Presentation from the Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life 2010 conference. Explores some fascinating indications that noise sensitivity patterns seen in the human population may apply in other species as well (20% very sensitive to noise, 50% very tolerant).

1. Cork, Ireland August 18, 2010 Extrapolating Beyond Chinchillas: Behavioral response ambiguitythrough the lens of variable human response to wind farm noise Jim Cummings, Executive Director cummings@acousticecology.org AEInews.org AcousticEcology.org

2. Behavioral responses We can only observe (often subtle or ambiguous) behavioral changesin response to anthropogenic noise We can’t inquire about ocean creatures’ experience:why they do–or do not–shift their behavior

3. Behavioral responses The differences we see are often context-dependent,and there is likely more than context at work photo John Calambokidis, Cascadia Research As with context, individual sensitivity is likely to bea major factor at low to moderate noise levels

4. Behavioral responses It’s clear there is variability in behavioral response to noise among ocean species, and between individuals in a populationor during different activities Southall et al (2007): all studies of behavioral responses of low-frequency cetaceans (baleen whales) to multiple pulse noise (airguns and sonar) Migrating bowheads 120dB: dramatic increase/concentration of fairly significant changes Yet this is largely a specific case…otherwise, no clear dose-response: 150-160dB: responses range 0 to 7 on the severity scale 160+dB: severity of response clusters at 0 and 6

5. Questions about behavioral variability areespecially pressing when we consider these possibilities: Is a subset of the population more noise-sensitive?…and if so, being disproportionately affected by repeated exposures to chronic noise sources? cornforthimages.com Are animals moving a moderate distance,out of harmful or “very annoying” range?…while experiencing elevated stress levels even as they engage in normal activities?

6. What does the animal hear: softest audible / loudest tolerable? Hard to quantify: no direct measurements of many ocean species Extrapolation from easier-to-study animals Including, 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?

7. What does the animal hear: softest audible / loudest tolerable? Hard to quantify: no direct measurements of many ocean species Extrapolation from easier-to-study animals Including, 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?

8. What does the animal hear: softest audible / loudest tolerable? Hard to quantify: no direct measurements of many ocean species Extrapolation from easier-to-study animals Including, 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?

9. Clues from wind farm neighbors Not unlike ocean noisebehavioral responses: No absolute dose-response Annoyance Sleep disruption Relocation Much ambiguity; some trends Pattern of a minorityshowing more disruption Often a significant minority 10-45%

10. Clues from wind farm neighbors Rating annoyance on a scale of 1 to 5 1: Do not notice Audible, but not annoyed Slightly annoyed Rather annoyed 5: Very annoyed 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) Pedersen E, Waye K. Wind turbines—low level noise sources interfering with restoration experience? Environmental Research Letters 3 (2008) 015002

11. Clues from wind farm neighbors “Annoyed” = 4 or 5 on a 1-5 scale Rural areas Mostly rural Suburban 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 Kerstin Persson Waye. Perception and environmental impact of wind turbine noise. Internoise 2009.

12. Clues from wind farm neighbors What 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”

13. Clues from wind farm neighbors What 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) “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”

14. Clues from wind farm neighbors What 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) “You get a little whooshing sound once in a while. That doesn’t bother me.”

15. Clues from wind farm neighbors Is 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”

16. 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

17. Noise sensitivity research Clear 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 soundsmore threatening Active “orienting response” Any above-audible soundslikely to beattention-grabbing Noise tolerant: Rarely perturbed evenby loud sounds Pays relatively littleattention to newsounds Moderatelynoise sensitive: Reactions are moresound- and situation-dependent Is there a similar individual variabilityamong marine species?

18. Wildlife and wind farms No 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 assessed 7 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

19. Wildlife and wind farms No studies that unequivocally separate noise effects from other disruptive factors Best bird study is from UK, showing the same species and individual variability we see in the ocean 12 nesting species assessed 7 showed significant avoidance (up to 800m) 2 more showed some avoidance Of those with clear avoidance, varying proportions of population affected: Species Meadow pipit Population reduction within 500m 15%

20. Wildlife and wind farms No studies that unequivocally separate noise effects from other disruptive factors Best bird study is from UK, showing the same species and individual variability we see in the ocean 12 nesting species assessed 7 showed significant avoidance (up to 800m) 2 more showed some avoidance Of those with clear avoidance, varying proportions of population affected: Species Meadow pipit Plover, Curlew, Buzzard, Wheatear Population reduction within 500m 15% 38-45%

21. Wildlife and wind farms No studies that unequivocally separate noise effects from other disruptive factors Best bird study is from UK, showing the same species and individual variability we see in the ocean 12 nesting species assessed 7 showed significant avoidance (up to 800m) 2 more showed some avoidance Of those with clear avoidance, varying proportions of population affected: Species Meadow pipit Plover, Curlew, Buzzard, Wheatear Snipe, Hen harrier Population reduction within 500m 15% 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

22. Wildlife and noise A rare study with a design that separated out noise effectsfrom habitat disruption effects Bird nesting around oil and gas installations in Alberta forests Comparing effect of (quiet) well pad and (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

23. Clear spectrum of individual psychological and behavioral sensitivity(unrelated to auditory sensitivity) 20% 50% 30% Noise sensitive: May find new soundsmore threatening Active “orienting response” Any above-audible soundslikely to beattention-grabbing Noise tolerant: Rarely perturbed evenby loud sounds Pays relatively littleattention to newsounds Moderatelynoise sensitive: Reactions are moresound- and situation-dependent Is there an interspecies trend here that’s reflected in behavioral responses to moderate noise?

24. Considerations for Marine Species If 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 beproblematic for population health and vitality

25. Considerations for Marine Species If 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 beproblematic for population health and vitality Stressed populations(e.g., North Atlantic Right whale)

26. Considerations for Marine Species If 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 beproblematic for population health and vitality Stressed populations(e.g., North Atlantic Right whale) Sensitive times of life(mating; birth and nursing; old age?)

27. Considerations for Marine Species If 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 beproblematic for population health and vitality Stressed populations(e.g., North Atlantic Right whale) 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

28. Considerations for Marine Species Reduced foraging in response to moderate noise Boats and foraging 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

30. 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

31. Considerations for Marine Species Reduced foraging in response to moderate noise Seismic 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.

32. Considerations for Marine Species Energetic 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.

33. Considerations for Marine Species Stress-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 pritchettcartoons.com 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.

35. 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

36. Considerations for Marine Species Stress-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

37. Considerations for Marine Species Tolerance/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.

39. 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 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.)

40. Considerations for Marine Species Majority and mean: inadequate as thresholds for determining risk and setting regulatory protections Wind farm neighbors highlight the extremes that can occur betweendifferent individuals’ responsesto the same sound Thanks to their ability to speakloudly and clearly aboutwhat theare experiencing… In ocean management, we also need to consider the implications of individual variability in noise sensitivity 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

41. AcousticEcology.org AEInews.org Resources/information on all manner of sound-related environmental issues and science science summaries special reports news updates Thanks to Art, Tony, and the organizing committee for making this event happen! Jim Cummings, Executive Director cummings@acousticecology.org