extrapolating beyond chinchillas: ocean noise behavioral response ambiguity and noise sensitivity...

Extrapolating Beyond Chinchillas:Behavioral response ambiguity

through the lens of variable human response to wind farm noise

Jim Cummings, Executive Director [email protected] AEInews.org AcousticEcology.org

Cork, Ireland August 18, 2010

Behavioral responsesWe can only observe (often subtle or ambiguous) behavioral changes

in response to anthropogenic noise

We can’t inquire about ocean creatures’ experience:why they do–or do not–shift their behavior

Behavioral responsesThe differences we see are often context-dependent,

and there is likely more than context at work

As with context, individual sensitivity is likely to bea major factor at low to moderate noise levels

photo John Calambokidis, Cascadia Research

Behavioral responsesIt’s clear there is variability in behavioral response to noise among

ocean species, and between individuals in a populationor during different activities

120dB: dramatic increase/concentration of fairly significant changesYet this is largely a specific case…otherwise, no clear dose-response:

150-160dB: responses range 0 to 7 on the severity scale160+dB: severity of response clusters at 0 and 6

Southall et al (2007): all studies of behavioral responses of low-frequency cetaceans (baleen whales) to multiple pulse noise (airguns and sonar)

Migrating bowheads

Are animals moving a moderate distance,out of harmful or “very annoying” range?…while experiencing elevated stress levelseven as they engage in normal activities?

Is a subset of the population more noise-sensitive?…and if so, being disproportionately affected by repeated

exposures to chronic noise sources?

Questions about behavioral variability areespecially pressing when we consider these possibilities:

cornforthimages.com

What does the animal hear: softest audible / loudest tolerable?Hard to quantify: no direct measurements of many ocean species

Extrapolation from easier-to-study animalsIncluding, most notably, chinchillas

How does the experience of an animal that is displaceddiffer from that of one who appears unaffected?

Essentially impossible to answer: no way to assess or inquire

Perhaps another leap of extrapolation is in order

Seeking clues about individual variability in experience

How much disturbance is cause for concern?

Clues from wind farm neighbors

Not unlike ocean noisebehavioral responses:

No absolute dose-responseAnnoyance

Sleep disruptionRelocation

Much ambiguity; some trends

Pattern of a minorityshowing more disruption

Often a significant minority

10-45%


As wind turbine noise increases above ambient, annoyance spikes (lower three segments)

AND, a large proportion of those who hear the soundare not particularly bothered (biggest segment)

5: Very annoyed

Rather annoyed

Slightly annoyed

Audible, but not annoyed

1: Do not notice

Rating annoyance on a scale of 1 to 5

Pedersen E, Waye K. Wind turbines—low level noise sources interfering with restoration experience? Environmental Research Letters 3 (2008) 015002


In quiet rural areas, annoyance rates of 25-45%as turbine noise reaches and passes about 10dB over ambient

(While roughly half hear it and are still not bothered)

Approaching the 50% response threshold sometimes usedin ocean noise management

“Annoyed” =4 or 5 on a 1-5

scaleRural areas

Mostly rural

Suburban

Kerstin Persson Waye. Perception and environmental impact of wind turbine noise. Internoise 2009.

Clues from wind farm neighborsWhat can wind farm neighbors tell us about their varied

experiences as annoyance moves up toward 50%,while another half continues to be unaffected?

(similar to the variability we see in responses to ocean noise)

“It doesn’t sound any different than when

you’ve got the dishwasher running in your house. I have a

brook by my house, and I hear that more than I

hear the turbines”




“As I watched the first rotation of the giant

blades from our deck, my sense of

wonder was replaced by disbelief and utter shock as the turbine noise revved up and up, past the sound of our babbling brook”




“You get a little whooshing sound once in a while. That doesn’t

bother me.”

Clues from wind farm neighborsIs the impact on the minority that is more affected

“negligible” or otherwise of minimal concern?

“It’s like a jet that never arrives. It’s not for me; it’s

an invasion.”

He and his wife are selling their retirement house,

a permanent“displacement effect”

Noise sensitivity research

“Sounds can evoke different responses from individuals… Some people can dismiss and ignore the signal, while for others, the

signal will grow and become more apparent and unpleasant over time. These reactions have little relationship to will or intent, and more to do with past exposure history and

personality.”Minnesota Department of Health, Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines, 2009

Noise sensitivity researchClear individual spectrum of psychological and behavioral sensitivity

to new noise intrusions among humans(unrelated to auditory sensitivity)

20% 50%30%

Noise sensitive: May find new sounds

more threatening

Active “orienting response”

Any above-audible soundslikely to be

attention-grabbing

Noise tolerant: Rarely perturbed even

by loud sounds

Pays relatively littleattention to new

sounds

Moderatelynoise sensitive:Reactions are more

sound- and situation-dependent

Is there a similar individual variabilityamong marine species?

Wildlife and wind farmsNo studies that unequivocally

separate noise effects from other disruptive factors

Best bird study is from UK, showing the same speciesand individual variability

we see in the ocean

12 nesting species assessed7 showed significant avoidance (up to 800m)

2 more showed some avoidance

Of those with clear avoidance, varying proportions of population affected:

Species Population reduction within 500m



Best bird study is from UK, showing the same species and individual variability

we see in the ocean




SpeciesMeadow pipit

Population reduction within 500m15%




we see in the ocean




SpeciesMeadow pipit

Plover, Curlew, Buzzard, Wheatear

Population reduction within 500m15%38-45%




we see in the ocean




SpeciesMeadow pipit

Plover, Curlew, Buzzard, WheatearSnipe, Hen harrier

Population reduction within 500m15%38-45%47-53%

Pearce-Higgins et al, The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. J. Applied Ecol. 2009 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01715.x

Wildlife and noise

Bird nesting around oil and gas installations in Alberta forests

Comparing effect of (quiet) well padand (noisy) compressor station

(75-105dBA at source; audible to 1km+)

Among passerines (sparrow, warbler, vireo):30% reduction in density around noisy installations

as compared to quiet ones

Bayne, Habib, Boutin. Impacts of Chronic Anthropogenic Noise from Energy-Sector Activity on Abundance of Songbirds in the Boreal Forest. Conservation Biology, Volume 22, No. 5, 2008, 1186-1193. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00973.x

A rare study with a design that separated out noise effectsfrom habitat disruption effects

Clear spectrum of individual psychological and behavioral sensitivity(unrelated to auditory sensitivity)

20% 50%30%

Noise sensitive: May find new sounds

more threatening

Active “orienting response”

Any above-audible soundslikely to be

attention-grabbing

Noise tolerant: Rarely perturbed even

by loud sounds

Pays relatively littleattention to new

sounds

Moderatelynoise sensitive:Reactions are more

sound- and situation-dependent

Is there an interspecies trend here that’s reflected in behavioral responses to moderate noise?

Considerations for Marine SpeciesIf a minority of a population is more sensitive to disruption by noise,

the implications are particularly relevant in situations where anegative impact on a minority of the population may be

problematic for population health and vitality




Stressed populations(e.g., North Atlantic Right whale)





Sensitive times of life(mating; birth and nursing; old age?)





Sensitive times of life(mating; birth and nursing; old age?)

Situations in which synergistic effects with other

factors(e.g., habitat degradation, toxins)

may be triggered bynoise-related stress

Considerations for Marine SpeciesReduced foraging in response to moderate noise

Tour boats disrupt foraging common dolphins:Proportion of time spent foraging dropped by 28%(from 35% to 25% of the time)

Length of each foraging period dropped by 40%(from 10 minutes to 6 minutes)

Time until return to foraging increased 56%(from 9 minutes to 14 minutes)

21% decrease in foraging activity observed in orcas when boats are within 400m(from 76% to 60% of the time)

Stockin, Lusseau, Binedell, Wiseman, Orams. Tourism affects the behavioural budget of the common dolphin Delphinus sp. in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 355: 287–295, 2008

Williams, Bain, Smith, Lusseau. Effects of vessels on behavior patterns of individual southern resident killer whales Orcinus orca. Endangered Species Research, Vol. 6: 199-209, 2009

Boats and foraging


Dramatic orca foraging disruptions at moderate received levels (160dB) of MFA sonarGroup ceased foraging and moved rapidly away

Unusual dive pattern:•Twice as deep (60m) as normal (20-45m)•Reversed ascent at 15m, headed back down to 60m

“Potentially very significant” foraging changes in beaked whales during sonar exercises“Appear to cease vocalizing and foraging for food in the area around active sonar transmissions”

Orcas: Kvadsheim, Benders, Miller, Doksaeter, Knudsen, Tyack, Nordlund, Lam, Samarra, Kleivane, Godo. Herring (slid), killer whales (spekknogger) and sonar - the 3S-2006 cruise report with preliminary results. Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI). 30 April 2007

Kvadsheim, Lam, Miller, Alves, Antunes, Bocconcelli, Ijsselmuide, Kleivane, Olivierse, Visser. Cetaceans and naval sonar – the 3s-2009 cruise report. Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI), 01 July 2009. FFI-rapport 2009/01140

Beaked whales: as reported in Nature, which received the report under a FOIA request, with the author(s) name(s) and location of the study removed. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080801/full/news.2008.997.html

Sonar and foraging


20% decrease in foraging likely among sperm whalesSWSS overall conclusion

No tagged whales made a deep foraging dive closer than 4km from active seismic array

Several studies show indications of whales lingering on surface near active arraysPilot whales: moved to be 1.2km from survey vessel then “exhibited a behavior best described as milling.”

Humpback whales: increase in number of whales seen within visual observing range (i.e. close to vessel) when airguns are active

Jochens, A., D. Biggs, K. Benoit-Bird, D. Engelhaupt, J. Gordon, C. Hu, N. Jaquet, M. Johnson, R. Leben, B. Mate, P. Miller, J. Ortega-Ortiz, A. Thode, P. Tyack, and B. Wursig. 2008. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico: Synthesis report. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2008-006. 341 pp.Caroline Weir. Short-Finned Pilot Whales (Globicephalamacrorhynchus) Respond to an Airgun Ramp-up Procedure off Gabon

Aquatic Mammals 2008, 34(3), 349-354.Caroline Weir. Overt Responses of Humpback Whales (Megapteranovaeangliae), Sperm Whales (Physetermacrocephalus), and Atlantic

Spotted Dolphins (Stellenafrontalis) to Seismic Exploration off Angola. Aquatic Mammals 2008, 34 (1), 71-83.

Seismic and foraging

Considerations for Marine SpeciesEnergetic costs of reduced foraging

Rob Williams et al examined the energy

budgets of orcas when boats were and were

not present

Their striking and under-reported findings:

Overall energy expenditures are only negligibly increased in the presence of boats (2-3% increase)

Total energy taken in was reduced by more than 25%because of lost/disrupted foraging time

Williams, Lusseau, Hammond. Estimating relative energetic costs of human disturbance to killer whales (Orcinus orca). Biological Conservation 133 (2006), 301-311.

Considerations for Marine SpeciesStress-related effects related to moderate noise exposure

Central to the experience of the more sensitive subset of the human population are various stress-related effects:headaches, sleep disruption, irritability, lack of concentration/focus

These clues from the experiences of humans may be especially relevant to appreciating the

experiential effects of chronic noise-related stress among the

more sensitive individuals in fish and cetacean populations

Wright, A.J. (ed) 2009. Report of the Workshop on Assessing the Cumulative Impacts of Underwater Noise with Other Anthropogenic Stressors: From Ideas to Action. Okeanos – Foundation for the Sea, Monterey, CA, 26-29 August, 2009.

pritchettcartoons.com

Considerations for Marine SpeciesStress-related effects caused by masking of key signals

Communication Space:A powerful new metric for considering the effects of chronic moderate noise

Shipping in Stellwagen reduces the area in which whales can hear and be heard by an average of:

•Right whales: 84%•Fin whales: 33%

Recent studies zeroing in on effects of shipping noise on fish as well

Clark, Ellison, Southall, Hatch, Van Parijs, Frankel, Ponirakis. Acoustic masking in marine ecosystems: intuitions, analysis, and implication. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, Vol. 395: 201-222, 2009. GREAT VIDEO: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencebloggers/Acoustic-space-loss_1-ship_Right-whale.mov

RELATED, well worth reading: Kurt Fristrup and colleagues have developed a similar metric for terrestrial sound management,introducing a metric termred the “Listening Area.” For a summary and link to this paper, see http://aeinews.org/archives/822

Fish: DeRoberts, Wilson, Williamson, Guutomsen, Steinessen Silent ships sometimes do encounter more fish. ICES J. Marine Science. 2010.Simpson, SD, Meekan, MG, Larsen, NJ, McCauley, RD &Jeffs, A. 'Behavioural plasticity in larval reef fish: orientation is influenced by recent acoustic

experiences', Behavioral Ecology, 2010.Slabbekoorn, Boutin, Opzeeland, Coers, ten Cate, Popper. A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. TREE, 2010.

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.04.005

Considerations for Marine SpeciesStress-related effects related to moderate noise exposure

Noise-related stress(due to disrupted communication, disturbed rest,

or “simply” annoyance at the sound’s presence)is likely to affectsome members of a population more than others

The key question to keep in mind is how much a given population can tolerate such added stress in some of its members

Considerations for Marine SpeciesTolerance/habituation to moderate noise?

Little evidence of habituation (a gradual shift in individuals’ responses over time)

In humans: fairly well studied: some mixed results, but generally little evidence of true habituation to initially annoying noise sources –i.e., noiseremainsannoying, though they may tolerate it better

In the oceans: few if any studies that track changes in individuals’ responses over time. So only—at best—assessing situational tolerance, not habituation

Wind farm planners expect tosee a “demographic shift”

Permanent displacement: noise sensitive residents move away and sell homes to noise tolerant buyer(as often occurs near highways and airports)

Bejder, Samuels, Whitehead, Finn, Allen. Impact assessment research: use and misuse of habituation, sensitization and tolerance in describing wildlife responses to anthropogenic stimuli. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, Vol. 395:177-185, 2009.

Considerations for Marine SpeciesConsidering context and individual sensitivity

Animals also have reasons to stay in noisy areas

Yet, can more easily act on their experiential response, rather than complain of “annoyance”

Negative impacts are likely to be concentrated in the noise-sensitive subset of the population

(stress, foraging disruptions, etc.)

Very few humans are displaced•“Home” is very inflexible (strong “site fidelity”)•Many more would move out of earshotif they could still have basic needs met: home, $

Those who stay despite being bothered by noise are the most impacted by annoyance/stress effects

Considerations for Marine SpeciesMajority and mean: inadequate as thresholds for

determining risk and setting regulatory protections

If and when a significant minority of a population (15-40%?)is more dramatically (or repeatedly) affected by noise intrusions, the

long-term impacts may well be far from negligible

Wind farm neighbors highlight the extremes that can occur betweendifferent individuals’ responsesto the same sound

Thanks to their ability to speakloudly and clearly about

what theare experiencing…

In ocean management, we also need to consider the implications of individual variability in noise sensitivity

Resources/information on all manner of sound-related environmental issues and science

science summaries special reports news updates

Jim Cummings, Executive Director [email protected]

AcousticEcology.org

AEInews.org

Thanks to Art, Tony, and the organizing committee for making this event happen!

extrapolating beyond chinchillas: ocean noise behavioral response ambiguity and noise sensitivity...

Documents