Acoustic and Temporal Partitioning of Cicada Assemblages in City and Mountain Environments

Abstract

Comparing adaptations to noisy city environments with those to natural mountain environments on the community level can provide significant insights that allow an understanding of the impact of anthropogenic noise on invertebrates that employ loud calling songs for mate attraction, especially when each species has its distinct song, as in the case of cicadas. In this study, we investigated the partitioning strategy of cicada assemblages in city and mountain environments by comparing the acoustic features and calling activity patterns of each species, recorded using automated digital recording systems. Our comparison of activity patterns of seasonal and diel calling revealed that there was no significant temporal partitioning of cicada assemblages in either environment. In addition, there was no correlation between the acoustic distance based on spectral features and temporal segregation. Heterospecific spectral overlap was low in both city and mountain environments, although city and mountain cicada assemblages were subject to significantly different levels of anthropogenic or interspecific noise. Furthermore, for the common species found in both environments, the calling activity patterns at both seasonal and diel time scales were significantly consistent across sites and across environments. We suggest that the temporal calling activity is constrained by endogenous factors for each species and is less flexible in response to external factors, such as anthropogenic noise. As a result, cicada assemblages in city environments with low species diversity do not demonstrate a more significant temporal partitioning than those in mountain environments with high species diversity.

Sexual pair-formation in a cicada mediated by acoustic behaviour of females and positive phonotaxis of males

“…Anthropogenic noise produced by human activities affects acoustic communication in the cicada Cryptotympana takasagona in the Kaohsiung metropolitan areas of southern Taiwan, which did not call more in noise gaps and acoustic features of its calling songs significantly increased with ambient noise levels 46 . However, it was also revealed that there was no significant temporal partitioning of cicada assemblages in either noisy city or natural mountain environments, and that for the common species found in both environments, the calling activity patterns at both seasonal and diel time scales were significantly consistent across sites and across environments 47 . Future exploration of whether the normal mating patterns or resource costs of obtaining mates of S .…”

“…The phonotaxis of S . yangi males also makes this species susceptible to negative impacts of anthropogenic sounds which might disrupt mating activity of this species 46 , 47 . Anthropogenic noise produced by human activities affects acoustic communication in the cicada Cryptotympana takasagona in the Kaohsiung metropolitan areas of southern Taiwan, which did not call more in noise gaps and acoustic features of its calling songs significantly increased with ambient noise levels 46 .…”

Anthropogenic noise and the bioacoustics of terrestrial invertebrates

“…Researchers have suggested that it is unlikely that invertebrates will be able to temporally shift calling because there are increased costs to calling at other times of day, owing to suboptimal atmospheric conditions, particularly at sunset (Van Staaden and Römer, 1997). In addition, short-term temporal activities for some invertebrates might be constrained by phylogenetic history (Shieh et al, 2015). Third, like some vertebrates, invertebrates could increase the amplitude of their calls (Lombard effect) (Nemeth and Brumm, 2010).…”

Community Bioacoustics: Studying Acoustic Community Structure for Ecological and Conservation Insights

“…Divergence of signal properties reduces masking, enables segregation of competing sound streams (MacDougall-Shackleton et al, 1998;Krishnan, 2019b), and thus reinforces species recognition and premating isolation between close relatives (Nelson, 1988(Nelson, , 1989Grant and Grant, 1996;Qvarnström et al, 2006). In diverse animals [crickets: (Schmidt et al, 2013), cicadas: (Shieh et al, 2015), aquatic insects: (Gottesman et al, 2020), fish: (Ruppé et al, 2015;Bertucci et al, 2020), anurans: (Drewry and Rand, 1983;Duellman and Pyles, 1983;Narins, 1995;Chek et al, 2003), birds: (Kirschel et al, 2009b(Kirschel et al, , 2020Krishnan and Tamma, 2016;Chitnis et al, 2020), bats: (Heller and von Helversen, 1989;Kingston et al, 2000;Luo et al, 2019), primates: (Braune et al, 2008)], closely related sympatric species exhibit divergent signals, partitioning the acoustic resource to minimize acoustic competition. Each species is therefore predicted to occupy a unique region or "niche" in the acoustic resource, a hypothesis extrapolated from ecological niche theory (Hutchinson, 1957;Holt, 2009).…”