Abstract
Anthropogenic sounds are pollution that is not always evaluated in the environment in general and near wildlife in particular. Non-electric off-road vehicles (ORVs) are used in most wildlife reserves of India for ecotourism purposes in the form of wildlife-viewing safaris. We hypothesized that the e-vehicles would allow a closer approach to wildlife, reducing the flight-initiation distance (FID) to their normal behaviors. In order to understand the effects of noise, we evaluated the difference between the safari-ORVs regulated by the Indian Forest Department and six electric ORVs in the Jhalana Reserve Forest in Jaipur, Rajasthan. We used a mixed model approach. We found that mammals showed longer escape behavior when approached by non-electric cars (Gypsy ORVs) than by electric cars, even considering the effects of the initial distance. The level of noise produced by the two types of cars used in the experiment was different, with the Gypsy ORVs (non-electric) significantly louder than the Mahindra e-vehicles. FID was positively correlated with initial and alarm distances in all animal species. We commend this novel idea of the Rajasthan Forest Service and encourage them to further acquire and replace all of the non-electric ORVs with the e-vehicles for recreational wildlife viewing. An implication of this study is better management of wildlife watching for ecotourists with reduced disturbance and stress to the wild animals.
Availability of data and material
The data set has been deposited with Mendeley: https://data.mendeley.com/submissions/evise/edit/dhhpwv79n8?submission_id=S0006-3207(19)31789-6&token=6bda200d-0903-4c5a-8a21-65f9897a0325.
References
Ascensão F, Branquinho C, Revilla E (2020) Cars as a tool for monitoring and protecting biodiversity. Nat Electron 3:295–297. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-020-0430-z)
Aththanayaka AMCP Siyasinghe DP, Prakash TGSL (2019) Views and attitudes of safari jeep drivers on traffic congestion and possible mitigation measures in the Yala National Park, Sri Lanka. Proceedings of the Annual Sessions WILDLANKA International Symposium
Barber JR, Crooks KR, Fristrup KM (2010) The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends Ecol Evol 25:180–189
Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 - R Package
Bennett NJ, Roth R, Klain SC, Chan K, Christie P, Clark DA, Cullman G, Curran D, Durbin TJ, Epstein G, Greenberg A, Nelson MP, Sandlos J, Stedman R, Teel TL, Thomas R, Verissimo D, Wyborn C (2017) Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol Conserv 205:93–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006
Bernard GE, van Dongen WF, Guay PJ, Symonds MR, Robinson RW, Weston MA (2018) Bicycles evoke longer flight-initiation distances and higher intensity escape behaviour of some birds in parks compared with pedestrians. Landsc Urban Plan 178:276–280
Blumstein DT (2003) Flight initiation distance in birds is dependent on intruder starting distance. J Wildl Management 67:852–857
Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White J-SSS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008
Buxton RT, McKenna MF, Brown E, Ohms R, Hammesfahr A, Angeloni LM, Crooks KR, Wittemyer G (2020) Varying behavioral responses of wildlife to motorcycle traffic. Global Ecology and Conservation 21:e00844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00844
Duchesne M, Cote SD, Barrette C (2000) Responses of woodland caribou to winter ecotourism in the Charlevoix Biosphere Reserve, Canada. Biol Conserv 96:311–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00082-3
Finio B (2019) Science with a smartphone:decibel meter. Scientific American, March 14
Fox J, Weisberg S (2019) An R companion to applied regression. Third. SAGE Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA
Francis CD, Barber JR (2013) A framework for understanding noise impacts on wildlife: an urgent conservation priority. Front Ecol Environ 11:305–313. https://doi.org/10.1890/120183
Ghadirian O, Moradi H, Madadi H, Lofti A, Senn J (2019) Identifying noise disturbance by roads on wildlife: a case study in central Iran. SN Applied Sciences 1:808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-0838-0
Glaser RL, Horsepool K, Simhai N, Yosef R (1998) The effects of disturbance on migrant waders at Eilat, Israel. Sandgrouse 20:30–35
Guay P-J, McLeod EM, Taysom AJ, Weston MA (2014) Are vehicles ‘mobile bird hides’? A test of the hypothesis that ‘cars cause less disturbance.’ Victorian Naturalist 131:150–156
Guay PJ, van Dongen WF, Robinson RW, Blumstein DT, Weston MA (2016) AvianBuffer: an interactive tool for characterising and managing wildlife fear responses. Ambio 45:841–851
Harding HR, Gordon TAC, Eastcott E, Simpson SD, Radford AN (2019) Causes and consequences of intraspecific variation in animal responses to anthropogenic noise. Behav Ecol 30:1501–1511. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arz114
Kumbhojkar S, Yosef R, Benedetti Y, Morelli F (2019) Human-leopard (Panthera pardus fusca) co-existence in Jhalana Forest Reserve India. Sustainability 11:3912. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143912
Lenhardt Y, Wong BBM, Berger-Tal O (2019) Intraspecific variation in animal responses to anthropogenic noise through long-term monitoring: a comment on Harding et al. Behav Ecol 30:1514–1515. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arz161/
Lethlean H, van Dongen WF, Kostoglou K, Guay PJ, Weston MA (2017) Joggers cause greater avian disturbance than walkers. Landsc Urban Plan 159:42–47
Long JA (2020) jtools: analysis and presentation of social scientific data. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=jtools
McLeod EM, Guay PJ, Taysom AJ, Robinson RW, Weston MA (2013) Buses, cars, bicycles and walkers: the influence of the type of human transport on the flight responses of waterbirds. PLoS One 8:p.e82008
McClure CJW, Ware HE, Carlisle J, Kaltenecker G, Barber JR (2013) An experimental investigation into the effects of traffic noise on distributions of birds: avoiding the phantom road. Proc R Soc B 280:20132290. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2290
Mikula P, Šaffa G, Nelson E, Tryjanowski P (2018a) Risk perception of vervet monkeys Chlorocebus pygerythrus to humans in urban and rural environments. Behav Proc 147:21–27
Mikula P, Díaz M, Albrecht T, Jokimäki J, Kroitero G, Møller AP, Tryjanowski P, Yosef R, Hromada M (2018b) Adjusting risk taking to the annual cycle of long-distance migratory birds. Sci Rep 8:13989. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32252-1
Mkono M, Holder A (2019) The future of animals in tourism recreation: social media as spaces of collective moral reflexivity. Tourism Management Perspectives 29:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2018.10.002
Møller AP (2014) Life history, predation and flight initiation distance in a migratory bird. J Evol Biol 27:1105–1113. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12399
Prakash SL, Perera P, Newsome D, Kusuminda T, Walker O (2019) Reasons for visitor dissatisfaction with wildlife tourism experiences at highly visited national parks in Sri Lanka. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 25:102–112
R Development Core Team (2019) R: a language and environment for statistical computing
Radkovic AZ, Van Dongen WFD, Kirao L, Guay P-J, Weston MA (2019) Birdwatchers evoke longer escape distances than pedestrians in some African birds. J Ecotourism 18:100–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2017.1372765
Slabbekoorn H, Bouton N, van Opzeeland I, Coers A, Cate C, Popper AN (2010) A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends Ecol Evol 25:419–427
Slater C, Cam G, Qi Y, Liu Y, Guay PJ, Weston MA (2019) Camera shy? Motivations, attitudes and beliefs of bird photographers and species-specific avian responses to their activities. Biol Cons 237:327–337
Smith GR, Lemos-Espinal JA (2005) Comparative escape behavior of four species of Mexican phrynosomatid lizards. Herpetologica 61:225–232
Ware HE, McClure CJW, Carlisle JD, Barber JR (2015) A phantom road experiment reveals traffic noise is an invisible source of habitat degradation. PNAS 112:12105–12109. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504710112
Weston MA, McLeod EM, Blumstein DT, Guay PJ (2012) A review of flight-initiation distances and their application to managing disturbance to Australian birds. Emu-Austral Ornithology 112:269–286
Weston MA, O’Brien C, Kostoglou KN, Symonds MR (2020) Escape responses of terrestrial and aquatic birds to drones: towards a code of practice to minimize disturbance. J Appl Ecol 57:777–785
Wiacek J, Polak M (2015) Does traffic noise affect the distribution and abundance of wintering birds in a managed woodland? Acta Ornithologica 50:233–245. https://doi.org/10.3161/00016454AO2015.50.2.011
Williams ID, Polunin NVC (2000) Differences between protected and unprotected reefs of the western Caribbean in attributes preferred by dive tourists. Environ Conserv 27:382–391
Yosef R (1997) Physical distances among individuals in flocks of greater flamingoes (Phoenicopterus ruber) are affected by human disturbance. Isr J Zool 43:79–85
Yosef R, Abergil Y, Morelli F (2019) Ecotourism affects reef ecology: a case study of breeding in the sergeant major damselfish (Abudefduf saxatilis). J Environ Manage 237:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.01.099
Acknowledgements
We thank A. Tomar, G. V. Reddy, and the staff of JRF for their help with the project. Fernando Ascensão, three other reviewers, and the editor greatly improved previous versions of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
RY, SK, and SS conceptualized the study; RY and SK conducted the field research; RY and FM did the analyses and writing of the first draft; and all authors contributed to finalizing the final paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics
None required, under research permit no. 3(05)/2017/171 of the Rajasthan Forest Department to SK and RY.
Consent to participate
All authors have agreed for RY to be the corresponding author on their behalf.
Consent for publication
All authors have agreed to publish this paper together.
Conflict of interest
None. SS is appointed as DCF by Rajasthan Forest Department as a professional.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Impact statement
We show that electric ORVs are better for wildlife viewing than those at present required by the Indian Forest Service.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Road Ecology - Guest Editor: Marcello D’Amico
Supplementary information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yosef, R., Kumbhojkar, S., Sharma, S. et al. Electric vehicles minimize disturbance to mammals. Eur J Wildl Res 67, 74 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-021-01516-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-021-01516-z