NTID300.5
EFFECTS OF NOISE ON WILDLIFE AND OTHER
ANIMALS
DECEMBER 31, 1971
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
NTID300.5
EFFECTS OF NOISE ON WILDLIFE AND OTHER
ANIMALS
DECEMBER 31, 1971
Prepared by
MEMPHIS STATE UNIVERSITY
under
CONTRACT 68-04-0024
for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Washington, D.C. 20460
Thii report has been approved for general availability. The contents of this
report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible for the facts
and the accuracy of the data presented herein, and do not necessarily
reflect the official views or policy of EPA. This report does not constitute
a standard, specification, or regulation.
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 70
-------
ii
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 1
Effects of Noise on Laboratory Animals 3
Effects of Noise on the Auditory System 4
Non-auditory Effects of Noise 10
Effects of Noise on Farm Animals 24
Effects of Noise on Mammals 25
Effects of Noise on Poultry 28
Demonstrated Effects of Noise on Wildlife 31
Effects of Noise on Mammals 32
Effects of Noise on Birds 33
Effects of Noise on Fish 36
Effects of Noise on Insects 37
Suspected Effects of Noise on Wildlife 40
Interference with Signals 41
Direct Effects of Noise 44
Discussion 46
Suggestions for Research 49
Appendix 55
References 66
-------
INTRODUCTION
For many years before any real scientific information
was available, we have known that prolonged exposure to
high intensities of noise could cause loss of hearing in
humans. "Boilermakers" or "artillerymen's" ears have been
known to be defective with the cause of the deficit known
for over a hundred years. The effects of sound upon man's
hearing are well documented. In the last few years there
have been studies suggesting a large and potentially
frightening number of non-auditory effects of noise on man;
consequently, today there are many investigators considering
possible non-auditory effects of sound on man and trying to
either demonstrate or disprove them.
In recent years the possible effects of noise on
wildlife have become a matter of serious concern, for
several excellent reasons. Our rapidly growing population
and advancing technology result in ever increasing noise
levels. Noise is an unwanted and at times a potentially
dangerous by-product of virtually every aspect of modern-day
life—construction, transportation, power generation,
manufacturing, recreation, etc. Today we find that areas
previously considered remote, and therefore relatively
non-polluted by noise, are now being exposed or are in
danger of exposure to various kinds of noise pollution.
The effects that increased noise levels will have on wildlife
in these areas are virtually unknown. Obviously animals that
-------
rely on their auditory systems for courtship and mating
behavior, prey location, predator detection, homing, etc.,
will be more threatened by increased noise than will species
that utilize other sensory modalities. However, due to the
complex interrelationships that exist among all the organisms
in an ecosystem, interference with one species might well
affect all the other species.
In the past, man's tampering with the balance of
nature frequently has proved to have serious consequences
for both man and the ecosystem; whatever affects the
ecosystem, eventually affects man also. Noise pollution
conceivably could disrupt a balanced ecosystem and possibly
even contribute to the extinction of a vulnerable species.
Many species of wildlife today are endangered. Apart from
the threat of the irretrievable loss of a particular species,
we have no certain knowledge regarding the possible effects
on our ecology from such a loss. To prevent possible
irreparable damage to wildlife and to the balance of nature,
it is mandatory that we calculate the expected increases
in noise levels and try to relate them to their possible
impact on our wildlife.
It has become apparent that there is a serious lack
of information concerning effects of noise on wildlife.
Because of the high likelihood that noise effects on domestic
or laboratory animals can provide clues regarding possible
effects on wild animals, a summary of the literature
concerned with the effects of noise on non-wild animals is
-------
also included, although it is not as exhaustive nor as
detailed as it would be if that were the mission of this
report.
For the purpose of this report "wildlife" is defined
as those animals which were not born or hatched in captivity.
The literature search here reported was concentrated on the
period from 1950 to the present, but earlier pertinent
studies are also reviewed. It was not possible to search
the foreign literature thoroughly in the limited time
available. Therefore, only clearly relevant and readily
obtainable reports from foreign literature are included.
A detailed report of libraries, information retrieval
services, source materials, and persons and agencies contacted
for information is presented in the Appendix.
Effects of Noise on Laboratory Animals
To determine what noise does to an organism, it is
important to know:
(1) What sounds an animal is exposed to (e.g., frequency,
spectra, intensity, duration, and pattern of exposure);
(2) What factors determine an animal's susceptibility
to noise-induced damage (e.g. species, age, audibility range,
recovery process, etc.) These factors are best investigated
in laboratory experiments using animals, because in laboratory
experiments each of these parameters can be controlled and
manipulated to determine the relationships between noise
-------
exposure and effects on the animal. Experiments investigating
the effects of exposure to noise can be classified in two
basic categories: (1) studies of effects on the auditory
system, and (2) studies of non-auditory effects.
Effects of Noise on the Auditory System
As with man, the best documented effect of noise on
laboratory animals is the production of hearing loss or
damage to the auditory system. This can be produced by a
brief exposure to very loud sound or by prolonged exposure
to moderate levels of sound.
To study hearing loss it is necessary to measure
hearing abilities before and after exposure to noise. A major
problem in studying auditory effects of noise on animals is
the determination of what sounds the animal "hears." Either
electrophysiological recordings from the auditory system, or
behavioral responses of the animal can be used to assess the
sensitivity of the ear. The Preyer reflex, an ear-twitch
response to sound, indicates that an animal has heard a sound.
This reflex is a reliable, but not a very sensitive test of
hearing in animals, because they are capable of hearing sounds
that are less intense than the sounds that produce the response,
An animal can be trained to respond to a sound stimulus by
using the sound as a cue to obtain reward (e.g., food) or to
escape from punishment (e.g., electric shock). If the animal
is appropriately motivated (i.e., hungry or fearful of shock,
depending on the circumstances), his responses can serve as
-------
a very sensitive indicator of what he is hearing. Auditory
thresholds in animals are frequently determined by using a
"conditioned avoidance response;" the animal is trained to
avoid shock by moving from one side of a two-chambered cage
to the other. If the animal is well-trained, this procedure
can provide a very sensitive measure of his ability to detect
tones of known frequency and intensity. An animal's hearing
can be tested, the animal then can be exposed to noise, and
hearing can be retested to determine the decrease in hearing
ability.
Impulse noise is sound which rises very quickly to its
maximum intensity; it has a very fast rise time, on the order
of a few micro-seconds (i.e., a few millionths of a second).
If sufficiently intense, the rapid pressure changes produced
by impulse sound can damage the ear by rupturing the ear-drum,
by disrupting the chain of tiny bones in the middle ear, or
by damaging the sensory cells and other structures in the
inner ear. Poche, Stockwell, and Ades (1969) studied
histologic changes in 14 young guinea pigs cochleas following
exposure to impulse sound. Five hundred rounds of paper caps,
producing an average sound-pressure-level (SPL) of 153 dB,
were fired 30 cm from the ear. The noises were 1 to 5-sec
apart over a 45-min period. In 11 of the ears, the sensory
hair cells were destroyed in a narrow band midway along the
organ of Corti. This damage was comparable to histologic
changes produced by exposure for 4 hr to a 2,000-Hz tone at
a SPL of 125 to 130 dB. Majeau-Chargois, Berlin, and Whitehouse
-------
(1970) studied damage produced by simulated sonic booms in
24 guinea pigs. They determined the animals' hearing abilities
by testing for the Preyer reflex over a range of frequencies
from 125 to 16,000 Hz. The guinea pigs were individually
exposed to simulated sonic booms having durations of either
2.00, 4.76, or 125.00 milliseconds (each animal was exposed
to only one of these durations); 1,000 booms were produced,
at a rate of one per second. The intensity of each boom was
reported as approximately 130 dB, but the reference level was
not stated. Tests of the Preyer reflex following exposure to
the booms failed to detect any changes in hearing ability in
the guinea pigs, although microscopic examinations of their
cochleas revealed losses of approximately 10% of the hair
cells in the first turn. This was amazingly little damage,
considering that each animal was exposed to 1,000 booms at
the rate of one per second.
Because of the very brief durations of impulse sounds,
they are described in terms of rise time, maximum intensity
(peak pressure level), and duration. Sounds having a longer
duration can, in addition, be described by their frequency
spectrum. A description of the frequency spectrum provides
very useful information because man and other animals are
not equally sensitive to all frequencies. Sounds with
different frequency spectra have different effects on the
auditory system. High frequency pure tones or narrow bands
of noise tend to produce changes in localized regions of the
inner ear, whereas low frequency tones, and random or
-------
broad-band noise tend to produce changes throughout the
length of the cochlea.
In a study of exposure to pure tone, Beagley (1965a,
1965b) exposed 29 guinea pigs to a 500-Hz tone at a SPL of
128 dB. Following exposure for 20 rain, there was a decrease
in the amplitude of cochlearmicrophonic potentials recorded
from the inner ear, indicating that the ear was less sensitive
to sound. Also, histological studies revealed extensive
damage to sensory cells and supporting structures in the
third turn of the cochlea, with little or no damage in the
fourth turn. In studies involving 20 guinea pigs, Conti and
Borgo (1964) found that exposure for 3 hr at a SPL of
100 dB to frequencies of 250, 2,000, 4,000, or 8,000 Hz
produced consistent metabolic changes in the inner ear.
Reduction in the activity of the enzyme cytochrome oxidase
was detectable in several different structures of the inner
ear; this reduction was not related to the frequency of the
stimulating noise.
Dogs and guinea pigs were used as experimental animals
by Covell (1953) in a study of the histologic changes in
the organ of Corti following exposure to intense sound. He
exposed 132 guinea pigs and 7 dogs to 50,000 to 100,000-Hz
sound. Essentially, Covell found marked histologic changes
in the organ of Corti following exposure to intense sound,
indicative of a loss of hearing in the animals.
In some preliminary studies of temporary threshold
shift (a temporary elevation of the level of lowest intensity
-------
8
sound that can be heard) in chinchillas, Peters (1965)
determined that temporary threshold shift (TTS) increased
with increased duration of exposure to an octave band of
noise (2,000-4,000 Hz) at 70, 80 or 90 dB (the reference
level was not reported). In an experiment to determine the
electrophysiological correlates of temporary threshold
shifts, Benitez, Eldredge, and Templer (1970) exposed
chinchillas for 48-72 hr to an octave band of noise centered
at 500 Hz with a SPL of 95 dB. This exposure produced a
behavioral TTS of about 48 dB in the animals, with recovery
requiring about 5 days. Changes in cochlear microphonics
recorded from the second turn corresponded closely to
behavioral TTSs; however, losses of sensitivity in activity
recorded from the auditory nerve were much greater than
losses in behavioral responses. Using an octave band
(300-600 Hz) of thermal noise at a SPL of 100 dB, Miller,
Rothenberg, and Eldredge (in press) obtained maximum TTSs of
50 dB or more during 7 days of exposure. Recovery from
these TTSs required about 5 days, with signs of permanent
threshold shifts of less than 10 dB at certain test
frequencies. Cochlear potentials were reduced and hair
cells were lost in the second and third cochlear turns.
Broad-band noise has also been used to study hearing
loss and damage to the auditory system. Lawrence and Yantis
(1957) stimulated guinea pigs with white noise; sound pressure
levels, measured at the tympanic membrane, were 150 dB for
one group of guinea pigs and 136 dB for a second group.
-------
Recordings from the round window indicated that a 20-min
exposure produced some permanent loss in sensitivity in
both groups. Miller, Watson, and Covell (1963) exposed
37 cats to broad-band noise having nearly equal sound-pressure*
levels across octave bands centered at 850, 1,700, and
3,400 Hz. Exposures to a SPL of 115 dB for one-eighth of
an hour or 105 dB for one-fourth of an hour produced maximum
TTS at 4,000 Hz. Exposure to uninterrupted noise at a SPL
of 115 dB for 15 min to 8 hr produced mean permanent
threshold shifts ranging from 5.6 dB (for 15 min) to
40.6 dB (for 8 hr). Breaking up the total exposure into
small doses resulted in increasingly less permanent loss
as the interval between doses increased; a total of 8 hr of
exposure having 24-hr intervals between sixteen 7 1/2-min
doses produced a permanent threshold shift of only 2 dB. The
correlation between amounts of permanent threshold shift and
cochlear injury was 0.85. Ward and Nelson (1970) also
studied the effects of intermittent noise on hearing. Two
groups of four monaural chinchillas (i.e., animals with one
ear destroyed) were exposed for 2 hr to a 700 to 3,000-Hz
band of noise at a SPL of 117 dB. One group was exposed
continuously, the other had eight 15-min exposures separated
by intervals of 45 min of quiet. Both exposures produced
initial threshold shifts of more than 100 dB, but the
animals exposed intermittently had completely recovered
within 2 weeks whereas the animals exposed continuously
had losses of 40 dB 3 months after exposure.
-------
10
Twenty guinea pigs were exposed to rocket booster
engine noise by Gonzalez, Miller, and Istre (1970). Four
groups of five animals each were located at distances from
the noise source of 75, 150, 300, and 5,000 ft respectively.
For the three closer positions, sound-pressure-levels were
above 110 dB from 8 to 8,000 Hz, with peaks near 140 dB
between 8 and 31.5 Hz. Peak pressure levels at the fourth
position were near 110 dB between 16 and 31.5 Hz and dropped
off rapidly in the higher frequencies. Following 5 min,
50.1 sec of exposure to the rocket engine noise, Preyer
reflex thresholds indicated almost complete loss of hearing
in the two closer groups, up to 57 days post-exposure; there
were only slight temporary losses in the third group and no
measurable effect in the most distant group.
Ishii, Takahashi, and Balogh (1969) reported that
exposure for 30 min to white noise at a SPL of 110 dB
produced reductions in the number of glycogen granules in
guinea pigs' ears. They suggested that glycogen serves as
an energy source in the hair cells.
The extent of noise-induced hearing loss or damage to
the auditory system depends upon intensity, spectrum, duration,
pattern of exposure and individual susceptibility. Rest
intervals interpolated in exposure periods can significantly
reduce the amount of damage.
Non-auditory Effects of Noise
Only recently have non-auditory effects of noise
-------
11
become a matter of concern, due to suggestions that noise
may act as a physiological stressor producing changes similar
to those brought about by exposure to extreme heat, cold,
pain, etc. There is a considerable body of literature
concerning physiologic response to stress and now there is
also some evidence that exposure to noise may induce similar
changes. The general pattern of response to stress includes
neural and endocrine activation bringing about a variety of
measurable changes, such as increases in blood pressure,
available glucose, blood levels of corticosteroids, and
changes in the adrenal glands. There is evidence that
prolonged exposure to severe stress can exhaust an organism's
resources and result in death. On the other hand, an animal
raised under conditions that protect it from stress becomes
extremely susceptible to disease or even death under even
mildly stressful situations. The actual significance for
an animal of the physiologic responses to stress is not
understood.
In an early study, Yeakel, Shenkin, Rothballer, and
McCann (1948) exposed adrenalectomized Norway rats to the
sound of a blast of compressed air 5 min a day, 5 days
a week, for a year. The average systolic pressure in the
noise exposed rats rose from an initial value of 113 mm Hg
to 154 mm Hg in the last 2 months, while control values rose
from 124 to 127 mm Hg. More recently (Osinstseva, Pushkina,
Bonashevskaya, and Kaverina, 1969), rats were exposed to an
80 dB noise for various times from 18 to 126 days. Following
-------
12
exposure to noise, analyses revealed significant drops in
ascorbic acid contents and weights of the adrenals of these
rats relative to controls. Adreno-cortical activation has
been studied quite extensively in rodents by Anthony and
Ackerman (1955, 1957) and by Anthony, Ackerman, and Lloyd
(1959). They exposed rats, mice, and guinea pigs to
relatively broad bands of intense noise: 150-4800 Hz at
140 dB SPL, 10,000-20,000 Hz at 110 dB SPL, or 2,000-40,000 Hz at
132 dB SPL. Durations of stimulation periods included a single
6-min exposure, 15 min or 45 min per day for up to 12 weeks,
and cycles of 100 min on and 100 min off throughout a
4-week exposure period. Although they obtained indications
of adrenal activation, as measured by cellular changes in
the adrenal glands and a decrease in the number of circulating
eosinophils, these changes were generally slight and transient.
They did find, however, that intense noise superimposed on
another stress, such a&—restriction of food, could decrease
an animal's life span. The authors concluded that rats, mice,
and guinea pigs can successfully adapt to noise, but that
noise can have damaging effects if it occurs in conjunction
with additional stressful situations. They also noted that
intense high frequency noise (132 dB SPL, 2,000-40,000 Hz)
appears to be more stressful than low frequency noise as
evidenced by an increase in noise-induced seizures in
mouse strains considered to be seizure-resistant (Anthony
and Ackerman, 1957). Jurtshuk, Weltman, and Sackler (1959)
subjected two groups of Wistar albino female rats daily to
-------
13
1 rain of noise for 11 days and to 5 min of noise for 15
days, respectively. The noise consisted of 120 Hz at
100 (+5) dB SPL. Rats that displayed the greatest locomotor
response upon cessation of auditory stimulation also had
lowest blood glutathione levels. Stimulated rats had
higher adrenal weights and ascorbic acid values and lower
blood glutathione levels than did their controls. Geber,
Anderson, and Van Dyne (1966) investigated the physiologic
response of rats to three durations of acoustic stress
(15-270 min, 29-96 hr, and 21 days). The stimulus was a
73 to 93-dB SPL 20,000 to 25,000-Hz sound presented 6 min of
every hour. They noted lower eosinophil counts, raised
serum cholesterol levels and increased ascorbic acid levels
in the brain. Although Treptow (1966) stated that dogs had
transitory increases in glycemic levels in the blood prior
to becoming used to experimenter handling, he did find a
predictable increase in glycemic reactions in trials 1 and 8
out of 20 exposures to 80-87 dB noise for 5-10 min. Due to
individual reactivities, the measures were highly variable,
but by trial 20 the dogs had apparently adapted to the noise
stimulus.
Biochemical changes due to noise exposure were studied
by Elbowicz-Wariewska (1962). Guinea pigs were exposed for
1 month to daily 45-min periods of noise at 160 £5) dB SPL
with frequencies from 100 to 50,000 Hz. Increases in lactic
acid dehydrogenase activity and pyruvic acid levels in the
blood were observed. Hrubes (1964) found that non-esterified
-------
14
fatty acids, the plasma lipid most implicated in active
transport within cells, increased significantly in female
white rats when the rats were exposed to a 95 dB transmitter
generator noise for 16 hr. Hrubes and Benes (1965)
demonstrated that white rats subjected repeatedly to 95 dB
noise developed increased uremic catecholamines, increased
free fatty acids in blood plasma, and increased suprarenal
size. Further, exposed animals showed characteristic weight
decreases. Friedman, Byers, and Brown (1967) demonstrated
that auditory stimulation can interfere with lipid metabolism.
White noise at a SPL of 102 dB was presented 24 hr a day
and an additional intermittent 200 Hz square wave with a
duration of 1 sec and a SPL of 114 dB was programmed to
occur at random intervals, with an average interval of 3 min.
Thirty rats were exposed to the noise stimuli for 3 weeks
and 24 rabbits were exposed for 10 weeks. These animals
received standard diets and water, but were administered
additional oils to test their abilities to handle excess fat
while exposed to noise stress. Plasma triglycerides were
higher in sound-exposed rats only during the second week;
there were no differences between experimental and control
groups of rats at the end of weeks 1 and 3. In the rabbits,
however, plasma cholesterol and fasting plasma triglycerides
were higher after 4 weeks of auditory stimulation. Additional
differences between sound-stressed rabbits and their controls
included deposits of fat in the irises of the eyes of the
experimental rabbits, plus more aortic atherosclerosis and
-------
15
higher cholesterol content in their aortas. The authors
concluded that auditory stress produces changes in handling
exogenously delivered fat, having effects similar to those
produced by chronic hypothalamic stimulation.
There is additional evidence that sound stimulation
produces its observed effects via cortico-hypothalamic
interactions with the hypophyseal adrenal system. Werner (1959)
studied the effect of sound on the hypophysis of the rat. He
found that long, continuous bell ringing (8 hr per day) for
from 1 day to 3 weeks resulted in hypertrophy in the pars
intermedia and hyperactivity in the adrenal cortex. Ogle and
Lockett (1966) studied the effect in rats of recorded
thunderclaps of 3 to 4-sec duration with a frequency range
of 50-200 Hz at 98-100 dB SPL, presented at a rate of two claps
at 1-min intervals every 5 min for 20 min. They compared this
effect with that from a pure tone of 150 Hz at 100 dB presented
for 2 min out of every 15 min for 45 min. Urine was collected
and analyzed for sodium and potassium. Responses to noise
were analyzed through comparisons among animals that were
intact, that had denervated kidneys and that had neurohypo-
physeal lesions. The authors concluded that thunderclaps
produced emotional responses which the 150-Hz tone did not
produce. Thunderclaps affected the hypothalamus resulting
in excretion of oxytocin and vasopressin; these hormones
produced increases in sodium and potassium excretion with
no increase in urine flow.
In a recent study (Hiroshige, Sato, Ohta, and Itoh,
-------
16
1969), rats were exposed to bell-ringing for 2 min (spectrum
and noise level were not reported). Bell-ringing produced
an increase in the activity of corticotropin-releasing
factor (CRF) in the hypothalamus. CRF produces the release
of adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) from the pituitary,
and ACTH in turn produces the release of corticosteroids
from the adrenals. Monastyrskaya, Prakh'e, and Khaunina
(1969) reported that sound stimulation produced increases
in weights of the pituitary and adrenal glands in healthy
rats, but not in a strain of sound-sensitive, audiogenic-
seizure susceptible rats. The sound-sensitive rats already
had enlarged pituitaries and adrenals. The rats were
exposed to a 105 dB sound 10 times, for 1.5 min each time,
with one exposure every 3 to 4 days. The frequency
characteristics and noise reference levels were not reported.
Activity of acetylcholine throughout the rat brain was studied
by Brzezinska (1968). Exposure to noise (type and level not
reported) for 2 hr a day for 3, 6, 9, 12, or 15 days
produced gradual increases in acetylcholine esterase activity,
and an initial increase in acetylcholine concentration
followed by a decrease with a slow return to normal levels
by 15 exposures.
In addition to the pituitary and adrenal glands, the
reproductive glands and functions are also affected by
exposure to noise. The results are not always consistent,
however. Anthony and Harclerode (1959) reported negative
results in a study of the effects of noise on sexual scores
of sexually mature male guinea pigs. Twelve weeks of daily
-------
17
exposure, for 20 min out of each 30 min period, to noise
at a SPL of 139-144 dB with frequencies of 300 to 4,800 Hz
did not affect the sexual scores of the experimental animals
relative to their controls. Some evidence of cortico-adrenal
activation was found, however, suggesting that tolerance
limits were approached. Zoric (1959) exposed 38 male mice
for 8 hr per day for 1-21 days to the sound of an electric
bell. The level and spectrum of the sound were not reported.
Studies of the testes of sound-exposed mice revealed
involution of the seminal epithelium, partial blockage of
first order spermatocytes, formation of teratocytes, and
atrophy of the epithelium. He also observed that the
glandular interstitial cells were characterized by hypertrophy
and hyperplasia. Zondek and Isachar (1964) examined the
effect of acoustic stimulation on genital function in 48
mature rabbits and 3,100 young and mature rats. The animals
were housed "near" an electric bell 25 cm in diame-ter_ that
rang.l min out of every 10 rain, 24 hr per day, for 9 days
prior to mating. The peak SPL was 100 dB, with maximum
energy at 4,000 Hz, and another peak of 95 dB at 10,000 Hz.
Auditory stress resulted in enlargement of the ovaries,
persistent estrus, follicle haematomata, and other effects
in female rats and rabbits. Effects were more pronounced
in female rabbits than in female rats and were hardly visible
in males of either type. Auditory stress during the
copulatory period induced increased fertility, but during
gestation such stress produced a blockage of pregnancy.
-------
18
However, Zondek (1964) reported that in rats the males' as
well as the females' fertilities were decreased. The males'
ability to fertilize was reduced to 11% as compared to
70-80% in control males; comparable effects were produced in
the female rats. Sexual behavior did not seem to be
inhibited (copulation was verified by the presence of a
vaginal plug), and there were no changes in the weights of
the testes and seminal vesicles, nor any noticeable
anatomical changes in the spermatogenic process. In similar
fashion, Singh and Rao (1970) studied the effects of auditory
stress on rat ovaries. They exposed 74 adult female rats
to continuous auditory stimulation by a 2,000-Hz tone at 100
dB C for up to 150 days. They found that 31 animals developed
persistent vaginal estrus after 10 consecutive days of stress.
As the stress was continued, more and more animals demonstrated
the condition.
There is evidence that sound stimulation may induce
lasting changes in exposed animals and even in their offspring,
at least in strains of mice that have been specially bred to
be susceptible to audiogenic seizures. Lindzey (1951)
studied emotionality and audiogenic seizure susceptibility
in mice exposed to noise. The animals were stimulated by
the sound from a bell attached to a metal washtub (spectrum
and SPL were not described). He reported increased
susceptibility to seizure in certain strains of mice.
Thompson and Sontag (1956) described effects of audiogenic
seizures in pregnant rats on maze-learning abilities of
-------
19
their offspring. Each of six male albino rats was bred to
one experimental and one control female. Two seizures per
day were induced from the fifth through the eighteenth day
of pregnancy in each of the six experimental females.
Within 24 hr of birth two male and two female pups were
selected from each litter and the rest were removed. Three
mothers in the experimental group and three in the control
group kept their own pups, while the pups of the other
three mothers in each group were switched between groups
so that pups from experimental (seizure) mothers were
cross-fostered on control mothers and vice versa. At 21
days of age, the pups were removed from the mothers and
housed in individual cages in the animal room. General
activity levels were tested at 30 and at 60 days of age.
Training in a water maze began at 80 days of age. Although
there were no significant differences in body weights, litter
sizes, or activity levels, there were significant differences
between experimental and control groups in maze learning.
Pups born to mothers that had audiogenic seizures during
pregnancy had significantly more errors and required
significantly more trials than did pups born to controls
even if the control pups were cross-fostered on experimental
mothers. Ishii and Yokobori (1960) found that female mice
exposed to 90, 100, or 110 phon. white noise for 6 hr per
day from the eleventh through the fourteenth day of pregnancy
had more malformed young, more young still-born, and smaller
embryos than did unexposed mice. Teratogenic effects produced
-------
20
by audiogenic stress were also reported by Ward, Barletta, and
Kaye (1970). A motorcycle horn producing 82-85 dB SPL at
320-580 Hz was timed to deliver noise intermittently for
60-75% of each hour. Female albino mice (Swiss-Webster strain)
were placed in the chamber and exposed to the noise for at
least 5-hr periods at different stages of pregnancy (vaginal
plug was used as indicant of pregnancy). The most severe
effects were obtained with stress 8 hr per day on days 8 to
17 of pregnancy. In these cases, 40% of the litters were
resorbed and mean fetal weight was 0.44 g while mean fetal
weight in control litters was 1.45 g. Although only moderate
noise levels were used, there were severe results if
stimulation occurred during critical periods. Stress during
days 7-8 resulted in 100% resorbtion by day 18. Observed
teratogenic effects (cranial hematoma, dwarfed hind limbs,
and tail defects) were attributed to endocrinologic effects
of stress on the mother and/or the fetus. These stress
effects resulted in discharge of catecholamines and steroids
from the adrenals. Decreased uterine and placental blood
flow were considered to be responsible for fetal hypoxia,
and perhaps delayed implantation. At least one experiment
has shown there is a relation between noise exposure and
susceptibility to viral infection in audiogenic seizure
susceptible strains of mice. Jensen and Rasmussen (1970)
used an 800-Hz tone with an intensity of 120-123 dB for
3 hr each day on 6-8 week old Swiss Webster BUYS mice.
Mice innoculated intranasally with vesicular stomatitis
-------
21
virus just before exposure to sound were more susceptible
to the infection, while mice innoculated after the exposure
were more resistent. The sound stressed mice were also more
susceptible to polyoma virus and developed more tumors than
controls that were not sound-stressed. The sound suppressed
the progression of Rauscher virus lukemia. The inflammatory
and interferon responses were also impaired by sound. They
also found that the sound stressed mice had periods within
each day when they might be more, less or just as susceptible
to viral challenge as non-stressed control subjects. This
transitory change in susceptibility was found to be independent
of adrenal function. In addition to undesirable effects of
noise that have been demonstrated in audiogenic-seizure
susceptible mice, a recent study reports noise-induced
hemorrhages in dogs. Ponomar'kov, Tysik, Kidryavtseva, Barer,
Kostin, Leshchenko, Morozova, Nosokin, and Frolov (1969)
exposed dogs to 0.6- to 3.5 sec bursts of white noise at
105 to 155 dB. Two hours after exposure, 3 mm diameter
hemorrhages were found in the lungs, if noise levels exceeded
125 dB. Increased noise levels resulted in increased numbers
of hemorrhages, but not in increases in the size of each spot.
Emphysematous changes induced by noise exposure were still
detectable at 60 days postexposure, even though hemorrhaged
blood had been resorbed.
Noise has also been demonstrated to disrupt behavior
in laboratory animals. Monaenkov (1958) reported that rats
exposed for 7 days to sounds produced by electric bells (for
-------
22
45 rain to 2 hr per day) became untidy and less active,
refused to eat, and became aggressive. Borisova (1960)
stated that white rats exposed to 85-dB noise displayed
weakened conditioned reflexes. Five days of rest were
necessary for the reflexes to return to normal.
Permanent effects produced by raising 80 albino rats
in two different litter sizes and under two different sound
levels were reported by Groh (1965). The rat pups were
divided into litters of either 3 or 13 animals then
randomly assigned to lactating females other than their own
mothers. Half the rat pups in each litter size were raised
in sound-proof boxes; the other half were raised in regular
wire cages in a noisy animal room. There were 10 male and
10 female pups in each of the four groups. After 21 days
under these conditions, the rats were weaned and placed,
four animals to a cage, in the common animal room for an
additional 21 days. At the end of this period (42 days)
measures were made of body weights, spontaneous activity in
an open-field test, heart rate increases following electric
shock, and response latency in a straight runway at the end
of 20 trials. Open field measures were repeated at 56 days
and body-weights at 57 days. After these tests, relative
weights of the adrenal gland were measured. Rats in large
litters weighed less and had larger adrenal glands. Rats
raised in soundproof boxes learned faster (had lower latencies)
in the straight runway than did rats raised in the animal room.
Decreased activity in the open field test and increased heart
-------
23
rate responses were more pronounced in rats raised in large
litters in soundproof boxes and in those raised in small
litters in the animal room than were those in the other two
groups. With the possible exception of the cardiac response,
all these morphological and behavioral changes appeared to
be stable.
There are several factors which most of the studies
cited above have in common and which merit general comment.
The SPLs used were mostly those which would be described as
high or intense, and the duration of exposure in most cases
was sufficiently short that it would be typified as acute
rather than chronic. A danger in generalizing from "acute"
high or relatively high intensity level studies to "chronic"
low levels of stimulation is that there may be no relationship
at all. The longest exposure duration cited in non-auditory
effects was 150 days. That should probably be considered a
chronic exposure; however, the next longest exposure was 42
days, which would hardly qualify as a chronic exposure except
perhaps for relatively short-lived organisms. The levels of
stimulation cited were as high as 160 dB with most in excess
of 100 dB and with few below 90 dB. These are levels much
beyond what we would normally find animals exposed to around
airfields, industries, highways, or other intrusions by man
into their habitat. It would seem logical to expect little
or no auditory damage to animals from the usual invasions
by man into the animals* world. Other physiological or
endocrinological damage may result, however, the evidence
-------
24
for such damage is at best conflicting and in need of
elaboration. It would appear that experiments to determine
the effects of long term exposure to lower sound levels
have not been performed. With respect to non-auditory
effects, it is unlikely that lower levels of stimulation
for moderate durations would produce observable changes in
laboratory animals in sexual function, cholesterol or
ascorbic acid levels, etc. Another important fact which
should be made explicit here is that the audible range
of hearing varies widely from organism to organism. This
might be expected to be a significant factor in studies to
determine the effects of sound on the organism. Little or
no mention of this is found in most of the studies cited,
nor is there any evidence of concern about this factor.
In summary, in laboratory animals high levels of
stimulation for fairly short durations have produced results
suggestive of significant effects of noise on sexual function,
blood chemistry, auditory function, seizure susceptibility,
etc. Extreme caution should be used, however, in generalizing
from results obtained on these animals stimulated at the
levels and durations used, to other animals stimulated at
lower levels for different durations.
Effects of Noise on Farm Animals
Although some studies have been conducted on domestic
animals of economic importance, experimental controls and
-------
25
adequate response measurement techniques have been lacking.
Since no criteria have been established as far as measurement
and recording of sound stimuli and animal responses to these
stimuli, it is difficult to compare the effects of noise on
one type of domestic animal with effects found in other
domestic animals.
Effects of Noise on Mammals
Swine exposed to five trials of aircraft sound of
120-135 dB showed no injury to gross anatomy or the organ of
Corti when compared to a control group exposed to ambient
noise levels of 70 dB from an airfield (Bond, Winchester,
Campbell and Webb, 1963).
Bond (1963) made extensive tests on the effects of
noise on swine. During acoustic stress consisting of 15 sec
of 130 dB noise repeated four, eight, or more times, heart
rate monitored by telemetric equipment attached to naive
swine increased significantly from normal heart rate. Heart
rate decreased 30 sec after cessation of the sound stress
but had still not returned to pre-exposure level. Frequencies
employed were between 300 and 600 Hz. Bond (1970) also found
that although no differences in reactions of nursing sows to
frequencies ranging from 200 to 5,000 Hz were noted at 100 to
120 dB, a recording of a squeal of a baby pig at 100 dB
elicited the same response. The reaction consisted of the
nursing sow rising to her feet and searching for the sound
-------
26
source followed by indifference. Baby pigs in the absence
of the dam, exposed to the same sounds as cited above
typically reacted by huddling together. The same investigator
(Bond, 1970) found that exposure to loud sounds (frequency
and intensity not specified) caused negligible reactions in
mating swine. Sows and boars appeared indifferent to the
sounds. Effects on partuition included heavier piglets at
birth and a weaning from sows exposed to sound of 120 dB from
6 AM to 6 PM for three days before partuition until weaning.
Bond (1963) found that pigs exposed to jet and propeller
aircraft sounds reproduced at 120 to 135 dB daily from 6 AM
to 6 PM from weaning time or before, until slaughter at 200
pounds body weight, showed no differences from pigs unexposed
to the sounds with regard to feed intake, feed utilization
and rate of gain. (In his 1970 review of the literature on
the physiology and behavior of farm-raised animals, Bond
cites Bugard, et al. (1960) in reference to effects of noise
on young, castrated, male pigs) Bugard (1960) found that
93 dB noise for several days (frequency not specified) resulted
in aldosteronism and severe retention of water and sodium in
young, castrated, male pigs. He further stated that
"alarm signals" recorded from pigs in the slaughter house
disturbed the pigs more than mechanically produced sounds.
Parker and Bayley (1960) reported that milk cow herds
within 3 miles of eight air force bases using jet aircraft,
with 13% of the herds within 1 mile of the end of an active
-------
27
runway, showed no differences in milk production when
compared to herds which were not exposed to the aircraft
noise. No differences were found between herds close to
the end of the runway and those farther removed.
Casady and Lehmann (1966) reported that studies
conducted on herds of milk cows at Edwards Air Force Base
may have been biased in that the animals used had been
exposed to 4-8 sonic booms a day for several years. Therefore,
even though the intensity of the booms used during testing
was higher than those the cows heard daily, the cattle may
have adapted before the actual testing began. The investigators
found, over all, few abnormal behavioral reactions in large
animals due to sonic booms.
Bond (1956) in his review of the literature on sound
stimuli effects on man and lower animals, stated that cows
exposed to exploding paper bags every few seconds for 2 min
during milking did not give milk while the sound stimuli
were present. Thirty min following the sound stimulation,
70% of normal milk production occurred. Bond also cites
Oda (1960) who stated that motorboat noise also produced
a decrease in milk production. However, calf and heifer
growth was unaffected by motorboat noise. Bond (1956) also
reported that observers found a mild reaction in dairy and
beef cattle to only 19 out of 104 sonic booms of 2.6-0.75 Ib
per sq ft. Milk production was unaffected during the test
period. In fact, Bond noted that reactions to low subsonic
-------
28
aircraft noise were more pronounced than were reactions
to sonic booms. Further, the same reactions were observed
in response to flying paper, strange persons, or other
moving objects. This observation may indicate that "fright"
reactions occur more strongly when the animal sees rather
than hears the object.
Effects of Noise on Poultry
Stadelman (1958a) found that when fertilized eggs
from white hens were held 1-7 days after laying and then
subjected to incubation under conditions of sound (over
120 dB) or no sound (under 70 dB), no adverse effects
occurred. The sound produced inside the incubation boxes
consisted of playbacks of recorded background airfield
noises, and noise from propeller and jet aircraft. Sound
was present eight out of every 20 min from 8 AM to 8 PM
each day and from 8 PM to 8 AM every third night. There
were no effects on hatchability of eggs or on the quality
of chicks hatched.
Eighteen New Hampshire and Plymouth Rock hens were
observed for broodiness for 3 days and then divided into two
groups. Broodiness is defined as the cessation of egg laying
and the onset of egg incubation. One group was exposed to
the sound levels mentioned above while incubating 12 hatching
eggs each. Hens in the other group were given 12 hatching
eggs each but were not exposed to sound. In the group not
-------
29
exposed to sound, all eggs were hatched. In the group
exposed to sound, all except one hen stopped brooding
within 2 hr. The exceptional hen, although she remained
broody, hatched only one chick from 12 fertilized eggs
(Stadelman, 1958a).
Stadelman (1958a) also reported that recorded aircraft
flyover noise at 80 to 115 dB at 300 to 600 Hz played daily
from 8 AM to 8 PM and from 8 PM to 8 AM every third night
for 5 out of 20 min from onset of brooding until chicks were
9 weeks old resulted in no difference in weight gain, feeding
efficiency, meat tenderness or yield, or mortality between
sound exposed and non exposed chicks. It was, however, noted
that the chicks subjected to the noise were observed and
that the presence of the observers could have rendered the
chicks more adaptable to changing situations than chicks
raised under natural conditions.
In another experiment by the same investigator
(Stadelman, 1958b) 2,400 crossbred meat chicks were exposed
to the same noise levels as described above. However, the
chicks were on a different schedule. The chicks were not
exposed to sound until they were 31 days old, at which time
they were exposed for 5 out of every 20 min for 4 hr. Chicks
were not exposed to the noise again until they reached 45
days old. The sound schedule above was then reinitiated,
with a 3 day break due to equipment failure, until they
reached 10 weeks old. There was no difference in weight
gain or feeding efficiency in chicks which were or were not
-------
30
exposed. One chick was trampled to death when noise was
initiated at 31 days and chicks ran to the end of the
cage away from the speaker where the sound level was 20 dB
less. The investigators hypothesized that during an actual
flyover, the sound would not be louder at one end of the
pens than the other; therefore, there would be no running
away from the sound source.
Seventy-eight broody broad breasted bronze turkeys
were exposed to recordings of low flying jet planes at 110
to 135 dB for 4 min in the third day of broodiness. This
sound treatment typically resulted in a cessation of
broodiness and a resumption of egg laying in a period of
time shorter than the time period prior to resumption of
egg laying in hens whose broodiness was interrupted by
injections of hormones such as progesterone. In addition,
hens injected with progesterone showed a reduction in egg
production during resumption of egg laying whereas the sound
treatment of broody hens produced no decrease in egg laying
when egg laying was resumed following sound stimulation
(Jeannoutot and Adams, 1961).
Embryonic chicks exposed to artificial "peeps" which
mimicked the "peeps" actually emitted by bobwhite quail
chicks were speeded up or slowed down as a function of the
rate of speed at which the peeps were emitted. Three or more
peeps per sec were instrumental in causing eggs to hatch
whereas less than 3 peeps per sec did not increase hatchability
in eggs (Vince, 1966).
-------
31
Daily sonic booms with SPLs of 0.75 to 1.25 Ib
per sq ft had no adverse effects on the hatchability of
chicken eggs exposed for 21 days during incubation (Bell,
1970).
One hundred twenty mink were exposed to simulated
sonic booms with peak overpressure in the housing shed
decreasing from 2.0 Ib per sq ft in the front of the shed
to 0.5 Ib per sq ft in the back of the shed in a smooth
gradient. A mean boom frequency of 485 Hz was used. Litter
sizes of boomed mink were larger than those born to
non-boomed mink. Although the first boom resulted in some
apparently curious emergence from nests, no racing, squealing,
or other evidence of panic was observed. Autopsies of kits
which died of natural causes disclosed no disorders which
could be traced to booming (Travis, Richardson, Minear, and
Bond, 1968).
Tests in 1967 in Minnesota showed little or no
response to 6 sonic booms in 10 days with reference to
mink bitch behavior during breeding, birth of kits, or
whelping. No cannibalistic behavior toward kits or any
other evidence of panic was observed (Bell, 1970).
Demonstrated Effects of Noise on Wildlife
Few data are available regarding demonstrated effects
of noise on wildlife and much of what is available lacks
specific information concerning noise intensity, spectrum,
and duration of exposure.
-------
32
Effects of Noise on Mammals
Sprock, Howard, and Jacob (1967) subjected caged
wild rats and mice to sounds of varying frequencies
(100-25,000 Hz) and SPL (60-140 dB). The only effects of
noise were decreased nesting near the sound source and
death at very high intensities. Recorded rat distress
calls were observed to reduce time spent by rats in the
area of the sound source.
Confined colonies of wild Norway rats and house mice
were exposed to pulsed ultrasound provided by an ultrasonic
generator for 76 and 81 days respectively (Greaves and Rowe,
1969). The frequency, intensity, pulse duration, and length
of time between pulses were not reported. After exposure,
the rodents displayed aversion to the sonic field and did
not re-enter the testing ground.
Cummings (1971) reported that underwater projections
of recorded killer-whale sounds caused migrating gray whales
to reverse their direction of movement. Similar recordings
were used by Fish and Vania (1971) to prevent movement of
white whales into an Alaskan river during the time that red
salmon fingerlings were migrating to the ocean. Pure tone
stimuli at 500 and 2,000 Hz and random noise in the band from
500 to 2,000 Hz were projected with the same intensity and
the same on-off times as the killer whale sounds. These
sounds also kept the white whales from moving up the river,
but since the whales had previously been exposed to the
-------
33
killer whale sounds no conclusions could be drawn about the
effectiveness of the tones and the random noise in themselves.
It has been shown that bats are resistant to jamming
(Griffin, McCue, and Grinnell, 1963). Apparently they orient
themselves so that noise and signal are received from
different angles. Signal maksing is greatest when noise
and signal are received from the same direction. A 60-dB
electric bell rung twice a day from 6 to 7 AM and from 8 to 9 PM
for 7 days resulted in histophysiological changes in the pineal
gland and in the supraoptic nucleus in hibernating bats (Miline,
Devercerski, and Krstic, 1969). Hill (1970) reported the use
of high frequency sound produced by 12 adjustable (4,000-
18,000 Hz) dog whistles to drive 500-1000 bats from a
nuclear power station. According to Crummett (1970), rabbits,
deer, and some species of birds were repelled by an acoustic
jamming signal (no details regarding the levels of the
acoustic signal were given) produced by Av-Alarm, a commercially
available noise unit. This unit produces 2 signals having
frequencies of 2,000 and 4,000 Hz, which are amplitude and
frequency modulated to maximize jamming efficiency relative
to the particular species under observation.
•Effects of Noise on Birds
Birds were most effectively repelled by high-intensity
(not defined) recordings of the species' own distress calls
(Langowski, Wight, and Jacobson, 1969; Messersmith, 1970;
-------
34
Wight, 1971). However, the same investigators reported
rapid adaptation even to species specific distress calls
when presented continuously. For maximum effectiveness,
intermittent presentation was suggested.
Pearson, Skon, and Corner (1967) reported that
residents of Denver, Colorado, were successful in dispersing
flocks of starlings by playing recordings of starling
distress calls for four evenings as the birds arrived at
roosts. The recordings consisted of repeated cycles of 30
sec of starling distress calls played for 12 rain. Partici-
pation in the dispersal effort of about one half of the
human population in urban roost areas appears to be sufficient
to disperse the birds to outlying areas where they are no
longer a nuisance. Habituation to the recordings was not
evident, although some residents played the recordings
continuously.
Thompson, Grant, Pearson, and Corner (1968a) subjected
groups of starlings to one of five different sounds and found
evidence that the birds perceived specific information through
differential auditory stimulation. The response measure was
heart rate, telemetrically recorded. Distress calls produced
by physically restrained starlings were fright producing as
evidenced by a high heart rate acceleration and slow habituation
to the sound. Escape calls emitted by other starlings
subjected to avian predators caused slight heart rate
acceleration and required two or three applications before
-------
35
habituation occurred. A human voice produced elevated
acceleration of heart rate and required two to three
applications before habituation occurred. Feeding calls
appeared to be "neutral" in that a negligible heart rate
acceleration occurred and habituation took place after an
average of 1.2 applications. The starlings, it appeared,
were able to discriminate among sound stimuli and react to
them in discrete adaptive ways.
Thompson, Grant, Pearson, and Corner (1968b) found
that the normal heart rates of wild starlings were elevated
during the day relative to night heart rate values. The
birds studied were housed individually in acoustical chambers
wherein normal day and night lighting regimes were simulated.
Starling distress calls were used as an acoustical stimulus.
Starlings are normally active during the day, and initial
heart rate responses to 10 sec of the auditory stimulus
during the day were significantly different from baseline
heart rate. Although the same stimulus produced an initial,
slow increase of heart rate at night, the decrease to baseline
was slower than during the day. When starlings were tested
individually, the initial response was lower and the decrease
in heart rate faster than when the birds were tested in groups
of five. Therefore, a "flock effect" seemed to be operating.
Block (1966) cited the use of tape-recorded distress
calls to disperse roosting starlings during three series of
treatments in 1962. The number of starlings was reduced from
-------
36
10,000 to a few hundred during the experiment. It was also
reported, however, that the roosts were subsequently
reinfested by a majority of the former resident population.
In the final report of a Committee on the Problem of
Noise (1963) it was reported that to scare birds a noise
level of approximately 85 dB SPL at the bird's ear was
required. Noise used consisted of loud bangs and birds'
distress calls. Birds adapted quickly to the noise and it
was recommended that in the case of distress calls they be
used no more than 2 min out of each 20-30 min and only during
the day.
A U. S. Department of the Interior report on
Environmental Impact of the Big Cypress Swamp Jetport (1969)
discussed B-720 jet flyovers at altitudes of 500 to 5,000
ft over two sites in the park. Observers reported that no
birds were flushed and no disturbances observed. Noise levels
ranged from SPLs of 75 dB (with plane at 3,000 ft) to 96.5 dB
(with plane at 500 ft). However, it was also reported that
few birds were in the area at the time and wind effects
interfered with proper sound level readings.
Effects of Noise on Fish
The effects of sound on fish have also been studied
(F A 0 Fisheries Rep. No. 76, 1968). It was noted in this
report that fishing vessel noise, especially sudden changes
in noise levels, can scare schooling fish. Both diving and
-------
37
changes in direction by fish were observed. Low frequency
noise appears to be the most frightening type of noise to fish.
Malar and Kleerekoper (1968) analyzed locomotor
patterns of single naive goldfish before and after exposure
to a 2,000-Hz sound at varying intensities, 30 cm from the
source. Locomotor patterns of the fish were affected
significantly above an intensity of 2.0 dynes/cm2 (s 80 dB SPL)
Aplin (1947) reported that underwater explosions for
seismic exploration kill some fish that have air bladders,
especially if they are hit broadside by the pressure wave.
These explosions clearly do not drive fish out of the area
and most species of fish are resistant to these explosions.
Fitch and Young (1948) also reported fish kills while
using explosives for seismic exploration. Deaths were caused
primarily by rupture of the air bladders of the fish. They
also mentioned that on at least three occasions explosions
killed California sea lions, and that occasionally cormorants
were killed while diving and California brown pelicans were
killed if their heads were below the surface during an
explosion.
Effects of Noise on Insects
The desirability of protecting stored grain from
destruction by insects has led to several studies directed
at the effects of noise on insects. Kirkpatrick and Harein
(1965) reported a 75% reduction in emerging Indian-meal moth
-------
38
adults following exposure during 4 days of the larval stage
to a 120 to 2,000-Hz sound (SPL unreported). Lindgren (1969)
used a variety of frequencies and intensities to study effects
of sound on Indian-meal moths and flour beetles. He used
pure tones of 70 Hz at 110 dB, 200 Hz at 113 dB, 1,700 Hz
at 134 dB, 2,000 Hz at 120 dB, 10,000 Hz at 90 dB, 20,000 Hz
at 71 dB, and 40,000 Hz with SPL not reported. He also used
variable frequencies of 180-2,000 Hz at 90-105 dB and 180-
2,000 Hz at 90-102 dB. He exposed the insects during the
latter part of the pupal stage and for 2 to 4 weeks as unmated
and/or mated adults. Very little, if any, effect was noted,
with the possible exception of mated flour beetles exposed
continuously to 40,000 Hz. Even though large numbers of
insects were used in many replications, effects of sound
exposure were difficult to demonstrate, because of variability
in egg production. The conflict between the data of Kirkpatrick
and Harein (1965) and of Lindgren (1969) possibly can be
explained by stimulation at different stages of the insects'
life cycles (larval vs. pupal and adult respectively) as well
as by differences in the sound itself.
Tsao (1969) reported that Indian-meal moths ceased
moving when stimulated by loudspeakers, bells, and whistles.
He noted some evidence of sex-related differences in the
range of 2,000-40,000 Hz. Cutkomp (1969) reported that a
72-hr exposure to a pulsed sound, having a frequency of
50,000 Hz, with 25 pulses per sec at 65 dB SPL, reduced
longevity from 20 to 10 days in corn earworm moths and
-------
39
Mediterranean flour moths. The sound was an aversive
stimulus in that the insects were observed to move away
from the sound source. In addition to longevity effects,
the mean number of eggs per female was reduced 59% in the
treated relative to the untreated group. Arkhepov (1969)
reported that lethal effects of ultrasonic waves occurred
with extensive exposure to high intensities (undefined)
which resulted in thermal and physiochemical changes in
organs and tissues of various animals.
In a progress report, Shulov (1969) described effects
of pure tones on locusts. Although tones of 4,000 Hz at
80 dB SPL had little effect on feeding behavior, tones of
1,000, 4,000, and 10,000 Hz elicited a flying response on
more than two out of three trials.
Honeybees cease moving in response to certain sounds.
Frings and Little (1957) reported that frequencies between
300 and 1,000 Hz with intensities ranging from 107 to 119 dB SPL
produced cessation of movement for up to 20 min. No habituation
was observed although the study was continued for 2 months.
Experiments by Little (1959) demonstrated that stimulation
with sounds having frequencies from 200 to 2,000 Hz produced
cessation of movement in honeybees. Vibration of antennae
did not produce the effect, but vibration of any of the
three pairs of legs produced the "freezing response."
Frings and Frings (1959) found that certain sounds
attracted swarms of male midges. Frequencies of 125 Hz at
13-18 dB above the ambient noise level produced agitated
-------
40
circling of the insects with aggregation around the sound
source.
The above studies of wildlife show that intense
sound is an aversive stimulus for most organisms studied.
Sound, under somewhat longer exposure conditions, appears
capable of inducing measurable physiological and behavioral
changes in some organisms. Commercial use is now being made
of acoustic devices to repel certain undesirable animals;
it is logical to assume sound may also repel desirable
animals as well. Insects also seem to be significantly
influenced by sound, something to consider because insects
are important items in many animals1 diets and significant
links in the food chain. Apparently an insect's life span
and reproductive capacity may be affected by exposure to
certain sounds. These findings certainly suggest caution
should be exercised in allowing sound intrusion into animal
habitats, not only because of possible direct effects on the
animals themselves but also on items in the food chain of
the animal.
Suspected Effects of Noise on Wildlife
Although there is a limited body of literature dealing
directly with the effects of noise on wildlife, possible
effects can be inferred from information dealing with:
(1) signal production and communication; (2) auditory ranges
for different species; (3) direct effects of noise that have
-------
41
been demonstrated in laboratory or domestic animals, and
(4) incidental observations of responses to noise in wild
animals. The suspected effects can be categorized as either
interference with signals or direct effects on the animal.
Interference with Signals
Thorpe (1969) discusses the significance of bird
vocalizations and reports that the various calls convey
many types of information such as distress, danger or alarm,
warnings about territorial boundaries, recognition of a mate
or of young, and presence of food. Increases in background
noise can mask these signals and thus potentially influence
such processes as spacing to obtain optimum population
densities in an area, nesting and care of young, and
detection of prey or escape from a predator.
Dooling, Mulligan, and Miller (in press) reported
that the common canary has its greatest auditory sensitivity
to the range of frequencies from 2,000 to 4,000 Hz, which is
also the range of frequencies maximally represented in its
songs. If this finding is representative, it would permit
prediction of which species would be most likely to be affected
by a noise having defined frequency characteristics. They
discussed the relative importance of range of sensitivity,
thresholds, frequency discrimination, and sound localization
and concluded that the auditory capacity that is most essential
to the organism will have the greatest representation in the
-------
42
auditory system, at the expense of the others. That is, a
capacity such as hearing sensitivity would be greatest in
animals that rely heavily on auditory signals to survive
(e.g., nocturnal predators and nocturnal prey) whereas
frequency resolution would be more important to an animal
that utilizes intra-specific signals to recognize and call
a mate or to stake out a territory.
Potash (in press) reported that male Japanese quail,
isolated from their mates, increased the frequency of their
"separation calls" when ambient noise levels were increased
from 36 dB A to 63 dB A. The increase in the frequency
of the calls improved the signal to noise ratio. Such an
increase should make detection and recognition of the signal
and localization of the caller more likely. The ultimate
significance to the quail is determined by whether the mate
responds to the "separation call" before a predator does.
In attempting to analyze possible signal-masking
effects of noise on animals, it is important to remember
that different species are able to detect "sounds" that man
cannot hear (e.g., the dog's response to the "silent" dog
whistle). Sewell (1970) reported that rodents both emit and
respond to ultrasonic frequencies ranging up to 40,000 Hz
or even to 70,000 or 80,000 Hz in special cases. Pye (1970)
reported the production of ultrasonic (i.e., above 20,000 Hz)
signals by certain grasshoppers and moths, as well as from
many kinds of rodents and bats. However, the audible range
of most birds and reptiles lies well within man's audible
range (Konishi, 1970; Manley, 1970).
-------
43
Interference with signals has sometimes been used by
man in attempts to control unwanted species. A commercially
available device that broadcasts an acoustic jamming signal
was described by Crummett (1970). The signal consisted of
two different frequencies, at about 2,000 Hz and 4,000 Hz,
which were frequency and amplitude modulated to provide a
signal said to be compatible with species' specific neural
time constants, thus maximizing jamming efficiency and
minimizing adaptation. In a progress report, Messersmith
(1970) described results of tests using acoustic signals to
control crop depredations by birds. A commercially available
device was used on blackbird flocks feeding on grain and
recordings of starling distress calls were used on starlings
feeding on grapes. Both "...were temporarily effective when
used at high volumes and aimed directly at the birds." Diehl
(1969) reported that a 22,000 Hz sound prevented new
populations of rodents from entering the area protected by
the sound, although it was necessary to remove resident
populations of rodents by trapping or poisoning. It is
possible that similar signal interference effects were
produced by the "hum" of power lines which were reported to
disturb reindeer and to contribute to difficulties in
herding (Klein, 1971). The use of recorded distress calls
also represents attempts to interfere with signals, and
thus control certain unwanted species (e.g., Block, 1966;
Fitzwater, 1970; Frings and Frings, 1957; Frings and Jumber,
1954; Pearson, Skon, and Corner, 1967).
-------
44
Direct Effects of Noise
It is very possible that many of the noise-induced
physiological and behavioral changes that have been
demonstrated in laboratory animals could also occur in
wild animals. Of course, it is very unlikely that wild
animals will be subjected to noises intense enough or of
sufficient duration to produce permanent hearing losses.
However, chronic exposure to moderate noise levels could
produce some hearing loss or influence processes that are
hormonally regulated due to noise-induced stress responses.
Until studies are performed in which effects due to exposure
to noise are separated from effects due to capture, handling,
or other kinds of interference, these answers will not be
known.
Sonic booms, and especially the threat of the SST's
"super-boom," generated extensive speculation about their
effects on animals. Davis (1967) described his observations
of some ravens in Wales. When the boom occurred, three or
four ravens that had been cruising in the area were rapidly
joined by others. Within 5 min approximately 70 ravens
were agitatedly circling; 30 min later about 30 ravens were
still flying in the area. Shaw (1970) reported that adult
condors were very sensitive to noise and abandoned their
nests when disturbed by blasting, sonic booms or even
traffic noise. The most deleterious effects attributed to
sonic booms were recent mass hatching failures of sooty terns
-------
45
in Dry Tortugas, Florida, discussed by Bell (1970) and
Henkin (1969). Following 50 years of breeding success,
99% of the terns' eggs failed to hatch in 1969. Extremely
low-altitude supersonic flights over the area may have
driven birds off their nests and damaged the uncovered eggs.
Graham (1969) reported observations of destruction of pelican
eggs by gulls when white pelicans were driven off their nests
by sonic booms. Graham also said that a fisherman described
the reaction of fish to sonic boom as "similar to those
dynamited in a fishpond." (Author's Note: with the impedance
mismatch between air and water this would seem an obvious
impossibility and appear to lend credence to allegations
made regarding the veracity of fishermen). Bell (1970), in
a recent review of animals' responses to sonic booms, described
only minimal reactions to sonic booms among domestic animals,
ranch mink, and wild animals. The only clearly detrimental
effect that he discussed was the Dry Tortugas sooty terns'
hatching failure. A startle response to a sonic boom was
the typical reaction that he reported.
Clearly, the animals that will be directly affected
by nQise are those that are capable of responding to sound
energy, and especially the animals that rely on auditory
signals to find mates, stake out territories, recognize
young, detect and locate prey, and evade predators. These
functions could be critically affected even if the animals
appear to be completely adapted to the noise (i.e., they
-------
46
show no behavioral response such as startle or avoidance).
Ultimately it does not matter to the animal whether these
vital processes are affected through signal-masking, hearing
loss, or effects on the neuro-endocrine system. Even though
only those animals capable of responding to sound could be
directly affected by noise, competition for food and space
in an ecological niche appropriate to an animal's needs,
results in complex interrelationships among all the animals
in an ecosystem. Consequently, even animals that are not
responsive to or do not rely on sound signals for important
functions could be indirectly affected when noise affects
animals at some other point in the ecosystem. The "balance of
nature" can be disrupted by disturbing this balance at even
one point. We would do well to have some knowledge of what
to expect from noise pollution in wildlife habitats before
it produces its effects.
Discussion
It is now time for an overview of the literature
found and a discussion of what it might mean. The best
documented, most clearly proven effect of high intensity
noise exposure on hearing organisms is that of damage to
the auditory structure with a resulting loss of hearing.
Now, assuming that the levels of noise produced are
sufficient in an area to produce a loss of hearing in a given
animal, what are the likely or possible consequences of
-------
47
such a decrease in auditory sensitivity? First, it should
be noted that animals differ in their audible range and the
audible range for all animals is not known. Anticipated
consequences of a loss of hearing ability are many. The
prey-predator situation could be drastically changed. The
animal that depends on its ears to locate prey could
starve if auditory acuity decreased, the animal that
depends on hearing to detect and avoid its predators could
be killed. Reception of auditory mating signals could be
diminished and affect reproduction. (Masking of these
signals by noise in an area could also produce the same
effect). Detection of cries of the young by the mother
could be hindered, leading to increased rates of infant
mortality or decreased survival rates. Distress or warning
calls may not be received, again significantly affecting
survival.
Considerably less assurance is possible in discussing
the likely consequences of non-auditory effects. For one
thing, at best some of the effects are small, many are not
clear cut and reproducible under precisely controlled
conditions, and some are only suggested. But assuming that
there are non-auditory effects, as reported, an attempt will
be made to anticipate some of their consequences.
The reports of significant changes in.reproductive
organs (testes and ovaries) and sexual function (estrus)
should be viewed as possible serious threats to the animal's
-------
48
reproductive capacity. If chronic exposure to sound pressure
levels expected to result from known or projected sound
sources could be shown to produce such effects, there can
be little doubt about the danger to the species. Studies
to verify and elaborate such effects should be made as soon
as possible.
The literature describing audiogenic seizures
following noise exposure, and possibly demonstrating
increased susceptibility to audiogenic seizures in fetuses
exposed to sound during critical stages of pregnancy can
almost be dismissed summarily. First, audiogenic seizures
can be induced in only certain strains of animals of a
particular species. It is exceedingly difficult to induce
seizures to acoustic stimuli in animals other than genetic
strains known to be susceptible. There are references to
such seizures in isolated individuals of various species
including man but they are apparently rare. Thus we
dismiss this effect as one meriting little or no further
concern.
A number of physiological measures have revealed
noise-induced changes in a variety of animal species.
Apparently noise can affect the hypothalamic-hypophyseal
system, producing alterations in electrolyte excretion,
circulating blood levels of eosinophils, and release of
catecholamines and steroids from the adrenals. Such
changes can affect animals' abilities to withstand additional
stress, and influence such hormonally-regulated functions as
-------
49
mating and reproduction. Obviously these effects could
have serious consequences for the species as well as for
the individual organism. Sophisticated equipment and
techniques will be necessary to obtain measures of such
changes in wild animals in their natural habitat, if at all
possible, so that noise-induced changes will not be
confounded or masked by changes due to captivity and restraint,
The possible consequences of some of the behavioral
effects noted are difficult to evaluate. Decreased
exploratory behavior, immobility, and things of like nature
could have significant consequences if they occur under
conditions of chronic stimulation and do not adapt out
over time. Any panic type behavior such as piling up or
huddling, could well lead to problems for survival of an
animal. Also, avoidance behavior could restrict access to
food or shelter and therefore adversely affect an animal's
or even a species' chances for survival.
In general then, few if any of the reported or
suggested effects of noise on animals would benefit the
animal or increase his chances for survival. On the other
hand, some of them might possibly lead to his death or
decrease his chances of survival.
Suggestions for Research
In examining the literature on the effects of noise
on animals in general and on wildlife in particular, it is
-------
50
extremely difficult to find where to begin in detailing
needs for research. There are at least two reasons for
this. With the exception of the large, well done body of
literature exploring the effects of noise upon auditory
structures and hearing, well controlled, well designed
experiments substantiating non-auditory effects of noise
are rare. In the case of wildlife, such studies are
virtually nonexistent.
It is apparent then, that at least two different
concomitant programs of research are indicated in order to
fill the large gaps in our scientific understanding of the
nature and extent of the effects of noise upon wildlife.
A thorough, meticulous, and precise program systematically
studying the effects of long term low level "chronic" noise
exposure should be initiated to eliminate the uncertainties,
ambiguities, and even conflicts in reports of non-auditory
physiological, metabolic, sexual, and other physical effects
of noise. It could well be that effects noted with "acute"
exposure might not be observed under conditions of "chronic"
exposure. It should not be necessary to add that the
intensity, spectrum, and duration of exposure should be
precisely set and controlled. Such a program should consider
the auditory sensitivity of the specific animal studied and
tailor acoustic stimulation to maximize the likelihood of
results.
Concurrent with careful examination of physiological
and other physical and chemical effects of noise on animals
-------
51
should be a program of research devoted to the study of
effects of noise on true wildlife, existing in their native
habitat under normal conditions. Such a program would have
many aspects and would of necessity require a multi-disciplinary
approach. An adequate approach to the problem would entail
study of many factors. Census counts of animals in their
natural habitat would be necessary as well as detailed
studies of their normal blood chemistry, reproductive
functions, and any other aspects that there is reason to
believe may be affected by changes in ambient noise exposure
levels. A survey of the habitat should be made in depth,
i.e., over long enough periods of time so that sufficient
knowledge is amassed regarding infrequently occurring but
relevant events. Once sufficient knowledge is available
about the environment and its inhabitants, the sound levels
in the environment should be systematically varied and the
effects of such changes on the population compared with
pre-change data for all of the levels considered. The
changes in level, for the sake of validity, could well be
due to sound one might expect from technological advances,
i.e., aircraft noise, other transportation noise, or industrial
noise. Such a course would at least provide face validity
for the results. Such changes in level should be maintained
for a considerable length of time to provide "chronic" rather
than "acute" data. A minimum time course for a study of this
nature, in the field, and under the conditions outlined above,
would be 3 to 4 years. For some types of animals in some
-------
52
places more time would be needed. At the same time in field
studies, efforts should be made to determine whether the
animals leave the area upon stimulation by higher levels
of sound, and if so, do they later return, or is their
place taken by other animals of the same, or other species.
Other relevant questions to be answered would include, does
the animal density level in the area increase, decrease, or
remain the same? Does the general health, weight, etc. of
the animal change? A study of predator-prey relations might
also be valuable, to determine possible noise related but
unobvious causes for changes in the population. Certainly
the food supply of animals is important and if the data
suggesting noise effects on insects were correct, the food
source of some of the other animals in an area could change
and thus be responsible for subsequent changes in the animal
population. An essential part of a research program such as
that suggested above would be to provide a control study area
contiguous to the experimental areas and as similar as
possible in every way. This kind of design is mandatory
because of the wide normal variations in the population
density of a great many animals. If unaccounted for, these
cyclic normal fluctuations in animal populations might
completely mask any real effects, if any, from the noise.
An important consideration in planning research should
be the frequencies to be investigated, as well as the sound
levels. Frequencies that are inaudible to humans (ultrasound)
are well within the audible range of many animal species.
-------
53
Aquatic mammals, bats, and rodents, emit cries having very
high frequency components, which are considered to play
an important role in communication. Potential noise sources
must be analyzed to determine what ultrasonic (to humans)
as well as what audible frequencies will be produced, and
the impact of the entire range of expected frequencies on
wildlife must be investigated.
Another area where research effort would seem to be
justified and indicated would be that of effects of noise
on various domestic animals. There are clear suggestions
of possible influences of noise on sexual function, on the
fetus and mother during pregnancy, on weight gain and
utilization of food. In view of the economic importance of
cattle, chickens, turkeys, sheep, and the many other domestic
animals it is clear that research in this area might prove of
value. Research of this general type is currently underway
at the Institute National Reserche Agronomique, Jouy En Josas,
France (personal communication, Dr. R. G. Busnel, INRA).
For example, a problem they are currently considering is
how to deafen young chickens cheaply and safely. They have
evidence which leads them to suspect deaf chickens might
gain more weight from the same amount of feed, presumably
because they were less distracted by the noises of the
other chickens around them, were less nervous, or perhaps
had lower activity levels.
It is exceedingly difficult to assign priorities to
the research suggested above. When all of it is necessary
-------
54
and should be done in order to provide the complete
information essential for decisions, all that can be done
by way of assigning priorities is to point out that possibly
more information of immediate and practical use could be
gleaned from field studies than from laboratory studies. If
conducted on a sufficiently large scale and encompassing a
large enough scope, vital information regarding the effects
of noise on wildlife could be secured in 3 or 4 years. It
would still be required that concurrent laboratory studies
be conducted, however, in order to obtain information that
could only be secured through laboratory research.
-------
55
Appendix*
The literature search can generally be divided into
a search by manual, computer, personal interview, and
written communication means. To assure depth of coverage,
the literature of medicine, agriculture, conservation,
and science was searched.
Manual searches were conducted in the public catalogs
of Memphis State University Library (John Brister Library),
University of Tennessee Medical Library (Mooney Memorial
Library), and other libraries listed in the source biblio-
graphy. A relatively small number of books and monographs
was found in the catalogs. A comprehensive manual search
on the abstracts, indexes, and bibliographies listed in
the source bibliography was carried out.
It is the desire of everyone who has worked on this
search to thank the many people who helped in any way,
especially those who gave time for personal interviews and
correspondence.
*The literature search was conducted under Contract No. 68-04-0024
from the Environmental Protection Agency under the direction of
Dr. John L. Fletcher, Professor of Psychology, and Dr. Michael J.
Harvey, Associate Professor of Biology. Wilma P. Hendrix
compiled the source bibliography and served as library consultant.
The information was obtained and analyzed by June W. Blackwell,
Virginia M. Norton, Clara B. Davis, and Richard L. Taylor.
-------
56
Library Catalogs Searched
Department of the Interior Library
H. W. Calhoun Medical Library (Administrative Headquarters
for the Southeastern Regional Medical Program)
John Brister Library, Memphis State University
Library of Congress
Library of the National Academy of Science
Mooney Memorial Library, University of Tennessee Medical Units
National Library of Medicine
Smithsonian Institution, Library of Natural History
Robert W. Woodruff, Library for Advanced Studies, Emory
University
Computer Searches
Alabama MEDLARS Center
The University of Alabama
Medical Center Library
Birmingham, Alabama 35233
Effects of Noise Pollution on Wildlife, January, 1964 -
December, 1968.
Key Words: Animal kingdom - invertebrates
Animal kingdom - vertebrates
Acoustic trauma
Acoustics
Audiometry
Auditory perception
Auditory threshold
Hearing
Hearing tests
Noise
Pitch discrimination
Sound
Ultrasonics
Effects of Sound on Wildlife, January, 1969 - July, 1971.
Key Words: Animal kingdom - invertebrates
-------
57
Computer Searches (continued).
Animal kingdom - vertebrates
Acoustic trauma
Acoustics
Auditory perception
Hearing
Hearing tests
Noise
Sound
Library Reference Service, Current and on going research
Conservation Library Center
Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife
Denver Public Library
1357 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80203
Noise Pollution and its Effects on Wildlife
North Carolina Science and Technology Research Center (STRC)
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
Biological Abstracts, 1959 - June 1971
Key words taken from B.A.S.I.C. Keyword and
Subject Index
Preliminary searches were conducted on each of the
following:
The NASA Information File
Department of Defense File
Engineering Index
Chemical Abstracts
The results of the preliminary searches were such that
the STRC engineers advised that no further attempts be
made to search these files for materials on noise and
its effects on wildlife
Science Information Exchange
Smithsonian Institution
A National Registry of Research in Progress
Madison National Bank Building
1730 M. Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Effects of Noise, Ultrasonics, and Other Sound
Frequencies on Wildlife and Insects
-------
58
Computer Searches (continued).
Aircraft Noise and Sonic Boom Studies: Effects on
People, Animals and Buildings
Generation and Propagation of Noise
Development and Design of Low Noise Aircraft Engines
Noise in the Vicinity of Airports
Noise Abatement Studies
Abstracts, Indexes, and Catalogs Searched
Abstracts of World Medicine. London, British Medical
Association, 1947 - May 1971.
Agricultural Index. New York, H. W. Wilson, 1950 -
1964. (Ceased publication)
Armed Forces Medical Library Catalog. U. S. Army Medical
Library, 1950-54.
Bibliographic Index. New York, H. W. Wilson, 1950 -
June 1971.
Bibliography of Agriculture. Department of Agriculture.
Washington, D. C., 1942 - June 1971.
Biological Abstracts. Philadelphia, Pa., 1950-1971.
Biological and Agricultural Index. New York, H. W. Wilson,
1964 - June 1971.
Bioresearch Titles. Philadelphia, Pa., Bioscience Information
Service of Biological Abstracts, 1965 - 1967.
Bioresearch Index. Philadelphia, Pa., Bioscience Information
Service of Biological Abstracts, 1967 - May 1971.
Books in Print. New York, Bowker, 1970-71. (One year)
British Abstracts of Medical Science. London, Pergamon Press,
for Biological and Medical Abstracts, 1954 - 1956.
Catalog of Grants. Washington, D. C., National Science
Foundation, 1970 - June 1971.
Cumulative Book Index. New York, H. W. Wilson, 1950 -
June 1971
Cumulative Veterinary Index; a selected list of publications
from the American literature. Arvada, Colorado,
Index Incorporated, 1970 - May 1971.
-------
59
Current Contents - Life Sciences. Philadelphia, Institute
for Scientific Information, 1958 - June 9, 1971
DSH Abstracts. American Speech and Hearing Association and
Gallaudet College. Washington, Deafness, Speech,
and Hearing Publisher, 1960 - June, 1971.
Dissertation Abstracts. Ann Arbor, Michigan, University
Microfilms, 1952 - June, 1971.
Environmental Lav Abstracts. Oak Ridge, Tenn., Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, 1955 - February, 1971.
Excerpta Medica, Herengracht, Amsterdam.
Oto-, Rhino-, Laryngology,
Section XI, Vol. 1 (1948) - Vol. 24, No. 6
(June, 1971)
General Pathology and Pathological Anatomy,
Section V, VoTT"! (1948; - vol. 24, No. 4
(April, 1971)
Public Health, Social Medicine, and Hygiene,
Section XVII, Vol. 1 (1955) - VolT 17, No. 4
(April, 1971)
Index Catalogue of the Library of the Surgeon General's
Office, United States Army. Washington, Superintendent
of Documents. Series, 1880-1961.
Index Medicus
Quarterly Cumulative Index to Current Medical
Literature. AMA, Chicago, 1916-26.
Quarterly Cumulative Index Medicus. AMA, Chicago,
1927-1956.
Current List of Medical Literature. AMA, Chicago,
1950-1959.
Current List of Medical Literature. Army Medical
Library, Washington, (Vols. 19-36), 1950-1959.
Index Medicus. American Medical Association,
Chicago, 1960 - July 1971.
International Abstracts of Biological Sciences. London,
Pergamon Press, 1956 - May 1970.
Monthly Catalog. Washington, Superintendent of Documents,
1950 - May 1970.
-------
60
National Library of Medicine Catalog. Washington, D. C.,
National Institute of Health, Public Health Service,
Health, Education and Welfare Department, 1955 - 1965.
National Library of Medicine Current Catalog. Washington,
D. C., National Institute of Health, Public Health
Service, Health, Education and Welfare Department,
1966 - 1970.
Pandex. New York, Pandex, Inc., 1967 - 1968 (Microfiche)
(Published since 1969 by CCM Information Science
Incorporated, New York)
Pollution Abstracts. W. Farmer. La Jolla, California,
1970 - June 1971.
Psychological Abstracts. American Psychological Association,
Incorporated, Washington, D. C., 1950 - June 1971.
Public Affairs Information Service. Bulletin of the Public
Affairs Information Service. New York, 1950 -
December 1970.
Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. New York, H. W.
Wilson, 1950 - May 1971.
Science Citation Index. Philadelphia, Institute for
Scientific. Information, 1961 - May 1971.
U. S. Government Research Reports. Department of Commerce.
Clearing House for Federal Scientific and Technical
Information, Washington, D. C.:
U. S. Government Research Reports, 1954 - 1964.
Government-wide Index to Federal Research and
Development Reports, 1965 - 1970.
U. S. Government Research and Development Reports,
January 1971 - May 1971.
Government Reports Index, June 1971. (one issue, name
of publication changed)
Wildlife Abstracts. Washington, D. C., Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1954 - December 1970.
Zoological Record. London. The Zoological Society of
London, 1950 - May 1971.
-------
61
Bibliographies Searched
Acoustical Society of America. Report of the 80th Annual
Meeting. November, 1970, Houston, Texas.
Advances in Ecological Research. New York, Academic Press,
1962 - June 1971.
Advances in Environmental Sciences. New York, Wiley -
Interscience, Vol. 1 - 1969 - June 1971.
Environment. St. Louis, Missouri, Committee for Environmental
Information. Vol. 1, No. 1, January-February, 1961.
Environmental Research. New York, Academic Press, Inc.,
Vol. 1, No. 1, June, 1967 - June 1971.
Environmental Science and Technology. Washington, D. C.,
American Chemical Society Publications, Vol. 1,
No. 1, January 1967 - June 1971.
Heinemann, Jack M. Effects of Sonic Booms on the Hatchability
of Chicken Eggs and Other Studies of Aircraft-Generated
Noise Effects on Animals. TRW Life Sciences Center.
Hazleton Laboratories, Inc., 1965.
International Civil Aviation Organization. Sonic Boom Panel,
Supplement. Montreal, 12-21 October, 1970.
pp. 1-55/1-59. Doc. 8894, SBP/II.
National Academy of Science. National Research Council.
Committee on SST - Sonic Boom, Subcommittee on
Animal Response. An Annotated Bibliography on
Animal Response to Sonic Booms and Other Loud
Sounds. Washington, D. C., 1970.
Rice, C. G. and G. M. Lilley. University of Southampton.
Report in five parts on the sonic boom. Prepared for
the OECD Conference on Sonic Boom Research. Part 4, 1969,
Science and Citizen. St. Louis, Missouri, Committee for
Environmental Information, Vol. I-X, 1958 - 1968.
United Nations. Food and Agricultural Organization of the
United Nations. Report on a Meeting for Consultations
On Underwater Noise, Rome, Italy, December, 1968. (1970)
U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public
Health Section. Reports on the Epidemology and
Surveillance of Injuries. No. FY 71-RI. The Role
of Noise as a Physiologic Stressor. pp. 1-59, 1969.
-------
62
Persons Providing Materials,
Information, and Assistance
Bible, Senator Alan. (Nevada), Chairman of the Subcommittee
on Parks and Recreation Hearings on Alterrain Vehicles
on Public Lands.
Bond, James. Research Animal Scientist, Animal Science
Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture,
BeItsvilie, Maryland.
Carlisle, John G., Jr. Associate Marine Biologist, Department
of Fish and Game, Marine Resources Region, 350 Golden
Shore, Long Beach, California 90802.
Chatham, George N. Analyst in Environmental Policy, Environ-
mental Policy Division, Legislative Reference Service,
Library of Congress.
Cope, Oliver. Fisheries Research, Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior, Washington, D. C.
Crummett, James G. Av-Alarm Corporation, 960 N. San Antonio Rd.,
Suite 170, Los Altos, California 94022
Curtis, William H. The Wilderness Society, Washington, D. C.
Fish, James F. Naval Undersea Research and Development Center,
Department of the Navy, San Diego, California 92132.
Foster, Charles R. Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street,
S. W., Washington, D. C.
Gales, Robert S. Naval Undersea Research and Development
Center (The Listening Group), San Diego, California 92132.
Gates, Doyle. Manager, Marine Resources Region, California
Department of Fish and Game, 350 Golden Shore,
Long Beach, California 90802.
Konishi, Masakazu. Associate Professor, Department of Biology,
Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08540.
Lemke, Darrell H. Coordinator of Library Programs, Consortium
of Universities, Washington, D. C.
Lipscomb, David M. Associate Professor of Audiology and
Speech Pathology, Director, University of Tennessee
Noise Study Laboratory, Knoxville, Tennessee 37916.
-------
63
Marler, Peter. Professor of Animal Behavior, Department of
Animal Behavior, Rockefeller University, 66th Street
and York Avenue, New York, New York 10021.
Miller, James D. Head, Psychology Laboratories, Research
Department, Central Institute for the Deaf, 818 South
Euclid, St. Louis, Missouri 63110.
Nixon, Charles W. Aerospace Medical Research Lab, 6570
AMRL (BBA), Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433.
Norris, Kenneth S. Director, The Oceanic Institute, Makapuu
Oceanic Center, Waimanalo, Hawaii 96795.
Potash, Lawrence. Psychology Department, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta Canada.
Segal, Migdon. Analyst in Environmental Policy, Environmental
Policy Division, Legislative Reference Service,
Library of Congress.
Shaw, Elmer. Analyst in Environmental Policy, Environmental
Policy Division, Legislative Reference Service, Library
of Congress, Washington, D. C.
Taylor, John P. National Academy of Sciences, National
Research Council, 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20418.
Thompson, R. D. U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
Denver, Colorado.
Tombaugh, Larry. National Science Foundation, Washington, D. C.
Welch, Bruce L. Friends of Psychiatric Research, Incorporated,
52 Wade Ave., Baltimore, Maryland 21228.
Organizations Providing
Materials, Information, and Assistance
Aircraft Noise Abatement. Federal Aviation Administration,
U. S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D. C.
Agricultural Research Center. U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Beltsville, Maryland.
Bell Aerospace Company. Buffalo, New York.
-------
64
Bell Laboratories. 600 Mountain Ave., Murray Hill, New Jersey
07974.
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U. S. Department of the Interior, Rt. 1, Box 121,
Cambridge, Maryland 21613. .
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. U. S. Department
of the Interior, Washington, D. ..C.
Citizens League Against the Sonic Boom, 19 Appleton Street,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138.
Citizens for a Quieter City, Inc. The American Red Cross
Building, 150 Amsterdam Ave., New York, New York 10023.
Defenders of Wildlife. 2000 N Street, N. W., Washington,
D. C. 20036.
Environmental Planning Division. Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, D. C.
Environmental Policy Division. Legislative Reference Service,
Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.
Federal Aviation Administration. U. S. Department of
Transportation, 800 Independence Avenue, Washington,
D. C. 20590.
Langley Research Center. U. S. National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Hampton, Virginia.
National Academy of Engineering. Washington, D. C.
National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council,
Washington, D. C.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Environmental
Data Service, U. S. Department of Commerce, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
National Science Foundation. Washington, D. C.
National Wildlife Federation. 1412 Sixteenth Street, N. W.,
Washington, D. C. 20036.
Office of Environmental Quality. Federal Aviation Administration,
U. S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D. C.
Office of Noise Abatement. Research Division, U. S. Department
of Transportation, Washington, D. C.
-------
65
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S.
Department of the Interior, Laurel, Maryland 20810.
Urban Transportation Center. Consortium of Universities,
Washington, D. C.
Wildlife Management Institute. Wire Building, Washington, D. C.
20005.
The Wildlife Society. 3900 Wisconsin Ave., N. W., Suite S-176,
Washington, D. C. 20016.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Woods Hole, Massachusetts
02543.
-------
66
References
Anthony, A. and Acker man, E. Effects of noise on the blood
eosinophil levels and adrenals of mice. Journal of
the Acoustical Society of America, 1955, 27, 1144-
__
Anthony, A. and Acker man, E. Biological effects of noise
in vertebrate animals. Wright Air Development Center,
WADA Technical Report 57-647, November, 1957, 118 pp.
Anthony, A., Acker man, E. and Lloyd, J. A. Noise stress in
laboratory rodents. I. Behavioral and endocrine
response of mice, rats, and guinea pigs. Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America, 1959, 31,
Anthony, A. and Harclerode, J. E. Noise stress in laboratory
rodents. II. Effects of chronic noise exposures on
sexual performance and reproductive function of
guinea pigs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 1959, 31, 1437^13415.
Aplin, J. A. The effect of explosives on marine life.
California Fish and Game, 1947, 33(1), 23-30.
Arkhepov, N. S., et al. Biological effect of high-frequency
ultrasound. U. S. Department of Commerce, Joint
Publication and Research Service, JPRS 47378,
1969, 10 p.
Beagley, H. A. Acoustic trauma in the guinea pig. I.
E lee trophysio logy and history. Acta Oto-Lar yngologica ,
1965a, 60, 437-451.
Beagley, H. A. Acoustic trauma in the guinea pig. II.
Electron microscopy including the morphology of all
junctions in the organ of Corti. Acta Oto-Lary ngologica ,
1965b, 60, 479-495.
Bell, W. B. Animal response to sonic boom. Paper presented
at the 80th meeting of the Acoustical Society of
America, Houston, November, 1970.
Benitez, L. D. , Eldredge, D. H. , and Templer, J. W.
Electr ©physiological correlates of behavioral
temporary threshold shifts in chinchilla. Paper
presented at the 80th meeting of the Acoustical
Society of America, Houston, November, 1970.
-------
67
Block, B. C. Williarasport Pennsylvania tries starling
control with distress calls. Pest Control, 1966,
34, 24-30.
Bond, J. Responses of man and lower animals to acoustical
stimuli. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service, Animal and Poultry Husbandry
Research Branch, Beltsville, Maryland, October 1, 1956.
Bond, J. Effects of noise on the physiology and behavior of
farm animals. Physiological Effects of Noise,
B. L. Welch and A. S. Welch (Eds.), 1570, New York:
Plenum Press, 295-306.
Bond, J., Winchester, C. F., Campbell, L. E. and J. C. Webb.
Effects of loud sounds on the physiology and behavior
of swine. U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service Technical Bulletin,
No. 1280.
Borisova, M. K. The effect of noise on the conditioned reflex
activity of animals. Zhurnal Vysshei Deiatel* nosti im
1. P. Pavlova, 1960, 10, 971-97eT
Brzezinska, Z. Changes in acetylcholine concentration in
cerebral tissue in rats repeatedly exposed to the
action of mechanical vibration. Acta Physiologica
Polonica, 1968, 19, 810-815.
Casady, R. B. and Lehmann, R. P. Responses of farm animals
to sonic booms. Sonic boom experiments at Edwards
Air Force Base. National Sonic Boom Evaluation Office
Interim Report, NS BE-1-67 of 28 July 1967. Annex H.
Casady, R. B. and Lehmann, R. P. Responses of farm animals
to sonic booms, Sonic boom experiments at Edwards
Air Force Base. Annex H. U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service, Animal Husbandry Research
Division, Beltsville, Maryland, 20 September 1966.
Committee on the Problem of Noise. Final Report. Presented
to Parliament July 1963. London: Her Majesty's
Stationery Office, Cmnd. 2056, 19s bd. net.
Conti, A. and Borgo, M. Behaviour of cytochrome oxidase
activity in the cochlea of the guinea pig following
acoustic stimulation. Acta Oto-Laryngologica,
1964, 58, 321-330.
Coveil, W. P. Histologic changes in the organ of Corti with
intense sound. Journal of Comparative Neurology,
1953, 99, 43-59.
-------
68
Crummett, J. G. Acoustic information denial as a means for
vertebrate pest control. Paper presented at the 80th
meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Houston,
November, 1970.
Cummings, W. C. Gray whales avoid sounds of killer whales.
Fishery Bulletin, July, 1971 (in press).
Cutkomp, L. jv. Effects of ultrasonic energy on storage
insects. Agriculture Department Cooperative State
Research Service, Minnesota, 1969.
Davis, P. Raven's response to sonic bang. British Birds,
1967, 60, 370.
Diehl, Fred P. Sound as a rodent deterrent. Pest Control,
1969, 37, 36-44.
Dooling, R. J., Mulligan, J. A. and J. D. Miller. Relation
of auditory sensitivity and song spectrum for the
common canary. Journal of. the Acoustical Society of
America, (in press).
Elbowicz-Waniewska, Z. Investigations on the influence of
acoustic and ultraacoustic field on biochemical
process. Acta Physiologica Polonica, 1962, 13,
362-370.
F A 0 Fisheries Report No. 76. Report on a meeting for
consultations on underwater noise. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
April, 1970.
Fish, J. F. and Vania, J. S. Killer whale, Orcinus orca,
sounds repel white whales, Delphinapterus leucas.
Fishery Bulletin, July, I97~T.
Fitch, J. E. and Young, P. H. Use and effect of explosions
in California coastal waters. California Fish and
Game, 1948, 34, 53-70.
Fitzwater, W. D. Sonic systems for bird control. Pest Control,
1970, 38, 9-16.
Friedman, M., Byers, S. 0. and A. E. Brown. Plasma lipid
responses of rats and rabbits to an auditory stimulus.
American Journal of Physiology, 212, 1174-1178, 1967.
Frings, H. and Frings, M. Recorded calls of the eastern crow
as attractants and repellents. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 1957, 21, 91.
-------
69
Frings, H. and Frings, M. Reactions of swarms of Pentaneura
aspera (Diptera: Tendipedidae) to sound. Annals of
the Entomological Society of America. 1959, 52,
7Z5-733":
Frings, H. and Jumber, J. Preliminary studies on the use of
a specific sound to repel starlings (Sturnus vulgaris)
from objectionable roosts. Science. 1954,119, 318-319.
Frings, H. and Little, F. Reactions of honey bees in the hive
to simple sounds. Science. 1957, 125, 122.
Geber, W. F., Anderson, T. A. and Van Dyne, B. Physiologic
response of the albino rat to chronic noise stress.
Archives £f Environmental Health, 1966, 12, 751-754.
Gonzalez, G., Miller, N. and Istre, C., Jr. Influence of
rocket noise upon hearing in guinea pigs. Aerospace
Medicine. 1970, 41, 21-25.
Graham, F. Ear pollution. Audubon, 1969, 71, 34-39.
Greaves, J. H. and Rowe, F. P. Responses of confined rodent
populations to an ultrasound generator. Journal of
Wildlife Management. 1969, 33, 409-417.
Griffin, D. R., McCue, J. J. G. and Grinnell, A. D. The
resistance of bats to jamming. Journal of Experimental
Zoology. 1963, 152, 229-250.
Groh, L. S. The effects of two litter sizes and two levels
of noise during infancy upon the adult behavior of
the white rat. Dissertation Abstracts. 1965, 27,
598-599. ' '
Henkin, H. The death of birds. Environment. 1969, 11, SI
Hill, E. P. Bat control with high frequency sound. Pest
Control. 1970, 38, 18.
Hiroshige, T., Sato, T., Ohta, R. and Itoh, S. Increase of
corticotropin-releasing activity in the rat hypothalamus
following noxious stimuli. The Japanese Journal of
Physiology. 1969, 19, 866-875:
Hrubes, V. Changes in concentration of non-esterified fatty
acids in the rat plasma after load. Activitas Nervosa
Superior. 1964, 6, 60-62.
Hrubes, V. and Benes, V. The influence of repeated noise
stress on rats. Acta Biologica et Medica Germanica,
1965, 15, 592-596": ~" —
-------
70
Ishii, O. , Takahashi, T. and Balogh, K. Glycogen in the
inner ear after acoustic stimulation. Acta Oto-
Laryngologica. 1969, 67, 573-582.
Ishii, H. and Yokobori, K. Experimental studies on teratogenic
activity of noise stimulation. Gunma Journal of
Medical Sciences, 1960, 9, 153-ltjT
Jeannoutot, D. W. and Adams, J. L. Progesterone versus
treatment by high intensity sound as methods of
controlling broodiness in broad breasted bronze
turkeys. Poultry Science. 1961, 40, 512-521.
Jensen, M. M. and Rasmussen, A. F. Audiogenic stress and
susceptibility to infection. Physiological Effects
of Noise, B. L. Welch and A. S. Welch (Eds.), 1970,
Jurtshuk, P., We It man, A. S. and Sackler, A. M. Biochemical
response of rats to auditory stress. Science, 1959,
129, 1424-1425.
Kirkpatrick, R. L. and Harein, P. K. Inhibition of
reproduction of Indian-Meal Moths, Plodia inter punctel la.
by exposure to amplified sound. Journal~of Economic
Entomology, 1965, 58, 920-921.
Klein, D. R. Reaction of reindeer to obstructions and
disturbances. Science, 1971, 173, 393-398.
Konishi, Masakazu. Comparative neurophysiological studies
of hearing and vocalizations in songbirds. Zeitschrift
fuer Vergleichende Physiologie, 1970, 67, 363-381.
Langowski, D. J. , Wight, H. M. and Jacobson, J. N. Responses
of instrumentally conditioned starlings to aversive
acoustic stimuli. Journal of Wildlife Management,
1969, 33, 669-677.
Lawrence, M. and Yantis, P. Individual differences in
functional recovery and structural repair following
over stimulation of the guinea pig. Annals of Otology,
Rhino logy, and Laryngology, 1957, 66, 595-6"2T.
Lindgren, D. L. Maintaining marketability of stored grain
and cereal products. Agriculture Department
Cooperative State Research Service, California, 1969.
Lindzey, G. Emotionality and audiogenic seizure susceptibility
in five inbred strains of mice. Journal of
Comparative and Physiological Psycho logy ,"T!951, 44,
389-393.
-------
71
Little, H. F. Reactions of honey bees to oscillations of
known frequency. Anatomical Record, 1959, 134, 601.
Majeau-Chargois, D. A., Berlin, C. I. and G. D. Whitehouse.
Sonic boom effects on the organ of Corti. The
Laryngoscope, 1970, 80, 620-630.
Malar, T. and Kleerekoper, H. Observations on some effects
of sound intensity on locomotor patterns of naive
goldfish. American Zoologist. 1968, 8, 741-742.
Manley, Geoffrey. Comparative studies of auditory physiology
in reptiles. Zeitschrift fuer Vergleichende Physiologic.
1970, 67, 363-3irn
Messersmith, D. H. Control of bird depredation. Agriculture
Department Cooperative State Research Service,
Maryland, 1970.
Miline, R., Devecerski, V. and R. Krstic. Effects of auditory
stimuli on the pineal gland of the bat during
hibernation. Acta Anatomica, 1969, 73, Suppl. 56,
293-300.
Miller, J. D., Rothenberg, S. J. and Eldredge, D. H.
Preliminary observations on the effects of exposure
to noise for seven days on the hearing and inner
ear of the chinchilla. The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America (in press).
Miller, J. D., Watson, C. S. and Covell, W. P. Deafening
effects of noise on the cat. Acta Oto-laryngologica,
Suppl. 176, 1963, 91 pp.
Monaenkov, A. M. Influence of prolonged stimulation by
sound of an electric bell on conditioned-reflex
activity in mammals. Zhur. Vyssh. Nervn. DeitaP
6, 891-897, 1956. PsycEoIogical Abstracts, 52. 1958.
Monastyrskaya, B. I., Prakh'e, I. B., and Khaunina, R. A.
Effect of acoustic stimulation on the pituitary
adrenal system in healthy rats and rats genetically
sensitive to sound. Bulletin of Experimental Biology
and Medicine (transl. fromRuss.), 1969, 68, 1357-1360.
Ogle, C. W. and Lockett, M. F. The release of neurohypo-
physical hormone by sound. Journal of Endocrinology,
1966, 36, 281-290. ' '— **•
Osintseva, V. P., Pushkina, N. N;, Bonashevskaya, T. I., and
Kaverina, V. F. Noise induced changes in the adrenals.
Hygiene and Sanitation. 1969, 34, 147-151.
-------
72
Parker, J. B. and Bayley, N. D. Investigations on effects
of aircraft sound on milk production of dairy
cattle, 1957-1958. United States Department of
Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service, Animal
Husbandry Research Division, 1960, 22 pp.
Pearson, E. W., Skon, P. R. and Corner, G. W. Dispersal of
urban roosts with records of starling distress calls.
Journal of Wildlife Management, 1967, 31, 502-506.
Peters, E. N. Temporary shifts in auditory thresholds of
chinchilla after exposure to noise. The Journal of
the Accoustical Society of America, 19^5, 37, 831^533.
Poche, L. B., Stockwell, C. W. and Ades, H. Cochlear hair
cell damage in guinea pigs after exposure to impulse
noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America,'~r9'69, 46, 9Tf-"9^T.
Ponomar'kov, V. I., Tysik, Yu, Kidryavtseva, V. I., Barer,
A. S., Kostin, V. K., Leshchenko, V. Ye., Morozova,
R. M., Nosokin, L. V., Frolov, A. N. NASA TT F-529i,
"Problems of Space Biology," Vol. 7, Operational
Activity, Problems of Habitability and Biotechnology,
NASA, May 1969.
Potash, L. M. A signal detection problem and possible
solution in Japanese quail. Animal Behavior (in press)
Pye, J. D. Ultrasonic bioacoustics, Final Scientific Report,
llth May, 1965 - 30th June, 1970. U. S. Government
Research and Reports Index 1971, No. 1, p. SU-2, No.
AD 714 632
Sewell, G. D. Ultrasonic signals from rodents. Ultrasonics,
1970, 8, 26-30.
Shaw, E. W. California Condor. Library of Congress
Legislative Reference Service, 1970, SK351, 70-127.
Shulov, A. S. Acoustic responses of locusts—Schistocera,
Dociostarus, and Aerotylus. U. S. Dept of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research
Division, 1969.
Singh, K. B. and Rao, P. Studies on the polycystic ovaries
of rats under continuous auditory stress. American
Journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1970, 108, 557-564.
Sprock, C. M., Howard, W. E., and Jacob, F. C. Sound as a
deterrent to rats and mice. Journal of Wildlife
Management, 1967, 31, 729-741"!
-------
73
Stadelman, W. J. The effect of sounds of varying intensity
on hatchability of chicken egg. Poultry Science.
1958a, 37, 166-169.
Stadelman, W. J. Observations with growing chickens on
the effects of sounds of varying intensities.
Poultry Science, 1958b, 37, 776-779.
Thompson, R. D., Grant, C. V., Pearson, E. W., and Corner, G. W.
Cardiac response of starlings to sound: effects of
lighting and grouping. American Journal of Physiology,
1968a, 214, 41-44. *"
Thompson, R. D., Grant, C. V., Pearson, E. W., and Corner, G. W.
Differential heart rate response of starlings to
sound stimuli of biological origin. The Journal of
Wildlife Management, 1968b, 32, 888-8U3T
Thompson, W. D. and Sontag, L. W. Behavioral effects in the
offspring of rats subjected to audiogenic seizures
during the gestational period. Journal of Comparative
and Physiological Psychology. 1956, 49, "J54-456.
Thorpe, W. H. The significance of vocal imitation in
animals with special reference to birds. Acta
Biologica Experimentia. 1969, 29, 251-269.
Travis, H. F., Richardson, G. V., Menear, J. R. and Bond, J.
The effects of simulated sonic booms on reproduction
and behavior of farm-raised mink. ARS 44-200, June
1968, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service.
Treptow, K. Dynamics of glycemic reactions after repeated
exposure to noise. Activitas Nervosa Superior. 1966,
8, 215-216. *
Tsao, C. Perception and behavioral effects of sound in the
Indian-Meal Moth. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture,
Agriculture Research Service, Market Quality Research
Division, 1969.
United States Department of the Interior. Environmental
impact of the Big Cypress Swamp Jetport. September,
1969, 155 pp.
Vince, M. A. Artificial acceleration of hatching in quail
embryos. Animal Behavior. 1966, 14, 389-394.
Ward, C. 0., Barletta, M. A., Kaye, T. Teratogenic effects
of audiogenic stress in albino mice. Journal of
Pharmaceutical Sciencest 1970, 59, 1661-1662.
-------
74
Ward, W. D. and Nelson, D. A. Reduction of permanent
threshold shifts through intermittency. Paper
presented at the 80th meeting of the Acoustical
Society of America, Houston, November, 1970.
Werner, R. Influence of sound on the intermediary lobe
of the rat hypophysis. Compte Rendus cte 1*Association
des Anatomistes, 1959, 45, 78-7557
Wight, H. M. Development and testing of methods for
repelling starlings that roost in holly. Oregon
State Government, 1971.
Yeakel, E. H., Shenkin, H. A., Rothballer, A. B., McCann, S. M.
Adrenalectomy and blood pressure of rats subjected
to auditory stimulation. Journal of Physiology, 1948,
155, 118-127.
Zondek, B. Effect of auditory stimuli on female reproductive
organs. New England Obstetrical and Gynecological
Society, 1964, 18, 177-185.
Zondek, B. and Isachar, T. Effect of audiogenic stimulation
on genital function and reproduction. Acta
Endocrinologica, 1964, 45, 227-234.
Zoric, V. Effects of sound on mouse testes. Acta Anatomica,
1959, 38, 176.
------- |