Traffic noise causes physiological stress and impairs breeding migration behaviour in frogs

Tennessen, Jennifer B.; Parks, Susan E.; Langkilde, Tracy

doi:10.1093/conphys/cou032

Cited by 104 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This could result in systematic genetic differences among 241 populations along light and sound level gradients. We know that the settlement, dispersal, and 242 migration patterns of many organisms are influenced by sound [53] and light [27,34]. We are 243 not, however, aware of investigations into whether these altered patterns of movement, and any 244 subsequent gene flow, have created genetic population differentiation.…”

Section: Sensory Stimuli As Drivers Of Gene Flow 238mentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework to assess evolutionary responses to anthropogenic light and sound

Swaddle

Francis

Barber

et al. 2015

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

266

220

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

28Human activities have caused a near-ubiquitous and evolutionarily-unprecedented increase in 29 environmental sound levels and artificial night lighting. These stimuli reorganize communities 30 by interfering with species-specific perception of time cues, habitat features, and auditory and 31 visual signals. Rapid evolutionary changes could occur in response to light and noise, given their 32 magnitude, geographical extent, and degree to which they represent unprecedented 33 environmental conditions. We present a framework for investigating anthropogenic light and 34 noise as agents of selection, and as drivers of other evolutionary processes, to influence a range 35 of behavioural and physiological traits, such as phenological characters and sensory and 36 signalling systems. In this context, opportunities abound for understanding contemporary and 37 rapid evolution in response to human-caused environmental change. The overcast night sky radiance in urban areas has been found to be as much as four orders of 55 magnitude larger than in natural settings (Figure 1) [5]. Similarly, increased noise levels affect a 56 sizable proportion of the human population. In Europe for instance, 65% of the population is 57 exposed to ambient sound levels exceeding 55 dB(A) [6], roughly equivalent to constant rainfall. 58Of the land in the contiguous U.S., 88% is estimated to experience elevated sound levels from 59 anthropogenic noise (Figure 1) [7]. These effects are not limited to terrestrial environments; 60 ocean noise levels are estimated to have increased by 12 decibels (an ~16-fold increase in sound 61 intensity) in the past few decades from commercial shipping alone [8], while an estimated 22% 62 of the global coastline is exposed to artificial light [3] and many offshore coral reefs are 63 chronically exposed to artificial lighting from cities, fishing boats, and hydrocarbon extraction 64 [9]. 65The changes in light at night and noise levels are occurring on a global scale similar to 66 well-recognized ecological and evolutionary forces such as land cover and climate change. In 67 4 parallel with research involving climate change [10], much of our understanding of organismal 68 response to noise and light is restricted to short-term behavioural reactions. Organismal 69 responses might be associated with tolerance to these stimuli in terms of habitat use [11,12] Status of research on anthropogenic light and sound in ecology 98Night lighting and noise are highly correlated in many landscapes (e.g., [21]). It is critical to 99 understand whether the selective pressures these stimuli exert are additive, synergistic (Figure 2), 100 or if they mitigate one another. Few studies have examined the influence of each simultaneously 101 (e.g., [21]). In one study, flashing lights combined with boat motor noise suppressed antipredator 102 behaviour in hermit crabs (Coenobita clypeatus) more so than noise alone [22]. Future research 103 should quantify both light and sound simultaneously in the same population. Existing r...

show abstract

Section: Sensory Stimuli As Drivers Of Gene Flow 238mentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework to assess evolutionary responses to anthropogenic light and sound

Swaddle

Francis

Barber

et al. 2015

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

266

220

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among these 23 studies, 70% considered the impacts of noise pollution. For species that use vocalizations to undertaken crucial life history stages (such as song birds and amphibians; [61,62]) or reply on sound to avoid predators, navigate and forage (such as bats and amphibians; [63,64]), any noise that can mask sound can have a detrimental impact. For example, three studies demonstrated that bird diversity decreased as a result of road-related noise [65][66][67].…”

Section: Indirect Impacts Of Roads On Wildlifementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A further three studies confirmed that road-related noise influenced the survival and breeding success of wildlife. Among birds, such noise led to smaller clutch sizes [68] and reduced longevity [69], and among amphibians, it induced a stress response and impaired the wood frog's (Lithobates sylvaticus) ability to attract mates [62]. Similarly, a study on Stephen's kangeroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) found that the sound of passing vehicles induced foot drumming and thus raised concerns that engaging in such false responses could potentially be energetically and biologically costly [70].…”

Section: Indirect Impacts Of Roads On Wildlifementioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Road Density and Pattern on the Conservation of Species and Biodiversity

Bennett

2017

Curr Landscape Ecol Rep

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development and presence of roads can reduce landscape permeability, lead to habitat loss, and increase habitat fragmentation. It is these fundamental changes in landscape structure that can have both direct and indirect impacts on the conservation of species and biodiversity. In this review, I examine 215 research studies conducted between 2011 and 2015 that explore the impacts of roads and road networks on a wide range of species. I divided these studies into four main categories: 1) the direct effects of roads on wildlife, 2) the indirect effects of roads on wildlife, 3) the consequences of road networks on wildlife populations, and 4) survey design and mitigation including both innovations and evaluations. I found that the majority of studies (38%) explored the indirect effects of roads on wildlife, including displacement, fitness consequences, and road crossing ability of wildlife. Nevertheless, despite there being a pressing need to understand how existing road networks impact wildlife and how increasing road density may influence local and regional population persistence, only 10% of the studies considered the implications of road networks on wildlife. However, there is an increasing trend towards the development of predictive models that can be used for a better understanding of road network impacts, assess landscape connectivity, and devise mitigation. This review also highlighted the continued need to devise and evaluate mitigation measures so transportation authorities and conservation practitioners may be better equipped to address the ecological implications of roads and proposed road development.

show abstract

“…There is growing consensus that risktaking behavior and other aspects of animal "personality" have a genetic component (Stamps and Groothuis, 2010), which could allow selection for road avoidance. There may also be selective pressures for road avoidance besides road-kill: road noise has been shown to increase corticosterone levels in female Wood Frogs (Lithobates sylvaticus) and impair their ability to navigate to male breeding choruses (Tennessen et al, 2014). In addition, clear zones adjacent to roads are sometimes used by predators as efficient movement corridors or hunting areas (James and Stuart Smith, 2000;Colón, 2002;Laurance et al, 2004;Latham et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Roadside Abundance of Anurans within a Community Correlates with Reproductive Investment

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Roads and their associated effects (road-kill, pollution, etc.) have a largely negative impact on animals, especially amphibians, but not all species are affected to the same degree. Variation in life histories may explain some of these differences. Here, we examine how abundance of anuran species in roadside habitats is correlated with an aspect of reproductive life history: number of eggs produced by a female per year. Using data from a 1.5-year monitoring project in Central Florida, we found a positive correlation between the number of eggs produced by an average female of a species and the proportion of individuals found in roadside habitats compared to control habitats. This implies either that populations of species with a greater reproductive rate are able to rebound more quickly from negative road impacts, or that there is a strong selective pressure on species with low reproductive rates to avoid roads.

show abstract

Traffic noise causes physiological stress and impairs breeding migration behaviour in frogs

Cited by 104 publications

References 59 publications

A framework to assess evolutionary responses to anthropogenic light and sound

A framework to assess evolutionary responses to anthropogenic light and sound

Effects of Road Density and Pattern on the Conservation of Species and Biodiversity

Roadside Abundance of Anurans within a Community Correlates with Reproductive Investment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About