How does noise pollution affect animals

The synthesis published by Radford [ 54 ]—which, as a report, is grey literature—also provides an overview of the state of knowledge with descriptive statistics, according to a standardized method, although it focuses on non-marine organisms and it is based on 86 articles. In , Kunc and Schmidt published a meta-analysis that covers all impacts of noise on animals and they collected articles [ 53 ].

This map reveals that the literature on the impact of anthropogenic noise on species and ecosystems is already extensive, in that relevant articles were collected, including studies, reviews and 16 meta-analyses. In Europe, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have produced the largest numbers of articles. Australia is also active in this field. This high volume of bibliography highlights the fact that this issue is already widely studied by scientists.

The production on this topic started many years ago, around , and has surged considerably since More than one hundred articles a year since are listed in our map. This chronological pattern is quite usual and can be encountered for other topics such as light pollution [ 99 ]. It can be due to practical reasons such as better dissemination and accessibility of articles e. The articles are mainly provided through academic sources i. In particular, 36 theses from all over the world address this issue.

Regarding the population, the systematic map confirms that a very broad range of species is the topic of literature on the effects of noise pollution. Indeed, all of the 11 population classes of our coding strategy contain articles.

Nevertheless, a high proportion of the map concerns mammals and, to a lesser extent birds and fishes. Among the articles targeting mammals, many infrataxa are concerned e. The other taxonomic groups receive far less attention.

However, comparing these knowledge gaps to contemporary biodiversity issues, we can say, for instance, that amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates are highly threatened species [ , ] and noise pollution around the world is probably part of the threats [ 31 , 84 ]. These taxonomic groups are likely impacted by noise depending on the sense used.

In particular, amphibians communicate extensively using sounds i. In terms of exposure, the map confirms that a very wide variety of anthropogenic activities generate noise and that the effects of these emissions have already been studied.

Transportation that includes terrestrial infrastructure as well as civil aircraft and boats is the source of noise most considered. It is closely followed by industrial sources among which high diversity is observed e. Abstract noises are in third position. This category does not necessary correspond to any precise human activities but comprises a large set of computer or machinery sounds e. Often, articles in this category do not contain many details about the source of noise.

Military noise is especially studied for mammals and urban noise is significantly considered for birds but not otherwise. Recreational noise is the least studied, however a certain diversity of sources is observable e. However, urban and recreational sources of noise are important and will increase in the future because, on the one hand, urbanization is spreading all over the word and, on the other, human presence in natural habitats is also becoming more and more frequent e.

For example, the expansion of Unmanned Aircraft could be a serious threat for biodiversity [ ]. In terms of outcomes, the map also confirms a very wide range of impacts of noise on species and ecosystems.

The most studied are the behavioural impacts involving measurements on movement [ ], foraging [ ], hunting [ ], social behaviour [ ], aversive reaction [ ], etc. Biophysiology and communication are also well covered, especially the impacts on the biophysiology of mammals and fishes and on the communication birds. Biophysiological outcomes can be very diverse e. On the other hand, the lack of literature on ecosystems, reproduction and space use is of concern.

Ecosystems are a very significant aspect of biodiversity and will be increasingly integrated in public policies and scientific research, notably concerning ecosystem services in the context of global changes [ , ]. Reproduction and mobility of species are essential for the sustainability of their population and we already know that noise can impair them [ , ]. Concerning the systematic map, at the moment, we are not able to conclude whether this very rich literature provides strong evidence on impacts of anthropogenic noise on animals.

Indeed, we do not know if the studies and other articles confirm or invalidate such impacts and if the studies are sufficiently robust for that purpose.

However, our database highlights that a majority of studies are experimental field-based studies. This is a very good point in planning further meta-analyses or systematic reviews with the prospect of quantifying the level of impacts because these studies would probably be selected following critical analysis.

Given the scope of our map resulting in a high number of population P , exposure E and outcome O classes, there is a wide range of possible PEO combinations. Therefore, it is difficult to go further in this report in terms of identifying knowledge gaps and clusters and possible specific questions for future systematic reviews.

At the same time, this large number of PEO combinations offers stakeholders e. It is interesting to check whether other evidence syntheses previously published have arrived at the same results, knowledge clusters and knowledge gaps as those highlighted by our map. However, given the differences in terms of methodology, topic delimitation and volume of the existing reviews, exposed in the results section, it is difficult to make such comparisons for all reviews. But we can compare our results to those from two other reviews, namely Shannon et al.

Comparison between our map results SM and two other standardized reviews [ 34 , 54 ] on population a ; top and exposure b ; bottom. Concerning population Fig. Regarding exposure Fig. These results seem to be quite consistent. Concerning outcomes, in Shannon et al. Behavioural is the most frequent outcome for aquatic studies in Shannon et al. Furthermore, our overall strategy includes eight bibliographic sources see Table 4 and in particular three search engines.

In addition, a large number of hits were exported from each of the search engines e. We also completed our search strategy with the extraction of all the bibliographic references from 37 relevant reviews.

Finally, when a reference was a part of a more comprehensive article i. We could not check systematically due to our limited resources but, nevertheless, this verification produced 36 articles that were added manually to the map.

That being said, studies are the most important documentation for conducting further systematic reviews. In order to facilitate a possible additional full-text research, we have compiled a list of the unretrieved full-text texts in a dedicated Additional file 11 Sheet 1.

We are aware that this volume of unretrievable full-texts is not a satisfactory result, however there is no standard minimum in the CEE guidelines [ 38 ] and we did everything we could to find the full-texts. We even performed an additional search during the Covid period when some publishers suspended their paywall.

Secondly, we also asked for French and even international interlibrary loans and, when necessary, we went to the libraries to collect them. We also asked for the missing full-texts on ResearchGate. In the end, we could obtain some explanations for a majority of the unretrieved full-texts, i.

We are aware that we accepted only two languages, English and French. Nevertheless, among the screened pdf files, only 54 articles were rejected at the full-text stage because of their language. In the end, to facilitate a possible additional screening of these full-texts, we listed them in Additional file Due to resource limitations, we were not able to perform double coding of each article by two reviewers, as requested by the CEE guidelines. We are aware that this is not a totally rigorous approach, but we anticipated it in our a priori protocol [ 36 ] because we knew that time and resources would be limited.

We think that our approach did not affect coding consistency because the three coders RS, AD, OR followed the same coding rules and one person RS was present throughout the coding process to explain the rules to the other coders and to help them if necessary.

In addition, at the end of the coding procedure, RS reviewed the entire map for analysis purposes. Regarding the coding strategy, we are aware that our classification in particular for exposure and outcome classes is not perfect, but it is difficult to achieve a perfect solution. We decided to use published reviews such as Shannon et al. For example, Radford [ 54 ] split the transportation sources of noise e. Such classes may appear too broad, but this strategy produces an initial overview of the available literature, which is certainly one of the objectives of a systematic map.

In such cases, we coded the article for the different outcomes i. This systematic map collated and catalogued literature dealing with the impacts of anthropogenic noise on species excluding humans and ecosystems. It resulted in a database composed of articles, including studies, reviews and 16 meta-analyses published worldwide.

Some systematic reviews and meta-analyses have already been published and were collected, however, no systematic map has yet been produced with so few topic restrictions all wildlife, all sources of noise, all kinds of impacts and using such a large search strategy two databases, three search engines, etc.

This map can be used to inform policy, provide the evidence for systematic reviews and demonstrate where more primary research is needed. It confirms that a broad range of anthropogenic activities can generate noises which may produce highly diverse impacts on a wide array of taxa.

To date, some taxonomic groups mammals, birds, fishes , types of noise transportation, industrial, abstract and outcomes behavioural, biophysiological, communication have undergone greater studies than others.

Less knowledge is available on certain species invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians , noises recreational, urban, military and impacts space use, reproduction, ecosystems. Currently, this map cannot be used to determine whether the included studies demonstrate that noise does indeed produce impacts.

However, it can be the starting point for more thorough syntheses of evidence. Included reviews and meta-analyses should be exploited to transfer this synthesized knowledge into operational decisions to reduce noise pollution and protect biodiversity. Given the volume of bibliographic data, we obviously do not face to a totally unexplored topic.

But surprisingly, this rich literature on the impacts of noise pollution on biodiversity does not seem to be exploited by practitioners and decision-makers. Indeed, to date, noise pollution has been considered in terms of impacts on human health, but very little or no consideration has been given to impacts on other species and ecosystems. Two key implications emerge from this map. First, the high volume of reviews and meta-analyses collected in this map can facilitate the immediate integration of these evidence syntheses into public policies on the national and international levels.

Some reviews and the meta-analyses have quantified the level of impacts concerning the species, sources of noise and outcomes they considered. A strategy should be defined to assess the quality of these syntheses critical appraisal and, if reliable, transfer this already synthesized knowledge to institutional texts e.

Thanks to the exposure categorization undertaken in this map, many stakeholders and practitioners urban planners, transport infrastructure owners, airlines and airports, military authorities, tour operators, manufacturing companies, etc. Such knowledge may also be useful for the European Commission, which intends to produce indicators to monitor the reduction of submarine noise pollution, as part of a new strategy for biodiversity [ ].

Secondly, several knowledge clusters identified in this map may be used for new systematic reviews and meta-analyses to assess the evidence of impacts.

Resources should be invested in evidence syntheses capable of exploiting the full range of the mapped literature. In particular, these analyses could determine sensitivity thresholds for guilds of species representing several natural habitats. These thresholds are essential in taking noise pollution into account for green and blue infrastructures in view of preserving and restoring quiet ecological networks. Practitioners e. In particular, studies should be started on some taxonomic groups amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates , on certain sources of noise recreational, military and urban and to assess particular impacts space use, reproduction, ecosystems because these populations, exposures and outcomes have received little study to date.

Many PEO combinations have never been studied. In addition, the findings of the current map show that research is not evenly spread worldwide, with main areas of research being in North America United States, Canada. This finding may have an operational impact because some results may not be transposable to other contexts. Articles on further studies could also be more detailed by the authors.

Indeed, some meta-data were unavailable in a significant percentage of the mapped literature. The map findings show that research in ecology has already addressed the issue of noise pollution. Deeper analysis is needed to assess the validity of the literature collected in this map, whether primary studies or reviews, in order to produce new syntheses and to transfer this knowledge to the applied field.

All data, generated or analyzed during this study, are included in this published article and its addition information files. Defaunation in the anthropocene. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas.

Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Menon M, Mohanraj R. Temporal and spatial assemblages of invasive birds occupying the urban landscape and its gradient in a southern city of India.

J Asia-Pac Biodivers. Article Google Scholar. The implications of current and future urbanization for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv. Changes in bird species richness through different levels of urbanization: implications for biodiversity conservation and garden design in Central Brazil.

Landsc Urban Plann. Detecting the response of bird communities and biodiversity to habitat loss and fragmentation due to urbanization. Sci Total Environ. Ecological effects of artificial light at night on wild plants. J Ecol. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biol Rev. Anim Behav. Hempton G, Grossmann J. New York: Atria Books; Reprint. Google Scholar. Romer H, Bailey WJ. Insect hearing in the field.

Camp Biochem Physiol. Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect amphibian call rate. Simulated drilling noise affects the space use of a large terrestrial mammal. Wildl Biol. Bernath-Plaisted J, Koper N. Physical footprint of oil and gas infrastructure, not anthropogenic noise, reduces nesting success of some grassland songbirds. Learning to cope: vocal adjustment to urban noise is correlated with prior experience in black-capped chickadees.

Cunnington GM, Fahrig L. Plasticity in the vocalizations of anurans in response to traffic noise. Acta Oecol. The effects of acute exposure to mining machinery noise on the behaviour of eastern blue-tongued lizards Tiliqua scincoides. Anim Welf. Noise emission during the first powerboat race in an Alpine lake and potential impact on fish communities.

J Acoust Soc Am. Road noise causes earlier predator detection and flight response in a free-ranging mammal. Behav Ecol. Anthropogenic noise changes arthropod abundances. Ecol Evol. Comparison of soundscape contributors between two neighboring southern right whale nursing areas along the South African coast. In: Fourth international conference on the effects of noise on aquatic life Dublin, Ireland, 10—16 July Effect of boat noise and angling on lake fish behaviour: disturbance and lake fish behaviour.

J Fish Biol. Assessing the responses of coastal cetaceans to the construction of offshore wind turbines. Mar Pollut Bull. Lengagne T. Traffic noise affects communication behaviour in a breeding anuran, Hyla arborea. Effects of ship noise on the detectability of communication signals in the Lusitanian toadfish. J Exp Biol. Brown AL. Measuring the effect of aircraft noise on sea birds. Environ Int. Anthropogenic noise impairs owl hunting behavior. The effects of light and noise from urban development on biodiversity: implications for protected areas in Australia.

Ecol Manag Restor. The importance of invertebrates when considering the impacts of anthropogenic noise. Proc R Soc B. Avian communication in urban noise: causes and consequences of vocal adjustment. The Auk. The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. A synthesis of two decades of research documenting the effects of noise on wildlife: effects of anthropogenic noise on wildlife.

Shifting song frequencies in response to anthropogenic noise: a meta-analysis on birds and anurans. Evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: a systematic map protocol. Environ Evid. Good practice guide on quiet areas. Luxembourg: Publications Office; Previous research has shown how noise pollution impacts specific creatures.

Seals, for instance, may be deafened by the underwater rumble of shipping traffic , while stressful noise levels seem to cut short the life expectancy of zebra finches. But the new study, co-authored by Hansjoerg P. Kunc and Rouven Schmidt of Queen's University Belfast, is a meta-analysis, combining data from multiple studies to take a broad look at how noise pollution impacts a variety of species. The analysis covered studies of species, which were divided into seven groups: amphibians, anthropods, birds, mammals, fish, reptiles and molluscs.

Why is this potentially disruptive for wildlife? Many animals use sound to gather information and to communicate information. They use might use sound to navigate their environment, to find mates, to challenge rivals, or to warn other members of a group about danger — to name just a few examples. Traffic noise from roads unfortunately drowns out many mobbing calls, which mean the birds cannot communicate a threat.

Therefore their chances of survival are lower. Some birds change the volume or pitch of their calls or songs, while other birds change the timing of calls or songs, to avoid times of day which have the highest noise pollution levels. But there are downsides to altering behaviour like this.

Animals might risk getting themselves noticed by a predator, or not communicating important information to other individuals of their species. Research on coral reefs has revealed that young fish who are just getting used to life on the reef, are especially impacted by noise.

These young fish get stressed and distracted by the noise of motorboats driving around the reef. Sound sources that exceed this threshold include familiar things, such as power lawn mowers 90 decibels , subway trains 90 to decibels , and loud rock concerts to decibels.

Noise pollution impacts millions of people on a daily basis. Exposure to loud noise can also cause high blood pressure, heart disease, sleep disturbances, and stress. These health problems can affect all age groups, especially children. Many children who live near noisy airports or streets have been found to suffer from stress and other problems, such as impairments in memory, attention level, and reading skill.

Noise pollution also impacts the health and well-being of wildlife. Animals use sound for a variety of reasons, including to navigate, find food, attract mates, and avoid predators. Noise pollution makes it difficult for them to accomplish these tasks, which affects their ability survive. Increasing noise is not only affecting animals on land, it is also a growing problem for those that live in the ocean.

Ships, oil drills, sonar devices, and seismic tests have made the once tranquil marine environment loud and chaotic. Whales and dolphins are particularly impacted by noise pollution.

These marine mammals rely on echolocation to communicate, navigate, feed, and find mates, and excess noise interferes with their ability to effectively echolocate. Some of the loudest underwater noise comes from naval sonar devices. Sonar, like echolocation, works by sending pulses of sound down into the depths of the ocean to bounce off an object and return an echo to the ship, which indicates a location for object. Research has shown that sonar can cause mass strandings of whales on beaches and alter the feeding behavior of endangered blue whales Balaenoptera musculus.

Environmental groups are urging the U. Navy to stop or reduce using sonar for military training. Seismic surveys also produce loud blasts of sound within the ocean.