Anthropogenic noise disrupts use of vocal information about predation risk

Kern, Julie M.; Radford, Andrew N.

doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.049

Cited by 53 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Signallers may change their singing behaviour—for instance, the time of day that they vocalize and acoustic characteristics of songs—as a consequence of noise, and receiver responses to song can be compromised in noisy conditions (Brumm & Zollinger, ; Halfwerk et al, ; Moseley et al, ; Read et al, ; Slabbekoorn & den Boer‐Visser, ). Far less work has considered how noise affects other types of acoustic communication, including anti‐predator signalling (Kern & Radford, ; Lowry, Lill, & Wong, ; Morris‐Drake et al, ; Potvin, Mulder, & Parris, ). Compromised response to signals about predators is likely to reduce survival, so it is important to understand constraints imposed by noise (Templeton, Zollinger, & Brumm, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, we know of no direct tests of whether acoustic distraction disrupts communication. Noise might also affect communication if it prompts animals to increase vigilance, as is found, for example, in chaffinches ( Fringilla coelebs ), house sparrows ( Passer domesticus ), California ground squirrels ( Otospermophilus beecheyi ) and dwarf mongooses (Kern & Radford, ; Meillère, Brischoux, & Angelier, ; Quinn, Whittingham, Butler, & Cresswell, ; Rabin, Coss, & Owings, ). This increased vigilance could then affect the response to alarm calls, because an animal has greater personal knowledge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why does noise reduce response to alarm calls? Experimental assessment of masking, distraction and greater vigilance in wild birds

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental noise from anthropogenic and other sources affects many aspects of animal ecology and behaviour, including acoustic communication. Acoustic masking is often assumed in field studies to be the cause of compromised communication in noise, but other mechanisms could have similar effects. We tested experimentally how background noise disrupted the response to conspecific alarm calls in wild superb fairy‐wrens, Malurus cyaneus, assessing the effects of acoustic masking, distraction and changes in vigilance. We first examined the birds' response to alarm‐call playbacks accompanied by different amplitudes of background noise that overlapped the calls in acoustic frequency. We then scored and videoed their response to alarm calls in two types of background noise, that did or did not overlap call frequency, but were broadcast at a constant amplitude. Birds were less likely to flee to alarm calls in higher amplitudes of overlapping noise, demonstrating that noise itself compromised communication independently of environmental correlates. Background noise affected the response only if it overlapped in frequency with the alarm calls, implying that the effect was not due to distraction. Further, birds were equally vigilant during background noise of overlapping or non‐overlapping frequency, indicating that the lack of response to alarm calls in overlapping noise was not due to enhanced vigilance and awareness that there was no predator. We conclude that alarm‐call reception was compromised by masking, a mechanism that is often assumed but rarely tested in an ecological context. Masking compromised reception of high‐frequency “aerial” alarm calls and so could reduce survival in background noise of similar frequency. While anthropogenic noise, which is often of lower frequency, is unlikely to affect communication with these calls, it could affect reception of acoustic cues of danger, or other conspecific or heterospecific alarm calls. A http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.13333/suppinfo is available for this article.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why does noise reduce response to alarm calls? Experimental assessment of masking, distraction and greater vigilance in wild birds

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Energy flow can also decrease when the auditory cues used to locate prey are masked (Schaub, Ostwald, & Siemers, 2008), or when prey perceive noise as predation risk and become more vigilant (Rabin, Coss, & Owings, 2006). Alternatively, energy flow can increase when prey are distracted and become more vulnerable to predation (Chan, Giraldo-Perez, Smith, & Blumstein, 2010), or when noise masks the acoustic cues involved in predator recognition (Kern & Radford, 2016). Despite the increasing number of experimental studies reporting noise-modified trophic interactions (Cox et al, 2018;Slabbekoorn, Dooling, Popper, & Fay, 2018), predicting their ecological significance in terms of population dynamic and species coexistence remains difficult.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noise‐induced reduction in the attack rate of a planktivorous freshwater fish revealed by functional response analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic noise can affect animals physically, physiologically, and behaviourally. Although individual responses to noise are well documented, the consequences in terms of community structure, species coexistence, and ecosystem functioning remain fairly unknown. The impact of noise on predation has received a growing interest and alterations in trophic links are observed when animals shift from foraging to stress‐related behaviours, are distracted by noise, or because of acoustic masking. However, the experimental procedures classically used to quantify predation do not inform on the potential demographic impact on prey. We derived the relationship between resource use and availability (the functional response) for European minnows (Phoxinus phoxinus) feeding on dipteran larvae (Chaoborus sp.) under two noise conditions: ambient noise and ambient noise supplemented with motorboat noise. The shape and magnitude of the functional response are powerful indicators of population outcomes and predator–prey dynamics. We also recorded fish behaviour to explore some proximate determinants of altered predation. For both noise conditions, fish displayed a saturating (type II) functional response whose shape depends on two parameters: attack rate and handling time. Boat noise did not affect handling time but significantly reduced attack rate, resulting in a functional response curve of the same height but with a less steep initial slope. Fish exhibited a stress‐related response to noise including increased swimming distance, more social interactions, and altered spatial distribution. Our study shows the usefulness of the functional response approach to study the ecological impacts of noise and illustrates how the behavioural responses of predators to noise can modify the demographic pressure on prey. It also suggests that prey availability might mediate the negative effect of noise on predation. Community outcomes are expected if the reduced consumption of the main food sources goes with the overconsumption of alternative food sources, changing the distribution pattern of interaction strengths. Predation release could also trigger a trophic cascade, propagating the effect of noise to lower trophic levels.

show abstract

“…However, the white noise stimulus is constant in frequency spectrum and amplitude, meaning it differs from anthropogenic noise notably in this regard. Through exposure to this predictable, non-random noise, individuals may be able to habituate or increase their tolerance to such noises (Nedelec et al 2015;Kern and Radford 2016). Thus, the amount and intensity of fluctuations in an acoustic stimulus could be a key factor in the conflict with acoustic signals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anthropogenic noise disrupts mate searching in Gryllus bimaculatus

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We found that female field crickets, which use male acoustic signals to locate mates, were unable to do so when exposed to human generated noise. The amplitude (volume) of the noise was shown to not be causing this effect alone. As similar acoustic behaviors are used by a variety of animals, and as human generated acoustic pollution is becoming more prevalent, these findings have important implications for mate location systems throughout the animal kingdom.

show abstract

Anthropogenic noise disrupts use of vocal information about predation risk

Abstract: General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above.

Cited by 53 publications

References 70 publications

Why does noise reduce response to alarm calls? Experimental assessment of masking, distraction and greater vigilance in wild birds

Why does noise reduce response to alarm calls? Experimental assessment of masking, distraction and greater vigilance in wild birds

Noise‐induced reduction in the attack rate of a planktivorous freshwater fish revealed by functional response analysis

Anthropogenic noise disrupts mate searching in Gryllus bimaculatus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About