Literature DB >> 24333298

Anthropogenic noise affects vocal interactions.

Heather McMullen1, Rouven Schmidt1, Hansjoerg P Kunc2.   

Abstract

Animal communication plays a crucial role in many species, and it involves a sender producing a signal and a receiver responding to that signal. The shape of a signal is determined by selection pressures acting upon it. One factor that exerts selection on acoustic signals is the acoustic environment through which the signal is transmitted. Recent experimental studies clearly show that senders adjust their signals in response to increased levels of anthropogenic noise. However, to understand how noise affects the whole process of communication, it is vital to know how noise affects the receiver's response during vocal interactions. Therefore, we experimentally manipulated ambient noise levels to expose male European robins (Erithacus rubecula) to two playback treatments consisting of the same song: one with noise and another one without noise. We found that males responding to a conspecific in a noise polluted environment increased minimum frequency and decreased song complexity and song duration. Thus, we show that the whole process of communication is affected by noise, not just the behaviour of the sender. Crown
Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acoustic communication; Behaviour; Behavioural plasticity; Environmental change; Noise pollution

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24333298     DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2013.12.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Processes        ISSN: 0376-6357            Impact factor:   1.777


  9 in total

1.  Developmental experience with anthropogenic noise hinders adult mate location in an acoustically signalling invertebrate.

Authors:  Gabrielle A Gurule-Small; Robin M Tinghitella
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 3.703

2.  Signal complexity communicates aggressive intent during contests, but the process is disrupted by noise.

Authors:  Kyriacos Kareklas; James Wilson; Hansjoerg P Kunc; Gareth Arnott
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2019-04-26       Impact factor: 3.703

3.  Experimentally broadcast ocean surf and river noise alters birdsong.

Authors:  Veronica A Reed; Cory A Toth; Ryan N Wardle; Dylan G E Gomes; Jesse R Barber; Clinton D Francis
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 3.061

4.  Territorial black-capped chickadee males respond faster to high- than to low-frequency songs in experimentally elevated noise conditions.

Authors:  Stefanie E LaZerte; Hans Slabbekoorn; Ken A Otter
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2017-04-27       Impact factor: 2.984

5.  Noise Source and Individual Physiology Mediate Effectiveness of Bird Songs Adjusted to Anthropogenic Noise.

Authors:  Claire M Curry; Paulson G Des Brisay; Patricia Rosa; Nicola Koper
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Anthropogenic noise affects male house wren response to but not detection of territorial intruders.

Authors:  Erin E Grabarczyk; Sharon A Gill
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Constant and seasonal drivers of bird communities in a wind farm: implications for conservation.

Authors:  Zuzanna M Rosin; Piotr Skórka; Paweł Szymański; Marcin Tobolka; Andrzej Luczak; Piotr Tryjanowski
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 2.984

8.  Experimental exposure to urban and pink noise affects brain development and song learning in zebra finches (Taenopygia guttata).

Authors:  Dominique A Potvin; Michael T Curcio; John P Swaddle; Scott A MacDougall-Shackleton
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 2.984

9.  Species sensitivities to a global pollutant: A meta-analysis on acoustic signals in response to anthropogenic noise.

Authors:  Hansjoerg P Kunc; Rouven Schmidt
Journal:  Glob Chang Biol       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 13.211

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.