Literature DB >> 25904319

Pollution going multimodal: the complex impact of the human-altered sensory environment on animal perception and performance.

Wouter Halfwerk1, Hans Slabbekoorn2.   

Abstract

Anthropogenic sensory pollution is affecting ecosystems worldwide. Human actions generate acoustic noise, emanate artificial light and emit chemical substances. All of these pollutants are known to affect animals. Most studies on anthropogenic pollution address the impact of pollutants in unimodal sensory domains. High levels of anthropogenic noise, for example, have been shown to interfere with acoustic signals and cues. However, animals rely on multiple senses, and pollutants often co-occur. Thus, a full ecological assessment of the impact of anthropogenic activities requires a multimodal approach. We describe how sensory pollutants can co-occur and how covariance among pollutants may differ from natural situations. We review how animals combine information that arrives at their sensory systems through different modalities and outline how sensory conditions can interfere with multimodal perception. Finally, we describe how sensory pollutants can affect the perception, behaviour and endocrinology of animals within and across sensory modalities. We conclude that sensory pollution can affect animals in complex ways due to interactions among sensory stimuli, neural processing and behavioural and endocrinal feedback. We call for more empirical data on covariance among sensory conditions, for instance, data on correlated levels in noise and light pollution. Furthermore, we encourage researchers to test animal responses to a full-factorial set of sensory pollutants in the presence or the absence of ecologically important signals and cues. We realize that such approach is often time and energy consuming, but we think this is the only way to fully understand the multimodal impact of sensory pollution on animal performance and perception.
© 2015 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  animal communication; anthropogenic pollution; multimodal; sensory ecology

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25904319      PMCID: PMC4424613          DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2014.1051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Lett        ISSN: 1744-9561            Impact factor:   3.703


  33 in total

1.  Hearing lips and seeing voices.

Authors:  H McGurk; J MacDonald
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1976 Dec 23-30       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Exposure to pesticides impairs the expression of fish ornaments reducing the availability of attractive males.

Authors:  Omar Arellano-Aguilar; Constantino Macías Garcia
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2008-06-07       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Risky ripples allow bats and frogs to eavesdrop on a multisensory sexual display.

Authors:  W Halfwerk; P L Jones; R C Taylor; M J Ryan; R A Page
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Low-frequency songs lose their potency in noisy urban conditions.

Authors:  Wouter Halfwerk; Sander Bot; Jasper Buikx; Marco van der Velde; Jan Komdeur; Carel ten Cate; Hans Slabbekoorn
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-08-29       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Daytime noise predicts nocturnal singing in urban robins.

Authors:  Richard A Fuller; Philip H Warren; Kevin J Gaston
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2007-08-22       Impact factor: 3.703

6.  Noise pollution changes avian communities and species interactions.

Authors:  Clinton D Francis; Catherine P Ortega; Alexander Cruz
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2009-07-23       Impact factor: 10.834

7.  Hunting at the highway: traffic noise reduces foraging efficiency in acoustic predators.

Authors:  Björn M Siemers; Andrea Schaub
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-11-17       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Acoustic noise induces attention shifts and reduces foraging performance in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus).

Authors:  Julia Purser; Andrew N Radford
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-02-28       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Blue whales respond to simulated mid-frequency military sonar.

Authors:  Jeremy A Goldbogen; Brandon L Southall; Stacy L DeRuiter; John Calambokidis; Ari S Friedlaender; Elliott L Hazen; Erin A Falcone; Gregory S Schorr; Annie Douglas; David J Moretti; Chris Kyburg; Megan F McKenna; Peter L Tyack
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Multimodal signaling in the Small Torrent Frog (Micrixalus saxicola) in a complex acoustic environment.

Authors:  Doris Preininger; Markus Boeckle; Anita Freudmann; Iris Starnberger; Marc Sztatecsny; Walter Hödl
Journal:  Behav Ecol Sociobiol       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 2.980

View more
  22 in total

1.  Environmentally induced changes to brain morphology predict cognitive performance.

Authors:  Thomas W Pike; Michael Ramsey; Anna Wilkinson
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-09-26       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 2.  Ecological traps: current evidence and future directions.

Authors:  Robin Hale; Stephen E Swearer
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Anthropogenic noise impairs foraging for cryptic prey via cross-sensory interference.

Authors:  Wouter Halfwerk; Kees van Oers
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-04-08       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Light and noise pollution interact to disrupt interspecific interactions.

Authors:  Taegan A McMahon; Jason R Rohr; Ximena E Bernal
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 5.499

5.  Multimodal cues improve prey localization under complex environmental conditions.

Authors:  F Rhebergen; R C Taylor; M J Ryan; R A Page; W Halfwerk
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-09-07       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Multi-modal communication: song sparrows increase signal redundancy in noise.

Authors:  Çağlar Akçay; Michael D Beecher
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2019-10-30       Impact factor: 3.703

7.  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

8.  High turbidity levels alter coral reef fish movement in a foraging task.

Authors:  Cait Newport; Oliver Padget; Theresa Burt de Perera
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Does humic acid alter visually and chemically guided foraging in stickleback fish?

Authors:  Robert B Mobley; Emily G Weigel; Janette W Boughman
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 2.899

10.  Multimodal Signal Testing Reveals Gestural Tapping Behavior in Spotted Reed Frogs.

Authors:  Iris Starnberger; Philipp Martin Maier; Walter Hödl; Doris Preininger
Journal:  Herpetologica       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.676

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.