of density close to a highway. Journal of Applied Ecology 32:481-491.
25. Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, C. Terbraak, and J. Thissen 1995. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads. Journal of Applied Ecology 32:187-202.
26. Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, and H. Meeuwsen 1996. The effects of traffic on the density of breeding birds in Dutch agricultural grasslands. Biological Conservation 75:255-260.
27. Rheindt, F. E. 2003. The impact of roads on birds: does song frequency play a role in determining susceptibility to noise pollution? Journal of Ornithology 144:295-306.
28. Slabbekoorn, H., and M. Peet 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.
29. Schaub, A., J. Ostwald, and B.M. Siemers 2008. Foraging bats avoid noise. Journal of Experimental Biology 211:3174-3180.
30. Sun, J. W. C., and P. M. Narins 2005. Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect amphibian call rate. Biological Conservation 121:419-427.
31. VanHorn, M. A., R. M. Gentry, and J. Faaborg 1995. Patterns of ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) pairing success in Missouri forest tracts. Auk 112:98-106.
32. Villard M. A., M. K. Trzcinski, and G. Merriam 1999. Fragmentation effects on forest birds: relative influence of woodland cover and configuration on landscape occupancy. Conservation Biology 13:774-783.
33. Warren P. S., M. Katti, M. Ermann, and A. Brazel 2006. Urban bioacoustics: it's not just noise. Animal Behaviour 71:491-502.
34. Wiley, R. H. 1991. Associations of song properties with habitats for territorial oscine birds of eastern North-America. The American Naturalist 138:973-993.
35. Wood, W. E., and S. M. Yezerinac 2006. Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) song varies with urban noise. Auk 123:650-659.