Global expansion of human activities is associated with the introduction of novel stimuli, such as anthropogenic noise, artificial lights, and chemical agents. Progress in documenting the ecological effects of sensory pollutants is weakened by sparse knowledge of the mechanisms underlying these effects. This severely limits our capacity to devise mitigation measures. Here, we integrate knowledge of animal sensory ecology, physiology, and life history to articulate three perceptual mechanismsmasking, distracting, and misleadingthat clearly explain how and why anthropogenic sensory pollutants impact organisms. We then link these three mechanisms to ecological consequences, and discuss their implications for conservation. We argue that this framework can reveal the presence of 'sensory danger zones', hotspots of conservation concern where sensory pollutants overlap in space and time with an organism's activity, and foster development of strategic interventions to mitigate the impact of sensory pollutants. Future research that applies this framework will provide critical insight to preserve the natural sensory world.

No abstract

Many species of fish rely on their visual systems to interact with conspecifics and these interactions can lead to collective behavior. Individual-based models have been used to predict collective interactions; however, these models generally make simplistic assumptions about the sensory systems that are applied without proper empirical testing to different species. This could limit our ability to predict (and test empirically) collective behavior in species with very different sensory requirements. In this study, we characterized components of the visual system in two species of cyprinid fish known to engage in visually dependent collective interactions (zebrafish Danio rerio and golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas) and derived quantitative predictions about the positioning of individuals within schools. We found that both species had relatively narrow binocular and blind fields and wide visual coverage. However, golden shiners had more visual coverage in the vertical plane (binocular field extending behind the head) and higher visual acuity than zebrafish. The centers of acute vision (areae) of both species projected in the fronto-dorsal region of the visual field, but those of the zebrafish projected more dorsally than those of the golden shiner. Based on this visual sensory information, we predicted that: (a) predator detection time could be increased by >1,000% in zebrafish and >100% in golden shiners with an increase in nearest neighbor distance, (b) zebrafish schools would have a higher roughness value (surface area/volume ratio) than those of golden shiners, (c) and that nearest neighbor distance would vary from 8 to 20 cm to visually resolve conspecific striping patterns in both species. Overall, considering between-species differences in the sensory system of species exhibiting collective behavior could change the predictions about the positioning of individuals in the group as well as the shape of the school, which can have implications for group cohesion. We suggest that more effort should be invested in assessing the role of the sensory system in shaping local interactions driving collective behavior.