Abstract
Anthropogenic noise can adversely impact urban bird populations by interfering with vocal communication. Less research has addressed if anthropogenic noise masks the adventitious sounds that birds use to aid predator detection, which may lead to increased vigilance and reduced feeding efficiency. We test this hypothesis using a controlled playback experiment along an urban–rural gradient in Sheffield (UK). We also test the related predictions that anthropogenic noise has the greatest impacts on vigilance and feeding efficiency in rural populations, and on species that are more sensitive to urbanisation. We focus on six passerines, in order from most to least urbanised (based on how urbanisation influences population densities): blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus, robin Erithacus rubeculla, great tit Parus major, chaffinch Fringilla coelebs, coal tit Periparus ater and nuthatch Sitta europaea. We used play‐back of anthropogenic urban noise and a control treatment at 46 feeding stations located along the urban–rural gradient. We assess impacts on willingness to visit feeders, feeding and vigilance rates. Exposure to anthropogenic noise reduced visit rates to supplementary feeding stations, reduced feeding rates and increased vigilance. Birds at more urban sites exhibit less marked treatment induced reductions in feeding rates, suggesting that urban populations may be partially habituated or adapted to noisy environments. There was no evidence, however, that more urbanised species were less sensitive to the impacts of noise on any response variable. Our results support the adventitious sound masking hypothesis. Urban noise may thus interfere with the ability of birds to detect predators, reducing their willingness to use food rich environments and increase vigilance rates resulting in reduced feeding rates. These adverse impacts may compromise the quality of otherwise suitable foraging habitats in noisy urban areas. They are likely to be widespread as they arise in a range of species including common urban birds.
Highlights
Extensive research has been conducted into the ways in which avian vocalisations, primarily song, have altered in response to anthropogenic noise, including changes in the length, timing, frequency and amplitude of songs, which may be adaptive in urban environments as they can reduce masking (Gil and Brumm 2014, Hill et al 2018, Narango and Rodewald 2018)
Exposure to the urban noise treatment signiicantly reduced visit rates, which were signiicantly associated with species, urbanisation intensity and a signiicant interaction between species and urbanisation intensity. here was no signiicant interaction between species and treatment (p = 0.976; Supplementary material Appendix 1 Table A4) indicating that species’ visit rates responded to exposure to urban noise, and species’ responses were not associated with their tolerances to urban environments (Supplementary material Appendix 1 Fig. A2)
Peck rates were signiicantly reduced by exposure to the urban noise treatment, and signiicantly varied with species, urbanisation intensity and a signiicant interaction between treatment and urbanisation intensity with reduced impacts of treatment in more urban areas (Table 1, Fig. 1b). here was no signiicant interaction between species and treatment (p = 0.249; Supplementary material Appendix 1 Table A4) indicating that species’ peck rates responded to treatment, and these responses were not associated with species’ tolerances to urban environments (Supplementary material Appendix 1 Fig. A2)
Summary
Noise pollution has been implicated in reduced growth and body condition in several bird species (e.g. whitecrowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys, Phillips et al 2018; tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Injaian et al 2018). It can cause oxidative stress and elevate production of stress hormones, thereby taxing resources needed for growth and maintenance (Partecke et al 2006). He masking of such vocalisations has the potential to reduce mating success, increase risk of predation and afect ofspring health. Noise masking of parent-ofspring communication can result in inadequate provisioning by parents and reduce chick responses to parental predator warnings (McIntyre et al 2014, Meillère et al 2015)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
