Effects of industrial noise and landscape disturbance on owls in the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Effects of industrial noise and landscape disturbance on owls in the boreal forest

Julia Shonfield

& Erin Bayne University of Alberta

@JuliaShonfield

Anthropogenic disturbance is increasingly affecting previously undisturbed areas, and can have negative effects on species populations and alter the behaviour

• f individuals.

Anthropogenic disturbance: Physical footprint Sensory disturbance

Growing concern that noise pollution from anthropogenic sources can degrade ecosystem integrity. Anthropogenic noise can mask communication signals important to an animal’s life history

• Effects of temporary anthropogenic noise sources on spotted owls

(Delaney et al. 1999, Tempel & Gutiérrez 2003, Hayward et al. 2011)

• Owl density and occupancy of sites has been found to decrease with

proximity to roads

(Hindmarch et al. 2012, Silva et al. 2012)

Studies of noise on owls:

Industrial noise Boreal owl call

1 kHz 1 kHz

Masking of owl calls due to noise

• Increased anthropogenic noise levels negatively affect hunting

success and foraging efficiency of owls

Mason et al. 2016; Senzaki et al. 2016

Effects of noise on owl hunting:

Effects of noise vs effects of other disturbance

Recent studies have shown small effects of noise on songbirds compared to other types of disturbance (e.g. infrastructure)

Bernath-Plaisted & Koper 2016, Nenninger & Koper 2018

What is the relative importance of different types of disturbance on the landscape

• n owl habitat use?

Putting the effects of noise into context

Research Objectives

• 1. Assess the impact of industrial noise on owls by determining if they

avoid noise sources.

• 2. Evaluate potential cumulative effects and assess the relative

importance of different types of industrial disturbance on habitat use by owls in the boreal forest of northeastern Alberta.

Autonomous recording units (ARUs)

Used ARUs to conduct passive owl surveys

Study species

Boreal owl Great horned owl Barred owl

Processed recordings using owl call recognizers

Barred owl Great horned owl Boreal owl Shonfield et al. 2018. Journal of Raptor Research

Plant facility Compressor station Well pad on a pipeline Well pad on a road

Plant facility Compressor station Well pad on a pipeline Well pad on a road

I n t e r m i t t e n t n

• i

s e s i t e s No noise sites

1.6 km 1.6 km NW NE SW SE CT 2.56 km2

1.6 km 1.6 km NW NE SW SE CT 2.56 km2

ARUs set to record for 10 minutes/hour Deployed for 2 weeks/ site

C2

Occupancy analysis at two spatial scales

MacKenzie et al. 2002 N = 72 sites N = 353 stations

Results – Owl detections

• Barred owls – 40% of sites, 13% of stations surveyed
• Great horned owls – 81% of sites, 41% of stations surveyed
• Boreal owls – 39% of sites, 16% of stations surveyed

Results

Site level occupancy – larger scale

Shonfield & Bayne. 2017. Avian Conservation and Ecology

Results

Station level

• ccupancy – smaller

scale

Shonfield & Bayne. 2017. Avian Conservation and Ecology

Results - forest composition and human footprint

Shonfield & Bayne. 2017. Avian Conservation and Ecology

Summary – Effects of noise

Industrial noise sources had no effect on occupancy at either scale by barred owls, great horned owls, and boreal owls No evidence of avoidance of noise sources

Barred owl Boreal owl Great horned owl

Shonfield & Bayne. 2017. Avian Conservation and Ecology

Summary - Effect of total human footprint

Occupancy by barred owls (-) affected by total human footprint How do different disturbances affect owl habitat use?

Shonfield & Bayne. 2017. Avian Conservation and Ecology

Compiled recordings from ARUs at 452 locations (spaced min. 1.2 km) 2013: 153 locations 2014: 104 locations 2015: 134 locations 2016: 51 locations

Owl survey locations

Disturbance types

Facilities Cutblocks Hard linear features Soft linear features High activity clearings Low activity clearings

Disturbance types

Facilities Cutblocks Hard linear features Soft linear features High activity clearings Low activity clearings

I n t e r m i t t e n t n

• i

s e I n t e r m i t t e n t n

• i

s e C h r

• n

i c n

• i

s e

Analysis – Boosted regression trees

• Used boosted regression trees (BRTs) to assess the

relative importance of human disturbance and other landcover variables on owl habitat use

• BRTs can handle different types of predictor variables,

fit complex nonlinear relationships, and handle interaction effects between predictors

Elith et al. 2008

Results – Owl detections

• Barred owls – present at 18% of ARU locations
• Great horned owls – present at 50% of ARU locations
• Boreal owls – present at 21% of ARU locations

Barred owl Boreal owl Great horned owl

Results – Relative influence of variables

Results – Barred owl presence

Results – Great horned owl presence

Results – Boreal owl presence

Species-specific responses to disturbance

• Barred owls – sensitive to human disturbance (less likely to be

present in areas with more roads and total footprint)

• Great horned owls – relatively tolerant to disturbance

(present in areas with more soft linear features, but avoid large facilities)

• Boreal owls – clear pattern for effect of forest composition,

patterns of effects of disturbance were less clear

Summary

Summary – Implications & future work

• For owls, reducing the physical footprint of disturbance likely more

important than mitigating noise, in terms of owl occurrence

• Better understanding of how landscape disturbance affects owl

survival and reproduction

Funding Support

35

Thanks to

Supervisor & committee: Erin Bayne Evelyn Merrill Andrew Derocher

36

Janet Ng Elly Knight Natalie Sanchez Natasha Annich Dan Yip Alex MacPhail Michelle Knaggs Logan McLeod Scott Wilson Jill Cameron Nicole Boucher Anjolene Hunt Jocelyn Gregoire Emily Upham-Mills Connor Charchuk Sarah Heemskerk Cassandra Hardie Lindsay Valliant Hedwig Lankau Monica Kohler Brandi Mogge

Bayne lab grad students, undergrads, field techs, acoustic lab techs, & logistical support: