Journal of Avian Biology,
Journal Year:
2019,
Volume and Issue:
51(3)
Published: Dec. 20, 2019
Anthropogenic
noise
pollution
and
the
introduction
of
novel
infrastructure
can
impose
strong
selective
pressures
on
avian
communication
by
affecting
efficacy
with
which
acoustic
signals
are
transmitted
received.
Many
species
have
now
been
shown
to
sing
at
higher
frequencies
in
noisy
urban
environments.
However,
few
studies
investigated
effects
signal
modification
response
behaviours
receivers,
fewer
still
able
indicate
timescale
over
these
changes
pitch
occurred.
We
compare
vocal
between
house
sparrows
Passer
domesticus
that
reside
within
world's
largest,
single‐span
glasshouse
(completed
year
2000),
directly
outside
this
glasshouse,
open
farmland.
The
contrasts
both
acoustically
physically
external
environment,
low
frequency
background
being
significantly
louder
inside
than
outside.
show
minimum
song
was
surrounding
farm
habitat.
Using
playback,
we
also
found
birds
reacted
more
strongly
playbacks
from
habitat
they
did
playback
degree
difference
is
similar
for
other
bird
rural
environments,
demonstrating
such
behavioural
differences
may
arise
a
relatively
short
time
period
(14
yr
case).
Journal of Applied Ecology,
Journal Year:
2021,
Volume and Issue:
58(6), P. 1112 - 1121
Published: April 1, 2021
Abstract
Human‐caused
noise
pollution
dominates
the
soundscape
of
modern
ecosystems,
from
urban
centres
to
national
parks.
Although
wildlife
can
generally
alter
their
communication
accommodate
many
types
natural
(e.g.
wind,
wave
action,
heterospecific
communication),
anthropogenic
sources
pushes
limits
flexibility
by
causing
loud,
low‐pitched
and
near‐continuous
interference.
Because
responses
are
variable
taxa
specific,
multi‐species
risk
assessments
mitigation
not
currently
possible.
We
conducted
a
meta‐analysis
synthesize
effects
on
terrestrial
communication.
Specifically,
we
assessed:
(a)
impacts
modulation
call
rate,
duration,
amplitude
frequency
(including
peak,
minimum
maximum
frequency);
(b)
literature
region,
taxa,
study
design
disturbance
type.
Terrestrial
(results
driven
avian
studies)
respond
calling
with
higher
frequencies,
while
they
do
amplitude,
frequency,
peak
duration
rate
calling.
The
research
is
biased
towards
birds,
population‐level
studies,
systems
in
North
America.
Synthesis
applications
.
Our
reveals
ways
which
signals
contend
noise,
discusses
potential
fitness
management
consequences
these
signal
alterations.
This
information,
combined
an
identification
current
needs,
will
allow
researchers
managers
better
develop
assessment
protocols
prioritize
efforts
reduce
noise.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences,
Journal Year:
2018,
Volume and Issue:
285(1888), P. 20181356 - 20181356
Published: Oct. 10, 2018
Anthropogenic
noise
imposes
novel
selection
pressures,
especially
on
species
that
communicate
acoustically.
Many
animals—including
insects,
frogs,
whales
and
birds—produce
sounds
at
higher
frequencies
in
areas
with
low-frequency
pollution.
Although
there
is
support
for
animals
changing
their
vocalizations
real
time
response
to
(i.e.
immediate
flexibility),
other
evolutionary
mechanisms
learn
remain
largely
unexplored.
We
hypothesize
cultural
signal
structures
less
masked
by
a
mechanism
of
acoustic
adaptation
anthropogenic
noise.
test
this
hypothesis
presenting
nestling
white-crowned
sparrows
(
Zonotrichia
leucophyrs
)
less-masked
(higher-frequency)
more-masked
(lower-frequency)
tutor
songs
either
during
playback
(noise-tutored
treatment)
or
different
from
(control
treatment).
As
predicted,
we
find
noise-tutored
males
significantly
more
often,
whereas
control
show
no
copying
preference,
providing
strong
experimental
Further,
reproduce
than
tutor,
indicating
distinct
increase
transmission
noisy
environment.
Notably,
achieve
lower
performance
tutors,
suggesting
potential
costs
sexual
framework.
Journal of Animal Ecology,
Journal Year:
2019,
Volume and Issue:
88(11), P. 1720 - 1731
Published: Aug. 21, 2019
The
ubiquitous
anthropogenic
low-frequency
noise
impedes
communication
by
masking
animal
signals.
To
overcome
this
barrier,
animals
may
increase
the
frequency,
amplitude
and
delivery
rate
of
their
acoustic
signals,
making
them
more
easily
heard.
However,
a
direct
impact
intermittent,
high-level
aircraft
on
birds'
behaviour
living
close
to
runway
has
not
been
studied
in
detail.
We
recorded
common
chiffchaffs
Phylloscopus
collybita
songs
near
two
airports
nearby
control
areas,
we
measured
sound
levels
territories
at
Manchester
Airport.
song
recordings
were
made
between
movements,
when
ambient
similar
airport
populations.
also
conducted
playback
experiments
population
test
salience
airport,
specific
songs.
In
contrast
general
pattern
increased
frequency
noisy
show
that
negative
relationship
exposure
level
frequency.
Experimental
data
respond
aggressively
playback.
Since
decrease
results
overlap
with
noise,
these
findings
cannot
be
explained
as
an
adaptation
improve
communication.
aggression
suggest
chiffchaffs,
like
humans,
might
affected
behaviourally
extreme
pollution.
These
should
influence
environmental
assessments
for
expansions
globally.
PLoS ONE,
Journal Year:
2019,
Volume and Issue:
14(7), P. e0220576 - e0220576
Published: July 31, 2019
Anthropogenic
noise
decreases
signal
active
space,
or
the
area
over
which
male
bird
song
can
be
detected
in
environment.
For
territorial
males,
may
make
it
more
difficult
to
detect
and
assess
challenges,
turn
increase
defense
costs
influence
whether
males
maintain
territory
ownership.
We
tested
hypothesis
that
affects
ability
of
house
wrens
(Troglodytes
aedon)
near
nests
intruders
alters
responses
them.
broadcast
pre-recorded
pink
on
territories
simulate
intrusions
with
without
noise,
as
well
alone.
measured
detection
by
how
long
took
sing
approach
speaker
after
start
a
playback.
To
measure
playbacks
changed
behavior,
we
compared
their
vocal
before
during
treatments,
mean
number
flyovers
attacks
treatments.
Noise
did
not
affect
male's
an
intruder
his
territory.
Males
altered
simulated
noise-only
treatment
singing
longer
songs
at
faster
rates.
increased
peak
frequency
but
plus
treatments
differ
from
either.
When
confronting
possibly
because
they
were
less
able
via
relied
close
encounters
for
information.
Although
detection,
affected
some
aspects
aggressive
responses,
related
challenge
discriminating
assessing
threats
under
elevated
noise.
Functional Ecology,
Journal Year:
2018,
Volume and Issue:
32(8), P. 2054 - 2064
Published: May 10, 2018
Abstract
Anthropogenic
noise
is
widespread,
and
growing
evidence
suggests
that
it
can
negatively
affect
animals
through
many
different
mechanisms
including
masking
of
cues
signals,
distraction,
aversion
to
noise.
Acoustic
has
received
the
most
attention
from
researchers
recent
effects
be
mitigated
by
alteration
signal
frequencies
or
amplitudes
signalers.
Additionally,
a
learned
response
via
prior
experience
with
exposure.
However,
remains
unclear
whether
distraction
aversive
due
noise,
especially
among
receivers.
Here,
we
addressed
this
gap
separating
disturbances
on
female
phonotaxis
towards
male
advertisement
calls
in
anurans.
To
do
this,
experimentally
examined
gravid
females
differ
their
under
three
acoustic
manipulations:
spectrally
overlapping
non‐overlapping
either
mask
not
respectively,
plus
silent
control.
We
confirm
two
experience‐dependent
responses
noisy‐site
individuals
relative
quiet‐site
individuals:
faster
initiation
stronger
against
showed
that,
for
both
noisy‐
versus
individuals,
treatments
resulted
delayed
disorientation
control
treatments.
Our
study
provides
first
demonstrate
although
appears
mitigate
negative
falls
short
fully
compensating
disrupted
orientation
phonotaxis.
studies
have
emphasized
biologically
relevant
signals
as
prominent
mechanism
which
affects
wild
organisms,
show
cannot
cause
cue
masking,
consequences
responses.
This
finding
impacts
could
extend
well
beyond
contexts
involving
detection
discrimination
deserves
increased
researchers.
A
plain
language
summary
available
article.