ArticlePDF Available

Bird population declines and species turnover are changing the acoustic properties of spring soundscapes

Springer Nature
Nature Communications
Authors:
  • Independent Researcher

Abstract and Figures

Natural sounds, and bird song in particular, play a key role in building and maintaining our connection with nature, but widespread declines in bird populations mean that the acoustic properties of natural soundscapes may be changing. Using data-driven reconstructions of soundscapes in lieu of historical recordings, here we quantify changes in soundscape characteristics at more than 200,000 sites across North America and Europe. We integrate citizen science bird monitoring data with recordings of individual species to reveal a pervasive loss of acoustic diversity and intensity of soundscapes across both continents over the past 25 years, driven by changes in species richness and abundance. These results suggest that one of the fundamental pathways through which humans engage with nature is in chronic decline, with potentially widespread implications for human health and well-being.
Content may be subject to copyright.
ARTICLE
Bird population declines and species turnover are
changing the acoustic properties of spring
soundscapes
C. A. Morrison1, A. Auniņš 2,3, Z. Benkő4,5, L. Brotons6,7,8, T. Chodkiewicz 9,10, P. Chylarecki 9,
V. Escandell11, D. P. Eskildsen12, A. Gamero13, S. Herrando 7,14, F. Jiguet 15, J. A. Kålås 16, J. Kamp17,18,
A. Klvaňová 13, P. Kmecl 19, A. Lehikoinen 20, Å. Lindström 21, C. Moshøj 12, D. G. Noble22,
I. J. Øien 23, J-Y. Paquet 24, J. Reif25,26, T. Sattler 27, B. S. Seaman 28, N. Teufelbauer 28,
S. Trautmann 18, C. A. M. van Turnhout29,30,P.Vořišek 13,26 & S. J. Butler 1
Natural sounds, and bird song in particular, play a key role in building and maintaining our
connection with nature, but widespread declines in bird populations mean that the acoustic
properties of natural soundscapes may be changing. Using data-driven reconstructions of
soundscapes in lieu of historical recordings, here we quantify changes in soundscape char-
acteristics at more than 200,000 sites across North America and Europe. We integrate
citizen science bird monitoring data with recordings of individual species to reveal a pervasive
loss of acoustic diversity and intensity of soundscapes across both continents over the past
25 years, driven by changes in species richness and abundance. These results suggest that
one of the fundamental pathways through which humans engage with nature is in chronic
decline, with potentially widespread implications for human health and well-being.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 OPEN
1School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 2Faculty of Biology, University of Latvia, Jelgavas iela 1, Riga LV-1004, Latvia. 3Latvian
Ornithological Society, Skolas iela 3, Riga LV-1010, Latvia. 4Romanian Ornithological Society/BirdLife Romania, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. 5Evolutionary Ecology
Group, Hungarian Department of Biology and Ecology, Babeș-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. 6InForest JRU (CTFC-CREAF), Solsona 25280, Spain.
7CREAF, Cerdanyola del Vallès, 08193 Barcelona, Spain. 8CSIC, Cerdanyola del Vallès, 08193 Barcelona, Spain. 9Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish
Academy of Sciences, Wilcza 64, 00-679 Warszawa, Poland. 10 Polish Society for the Protection of Birds (OTOP), ul. Odrowaza 24, 05-270 Marki, Poland.
11 Sociedad Española de Ornitología (SEO/BirdLife), Madrid, Spain. 12 Dansk Ornitologisk Forening, BirdLife Denmark, Vesterbrogade 138-140, DK-1620
København V, Denmark. 13 European Bird Census Council-Czech Society for Ornithology, Na Bělidle 34, 15000 Prague 5, Czechia. 14 European Bird Census
CouncilCatalan Ornithological Institute, Natural History Museum of Barcelona, Plaça Leonardo da Vinci 4-5, 08019 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. 15 Centre
dEcologie et des Sciences de la Conservation, UMR7204 MNHN-CNRS-SU, Paris, France. 16 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research,
P.O. Box 5685Torgarden, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway. 17 University of Göttingen, Department of Conservation Science, Bürgerstr. 50, 37073
Göttingen, Germany. 18 Dachverband Deutscher Avifaunisten (DDA), An den Speichern 2, 48157 Münster, Germany. 19 DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenia, Tržaška
cesta 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. 20 Finnish Museum of Natural History, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 17 Helsinki, Finland. 21 Biodiversity Unit,
Department of Biology, Lund University, Ecology Building, S-223 62 Lund, Sweden. 22 British Trust for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk IP24 2PU,
UK. 23 NOF-BirdLife Norway, Sandgata 30 B, NO-7012 Trondheim, Norway. 24 Natagora, Département Études, Traverse des Muses 1, B-5000
Namur, Belgium. 25 Institute for Environmental Studies, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czechia. 26 Department of Zoology and
Laboratory of Ornithology, Faculty of Science, Palacký University Olomouc, 17 Listopadu 50, 771 43 Olomouc, Czechia. 27Swiss Ornithological Institute,
Seerose 1, 6204 Sempach, Switzerland. 28 BirdLife Österreich, Museumsplatz 1/10/8, A-1070 Wien, Austria. 29 Sovon Dutch Centre for Field Ornithology,
P.O. Box 6521, 6503 GA Nijmegen, Netherlands. 30 Department of Animal Ecology and Ecophysiology, Institute for Water and Wetland Research, Radboud
University, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, Netherlands. email: simon.j.butler@uea.ac.uk
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS| (2021) 12:6217 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 | www.nature.com/naturec ommunications 1
1234567890():,;
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Over half the worlds population now live in cities1. Rapid
urbanisation, along with increasingly sedentary lifestyles
associated with a rise in electronic media, changing social
norms, and shifting perceptions around outside play24, are
reducing peoples opportunities for direct contact with the natural
environment. This so-called extinction of experience5is driving a
growing human-nature disconnect, with negative impacts on
physical health, cognitive ability and psychological well-being610.
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted this issue, both in
terms of the detrimental impacts on mental health due to local
and national lockdowns imposed by governments and the wide-
spread recognition of the benets of engaging with nature during
this period11,12. Global biodiversity loss13 is also likely to be
driving a dilution of experience, whereby the quality of those
interactions with nature which do still occur is also being
reduced14 but we do not yet know the extent of such changes.
Sound confers a sense of place and is a key pathway for
engaging with, and benetting from, nature15. Indeed, since
Rachel Carsons (1962) classic book Silent Spring, natures
sounds have been inextricably linked to perceptions of environ-
mental quality16, and the maintenance of natural soundscape
integrity is increasingly being incorporated into conservation
policy and action17. Birds are a major contributor to natural
soundscapes18 and bird song, and song diversity in particular,
plays an important role in dening the quality of nature
experiences15,1921. Widespread reductions in both avian
abundance22 and species richness23, alongside increased biotic
homogenisation24, are therefore likely to be impacting the
acoustic properties of natural soundscapes and potentially redu-
cing the quality of nature contact experiences25. Indeed, given
that people predominantly hear, rather than see, birds26,27,
reductions in the quality of natural soundscapes are likely to be
the mechanism through which the impact of ongoing population
declines is most keenly felt by the general public. However, the
relationship between changes in avian community structure and
the acoustic properties of natural soundscapes is nuanced and
non-linear28the loss of a warbler species with a rich, complex
song is likely to have a greater impact on soundscape char-
acteristics than the loss of a raucous corvid or gull species, but
this will depend on how many, and which, other species are
present. The implications of biodiversity loss for local soundscape
characteristics therefore cannot be directly predicted from count
data alone.
Here we combine annual systematic bird count data from
North American Breeding Bird Survey (NA-BBS) and Pan-
European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS) sites
with recordings of individual bird species, downloaded from an
online database (www.xeno-canto.org), to reconstruct historical
soundscapes at over 200,000 locations across the two continents
over the past 25 years. Taking the rst species listed in a site-year
count data le, a 25 s sound le for that species was inserted at a
random time point in an initially empty 5 min sound le. Play-
back volume was randomly sampled from a uniform distribution
to represent varying proximity of individual birds to the surveyor.
This process was repeated as many times as there were indivi-
duals of the rst species counted, and then for all individuals of all
other species in that site-year count data le, to build a single,
composite representation of the local soundscape for the year
when those count data were collected. This process was repeated
for all site-year count data les, so that separate soundscapes were
constructed for every site in every year it was surveyed. We
employed a systematic protocol for soundscape construction,
applying the same rules for translating survey data into sounds-
cape contribution across all species, because data on vocalisation
frequency (how often an individual vocalises) and duration (how
long each vocalisation event lasts) are not available for most
species included in our analyses. However, while standardised in
length, the 25 s sound les used to represent an individual of a
given species did comprise interspersed periods of vocalisation
and silence, and therefore captured the inherent variation in song
or call structure and pattern of delivery between species to some
extent.
The acoustic characteristics of these reconstructed soundscapes
were then quantied using four indices designed to capture the
distribution of acoustic energy across frequencies and time29 and
to reect the richness (Acoustic Diversity Index: ADI30), evenness
(Acoustic Evenness Index: AEI30), amplitude (Bioacoustic Index:
BI31) and heterogeneity (Acoustic Entropy: H32) of each
soundscape. These acoustic indices are broadly correlated with
avian species richness and abundance3033 but are fundamentally
driven by song complexity and diversity across contributing
species. They therefore describe the key factors predicted to
underpin public perceptions of the quality of their nature
experiences15,1921, with lower values of ADI, BI and H, and
higher values of AEI, reecting reduced acoustic diversity and
intensity. These indices respond in a similar way when applied to
constructed soundscapes generated from simulated communities
varying in species richness and abundance, with both increasing
abundance and species richness leading to increases in ADI, BI
and H and a decrease in AEI (Figs. 1,2; Tables 1,2). These
relationships are not linear, with the rate of increase in BI and H
with increasing abundance lower at higher species richness
(Fig. 2; Table 2) and each index becoming less sensitive to
changes in community structure as soundscapes become more
saturated.
Acoustic indices have been used to explore diel and annual
patterns in soundscape structure34,35 and to characterise differ-
ences in soundscapes across habitats and landscapes33,36,37.
However, evidence of changes in soundscape characteristics over
longer time periods is currently lacking because of a scarcity in
historical soundscape recordings. By reconstructing soundscapes
from large-scale bird monitoring datasets and archived recordings
of individual species, both predominantly generated by citizen
scientists, we are able to explore changes in soundscape quality
at sites across North America and Europe over recent decades.
We reveal a chronic deterioration in soundscape quality, dened
as a reduction in acoustic diversity and/or intensity, across
both continents. Our analyses suggest that changes in the com-
position, diversity and abundance of bird communities are all
likely to have contributed to this. Ongoing declines in bird
populations13,22 are expected to cause further reductions in
soundscape quality and, by extension, a continued dilution of the
nature contact experience.
Results and discussion
We identify patterns of signicant and broadly parallel declines in
ADI, BI and H across both continents since the late 1990s, and a
signicant increase in AEI in North America over the same
period (Fig. 3; Table 3). These changes suggest that natural
soundscapes have, overall, become both more homogeneous and
quieter. Within these general patterns of reduced soundscape
quality, there was substantial site-level variation, with local
declines and increases in all four indices occurring across each
continent (Fig. 4, Supplementary Fig. 1), while larger-scale geo-
graphical patterns in the rates of change in each index are also
evident (Supplementary Tables 1, 2). For example, reductions in
acoustic diversity (signalled by decreases in ADI and increases in
AEI) have been greatest in the North and West of both continents
(Supplementary Figs. 2ad, 3ad), while soundscape intensity, as
measured by BI, has declined most in more northern and eastern
areas of North America but shows no spatial pattern across
ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1
2NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:6217 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Fig. 1 Responses of acoustic indices to changes in abundance in simulated communities. The association between the Acoustic Diversity Index, ADI
(a,b), Acoustic Evenness Index, AEI (c,d), Bioacoustic Index, BI (e,f) and Acoustic Entropy, H (g,h) of constructed soundscapes and the number of
individuals of a single species contributing to that soundscape for North American (left column) and European (right column) species. Shaded areas
indicate ±1 standard error.
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 ARTICLE
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:6217 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Europe (Supplementary Figs. 2e,f, 3e,f). In contrast, while H has
also decreased more in eastern North America, it has also
decreased slightly more in the south than in the north (Supple-
mentary Fig. 2g,h). In Europe, H has decreased in northern and
western areas but increased slightly towards the south and east
(Supplementary Fig. 3g,h).
Local soundscape dynamics are likely to be underpinned
by multiple and interacting processes, operating at regional,
biome and local levels, which inuence species richness
and abundance38,39, taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic
diversity40,41, and the rate and direction of change in community
composition22,4245. Overall, there has been a signicant decline
Fig. 2 Responses of acoustic indices to changes in simulated community structure. The association between the Acoustic Diversity Index, ADI (a,b),
Acoustic Evenness Index, AEI (c,d), Bioacoustic Index, BI (e,f) and Acoustic Entropy, H (g,h) of constructed soundscapes and the number of individuals
and species contributing to that soundscape for North American (left column) and European (right column) species. Colours indicate the number of
species in the community.
ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1
4NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:6217 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
in both the total number of species and individuals counted
during NA-BBS surveys and in the total number of individuals
counted during PECBMS surveys over the past 25 years (Sup-
plementary Fig. 4; Supplementary Table 3). Importantly, there
were strong positive relationships between site-level trends in
ADI, BI and H and site-level trends in both species richness and
the total number of individuals counted, with equivalent negative
relationships for site-level trends in AEI (Table 4); sites that have
experienced greater declines in either total abundance and/or
species richness also show greater declines in acoustic diversity
and intensity while sites, where total abundance and/or species
richness has increased, tend to show increases in these char-
acteristics (Fig. 5).
There were generally strong correlations in the trends of the
four acoustic indices at each site, positive between ADI, H and BI,
and negative between AEI and the other three (Supplementary
Table 4). However, these patterns were not universal, with all
potential combinations of increases or decreases in each index
observed (Supplementary Fig. 5). Furthermore, there was sub-
stantial variation in the scale of change in a given acoustic index
for any given change in species richness or abundance (Fig. 5).
Thus, while soundscape dynamics are fundamentally driven by
changes in community structure, shifts in soundscape char-
acteristics arising from changes in species composition and/or
abundance over time are both multi-dimensional and context-
dependent; measures of acoustic richness, evenness, amplitude
and heterogeneity respond independently according to both
initial community structure and how the call and song char-
acteristics of constituent species compare28. Additional analyses
are needed to understand the drivers of both this local site-level
variation and the broader geographic patterns in soundscape
dynamics, as well as the specicinuence of changes in the
abundance or occurrence of individual species.
While predominately driven by community composition, it is
important to recognise that the acoustic properties of recon-
structed soundscapes could be inuenced by methodological
decisions applied during the construction process. For example,
the ratio of individual sound le duration to total soundscape
length will inuence the degree of overlap between the calls and
songs of individuals, while the probability distribution from
Table 1 Results of GLMs of the association between the acoustic properties of reconstructed soundscapes and the number of
individuals (110) of a single species present in a simulated community and contributing to that soundscape.
North America Europe
Fixed effects Estimate (SE) tpEstimate (SE) tp
(a) ADI (Intercept) 1.7880 (0.0021) 832.12 <0.001 1.7880 (0.0073) 246.01 <0.001
Log(Individuals) 0.0270 (0.0009) 29.49 <0.001 0.0269 (0.0031) 8.72 <0.001
(b) AEI (Intercept) 0.4836 (0.0011) 456.74 <0.001 0.4836 (0.0033) 146.15 <0.001
Log(Individuals) 0.0106 (0.0005) 23.45 <0.001 0.0106 (0.0014) 7.50 <0.001
(c) BI (Intercept) 103.52 (0.65) 160.19 <0.001 103.5215 (0.2495) 414.89 <0.001
Log(Individuals) 2.46 (0.28) 8.93 <0.001 2.4600 (0.1063) 23.14 <0.001
(d) H (Intercept) 0.6255 (0.0047) 133.1 <0.001 0.6255 (0.0014) 445.80 <0.001
Log(Individuals) 0.0389 (0.0020) 19.4 <0.001 0.03891 (0.0006) 64.98 <0.001
(a) Acoustic Diversity Index (ADI), (b) Acoustic Evenness Index (AEI), (c) Bioacoustic Index (BI) and (d) Acoustic Entropy (H). Separate models for North American (left column) and European (right
column) species presented.
Table 2 Results of GLMs of the association between the acoustic properties of reconstructed soundscapes and the number of
individuals (110) and species (2,3,4,5,10,20,50) present in a simulated community and contributing to that soundscape.
Fixed effects North America Europe
Estimate (SE) tpEstimate (SE) tp
(a) ADI (Intercept) 1.866 (0.011) 175.12 <0.001 1.856 (0.008) 222.38 <0.001
Log(Individuals) 0.034 (0.006) 5.35 <0.001 0.028 (0.005) 5.66 <0.001
Log(Species) 0.056 (0.005) 11.85 <0.001 0.047 (0.004) 12.57 <0.001
Log(Individuals)
*Log(species)
0.007 (0.003) 2.61 0.011 0.005 (0.002) 2.13 0.037
(b) AEI (Intercept) 0.461 (0.003) 148.60 <0.001 0.472 (0.002) 203.68 <0.001
Log(Individuals) 0.012 (0.001) 8.30 <0.001 0.012 (0.001) 10.88 <0.001
Log(Species) 0.029 (0.001) 29.67 <0.001 0.027 (0.001) 37.18 <0.001
(c) BI (Intercept) 107.09 (0.662) 161.84 <0.001 104.53 (0.651) 160.46 <0.001
Log(Individuals) 3.913 (0.398) 9.83 <0.001 4.367 (0.392) 11.15 <0.001
Log(Species) 4.299 (0.293) 14.69 <0.001 4.49 (0.288) 15.59 <0.001
Log(Individuals)
*Log(species)
1.103 (0.176) 6.27 <0.001 1.170 (0.173) 6.75 <0.001
(d) H (Intercept) 0.639 (0.006) 102.04 <0.001 0.643 (0.006) 108.93 <0.001
Log(Individuals) 0.058 (0.004) 15.33 <0.001 0.056 (0.004) 15.77 <0.001
Log(Species) 0.049 (0.003) 18.05 <0.001 0.050 (0.003) 18.39 <0.001
Log(Individuals)
*Log(species)
0.014 (0.002) 8.59 <0.001 0.014 (0.002) 8.73 <0.001
(a) Acoustic Diversity Index (ADI), (b) Acoustic Evenness Index (AEI), (c) Bioacoustic Index (BI) and (d) Acoustic Entropy (H). Separate models for North American (left column) and European (right
column) species presented. Only signicant interactions are retained.
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 ARTICLE
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:6217 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 5
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
which playback volume is sampled will determine the relative
proportion of near and far individuals in the soundscape. As a
consequence, these methodological decisions inuence the dis-
tribution of acoustic energy within each reconstructed sounds-
cape and thus the absolute values of each acoustic metric29.To
explore the implications of these decisions for detecting changes
in soundscape characteristics over time, we constructed sounds-
capes for 1000 simulated communities containing ten randomly
selected species that each declined from 10 to 5 individuals over a
6-year period. For each community, we constructed soundscapes
using four alternative approaches that altered the ratio of indi-
vidual sound le duration to total soundscape length or the
Fig. 3 Temporal trends in acoustic indices. Predicted annual variation in Acoustic Diversity Index, ADI (a,b), Acoustic Evenness Index, AEI (c,d),
Bioacoustic Index, BI (e,f) and Acoustic Entropy, H (g,h) in North America (left column) between 1996 and 2017 and in Europe (right column) between
1998 and 2018. Blue (North America) and green (Europe) lines show the predicted trends from GLMMs (Table 3); shaded areas indicate 95% condence
intervals. Points show predicted annual values from GLMMs with the identical structure as those in Table 3 but with year tted as a categorical rather than
a continuous variable, vertical lines indicate the 95% condence intervals. Annual values of each acoustic index were standardised at the site-level prior to
analyses.
ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1
6NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:6217 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
proportion of near to far individuals. While the methodological
decisions applied during soundscape construction inuenced the
absolute values of the four acoustic indices for a given commu-
nity, it did not inuence the relative impact of changes in com-
munity composition on the acoustic indices (Supplementary
Fig. 6). Given our focus here is on temporal trends in soundscape
characteristics, rather than absolute values of each acoustic index,
and that our analyses are based on changes in standardised site-
level measures, we believe the temporal and spatial patterns in
soundscape characteristics reported here are robust to the
soundscape construction rules applied.
Natural soundscapes are under ever-increasing pressure from
global biodiversity loss and our results reveal a chronic dete-
rioration in soundscape quality across North America and Europe
over recent decades. Although we focus here on birds as the main
contributors to natural soundscapes, it is likely that the reduction
in quality has been even greater, given parallel declines in many
other taxonomic groups that contribute to soundscapes46,47.
Furthermore, pervasive increases in anthropogenic noise48 and
other sensory pollutants49 are also diluting the nature contact
experience. For example, as well as directly impacting human
behaviour and well-being50, noise pollution impairs our capacity
to perceive natural sounds51 and can limit the acoustic diversity
of soundscapes by constraining the bandwidth within which birds
sing52,53.
A scarcity of historical recordings means any assessment of
changes in natural soundscape characteristics over longer time
periods is vulnerable to the impacts of shifting baseline
syndrome54, as future soundscapes can only be compared to
the potentially already degraded soundscapes of today. Recon-
structing soundscapes from speciesrecords and count data
avoids this problem and allows changes in local soundscape
characteristics to be explored at spatial scales not possible using
eld recordings. This approach could also be used to forecast
future soundscapes based on projected speciesrange shifts under
environmental change scenarios. However, we strongly advocate
for the increased collection and systematic curation of sounds-
cape eld recordings from across habitats and environmental
gradients to capture all facets of soundscape dynamics, such as
changes in anthropogenic noise and vocalisation behaviour across
taxonomic groups, not currently integrated into our reconstruc-
tions. The rapid increase in autonomous sound recording tools
and their widespread use could be harnessed both to launch
standardized soundscape monitoring schemes, and to collect
soundscape recordings in less structured citizen science
databases55. Such recordings could also be used to derive the
vocalisation frequency and duration data needed to further
enhance soundscape reconstructions by encoding species-specic
insertion criteria in place of the systematic protocol (one indivi-
dual equals one 25 s sound le) currently applied across all
species.
Although visual, auditory, and olfactory senses are all impor-
tant modalities characterising the nature contact experience19,20,
sound is a dening feature15. Our analyses of reconstructed
soundscapes reveal previously undocumented changes in the
acoustic properties of soundscapes across North America and
Europe over the past few decades that signal a reduction in
soundscape quality and imply an ongoing dilution of experience
associated with nature interactions. While we expect these
changes to be evident throughout the year, they are likely to
be most pronounced during spring, when birds are most vocally
active. Better understanding of exposure to changes in sounds-
cape quality, by mapping them onto spatial patterns of human
population density and locations at which nature is accessed, and
of the specic soundscape characteristics that support and
enhance the nature contact experience15, is now needed to fully
appreciate the implications for health and well-being56. Reduced
nature connectedness may also be contributing to the global
environmental crisis, as there is evidence it can lead to reductions
in pro-environmental behaviour5,57,58. The potential for declining
soundscape quality to contribute to a negative feedback loop,
whereby a decline in the quality of nature contact experiences
leads to reduced advocacy and nancial support for conservation
actions, and thus to further environmental degradation7, must
also be recognised and addressed. Conservation policy and action
need to ensure the protection and recovery of high-quality natural
soundscapes to prevent chronic, pervasive deterioration and
associated impacts on nature connectedness and health and well-
being.
Methods
Bird data.North America: we used annual bird count data collated under the
North American Breeding Bird Survey (NA-BBS: https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/)
from 1996 to 2017. NA-BBS survey routes, consisting of 50 survey points (hereafter
sites) evenly distributed over ~24.5 miles, are distributed across the United States
and Canada and are usually surveyed in June. At each site, skilled volunteers
conduct a three-minute point count, recording all birds seen or heard within a
400-m radius59.
Table 3 Results of GLMMs of the variation in the acoustic properties of soundscapes.
Fixed effects North America Europe
Estimate (SE) χ2DF pEstimate (SE) χ2DF p
(a) ADI Latitude 0.00002 (0.00088) 0.03 1 0.856 0.0004 (0.0005) 0.78 1 0.376
Longitude 0.00002 (0.00035) 0.19 1 0.659 0.0005 (0.0003) 3.57 1 0.059
Year 0.00198 (0.00068) 8.46 1 0.004 0.0073 (0.0030) 5.98 1 0.014
(b) AEI Latitude 0.00001 (0.00009) 0.01 1 0.949 0.0005 (0.0005) 1.25 1 0.263
Longitude 0.00009 (0.00003) 0.08 1 0.782 0.0005 (0.0003) 2.84 1 0.092
Year 0.00144 (0.00057) 6.47 1 0.011 0.0053 (0.0030) 3.08 1 0.079
(c) BI Latitude 0.00004 (0.00009) 0.16 1 0.691 0.0002 (0.0005) 0.25 1 0.621
Longitude 0.00002 (0.00003) 0.44 1 0.508 0.0004 (0.0003) 2.26 1 0.132
Year 0.00217 (0.00088) 6.08 1 0.014 0.0056 (0.0021) 6.91 1 0.009
(d) H Latitude 0.00010 (0.00009) 1.38 1 0.239 0.0004 (0.0005) 0.86 1 0.353
Longitude 0.00006 (0.00004) 3.19 1 0.074 0.0006 (0.0003) 4.65 1 0.031
Year 0.00625 (0.00175) 12.79 1 <0.001 0.0095 (0.0030) 10.01 1 0.002
Annual values for each acoustic index were standardised at the site-level prior to analyses.
(a) Acoustic Diversity Index (ADI), (b) Acoustic Evenness Index (AEI), (c) Bioacoustic Index (BI) and (d) Acoustic Entropy (H) in 202737 NA-BBS sites across North America between 1996 and 2017
and in 16524 PECBMS sites across Europe between 1998 and 2018.
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 ARTICLE
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:6217 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 7
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Europe: we used annual bird count data from 23 survey schemes across
22 countries collated under the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme
(PECBMS: https://pecbms.info) from 1998 to 2018. In each scheme, skilled
volunteers carry out either line transects, point counts or territory mapping at
survey sites during the breeding season and record all birds encountered60
(Supplementary Table 5); while methods vary between survey schemes, they are
consistent within schemes across the time period included here.
Where count data were reported for subspecies, these were aggregated to species
level and any records of hybrid species or specifying genus only were removed. The
longitude and latitude of each survey site (just the rst site of each NA-BBS survey
route) were also provided by NA-BBS and PECBMS. Not all sites were surveyed in
every year and only sites surveyed at least three times during the dened time
period were included in analyses. Note that similar results were found when
restricting data to sites surveyed in at least 10 years during the dened period.
Sound recordings. Sound les for all species detected on NA-BBS and PECBMS
surveys were downloaded from Xeno Canto, an online database of sound
recordings of wild birds from around the world (http://www.xeno-canto.org).
Specically, we identied all les longer than 30 s, with associ ated metadata cate-
gorising them as high quality (category A) and as either song,callor
drummingtypes; sound les whose type category including the term wingbeat,
ap,begging,alarmor nighttypes were excluded. Sound les downloaded
for NA-BBS species were restricted to those recorded in North America and those
from PECBMS to recordings made in Europe. If no sound les met these
requirements for a given species, we downloaded all les of shorter duration for
that species that met the quality and type criteria and stitched repeats of these
together to produce les longer than 30 s. Where more than 50 sound les for a
given species met our criteria for inclusion, a random selection of 50 was taken for
use in subsequent analyses. We used multiple sound les for each species to
capture, where possible, between-individual variation in song and call structure,
with the sound le(s) for inclusion in specic soundscapes randomly subsampled
from this set. If no sound les for a species were available, the sites where that
species was detected were removed from subsequent analyses; this represented
<1.5% NA-BBS sites and <3.5% PECBMS sites. Each downloaded sound le was
then standardised to ensure consistent sampling rate, duration and volume. Each
le was clipped to the rst 27.5 s, with the rst 2.5 s of this then removed to
produce a 25 s recording. These sound les varied in the quantity of vocalisation
they contained according to the song and call characteristics of the focal species.
Thus, some included 25 s of continuous song while others included just a single,
short burst of sound. The sampling rate was set to 44.1 kHz, and each le nor-
malised with a 6 dB gain before being saved as a mono mp3 output.
It is important to recognise that the sound recordings used here are taken in the
wild and thus inevitably contain some background noise in addition to
vocalisations of the target species, and that this may inuence the acoustic
properties of the constructed soundscapes to some extent. To minimise this, we
selected only Quality Arecordings and clipped out 25 s from the beginning of
each of these for use in soundscape construction, on the assumption that the
named focal species will be more dominant in these recordings and that it is most
likely to be vocalising towards the beginning of a submitted recording.
Furthermore, any background noise is expected to be both random in acoustic
structure and randomly distributed across the sound les of species considered
here; we see no plausible reason why, for example, the eld recordings of increasing
or declining species would be more or less likely to contain background noise. Our
systematic approach to soundscape construction and our analyses of trends in
standardised site-level acoustic metrics also limits the potential of background
noise to cause directional bias in the results reported and, if anything, it is expected
to have reduced our ability to detect changes in soundscape characteristics.
In total, count data were available for 202,737 sites and 620 species in North
America, with a mean ± SE of 15.62 ± 0.6 sound les available per species. For
Europe, count data were available for 16,524 sites and 447 species, with
21.05 ± 0.9 sound les per species.
Soundscape reconstruction. This is described in detail in the main text.
Soundscape characteristics. Four acoustic indices were used to explore changes
in the acoustic properties of reconstructed soundscapes. The Acoustic Diversity
Index (ADI) uses the ShannonWiener index to estimate acoustic diversity,
dividing spectrograms into frequency bands and calculating the proportion of each
band occupied by sounds above a set amplitude threshold30. Higher values
represent a more even distribution of sound across frequencies and are associated
with increased species richness. The Acoustic Evenness Index (AEI) uses a similar
approach, dividing spectrograms into frequency bands but using the Gini coef-
cient to measure the evenness of sound distribution across them30. It is therefore
negatively related to ADI, with higher values representing a greater unevenness
between frequency bands, suggesting dominance by fewer species. Increases in
abundance are expected to have less impact on ADI and AEI than increases in
species richness as the songs of individuals from the same species will broadly
occupy the same frequency space. The Bioacoustic Index (BI) measures variation in
amplitude across a range of frequencies by calculating the dB spectrum across
frequencies and quantifying the area under the curve31. BI is expected to increase
with both increases in abundance and species richness. Total Acoustic Entropy (H)
is dened as the product of spatial and temporal entropies and quanties variation
in amplitude across frequency bands and time using ShannonWiener index32.It
increases with both species richness and abundance following a logarithmic
model28,32. As soundscapes become saturated, the inuence of additional species
and/or individuals on BI and H is expected to decrease. Default settings were used
Fig. 4 Spatial variation in acoustic index trends. Mean site-level trend in
Acoustic Diversity Index, ADI (a,b), Acoustic Evenness Index, AEI (c,d),
Bioacoustic Index, BI (e,f) and Acoustic Entropy, H (g,h) in 1354 1°x1° grid
squares across North America between 1996 and 2017 and 715 1°x1° grid
squares across Europe between 1998 and 2018. Colours indicate the size
and direction of trend in each acoustic index (yellowimproving
soundscape quality; bluedeclining soundscape quality); note that the
colour scheme is reversed for AEI, as positive trends are taken to represent
a reduction in soundscape quality for this index. Site-level trends are
derived from changes in standardised annual values of each acoustic index.
ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1
8NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:6217 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
for each acoustic index except BI, where the maximum frequency was set to
22,050 Hz.
We initially generated soundscapes for a series of simulated communities to
conrm that the acoustic indices respond as expected when calculated from
articial soundscapes. Firstly, we calculated ADI, AEI, BI and H for soundscapes
derived from communities comprising 1 to 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 individuals of each
species in turn. Given the randomised selection of sound les, insertion point and
playback volume, we iterated this process 1000 times for each species-abundance
combination. Next, we constructed communities containing 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20 or
50 species, with 110 individuals of each species present, i.e. 70 communities in
total. We iterated this process 100 times for each species richness-abundance
combination, randomly selecting species for inclusion from the NA-BBS species
pool, and a further 100 times, randomly selecting species from the PECBMS species
pool. Again, the four acoustic indices were calculated for each soundscape
produced.
Annual soundscapes for each NA-BBS and PECBMS site were constructed from
each site-year count le and the four acoustic indices were calculated for each.
Given the randomised selection of the specic sound le, insertion point, and
playback volume used to represent each individual during the construction of each
soundscape, this process was iterated ve times, with each acoustic index averaged
across these ve site-year iterations for use in subsequent analyses. For all
PECBMS sites and for the rst site of each NA-BBS route, the soundscape
generated from the fth iteration was saved as an .mp3 le. All sound le
processing and soundscape construction was undertaken using Sound eXchange
programme (SoX: http://sox.sourceforge.net/) and acoustic indices were calculated
using R packages seewave32,soundecology61 and tuneR62 in R v3.5.163.
Finally, we tested the sensitivity of soundscape characteristics to key parameters
imposed during construction. While predominately driven by community
composition, the acoustic properties of constructed soundscapes could also be
inuenced by rules that inuence the degree of the overlap between individual
sound les and their amplitude. First, we generated a community of 10 randomly
selected European bird species and specied declines in each species from 10 to ve
individuals over a 6-year period. For each year, we then constructed four
soundscapes and extracted the associated acoustic indices for each. The rst
soundscape type was built using the methods described above. The second was
built by inserting sound les into a 3-min soundscape, to increase the degree of
overlap, while the third was built by inserting sound les into a 10-min soundscape
to decrease the degree of overlap. Finally, we reverted to a 5-min soundscape but
randomly sampled playback volume for each sound le from a half-normal
distribution. This increased the relative proportion of distant vocalisations and may
be more representative of point count data, where the area surveyed increases with
increasing distance; though note this is likely to be offset by reduced detectability at
greater distances. This process was iterated for 1000 randomly sampled
communities of 10 species.
Statistical analyses
Response of acoustic indices to changes in community structure. To conrm that
acoustic indices respond to changes in species richness and abundance, we tted
General Linear Models (GLMs) to outputs for the simulated single and multi-
species communities. In each model, the mean acoustic index across all iterations
was tted as the response variable. For the single-species communities, the log
number of individuals was tted as the explanatory variable and for the multi-
species communities, the log number of individuals, log number of species and
their interaction were tted as explanatory variables. Separate models were tted to
the North American and European data and for each acoustic index in turn.
Site-level changes in acoustic indices. We standardised each acoustic index within
each site (by subtracting the mean site-level measure from the annual value and
dividing by the site-level standard deviation64) prior to analysis to account for any
potential differences in detectability or observer effects between sites, differing
sampling protocols across survey schemes, and for initial community structure. In
all analyses, separate models were constructed for North American (204,813 sites
on 4197 routes spanning 22 years) and European data (16,524 sites spanning
21 years), and for each acoustic index in turn. To explore large-scale temporal
trends while accounting for any geographic differences in acoustic characteristics,
we tted Gaussian General Linear Mixed Models (GLMMs) via the R package
lme465. Standardised annual site-level values for each acoustic index were tted as
the response variable, with latitude, longitude and year (continuous) as xed
effects. To account for non-independence of soundscapes from the same site,
random effects of site and year were included in all models, along with route and
state (North America models, Eq. (1a)) or country (Europe models, Eq. (1b)). To
assess the importance of xed effects, we performed a likelihood ratio test by
comparing models with and without a particular term, reporting the χ2value and
associated signicance. Spatial autocorrelation of modelled residuals was examined
by Morans I, separately for each year, using the package ape66. While signicant
spatial autocorrelation was found, the sizes of the estimates were negligible (Sup-
plementary Table 6) and therefore this is subsequently ignored. To explicitly
explore how temporal trends in the acoustic properties of reconstructed sounds-
capes varied geographically, we retted the models described above, including
latitude*year and longitude*year interaction terms. To visualise the large-scale
annual variation in acoustic properties we retted these models with year included
as a categorial rather than a continuous variable, with predictions from these
models providing continent-level annual estimates for each acoustic index (Fig. 3).
Table 4 Results of GLMMs of the association between site-level trends in acoustic indices and site-level trends in the total
number of individuals and species in (i) 202737 NA-BBS sites across North America between 1996 and 2017 and (ii) 16524
PECBMS sites across Europe between 1998 and 2018, and the proportion of 1000 bootstrapped models reporting signicant
effects for each term (p< 0.05).
Fixed effects Estimate (SE) χ2DF pProportion signicant
(p< 0.05)
(i) North America
(a) ADI Individuals 0.109 (0.001) 310.08 1 <0.001 1
Species 0.578 (0.008) 4955.960 1 <0.001 1
(b) AEI Individuals 0.053 (0.006) 72.46 1 <0.001 1
Species 0.581 (0.008) 4964.17 1 <0.001 1
(c) BI Individuals 0.421 (0.006) 51.9.51 1 <0.001 1
Species 0.615 (0.008) 6267.72 1 <0.001 1
Individuals*species 0.059 (0.147) 15.975 1 <0.001 0.65
(d) H Individuals 0.910 (0.005) 32156.51 1 <0.001 1
Species 0.662 (0.007) 9766.56 1 <0.001 1
Individuals*species 0.058 (0.013) 20.99 1 <0.001 0.67
(ii) Europe
(a) ADI Individuals 0.388 (0.029) 173.51 1 <0.001 1
Species 0.657 (0.046) 206.45 1 <0.001 1
(b) AEI Individuals 0.398 (0.029) 182.80 1 <0.001 0.98
Species 0.681 (0.046) 224.51 1 <0.001 1
Individuals*species 0.188 (0.086) 4.80 1 0.028 0.33
(c) BI Individuals 0.074 (0.029) 6.25 1 <0.001 0.98
Species 0.947 (0.050) 424.93 1 <0.001 1
(d) H Individuals 0.410 (0.029) 199.76 1 <0.001 1
Species 1.095 (0.045) 590.19 1 <0.001 1
(a) Acoustic Diversity Index (ADI), (b) Acoustic Evenness Index (AEI), (c) Bioacoustic Index (BI) and (d) Acoustic Entropy (H). Only signicant interactions are retained. Site-level trends are derived
from changes in standardised annual values of each acoustic index, total number of species, and total number of individuals.
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 ARTICLE
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:6217 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 9
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
To explore the relationships between site-level trends in each acoustic index, we
tted GLMs with the standardised annual values for each index as the response
variable and year (continuous) as the explanatory variable (Eq. (2)). This resulted
in an independent estimate of the rate of change in each acoustic index at each site.
For all six possible pairwise comparisons between acoustic indices, we used
Pearsons correlation coefcients to estimate the magnitude of the association
between their site-level trends. All statistical analyses were carried out in R v3.5.163.
Standardised acoustic indexi;tβ0þβ1Latitudeiþβ2Longitudeiþβ3Yeart
þα1iSiteiþα2tYeartþα3jStatejþα4kRoute þεi;t
ð1aÞ
α1iN0;σ2
α1

α2tN0;σ2
α2

α3jN0;σ2
α3

α4kN0;σ2
α4

εi;tNð0;σε2Þ
where i=site, t=year, j=state, k=route
Standardised acoustic indexi;tβ0þβ1Latitudeiþβ2Longitudeiþβ3Yeart
þα1iSiteiþα2tYeartþα3jCountryjþεi;t
ð1bÞ
α1iN0;σ2
α1

α2tN0;σ2
α2

α3jN0;σ2
α3

εi;tNð0;σε2Þ
where i=site, t=year, j=country
Standardised acoustic indextβ0þβ1Yeartþεtð2Þ
εtNð0;σε2Þ
where t=year
To explore large-scale temporal trends in the total number of individuals and
species recorded on NA-BBS and PECBMS surveys, we tted two additional
GLMMs. Standardised annual site-level values of the total number of (a)
individuals or (b) species were tted as response variables, with latitude, longitude
and year (continuous) as xed effects. To account for non-independence in
community structure from the same site, random effects of site and year were
included in all models, along with route and state (North America models) or
country (Europe models). Model structures were therefore equivalent to those set
out in Eqs. (1a) and (1b), albeit with different dependent variables. We then retted
these models including year as a categorial rather than a continuous variable to
visualise the large-scale annual variation, and used predictions from these models
to provide continent-level annual estimates for total abundance and species
richness (Supplementary Fig. 5).
To explore the site-level relationships between trends in total number of
individuals, total number of species and acoustic indices, we rst tted GLMs with
either the standardised total number of (a) individuals or (b) species as response
variables and year (continuous) as the explanatory variable at each site. These models
were therefore equivalent in structure to that described in Eq. (2)andresultedin
independent estimates of the rates of change in the total number of individuals and
species at each site. We then tted separate GLMMs for each acoustic index, in each
continent, in turn with site-level trend in acoustic index as the response variable and
site-level trends in the total number of individuals and the total number of species and
their interaction as xed effects. State was included as a random effect in the North
American models and country as a random effect in the European models. To
incorporate the error associated with site-level trend estimates we used a
bootstrapping procedure in our assessment of the signicance of the modelled effects.
We generated 1000 new estimates for each variable (site-level trend in: acoustic index,
total number of individuals and total number of species) by randomly sampling from
a normal distribution with a mean equal to the site-level trend and standard deviation
equal to the standard error of the site-level trend. The GLMMs were then tted over
each of the 1000 datasets separately. We present the results of a nal model carried
out on the original site-level estimates, as well as the proportion of times each xed
Fig. 5 Trends in community structure and soundscape characteristics.
The association between site-level in trends in the total number of species
and the total number of individuals in 202737 NA-BBS sites across North
America (left column) and in 16524 PECBMS sites across Europe (right
column). Colours indicate site-level trends in Acoustic Diversity Index, ADI
(a,b), Acoustic Evenness Index, AEI (c,d) Bioacoustic Index, BI (e,f) and
Acoustic Entropy, H (g,h) (yellowimproving soundscape quality; blue
declining soundscape quality); note the colour scheme is reversed for AEI,
as positive trends are taken to represent a reduction in soundscape quality
for this metric. Site-level trends are derived from changes in standardised
annual values of each acoustic index, total number of species, and total
number of individuals.
ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1
10 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:6217 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
effect included in the nal model was signicant across the 1000 bootstrapped
datasets (p< 0.05). Non-signicant interaction terms were removed from the models.
Reporting summary. Further information on research design is available in the Nature
Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.
Data availability
The North American bird monitoring data are available directly from U.S. Geological
Survey (https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/) and the European bird monitoring are
available, on request, from PECBMS (https://pecbms.info/). Sound recordings were
downloaded from Xeno Canto (http://www.xeno-canto.org). Acoustic indices for
soundscapes constructed from simulated communities, site-level acoustic index data for
reconstructed soundscapes for NA-BBS and PECBMS sites, and source data for all gures
are available from the Open Science Framework under accession code: https://osf.io/
jyuxk/ (ref. 67).
Code availability
R code for soundscape construction, extraction of acoustic indices, statistical analyses
and gure construction are available from the Open Science Framework under accession
code: https://osf.io/jyuxk/ (ref. 67).
Received: 14 April 2021; Accepted: 24 September 2021;
References
1. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population
Division (UNDESA). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision (ST/
ESA/SER.A/420) (United Nations, 2019).
2. Bauman, A. E., Petersen, C. B., Blond, K., Rangul, V. & Hardy, L. L. in Sedentary
Behaviour Epidemiology (eds. Leitzmann, M., Jochem, C. & Schmid, D.) 73106
(Springer, 2018).
3. Pergams, O. R. & Zaradic, P. A. Is love of nature in the US becoming love of
electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by
watching movies, playing video games, internet use, and oil prices. J. Environ.
Manag. 80, 387393 (2006).
4. Skar, M., Wold, L. C., Gundersen, V. & OBrien, L. Why do children not play
in nearby nature? Results from a Norwegian study. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor
Learn 16, 239255 (2016).
5. Soga, M. & Gaston, K. J. Extinction of experience: the loss of human-nature
interactions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14,94101 (2016).
6. Bratman, G. N. et al. Nature and mental health: an ecosystem services
perspective. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0903 (2019).
7. Schebella, M. F., Weber, D., Lindsey, K. & Daniels, C. B. For the love of nature:
exploring the importance of species diversity and micro-variables associated
with favourite outdoor places. Front. Psychol. 8, 2094 (2017).
8. Shanahan, D. F., Fuller, R. A., Bush, R., Lin, B. B. & Gaston, K. J. The health
benets of nature: how much do we need. BioScience 65, 476485 (2015).
9. Gaston, K. J. & Soga, M. Extinction of experience: the need to be more specic.
People Nat. 2, 575581 (2020).
10. Keniger, L. E., Gaston, K. J., Irvine, K. N. & Fuller, R. A. What are the benets
of interacting with nature? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 10, 913935
(2013).
11. Pouso, S. et al. Contact with blue-green spaces during the COVID-19
pandemic lockdown benecial to mental health. Sci. Total Environ. 756,
143984 (2020).
12. Soga, M., Evans, M. J., Tsuchiya, K. & Fukano, Y. A room with a green view:
the importance of nearby nature for mental health during the COVID-19
pandemic. Ecol. Appl. 31, e2248 (2020).
13. Brondizio, E. S., Settele, J., Díaz, S. & Ngo, H. T. (eds). Global Assessment
Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).
14. Methorst, J. et al. The importance of species diversity for human well-being in
Europe. Ecol. Econ. 181, 106917 (2021).
15. Ferraro, D. M. et al. The phantom chorus: birdsong boosts well-being in
protected areas. Proc. R. Soc. B 287, 20201811 (2020).
16. Pijanowski, B. C. et al. Soundscape ecology: the science of sound in the
landscape. BioScience 61, 203216 (2011).
17. Lynch, E., Joyce, D. & Fristrup, K. An assessment of noise audibility and
sound levels in U.S. National Parks. Landsc. Ecol. 26, 12971309 (2011).
18. Gasc, A., Francomano, D., Dunning, J. B. & Pijanowski, B. C. Future
directions for soundscape ecology: the importance of ornithological
contributions. Auk 134, 215228 (2017).
19. Franco, L. S., Shanahan, D. R. & Fuller, R. A. A review of the benets of nature
experiences: more than meets the eye. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14,
864 (2017).
20. Hedblom, M., Heyman, E., Antonsson, H. & Gunnarsson, B. Bird song
diversity inuences young peoples appreciation of urban landscapes. Urban.
Urban Green. 13, 469474 (2014).
21. Wang, R. & Zhao, J. A good sound in the right place: exploring the effects of
auditory-visual combinations on aesthetic preferences. Urban. Urban Green.
43, 126356 (2019).
22. Rosenberg, K. V. et al. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 366,
120124 (2019).
23. Johnson, C. N. et al. Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the
Anthropocene. Science 356, 270275 (2017).
24. Olden, J. D., Poff, N. L., Douglas, M. B., Douglas, M. E. & Fausch, K. D.
Ecological and evolutionary consequences of biotic homogenization. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 19,1824 (2004).
25. Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H. & Gaston, K. J.
Psychological benets of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol. Lett. 3,
390394 (2007).
26. Brewster, J. P. & Simons, T. R. Testing the importance of auditory detections
in avian point counts. J. Field Ornithol. 80, 178182 (2009).
27. Darras, K. et al. Autonomous sound recording outperforms human
observation for sampling birds: a systematic map and user guide. Ecol. Appl.
29, e01954 (2019).
28. Zhao, Z. et al. How well do acoustic indices measure biodiversity?
Computational experiments to determine effect of sound unit shape,
vocalization intensity, and frequency of vocalization occurrence on
performance of acoustic indices. Ecol. Indic. 107, 105588 (2019).
29. Eldridge, A. et al. Sounding out ecoacoustic metrics: avian species richness is
predicted by acoustic indices in temperate but not tropical habitats. Ecol.
Indic. 95, 939952 (2018).
30. Villanueva-Rivera, L. C., Pijanowski, B. C., Doucette, J. & Pekin, B. A primer of
acoustic analysis for landscape ecologists. Landsc. Ecol. 26, 12331246 (2011).
31. Boelman, N. T., Asner, G. P., Hart, P. J. & Martin, R. E. Multi-trophic invasion
resistance in Hawaii: bioacoustics, eld surveys, and airborne remote sensing.
Ecol. Appl. 17, 21372144 (2007).
32. Sueur, J., Aubin, T. & Simonis, C. Seewave, a free modular tool for sound
analysis and synthesis. Bioacoustics 18, 213226 (2008).
33. Mammides, C., Goodale, E., Dayananda, S. K., Kang, L. & Chen, J. Do acoustic
indices correlate with bird diversity? Insights from two biodiverse regions in
Yunnan Province, south China. Ecol. Indic. 82, 470477 (2017).
34. Francomano, D., Gottesmann, B. L. & Pijanowski, B. C. Biogeographical and
analytical implications of temporal variability in geographically diverse
soundscapes. Ecol. Indic. 112, 105845 (2020).
35. Rodriguez, A. et al. Temporal and spatial variability of animal sound within a
neotropical forest. Ecol. Inform. 21, 133143 (2014).
36. Fuller, S., Axel, A. C., Tucker, D. & Gage, S. H. Connecting soundscape to
landscape: which acoustic index best describes landscape conguration? Ecol.
Indic. 58, 207215 (2015).
37. Furumo, P. R. & Aide, T. M. Using soundscapes to assess biodiversity in
Neotropical oil palm landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 34, 911923 (2019).
38. Pilotto, F. et al. Meta-analysis of multidecadal biodiversity trends in Europe.
Nat. Commun. 11, 3486 (2020).
39. Rickleffs, R. E. A comprehensive framework for global patterns in biodiversity.
Ecol. Lett. 7,115 (2004).
40. Jarzayna, M. A. & Jetz, W. A near half-century of temporal change in different
facets of avian diversity. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 29993011 (2017).
41. Schipper, A. M. et al. Contrasting changes in the abundance and diversity of
North American bird assemblages from 1971 to 2010. Glob. Change Biol. 22,
39483959 (2016).
42. Dornelas, M. et al. Assemblage time series reveal biodiversity change but not
systematic loss. Science 344, 296299 (2014).
43. Daskalova, G. N., Myers-Smith, I. H. & Godlee, J. L. Rare and common
vertebrates span a wide spectrum of population trends. Nat. Commun. 11,
113 (2020).
44. Inger, R. et al. Common European birds are declining rapidly while less
abundance speciesnumbers are rising. Ecol. Lett. 18,2836 (2015).
45. Stephens, P. A. et al. Consistent response of bird populations to climate
change on two continents. Science 352,8487 (2016).
46. Hallmann, C. A. et al. More than 76 percent declines over 27 years in total
ying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 12, e0185809 (2017).
47. Houlahan, J. E., Findlay, C. S., Schmidt, B. R., Meyer, A. H. & Kuzman, S. L.
Quantitative evidence for global amphibian population declines. Nature 404,
752755 (2000).
48. Buxton, R. T. et al. Noise pollution is pervasive in U.S. protected areas. Science
356, 531533 (2017).
49. Dominoni, D. M. et al. Why conservation biology can benet from sensory
ecology. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 502511 (2020).
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 ARTICLE
NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:6217 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 11
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
50. Buxton, R. T., Pearson, A. L., Allou, C., Fristrup, K. & Wittemyer, G. A
synthesis of health benets of natural sounds and their distribution in national
parks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2013097118 (2021).
51. Francis, C. D. et al. Acoustic environments matter: synergistic benets to
humans and ecological communities. J. Environ. Manag. 203, 245254 (2017).
52. Derryberry, E. P., Phillips, J. N., Derryberry, G. E., Blum, M. J. & Luther, D.
Singing in a silent spring: Birds respond to a half-century soundscape
reversion during the COVID-19 shutdown. Science 370, 575579 (2020).
53. Roca, I. T. et al. Shifting song frequencies in response to anthropogenic noise:
a meta-analysis on birds and anurans. Behav. Ecol. 27, 12691274 (2016).
54. Soga, M. & Gaston, K. J. Shifting baseline syndrome: causes, consequences,
and implications. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 222230 (2018).
55. Roe, P. et al. The Australian acoustic observatory. Methods Ecol. Evol.https://
doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13660 (2021).
56. Smith, J. W. & Pijanowski, B. C. Human and policy dimensions of soundscape
ecology. Glob. Environ. Change 28,6374 (2014).
57. Whitburn, J., Linklater, W. & Abrahamse, W. Meta-analysis of human
connection to nature and proenvironmental behaviour. Conserv. Biol. 50,
179214 (2019).
58. Oh, R. R. Y. et al. Connection to nature is predicted by family values, social
norms and personal experiences. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 28, e01632 (2021).
59. Sauer, J. R. et al. The rst 50 years of the North American Breeding Bird
Survey. Condor 119, 576593 (2017).
60. Brlík, V. et al. Long-term and large-scale multispecies dataset tracking
population changes of common European breeding birds. Sci. Data 8, 21 (2021).
61. Villanueva-Rivera, L. J. & Pijanowski, B. C. Soundecology: Soundscape Ecology.
R package version 1.3.2 (2016).
62. Ligges, U. et al. tuneR: Analysis of Music and Speech. R package version 1.3.3
(2018)
63. R Core Team. R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018).
64. Schielzeth, H. Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression
coefcients. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 103113 (2010).
65. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects
models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67,148 (2015).
66. Paradis, E., Claude, J. & Strimmer, K. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and
evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20, 289290 (2004).
67. Morrison, C. et al. Source data and R code from: Bird population declines and
species turnover are changing the acoustic properties of spring soundscapes.
Open Science Framework https://osf.io/jyuxk/ (2021).
Acknowledgements
We thank the thousands of volunteer citizen-scientists who contributed to the long-term
bird-monitoring programmes in North America and Europe, the institutions that
manage these programmes, and those funding these activities. The Norwegian Envir-
onment Agency nances the Norwegian common breeding bird monitoring and the
Swedish Bird Survey is supported by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and
carried out in collaboration with all 21 regional county boards. It acts within the fra-
mework of the strategic research environment Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in a
Changing Climate (BECC). J.R. was supported by Charles University in Prague (project
no. PRIMUS/17/SCI/16). We are also grateful to the many sound recorders that have
submitted les to the Xeno Canto collection (www.xeno-canto.org). This work was
supported by Natural Environment Research Council grant NE/T007/354/1. We thank
L. Spurgin for advice on analysis; and J. Gill and J. Sauer for helpful discussions and
comments on the manuscript. Soundscape reconstruction was carried out on the High-
Performance Computing Cluster supported by the Research and Specialist Computing
Support Service (RSCSS) at the University of East Anglia.
Author contributions
S.J.B. conceived the study and constructed the soundscapes. S.J.B. drafted the manuscript
with signicant contributions from C.A.M. C.A.M. performed the data analyses and
prepared the gures. A.A., Z.B., L.B., T.C., P.C., V.E., D.P.E., A.G., S.H., F.J., J.A.K., J.K.,
A.K., P.K., A.L., Å.L., C.M., D.G.N., I.J.Ø., J-Y.P., J.R., T.S., B.S.S., N.T., S.T., C.A.M.v.T.
and P.V. contributed to collection and collation of PECBMS data. All authors reviewed
and approved the nal manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material
available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to S. J. Butler.
Peer review information Nature Communications thanks Richard Fuller, Christos
Mammides, and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer
review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.
Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/reprints
Publishers note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional afliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party
material in this article are included in the articles Creative Commons license, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
articles Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2021
ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1
12 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2021) 12:6217 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26488-1 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
... However, they are typi-cally not restricted to a specific species group as traditional point count methods would be. Morrison et al. (2021) simulated and extrapolated effects on soundscape indices across all of North America and Europe and found "a pervasive loss of acoustic diversity and intensity of soundscapes across both continents over the past 25 years." ...
Article
Full-text available
Rachel Carson's warning of a silent spring directed attention to unwanted side effects of pesticide application. Though her work led to policies restricting insecticide use, various insecticides currently in use affect nontarget organisms and may contribute to population declines. The insecticide tebufenozide is used to control defoliating Lepidoptera in oak forests harboring rich insect faunas. Over 3 years, we tested the effect of its aerial application on bird populations with autonomous sound recorders in a large, replicated, full factorial field experiment during a spongy moth (Lymantria dispar) outbreak. The soundscape analysis combined automated aggregation of recordings into sound indices with species identification by experts. After pesticide application in the year of the outbreak, acoustic complexity in early summer was significantly reduced. The soundscape analysis showed that the reduction was not related to birds, but instead to the large reduction in caterpillar feeding and frass dropping. Effects on the vocal activity of birds were smaller than originally expected from a related study demonstrating tebufenozide's negative effect on bird breeding success. The legacy of the pesticide treatment, in terms of soundscape variation, was not present in the second year when the outbreak had ended. Our results showed a dimension of insecticide‐induced acoustic variation not immediately accessible to the human ear. It also illustrated how a multifaceted soundscape analysis can be used as a generic approach to quantify the impact of anthropogenic stressors in novel ways by providing an example of remote and continuous sound monitoring not possible in conventional field surveys.
... The natural sound and bird song play a particular role in building and maintaining the connection with nature. However, the loss of diversity has led to a decline in the pervasive loss of acoustic diversity (Morrison et al., 2021). Due to the declining environmental condition, there is a decline in the bird population, and slipping closer to extinction. ...
... However, a similar laboratory-based study failed to find an improvement in self-reported restoration following a playback of high avian diversity soundscape (Douglas & Evans, 2022), suggesting that perhaps the effects of sounds and the sight of natural landscape interact with the act of physical activity to deliver well-being benefits. The staggering and ongoing declines of bird populations and concurrent homogenisation of assemblages (Burns et al., 2021;Johnson et al., 2017;Olden et al., 2004;Rosenberg et al., 2019), translate to reductions in birdsong abundance and diversity, and underpin reported large-scale declines in natural soundscape quality (Morrison et al., 2021), with associated implications for derived health and well-being benefits. ...
Article
Full-text available
Biodiversity is rapidly declining, reducing the quantity and quality of human interactions with nature and constraining its contribution to human health and well‐being. Natural sounds are a key component of our experience of nature, but biodiversity losses are reflected in soundscapes, which are becoming less diverse and quieter. We characterised the soundscapes across 21 English vineyards using acoustic indices and related them to bird species richness and abundance. We found that higher bird species richness, but not abundance, led to more diverse and louder soundscapes, as reflected in higher values of Acoustic Complexity Index (ACI), Bioacoustic Index (BIO) and Normalised Difference Soundscape Index (NDSI), and lower values of Acoustic Entropy Index (H). Secondly, at three of the study vineyards that run vineyard tours, we measured visitors' experience of the tour in terms of sound enjoyment, soundscape connectedness and tour satisfaction and related these to ambient and experimentally enhanced soundscapes, where we used playback recordings of five additional birdsongs to increase the soundscapes' complexity and volume. Under ambient conditions, respondents' (n = 107) experience was significantly higher at sites with soundscapes that had higher ACI and BIO values, and lower H, Acoustic Diversity Index (ADI) and NDSI values, indicating a positive effect of more diverse and louder soundscapes. Natural sounds formed an important part of the tour experience at these sites, making visitors feel more present and connected to nature. Under experimental soundscape enhancement, respondents (n = 79) reported hearing significantly more bird species during the tour, and they reported significantly higher scores for sound enjoyment, soundscape connectedness and tour satisfaction than under ambient conditions. This effect was stronger in visitors who engaged more in pro‐environmental behaviours, such as purchasing organic foods. Our study demonstrates (i) the direct contribution of aural modes to our experience of nature and (ii) that the delivery of biodiversity conservation measures aimed at supporting bird diversity could simultaneously enhance the experience and well‐being benefits of spending time in nature. Natural soundscapes should therefore be recognised and valued as natural capital, and their protection should be incorporated into conservation planning and policy. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
... On the other hand, we found a positive trend of birds, which contrasts with the negative patterns found in other regions (e.g. Hallmann et al., 2014;Rosenberg et al., 2019;McMahon et al., 2020;Morrison et al., 2021). Regarding systems, we identified that freshwater environments show the greatest decline in population size, in line with global trends (WWF, 2022). ...
... In a pan-European study, for example, it has been shown that bird species richness is highly correlated with people's life satisfaction to a similar extent as income (Methorst et al., 2021). However, as bird populations decline, so does the acoustic diversity of spring soundscapes and their potential ecosystemservice function to humans (Morrison et al., 2021). ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction In production forests, management can have cascading effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Acoustic diversity reflects the diversity of vocalizing animals and has also considerable recreational value for human well-being, but the relationship between acoustic diversity and forest management remains largely unexplored Method We recorded acoustic diversity on forest plots along a gradient of silvicultural management intensity (SMI) in three regions of Germany. We explored the diurnal and seasonal temporal dynamics in acoustic diversity index (ADI) from March to July using generalized additive mixed models (GAMMs). We further investigated the interrelation between acoustic diversity and silvicultural management intensity, forest structural diversity, as well as tree diversity, bird species richness and abundance using structural equation modeling (SEM). Results Silvicultural management intensity had significant effects on the temporal dynamics of ADI in May and June from dawn till dusk, but variance explained by SMI was low. We confirmed our hypothesis that ADI was reduced by SMI due to its cascading effects on forest structural diversity and bird species richness and abundance. Discussion Acoustic diversity indices can provide valuable insights into how forest management affects the acoustic activity of soniferous communities. We discuss how this can indicate both changes in species diversity as well as their vocal activity. We further address potential implications for forest management.
Article
Motivation Information on species' population trends is essential to assess species' conservation status, make informed environmental decisions and ultimately reduce biodiversity loss. Robust population trends require a long‐term monitoring programme, often using citizen scientists, that ideally generates representative and unbiased data from the study area. Here we present the dataset of the Breeding Bird Survey, the main scheme for monitoring the population changes of common and widespread breeding birds in the United Kingdom, which achieves this through a randomised sampling scheme and defined field methodology. We also describe the modelling approach used to calculate the population trends, which are the main output of the survey. Main Types of Variable Contained The main published dataset contains 7,070,577 records detailing counts of 217 bird species in 7010 grid cells over 30 years. Data for 78 species that are currently regarded as too sensitive to be released at fine resolution are omitted. As an illustration of the main use of this dataset, we provide population change estimates for 119 bird species. Spatial Location and Grain Grid squares (1 × 1 km) are randomly selected using a stratified sampling scheme throughout the United Kingdom, Isle of Man and Channel Islands. Data in a grid square are collected along two 1‐km‐long transects which are subdivided into 200‐m‐long sections. Time Period and Grain Data have been collected every year since 1994, with two major disruptions in 2001 and 2020, when people's movements were nationally restricted. Grid squares are surveyed twice a year during the main breeding season (April to June). Here we present the data collected from 1994 to 2023. Major Taxa Studied and Level of Measurement Bird species. Software Format Data are supplied as comma‐separated text files.
Article
Restoring forests is crucial for safeguarding biodiversity and providing ecosystem functions on degraded lands globally. Despite significant restoration efforts over a half-century in the Loess Plateau of China ’s prominent dryland region, the impact of restored forests on biodiversity remains less understood. Unlike the abundant studies in the tropics, such understanding is urgently needed for dryland regions given that forest restoration is being scaled up. Here, we assessed the alpha- and beta-diversity of birds from taxonomic and functional dimensions in restored forests, and compared them to that of relatively undisturbed primary forests. We conducted rigorous point-count surveys and acoustic recordings during the avian breeding season in 2021 and 2023. We found that plantations have limited support for bird taxonomic and functional diversity compared to secondary and primary forests. Notably, the biodiversity inference drawn from our acoustic recordings generally supported similar conclusion of bird diversity across studied forest types. Additionally, secondary forests exhibited greater functional richness compared to plantations and contributed complementary functional trait space relative to primary forests. While nestedness dominated functional beta-diversity, spatial turnover dominated the taxonomic beta-diversity between the bird communities of restored forests and primary forests. Importantly, spatial proximity positively influenced the nestedness component of taxonomic beta-diversity, indicating that the distance of plantations to local primary forests (i.e., dispersal limitation) influenced bird community assembly during forest recovery. Overall, our findings provide insights on preserving intact primary forests, delivering biodiversity benefits of forest restoration in dryland regions, and prioritizing restoration locations only when tree planting is necessary.
Article
Full-text available
Diversity and abundance of breeding birds are frequently reported and analysed as indicators of environmental change. However, such data available for forests typically contain either relative abundances based on snapshot observations or have been collected in small sample plots, which limit their distributional and ecological analysis across landscapes. I present a spatial dataset from three adjacent landscapes in Estonia (hemiboreal Europe), which has been obtained by standard multiple-visit mapping of nesting territories in 2020–2022. The records constitute the most likely centroids of distinct nesting territories of all 98 breeding species detected; these have been extracted and interpreted based on observations from an average 7–8 visits per season, and quality-assessed for three levels of spatial accuracy. One landscape was mapped in all three years, the others in either 2021 or 2022. The total area mapped was 14.3 km², including 86 % woodlands of diverse types and origins; a woodland characteristics dataset accompanies the bird data to facilitate habitat analysis. The paper describes the study plots; technical protocols of fieldwork and record interpretation; limitations (notably the likely missing of 10–20 % of pairs in most species); and possibilities to use the data in basic and applied ecological research. The main values of the dataset are that (i) it provides landscape-scale distribution map for the whole breeding assemblage of birds at high spatial precision, (ii) has accompanying woodland habitat data, and (iii) it also includes a repeatedly mapped landscape for detecting temporal variation in bird distributions.
Article
Full-text available
To achieve broad-based public support for conservation policies and actions, we need to understand what strengthens a person’s connection to nature, since that has been shown to translate into environmentally protective attitudes and behaviour. We conducted a national survey in Singapore to investigate the associations of family values (biospheric, altruistic, and egoistic), social norms relating to spending time in nature, and experiences of nature, with three dimensions of connection to nature (measured using the nature-relatedness scale) – NR-Perspective (cognitive), NR-Self (affective) and NR-Experience (experiential). We found that family values were significantly associated with all three dimensions of a person’s connection to nature. Biospheric and altruistic family values had a direct and positive association with NR-Perspective, while egoistic family values had a direct but negative association. The relationship between biospheric values and the three dimensions of connection to nature was also mediated through social norms of family and friends, and experiences of nature. Our findings indicate that family values, social norms and experiences of nature can variously explain different aspects of connection to nature, and that strategies focused on strengthening and/or appealing to biospheric family values, and the design of interventions that make spending time in nature with family and friends a social norm, could be useful in enhancing connection to nature in people.
Article
Full-text available
Around fifteen thousand fieldworkers annually count breeding birds using standardized protocols in 28 European countries. The observations are collected by using country-specific and standardized protocols, validated, summarized and finally used for the production of continent-wide annual and long-term indices of population size changes of 170 species. Here, we present the database and provide a detailed summary of the methodology used for fieldwork and calculation of the relative population size change estimates. We also provide a brief overview of how the data are used in research, conservation and policy. We believe this unique database, based on decades of bird monitoring alongside the comprehensive summary of its methodology, will facilitate and encourage further use of the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme results.
Article
Full-text available
Significance This study examines evidence of the health benefits of natural soundscapes and quantifies the prevalence of restorative acoustic environments in national parks across the United States. The results affirm that natural sounds improve health, increase positive affect, and lower stress and annoyance. Also, analyses reveal many national park sites with a high abundance of natural sound and low anthropogenic sound. Raising awareness of natural soundscapes at national parks provides opportunities to enhance visitor health outcomes. Despite more abundant anthropogenic sound, urban and frequently visited sites offered exposure to natural sounds associated with health benefits, making them a valuable target for soundscape mitigation. Our analysis can inform spatial planning that focuses on managing natural soundscapes to enhance human health and experiences.
Article
Full-text available
Spending time in nature is known to benefit human health and well-being, but evidence is mixed as to whether biodiversity or perceptions of biodiver- sity contribute to these benefits. Perhaps more importantly, little is known about the sensory modalities by which humans perceive biodiversity and obtain benefits from their interactions with nature. Here, we used a ‘phan- tom birdsong chorus’ consisting of hidden speakers to experimentally increase audible birdsong biodiversity during ‘on’ and ‘off’ (i.e. ambient conditions) blocks on two trails to study the role of audition in biodiversity perception and self-reported well-being among hikers. Hikers exposed to the phantom chorus reported higher levels of restorative effects compared to those that experienced ambient conditions on both trails; however, increased restorative effects were directly linked to the phantom chorus on one trail and indirectly linked to the phantom chorus on the other trail through perceptions of avian biodiversity. Our findings add to a growing body of evidence linking mental health to nature experiences and suggest that audi- tion is an important modality by which natural environments confer restorative effects. Finally, our results suggest that maintaining or improving natural soundscapes within protected areas may be an important component to maximizing human experiences.
Article
Full-text available
The COVID‐19 pandemic and its global response have resulted in unprecedented and rapid changes to most people’s day‐to‐day lives. To slow the spread of the virus, governments have implemented the practice of physical distancing (“social distancing”), which includes isolation within the home with limited time spent outdoors. During this extraordinary time, nature around the home may play a key role in mitigating against adverse mental health outcomes due to the pandemic and the measures taken to address it. To assess whether this is the case, we conducted an online questionnaire survey (n = 3,000) in Tokyo, Japan, to quantify the association between five mental health outcomes (depression, life satisfaction, subjective happiness, self‐esteem, and loneliness) and two measures of nature experiences (frequency of greenspace use and green view through windows from home). Accounting for sociodemographic and lifestyle variables, we found that the frequency of greenspace use and the existence of green window views from within the home was associated with increased levels of self‐esteem, life satisfaction, and subjective happiness and decreased levels of depression, anxiety, and loneliness. Our findings suggest that a regular dose of nature can contribute to the improvement of a wide range of mental health outcomes. With the recent escalation in the prevalence of mental health disorders, and the possible negative impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic on public mental health, our findings have major implications for policy, suggesting that urban nature has great potential to be used as a “nature‐based solution” for improved public health.
Article
Full-text available
Nature affects human well-being in multiple ways. However, the association between species diversity and human well-being at larger spatial scales remains largely unexplored. Here, we examine the relationship between species diversity and human well-being at the continental scale, while controlling for other known drivers of well-being. We related socioeconomic data from more than 26,000 European citizens across 26 countries with macroecological data on species diversity and nature characteristics for Europe. Human well-being was measured as self-reported life-satisfaction and species diversity as the species richness of several taxonomic groups (e.g. birds, mammals and trees). Our results show that bird species richness is positively associated with life-satisfaction across Europe. We found a relatively strong relationship, indicating that the effect of bird species richness on life-satisfaction may be of similar magnitude to that of income. We discuss two, non-exclusive pathways for this relationship: the direct multisensory experience of birds, and beneficial landscape properties which promote both bird diversity and people's well-being. Based on these results, this study argues that management actions for the protection of birds and the landscapes that support them would benefit humans. We suggest that political and societal decision-making should consider the critical role of species diversity for human well-being.
Article
Full-text available
Songbirds reclaim favored frequencies When severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic lockdowns were instituted across entire countries, human activities ceased in an unprecedented way. Derryberry et al. found that the reduction in traffic sound in the San Francisco Bay Area of California to levels not seen for half a century led to a shift in song frequency in white-crowned sparrows (see the Perspective by Halfwerk). This shift was especially notable because the frequency of human-produced traffic noise occurs within a range that interferes with the highest performance and most effective song. Thus, our “quiet” allowed the birds to quickly fill the most effective song space. Science , this issue p. 575 ; see also p. 523
Article
Full-text available
The Earth’s biota is changing over time in complex ways. A critical challenge is to test whether specific biomes, taxa or types of species benefit or suffer in a time of accelerating global change. We analysed nearly 10,000 abundance time series from over 2000 vertebrate species part of the Living Planet Database. We integrated abundance data with information on geographic range, habitat preference, taxonomic and phylogenetic relationships, and IUCN Red List Categories and threats. We find that 15% of populations declined, 18% increased, and 67% showed no net changes over time. Against a backdrop of no biogeographic and phylogenetic patterning in population change, we uncover a distinct taxonomic signal. Amphibians were the only taxa that experienced net declines in the analysed data, while birds, mammals and reptiles experienced net increases. Population trends were poorly captured by species’ rarity and global-scale threats. Incorporation of the full spectrum of population change will improve conservation efforts to protect global biodiversity. Conservation biologists often assume that rare (or less abundant) species are more likely to be declining under anthropogenic change. Here, the authors synthesise population trend data for ~2000 animal species to show that population trends cover a wide spectrum of change from losses to gains, which are not related to species rarity.
Article
Fauna surveys are traditionally manual, and hence limited in scale, expensive and labour‐intensive. Low‐cost hardware and storage mean that acoustic recording now has the potential to efficiently build scale in terrestrial fauna surveys, both spatially and temporally. With this aim, we have constructed the Australian Acoustic Observatory. It provides a direct and permanent record of terrestrial soundscapes through continuous recording across Australian ecoregions, including those periodically subject to fire and flood, when manual surveys are dangerous or impossible. The observatory comprises 360 permanent listening stations deployed across Australia. Groups of four sensors are deployed at each of 90 sites, placed strategically across ecoregions, to provide representative datasets of soundscapes. Each station continuously records sound, resulting in year‐round data collection. All data are made freely available under an open access licence. The Australian Acoustic Observatory is the world's first terrestrial acoustic observatory of this size. It provides continental‐scale environmental monitoring of unparalleled spatial extent, temporal resolution and archival stability. It enables new approaches to understanding ecosystems, long‐term environmental change, data visualization and acoustic science that will only increase in scientific value over time, particularly as others replicate the design in other parts of the world.
Article
There is growing evidence that ecosystem services and especially the exposure to the natural world (blue-green spaces) have potential benefits for mental health and well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic and the measures adopted to control it provide a natural experiment to investigate the links between nature exposure and mental health under extreme conditions. Using a survey distributed online, we tested the following hypotheses: 1) People will show greater symptoms of depression and anxiety under lockdown conditions that did not allow contact with outdoor nature spaces; 2) Where access to public outdoor nature spaces was strictly restricted, (2a) those with green/blue nature view or (2b) access to private outdoor spaces such as a garden or balcony will show fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety, and a more positive mood. Based on 5,218 responses from 9 countries, we found that lockdown severity significantly affected mental health, while contact with nature helped people to cope with these impacts, especially for those under strict lockdown. People under strict lockdown in Spain (3,403 responses), perceived that nature helped them to cope with lockdown measures; and emotions were more positive among J o u r n a l P r e-p r o o f Journal Pre-proof individuals with accessible outdoor spaces and blue-green elements in their views. These findings can help decision-makers in developing potential future lockdown measures to mitigate the negative impacts, helping people to be more resilient and maintain better mental health, using the benefits that ecosystem services are providing us. Keywords Ecosystem services, nature"s contributions to people, anxiety, depression, green-blue infrastructure J o u r n a l P r e-p r o o f Journal Pre-proof