Study of Noise Ppollution in Wildlife Crossing Khojir National Park

Subject Areas : environmental management

Minoo Moshtaghie ¹ (PHD Student, Department of Environment and Energy,Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.(Corresponding Author))
Mohammad Kaboli ² (Member of Science board, Faculty of Environmental and Fisheries, Natural Resources, university of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.)
Mahmood Karami ³ (Member of Science board, Faculty of Environmental and Fisheries, Natural Resources, university of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.)
Zohreh kasmaie ⁴ (MSc. Department of the Environment, Air and Noise Pollution, Tehran, Iran)
Zahra Samai ⁵ (MSc. Department of the Environment, Air and Noise Pollution, Tehran, Iran)

Received: 2010-06-29 Accepted : 2010-11-10 Published : 2013-09-23

Keywords: Noise pollution, equivalent sound level, Khojir national park, wildlife crossing,

Abstract :

Development in transport system and numbers of related activities to road construction is increasing inseveral regions. These activities have some issues including noise pollution which has beenengendering the environment in many areas. The negative impact of noise pollution could be observedwhen threaten species inhabiting in specific area and decreasing of them is the result of this kind ofpopulation. It seems the construction of subways for wild life is important in order to protect and keepthem away from road accidents during building of Parchin-pasdaran corrective road in khojir nationalpark. Therefore, the major aim of this project was to measure the equivalent sound level in wildlifecrossing.By completion of questionnaires and field observations, it has been found that three days of the weekare the most traveling days. The noise pollution has been measured by Castle 440 instrument in eightsubways and two stations in each channel during four hours time. For this purpose parametersincluding Leq, max and min equivalent sound level, height and width of flood channel were measuredin this project.Measurement of equivalent sound level was carried out on Wednesday, Monday and Saturdayrespectively. With regard to the obtained regression and also negative correlation between entrancearea and center of the flood channel with equivalent sound level, the amount of noise can beanticipated. The present flood channel area is 4.2 m2 and the standard area for future wildlife crossingis 35 m2.It can be concluded that wildlife crossing which in under construction does not cause any importantnoise pollution for wildlife.

References:

1. نصیری، پ. و عباسپور، م . 1377 . مجموعه مقالات
دومین سمینارکشوری، انجمن متخصصان محیط
زیست ایران، مرکز تحقیقات نیرو
2. Berry, K. H. 1980. A review of the
effects of off-road vehicles on birds
and other vertebrates, Workshop
Proceedings: Management of western
forests and grasslands for nongame
birds, (pp. 451-467). Salt Lake City,
Utah: USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report INT-86.
3. Krause, Bernard. The Niche
Hypothesis. The Soundscape
Newsletter. June 6, 1993.
4. Calef, G. W., DeBock E. A., Lortie G.
M. 1976. The Reaction of Barren
Ground Caribou to Aircraft. Arctic.
29(4):210- 212.
5. Stadelman, W.J. 1958. Observations
with growing chickens on the effects
of sounds of varying intensities.
Poultry Science 37:776-779.
6. Richardson, W. J., Greene, C. R.,
Malme, C. I., and Thomson, D. H.
1991. Effects of noise on marine
mammals LGL Ecological Research
Associates, Inc., Bryan, TX.
7. Lee, David. "Increasing Air Tours
Pollute Our National Parks." National
Parks July 1994: p.25.
8. Giansante, Louis. "The Soundscape."
Media and Methods. November
1979:pp.43-48.
9. Borg, E. and A.R. Møller. 1973. Our
omedvtena reactions to noise.
Research and Advances 7:5-9.10.
10. Bowles, A.E. 1995. Responses of
wildlife to noise. pp. 109-156. In:
Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller.
(eds.) Wildlife and Recreationists:
Coexistence through Management and
Research. Island Press: Washington,
D.C.
11. Busnel, R.G. and John Fletcher (eds).
1978. Effects of Noise on Wildlife.
New York:academic press .234-249
12. Forman, R.T.T. and R.D. Deblinger.
2000. The ecological road-effect zone
of a Massachusetts (U.S.A.) suburban
highway. Conservation Biology 14:36-
46.
13. Benson, R. 1995. The effect of
roadway traffic noise on territory
selectionby golden-cheeked warblers.
Bulletin of the Texas Ornithological
Society28:42–51.
14 . فتحی نجف آبادی، ل. 1386 . نقش موانع فیزیکی و
بیولوژیک در کاهش آلودگی صوتی حدفاصل پارک
جنگلی نور تا پارک جنگلی سیسنگان، علوم و
تکنولوژی محیط زیست، دوره نهم، شماره 1، صفحه
86-84
22 علوم و تکنولوژی محیط زیست، شماره 58 ، پاییز 92 مشتاقی و همکاران
15. Zannin, J.u., B.K. Dinis, H.G. Shaw et
al. 2002. Environmental noise
pollution and human activity. Journal
of Wildlife Management 50
16. Liddle, M. 1997. Recreation ecology:
The ecological impact of outdoor
recreation and ecotourism. 639 pp.
Chapman and Hall: New York.
17. Grubb, T. G. and King, R. M. 1991.
Assessing human disturbance of
breeding bald eagles with
classification tree models. Journal of
Wildlife Management, 55:500-511.
18. Kreithen, M. and Quine, D. 1979.
Infrasound detection by the homing
pigeon: a behavioral audiogram.
Journal of Comparative Physiology,
129:1-4.
19. Hamernik, R. P., Ahroon, W. A.,
Hsueh, K. D., Lei, S. F., and Davis, R.
I. 1993. Audiometric and histological
differences between the effects of
continuous and impulsive noise
exposures.Journal of the Acoustical
Scociety of America, 93:2088-2095.
20. Voigt, P., Godenhielm, B., and
Östlund, E. 1980. Impulse noisemeasurement
and assessment of the
risk of noise induced hearing loss, 32-
67.
21. Gasempoori.M.1992. Insertion Loss of
Vegetation. Pajoohesh & Sazandegi.
No.40.
22. Woolf, N. K., Koehrn, F. J., Harris, J.
P., and Richman, D. D. 1989.
Congenital cytomegalovirus
labyrinthitis and sensorineural hearing
loss in guinea pigs. Journal of
Infectious Diseases, 160:929-937.
23 . اسماعیلی ساری، ع. 1382 . آلودگی محیط زیست و
سلامت. انتشارات نقش مهر. 776 صفحه