Literature DB >> 25688983

Vocal traits and diet explain avian sensitivities to anthropogenic noise.

Clinton D Francis1.   

Abstract

Global population growth has caused extensive human-induced environmental change, including a near-ubiquitous transformation of the acoustical environment due to the propagation of anthropogenic noise. Because the acoustical environment is a critical ecological dimension for countless species to obtain, interpret and respond to environmental cues, highly novel environmental acoustics have the potential to negatively impact organisms that use acoustics for a variety of functions, such as communication and predator/prey detection. Using a comparative approach with 308 populations of 183 bird species from 14 locations in Europe, North American and the Caribbean, I sought to reveal the intrinsic and extrinsic factors responsible for avian sensitivities to anthropogenic noise as measured by their habitat use in noisy versus adjacent quiet locations. Birds across all locations tended to avoid noisy areas, but trait-specific differences emerged. Vocal frequency, diet and foraging location predicted patterns of habitat use in response to anthropogenic noise, but body size, nest placement and type, other vocal features and the type of anthropogenic noise (chronic industrial vs. intermittent urban/traffic noise) failed to explain variation in habitat use. Strongly supported models also indicated the relationship between sensitivity to noise and predictive traits had little to no phylogenetic structure. In general, traits associated with hearing were strong predictors - species with low-frequency vocalizations, which experience greater spectral overlap with low-frequency anthropogenic noise tend to avoid noisy areas, whereas species with higher frequency vocalizations respond less severely. Additionally, omnivorous species and those with animal-based diets were more sensitive to noise than birds with plant-based diets, likely because noise may interfere with the use of audition in multimodal prey detection. Collectively, these results suggest that anthropogenic noise is a powerful sensory pollutant that can filter avian communities nonrandomly by interfering with birds' abilities to receive, respond to and dispatch acoustic cues and signals.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  acoustic communication; acoustical environment; foraging ecology; habitat use; novel environments; phylogenetic; sensory ecology

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25688983     DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12862

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Glob Chang Biol        ISSN: 1354-1013            Impact factor:   10.863


  13 in total

1.  Learning to cope: vocal adjustment to urban noise is correlated with prior experience in black-capped chickadees.

Authors:  Stefanie E LaZerte; Hans Slabbekoorn; Ken A Otter
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 2.  Aquatic noise pollution: implications for individuals, populations, and ecosystems.

Authors:  Hansjoerg P Kunc; Kirsty Elizabeth McLaughlin; Rouven Schmidt
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Sensory pollutants alter bird phenology and fitness across a continent.

Authors:  Masayuki Senzaki; Clinton D Francis; Jesse R Barber; Jennifer N Phillips; Neil H Carter; Caren B Cooper; Mark A Ditmer; Kurt M Fristrup; Christopher J W McClure; Daniel J Mennitt; Luke P Tyrrell; Jelena Vukomanovic; Ashley A Wilson
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Assessment of noise level and noise propagation generated by light-lift helicopters in mountain natural environments.

Authors:  Stefano Grigolato; Omar Mologni; Andrea Rosario Proto; Giuseppe Zimbalatti; Raffaele Cavalli
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2018-01-20       Impact factor: 2.513

5.  Phantom rivers filter birds and bats by acoustic niche.

Authors:  D G E Gomes; C A Toth; H J Cole; C D Francis; J R Barber
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 14.919

6.  Traffic noise reduces foraging efficiency in wild owls.

Authors:  Masayuki Senzaki; Yuichi Yamaura; Clinton D Francis; Futoshi Nakamura
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Noise pollution has limited effects on nocturnal vigilance in peahens.

Authors:  Jessica L Yorzinski; Fredrick S Hermann
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 2.984

8.  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

9.  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

10.  The comparative evidence for urban species sorting by anthropogenic noise.

Authors:  Gonçalo C Cardoso; Yang Hu; Clinton D Francis
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 2.963

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.