Don't know what's "good" or "bad," Rob. All we do know is that there's
an effect caused by certain types of noise and where somehow, for some
reason, within the fold of the natural world the communication stream
is broken off and voices masked. This disruption also sometimes
results in opportunistic predation.
I completely agree that "quiet" zones are critical, thus the value of
the "One Square Inch" idea. That's because the concept highlights the
problem. But it ain't science and, while quiet zones are
psychologically preferable, they're really hard to find so perhaps
it's quiet times that we'll have to live with. Also, humans pick up
and respond to "noise" in many different ways. Some are greatly
affected by even the slightest unwanted or unexpected anthrophonic
intrusion. Others, not so much for many psychological and
physiological reasons. In the critter world, however, different noises
have specific meaning ranging from threat of predation, to "nothing-to-
worry-about," to no response because there is not enough information
encoded in the DNA to elicit a response. We had one couple check into
our guest house on the property from NYC (we have a kind of remote
special B&B, here). They had booked for two nights. When I went for my
early morning 7:00AM run after the first night, I saw them at the
bottom of the stairs with all their luggage about to load their car
and check out. I asked what the matter was and they told me that it
was "too quiet." They came from Manhattan and expected, (and indeed
were comforted by) the incessant traffic noise and were scared to
death when they didn't hear it. (I've since added a traffic noise CD
to the collection in the guest house...just in case.)
In 2000, a biologist from Aberdeen Proving grounds was testing jet
noise on herds of caribou. He ordered the pilot of an F-16 to fly
several passes 100m over a herd, then cut in the afterburners for a
vertical climb directly overhead. His report: the herd just kept on
munching and otherwise failed to move. He did it at several locations
in N. America and then in Finland. Same result. His study conclusion:
jet noise had no effect on caribou. I asked if he checked the
glucocorticoid (stress) enzyme in the feces of the animals for
elevated levels. He said "no." A visual of herd behavior was what they
were after. Then I asked if he had a human strap on a pair of
snowshoes and try to approach the herd on the ground from a quarter
mile away. "No" to that, also. I suggested he try that and watch the
herd spook. Reason: they've had hundreds of thousands of years of
negative experience with humans in their respective environments. But
only half a century with jet aircraft noise. So it is likely that
their DNA has not had a chance to evolve with the knowledge that a jet
plane might be worthy of aversion behavior. In 2001, Scott Creel
(Montana State U) did a study of the affect of snowmobile noise on elk
and wolves in Yellowstone and Voyageurs NPs. When noise was present,
the enzyme levels in both species rose, indicating elevated levels of
stress. When the noise fell off, the levels likewise dropped. But,
like the jets, the noise did not induce aversion behavior, nor did it
affect population density. So he concluded that the noise was not
particularly relevant. When I peer-reviewed the paper, I asked
(actually, your point) why it was that so many humans in heavily
populated measurably noisy urban environments like NYC and Rio de
Janiero ingested the hightest levels of Prozac, yet the population
density was not affected, there either. It was clear to those who had
studied the issue in depth (Sloane Kettering and Harvard's Institute
for Music and Brain Science) that "noise" is part of the stress
problem relieved somewhat by the drug.
To me, the idea of wind noise is well within the range of the natural
soundscape under the geophonic heading. (The three soundscape
components being the biophony, the geophony, and the anthrophony) This
also includes the effect of wind in many types of grassy landscapes,
forests with leafy trees, those with conifers, wind in winter as
compared to summer, water in streams with different flow rates, fresh
water beaches, waves crashing on the salt water beaches of the world,
rain, snow, ice cracking, ground shifting, etc. etc. Critters who
have evolved within biomes that feature any of these signatures have
clearly learned to adjust. Some by holding off the timing of their
vocalizations. Others by adjusting their vocalizations to accommodate.
And still others may just exit the field and find another zone where
their voices can be transmitted and received to the desired effect.
As to your point of culturally desiring quiet, certainly some of us
do. However, James Watt, when he was Reagan's Secretary of the
Interior, once said in response to a question on how noisy Americans
were, that "Noise is power. The noisier we are as a nation, the more
powerful we appear to be." Noise also calls attention to the source
and make some appear momentarily worthy of that passing glimpse...even
if it comes from a place of irritation and annoyance.
That same Aberdeen biologist (mentioned above) was later recounting an
incident at the same NPS conference when he was using cannons to
frighten the birds off the Aberdeen runways and a female associate
remarked that exploding cannons represented to her the sound of
freedom. I responded, "That depends on which side of the cannon one is
standing."
I prefer my music natural and wild. It's definitely an analgesic for
this critter. Noise does the opposite.
Bernie
On Mar 14, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Rob Danielson wrote:
> At 12:08 PM -0700 3/13/09, Bernie Krause wrote:
> ...
>
> >One of this issues is that we haven't
> >been able to resolve is the myriad complex ways in which different
> >types of noise affect different species. I. e., a prop plane vs jet
> vs
> >helicopter. A truck vs straight-piping motorcycle. Etc. Etc. But we
> do
> >have some general data on that issue that can be shown in spectrogram
> >series (before-during-after).
> >
> >Bernie
>
> Hi Bernie--
> Do think you we might have to rely on our animal intuitions that tell
> us that noise "ain't good" and keep generating evidence (while we
> can)? The main response to man-made sonic intrusions through
> all-night monitoring here in a rural Wisconsin seems to be broken-off
> communications. We can assume that some communications are not
> initiated as well.
>
> As you know, the slightest amount of wind in woody/grassy locations
> will curtail many air-borne communications too. I think of the the
> man-made intrusions as adding (many) more "wind" hours, at the very
> least.
>
> I do think its also important for each of us to become more aware of
> the stresses noise creates in us in order to accelerate our learning.
> Once we culturally and consciously value quiet to a great extent,
> which I trust will eventually take place, the work required to
> reclaim it will be easier to justify. Rob D.
>
> --
>
>
>
Wild Sanctuary
POB 536
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
707-996-6677
http://www.wildsanctuary.com
Google Earth zooms: http://earth.wildsanctuary.com
SKYPE: biophony
|