PAUL R. KRAUSMAN, LISA K. HARRIS, CATHY L. BLASCH, KIANA K. G. KOENEN, JON FRANCINE
{"title":"Effects of Military Operations on Behavior and Hearing of Endangered Sonoran Pronghorn","authors":"PAUL R. KRAUSMAN, LISA K. HARRIS, CATHY L. BLASCH, KIANA K. G. KOENEN, JON FRANCINE","doi":"10.2193/0084-0173(2004)157[1:EOMOOB]2.0.CO;2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>Abstract: </b> Our objectives in this study were to determine whether military activities (e.g., overflight noise, noise from ordnance delivery, ground-based human activity) on the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) affect the behavior and hearing of Sonoran pronghorn (<i>Antilocapra americana sonoriensis</i>). We contrasted the behavior of pronghorn on BMGR with the closest population of pronghorn in the United States that was not subjected to routine military activity (i.e., on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge [BANWR], Arizona). Forty percent of the landscape used by the endangered Sonoran pronghorn in the United States is within the 5,739 km<sup>2</sup> BMGR, a bombing and gunnery facility in southwestern Arizona. The range of Sonoran pronghorn covers about 88% of BMGR. The 179 Sonoran pronghorn that lived in the United States in December 1992 declined to 99 by December 2000. The Sonoran pronghorn has been listed as endangered for >30 years, but population limiting factors are unknown. Because Sonoran pronghorn use BMGR, land and wildlife managers raised concerns about the potential effects of military activities on the population. Possible indirect effects of military activities on Sonoran pronghorn, aside from direct mortality or injury, from ordnance delivery, chaff, flares, live ammunition, aircraft mishaps, interference from ground vehicles and personnel, include alteration of behavior or physiology.</p><p>We conducted the study on the North and South Tactical Ranges (NTAC and STAC), BMGR, from February 1998 to June 2000. Hearing exams were conducted in Camp Verde, Arizona, the University of Arizona, and on the East Tactical Range (ETAC), BMGR. Interactions between pronghorn and military activity were restricted to 4 observation points that provided viewing areas from which pronghorn and military activity could be observed from ≤ 10 km. We systematically located pronghorn with spotting scopes and telemetry. When located, we described their behavior and military activity using scan sampling. We tested hearing using auditory brainstem responses (ABR). We could not test the hearing of Sonoran pronghorn because of their endangered status, so we contrasted hearing of pronghorn near Camp Verde, Arizona, and desert mule deer (<i>Odocoileus hemionus eremicus</i>) that were and were not exposed to sound pressure levels from military activity. We recorded behavior observations of Sonoran pronghorn on 172 days (44,375 observation events [i.e., 1 observation/30 second]) over 373 hours. These data were compared with 93 days of behavioral data (24,297 observation events) over 202 hours for pronghorn not regularly influenced by military aircraft. Overall, we did not detect behavioral differences (i.e., time spent bedding, standing, foraging, traveling) between males and females. Pronghorn exposed to military activity, and those that were not, bedded the same amount of time. Pronghorn at BMGR foraged less and stood and traveled more than pronghorn not exposed to military activity. These trends were the same with and without anthropogenic activity. Only 7.3% of behavioral events occurred with identifiable stimuli. Military overflights occurred 363 times (0.8%) and non-military overflights occurred 77 times (<0.2%). Pronghorn rarely responded to military aircraft, but often moved >10 m when ground stimuli were present.</p><p>Ambient noise levels ranged up to 123.1 decibels (dB). The average sound pressure level on days with military activity was 65.3 dB compared to 35.0 dB without military activity. Because we obtained hearing tests from deer and pronghorn, we were able to develop an ungulate weighting filter on the noise generated from overflights of A-10 and F-16 aircraft. Desert ungulates do not hear sound pressure levels generated from these aircraft as well as humans do (i.e., 14–19 dB lower).</p><p>The military activity we examined had only marginal influence on Sonoran pronghorn. Pronghorn used the ranges shared with the military throughout the year and behavioral patterns of pronghorn were similar with and without the presence of military stimuli. Furthermore, pronghorn behavior exposed to military activity was similar to behaviors of pronghorn not exposed to regular military activity. The auditory characteristics of pronghorn were similar for those that have and have not been exposed to military activity. The population of Sonoran pronghorn in the United States continues to decline and is in serious danger of extirpation. Clearly, additional work needs to be done, but military activity as measured herein is not a limiting factor.</p>","PeriodicalId":235,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Monographs","volume":"157 1","pages":"1-41"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2010-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2193/0084-0173(2004)157[1:EOMOOB]2.0.CO;2","citationCount":"35","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wildlife Monographs","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2193/0084-0173%282004%29157%5B1%3AEOMOOB%5D2.0.CO%3B2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35
Abstract
Abstract: Our objectives in this study were to determine whether military activities (e.g., overflight noise, noise from ordnance delivery, ground-based human activity) on the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BMGR) affect the behavior and hearing of Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis). We contrasted the behavior of pronghorn on BMGR with the closest population of pronghorn in the United States that was not subjected to routine military activity (i.e., on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge [BANWR], Arizona). Forty percent of the landscape used by the endangered Sonoran pronghorn in the United States is within the 5,739 km2 BMGR, a bombing and gunnery facility in southwestern Arizona. The range of Sonoran pronghorn covers about 88% of BMGR. The 179 Sonoran pronghorn that lived in the United States in December 1992 declined to 99 by December 2000. The Sonoran pronghorn has been listed as endangered for >30 years, but population limiting factors are unknown. Because Sonoran pronghorn use BMGR, land and wildlife managers raised concerns about the potential effects of military activities on the population. Possible indirect effects of military activities on Sonoran pronghorn, aside from direct mortality or injury, from ordnance delivery, chaff, flares, live ammunition, aircraft mishaps, interference from ground vehicles and personnel, include alteration of behavior or physiology.
We conducted the study on the North and South Tactical Ranges (NTAC and STAC), BMGR, from February 1998 to June 2000. Hearing exams were conducted in Camp Verde, Arizona, the University of Arizona, and on the East Tactical Range (ETAC), BMGR. Interactions between pronghorn and military activity were restricted to 4 observation points that provided viewing areas from which pronghorn and military activity could be observed from ≤ 10 km. We systematically located pronghorn with spotting scopes and telemetry. When located, we described their behavior and military activity using scan sampling. We tested hearing using auditory brainstem responses (ABR). We could not test the hearing of Sonoran pronghorn because of their endangered status, so we contrasted hearing of pronghorn near Camp Verde, Arizona, and desert mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus eremicus) that were and were not exposed to sound pressure levels from military activity. We recorded behavior observations of Sonoran pronghorn on 172 days (44,375 observation events [i.e., 1 observation/30 second]) over 373 hours. These data were compared with 93 days of behavioral data (24,297 observation events) over 202 hours for pronghorn not regularly influenced by military aircraft. Overall, we did not detect behavioral differences (i.e., time spent bedding, standing, foraging, traveling) between males and females. Pronghorn exposed to military activity, and those that were not, bedded the same amount of time. Pronghorn at BMGR foraged less and stood and traveled more than pronghorn not exposed to military activity. These trends were the same with and without anthropogenic activity. Only 7.3% of behavioral events occurred with identifiable stimuli. Military overflights occurred 363 times (0.8%) and non-military overflights occurred 77 times (<0.2%). Pronghorn rarely responded to military aircraft, but often moved >10 m when ground stimuli were present.
Ambient noise levels ranged up to 123.1 decibels (dB). The average sound pressure level on days with military activity was 65.3 dB compared to 35.0 dB without military activity. Because we obtained hearing tests from deer and pronghorn, we were able to develop an ungulate weighting filter on the noise generated from overflights of A-10 and F-16 aircraft. Desert ungulates do not hear sound pressure levels generated from these aircraft as well as humans do (i.e., 14–19 dB lower).
The military activity we examined had only marginal influence on Sonoran pronghorn. Pronghorn used the ranges shared with the military throughout the year and behavioral patterns of pronghorn were similar with and without the presence of military stimuli. Furthermore, pronghorn behavior exposed to military activity was similar to behaviors of pronghorn not exposed to regular military activity. The auditory characteristics of pronghorn were similar for those that have and have not been exposed to military activity. The population of Sonoran pronghorn in the United States continues to decline and is in serious danger of extirpation. Clearly, additional work needs to be done, but military activity as measured herein is not a limiting factor.