Impacts of road traffic noise on wildlife Review · Impacts of road traffic noise on wildlife Review Guillaume Dutilleux PCI Acoustique et Vibrations ERA 32 « Acoustique » Ifsttar

Centre d'Études techniques de l'Équipement de l'Est

Ministère de l'Écologie, de l'Énergie, du Développement durable et de l'Aménagement du Territoire

Impacts of road traffic noise on wildlife Review

Guillaume DutilleuxPCI Acoustique et Vibrations ERA 32 « Acoustique » Ifsttar

LRPC de StrasbourgFrance

Ste

ve G

arvi

e, C

reat

ive

Com

mon

s lic

ence

Guillaume Dutilleux "Les effets du bruit routier sur la faune sauvage - Revue"

Journée SFA GABE-GBIO "Les effets du bruit anthropogénique sur la faune terrestre" - CETE Est/LRPC de Strasbourg - 3 décembre 2013 2

The Low-Fi soundscape● Anthropogenic noise is everywhere

● Reasons

● Multiple sources● Wide availability of constant energy● Urban sprawl and artificialization of areas●

● A major concern for human beings

● Large body of noise regulations ● A significant burden of disease

[Mill

er, 2

003

][W

HO

/Eu

rope

20

11]



Biodiversity

● A new concern : how to stop biodiversity loss ?

● Preserving habitats

● Protected aread: EU Natura 2000● Green infrastructure (FR trame verte et bleue)

● Acoustic communication in animals

● Essential in many species● Sometimes unwanted communication

● Susceptibility to noise

● Known for a few millenia● No double glazings



For terrestrial ecosystems● Why does acoustics matter for wildlife ?

– Biology of acoustic communication

– Evolution of acoustic communication

● Evidence of the impacts of anthropogenic noise

– On acoustic communication (hearing / signalling)

– Effects on demography or ecosystems

● Current practice on mitigation procedures

– Netherlands

– Germany

● Suggestions in the French context



Biology of acoustic (auto-)communication

● Correlation with size● Multiple generation modes● Several functions and modalities

– Intraspecific or interspecific– Wanted or not

● Energetics : to signal is tiring● Cope with ambient noise

– Masking– Perception :

● Detection● Discrimination

– Signalling : active space

Sur

lykk

e, K

alk

o, P

loS

on

e 2

008

Sue

ur

et a

l., P

loS

on

e 2

008



Evolution of the acoustic communication

● Signal optimization

– Efficient transduction– Environment-specific attenuation– Environment-specific noise – Mutual exclusion principle

● Relevance of acoustics in evolution

– Hearing predates signalling– Hearing frequency range is larger

than tessiture– Fewer secondary losses of audition

than of vision

[Ryan Brenowitz, 1985]

[Barber et al., 2009]



Masking

● Great bittern

● Golden oriole

● Common cuckoo

[Tegethof et. al., 2007]

[Weiserbs et Jacob, 2001]

[Tegethof et. al., 2007]

Marek Szczepanek, Creative Commons



Increase in singing frequency

● Confounding factors corrected : size and temperature.

● + 4.1 Hz / dB

● Insufficient adjustment to avoid masking

● Reduced active space

● How to find a good male ?

Litoria ewingii

Frogs [Parris et al. 2009]Birds [Parris et al. 2008]Insects [Lampe et al. 2012]

JJ H

arr

ison

, C

reat

ive

Co

mm

ons

lice

nce



Other behavioral effects

[Brumm 2004]

[Fuller et al. 2007]

TimingSound power level

Increasing redundancy

[Aubin et Jouventin, 2001]



Vigilance

● Mountain goat

● Gets used to train noise● No habituation to road trafic noise

– Characteristic posture as if threatened– Runs away at 400 m range from the vehicule

● Elk and large mammals

● Similar results in cases of aircraft flybys

● Stress

● Increased metabolic level● Exhaustion if the disruption is too frequent and the

availability of food is low

[Singer 1978] Ro

ber

t Sh

ephe

rd,

Cre

ativ

e C

om

mon

s lic

en

ce



Reduction in density

● Forests, meadows, agroforests● Road traffic noise :

– Obvious correlation between increasing noise and lower density

– Visible effects up to 1000 m– Sophisticated protocols (sampling methods, non standard

statistical tests)– Default cause to effect relationship– Several confounding factors– Problem with statistical significance (thresholds at 0.1 !)

[Reijnen et al. 1995][Waterman et al. 2003]

42-49

[Reijnen et Foppen, 1995][Peris et Pescador, 2003]

Daniel Pettersson, Creative Commons licence Andres Trepte, Creative Commons licence



Reduction in density (end)

● Road traffic (end)

● The exceptions are generalist species

● A lower dominant frequency is unfavourable

● A proof by industrial noise

● 27 species surveyed

● « No bias » protocol

● 1.5 times more passerine birds on control sites

● 1/3 of species are noise sensitive

[Rheindt, 2003]

[Habib et al., 2007]A

rdo

Be

ltz, C

rea

tive

Co

mm

on

s lic

enc

e



Reproductive success● Disrupting the balance between species

Pred./prey [Francis et al., 2009]Seed dispersal [Francis et al. 2012]

http

://w

ww

.ce

ll.co

m/c

urr

en

t-b

iolo

gy/

retr

ieve

/pii/

S0

960

9822

090

132

81



Evaluation and mitigation● Documented in few countries

● Netherlands

Caution:●Impossible to tell emission from propagation●Propagation over flat ground and basic corrections●Forest or forest ?●Single standard atmosphere●Birds only in two very large groups

[Reijnen et al. 1995]



Evaluation and mitigation

● Prediction of sensitivity

● Classification of species

Sensitivity to masking

Acoustic dependenceof functions

[Garniel et al. 2007]

Noise and/or distancethresholds



Evaluation and mitigation

● Group-dependent evaluation

● A straightforward measurement of biodiversity loss for over 200 species birds

[Garniel et al. 2010]

Assessment, mitigation and compensation addressed

Two-level approach●Standard●Extended

Caution●Little information on noise prediction:transposition to another country ?

●Potentially obsolete and unsuitablenoise prediction schemes

●Questionable recommendations onmitigation measurements



In the French context● NMPB 2008 / NF S 31-133:2011

● Different tools for different purposes ?

● From Lday to Ldawn ?

● Meteorological conditions

● Different solutions for differente scales

● Region: collective / railbound transportation● Infrastructure:

– Vertical cut– Traffic calming– Porous pavements

● Sétra information note in press

● Guideline development foreseen



Conclusion and perspectives

● Evidence of negative impacts of anthropogenic noise

– Density, diversity, reproductive success

● Update and extend the current assessment and mitigation guidelines

– Toward an assessment species by species

– Birds and... mammals, amphibians, insects ?

– Apply the same approaches as in noise control: involve the acoustic consultant, computer models, meteo

● Improve noise prediction methods

● Account for noise in regulations on terrestrial sensitive species and protected areas, limit values ?

Centre d'Études techniques de l'Équipement de l'Est

Ministère de l'Écologie, de l'Énergie, du Développement durable et de l'Aménagement du Territoire

Thank you !

Guillaume DUTILLEUX ERA32 Acoustique

PCI Acoustique et VibrationsCETE Est / LRPC de Strasbourg

France

[email protected]

Au 1er janvier 2014, les 8 CETE, le Certu, le Cetmef et le Setra fusionnent pour donner naissance au Cerema.

...Alors je vais te dire une quelque chose, dit l'ours. Mes ancêtres ont habité cette région depuis que la forêt y pousse [...] Au début les hommes ne m'ont pas trop dérangé. Ils creusaient un peu le roc et en extrayaient un peu de minerai [...] le marteau ne cognait que quelques fois par jour […] Mais ces dernières années, depuis qu'ils ont construit cette usine à bruit, qui fonctionne au même rythme jour et nuit, je ne peux plus m'y plaire...

In Selma Lagerlöf, Le merveilleurs voyage de Nils

Holgersson à travers la Suède, Actes Sud, p326.

Documents

Impacts of road traffic noise on wildlife Review · Impacts of road traffic noise on wildlife Review Guillaume Dutilleux PCI Acoustique et Vibrations ERA 32 « Acoustique » Ifsttar