| Literature DB >> 28854253 |
Valentina Zaffaroni Caorsi1, Camila Both2, Sonia Cechin2, Rógger Antunes1, Márcio Borges-Martins1.
Abstract
Anthropogenic disturbance has been pointed to as one of the major causes of the world´s biodiversity crisis. Among them, noise pollution is a potential underestimated threat, projected to increase in the next decades accompanying urban expansion. Rising levels of noise pollution may result in negative impacts on species highly dependent on acoustic communication. Amphibians have long served as model organisms for investigating animal acoustic communication because their reproduction depends on transmitting and receiving acoustic signals. A few studies have investigated the effects of anthropogenic noise on anurans, but there is still limited knowledge on how it affects them. In this study, we test the effect of two intensities of traffic noise on calling males of two Neotropical treefrogs species. We expect to record more changes in call parameters, to avoid masking effect, at higher intensity noise treatments, and in the species with higher call/noise frequency overlap. We performed a set of field playback experiments exposing male frogs to road noise at two different intensities (65dB and 75dB). Focal species are Boana bischoffi (high call/noise frequency overlap) and B. leptolineata (low call/noise frequency overlap). Both species changed acoustic parameters during or after the exposure to traffic noise. Advertisement call rate of B. bischoffi decreased during road noise, and dominant frequency decreased over time. Call length of B. leptolineata increased or decreased, depending on the order of noise intensity. We also observed spatial displacement in both species, which moved away from the noise source. Our results provide evidence that traffic noise affects anuran calling behavior, and noise intensity is an important factor affecting how species respond.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28854253 PMCID: PMC5576727 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183342
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Calling activity of (A) .
Fig 2(A) Study species advertisement calls and (B) intensities (dB) of traffic noise used on playbacks. Spectrograms (above) and oscillograms (below) of Boana bischoffi and B. leptolineata.
Fig 3Design of experiments during the field trip to collect data on calling males.
Effects of traffic noise playback stimuli on call parameters of the focal species.
Measurements of each parameter are given by means and (standard error); Dominant frequency is given in Hz. Letters “a” and “b” and numbers in bold indicate significant differences between groups.
| Time | Treatment | Aggressive call | Advertisement call | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Call rate (call/min) | Call rate (call/min) | Call length (seconds) | Note length (seconds) | Interval (seconds) | Dominant frequency | |||
| 1 | Silence | 0.9 (0.4) | 0.07 (0.02) | 0.05 (0.006) | _ | |||
| 2 | 65 dB | 0.5 (0.2) | 0.05 (0.005) | 0.05 (0.006) | _ | 1694 (31) | ||
| 3 | 75 dB | 0.9 (0.3) | 0.09 (0.02) | 0.05 (0.007) | _ | 1672 (45) | ||
| 4 | Silence | 1.2 (0.4) | 0.11 (0.03) | 0.05 (0.007) | _ | |||
| 1 | Silence | 1.0 (0.4) | 0.10 (0.02) | 0.06 (0.004) | _ | |||
| 2 | 75 dB | 0.5 (0.3) | 0.16 (0.05) | 0.06 (0.005) | _ | 1746 (47) | ||
| 3 | 65 dB | 0.7 (0.4) | 0.11 (0.03) | 0.06 (0.005) | _ | 1706 (25) | ||
| 4 | Silence | 1.5 (0.8) | 0.14 (0.04) | 0.06 (0.004) | _ | |||
| 1 | Silence | 0.9 (0.3) | 16.2 (4.4) | 0.18 (0.02) | 0.06 (0.005) | 0.08 (0.005) | 4222 (54) | |
| 2 | 65 dB | 1.2 (0.3) | 18.3 (4.5) | 0.20 (0.02) | 0.06 (0.004) | 0.08 (0.005) | 4240 (49) | |
| 3 | 75 dB | 1.4 (0.4) | 15.8 (4.2) | 0.22 (0.02) | 0.06 (0.004) | 0.08 (0.005) | 4196 (50) | |
| 4 | Silence | 1.5 (0.5) | 15.5 (4.4) | 0.06 (0.005) | 0.09 (0.005) | 4186 (48) | ||
| 1 | Silence | 2.4 (0.7) | 13.8 (3.5) | 0.19 (0.02) | 0.07 (0.007) | 0.09 (0.02) | 4150 (51) | |
| 2 | 75 dB | 1.8 (0.6) | 11.7 (5.1) | 0.18 (0.02) | 0.07 (0.007) | 0.08 (0.009) | 4207 (60) | |
| 3 | 65 dB | 1.4 (0.7) | 12.6 (4.8) | 0.18 (0.02) | 0.08 (0.1) | 0.08 (0.01) | 4198 (46) | |
| 4 | Silence | 1.1 (0.7) | 10.7 (5.3) | 0.07 (0.004) | 0.09 (0.01) | 4182 (63) | ||
Fig 4Effects of traffic noise on call parameters of the two hylids.
Graphs show call parameter means (±SD) at the four periods of time inside a playback, P1 (pre–stimuli, silence), N1 (noise1), N2 (noise2), P2 (post–stimuli, silence). Dashed line represents the playback order N1 (75dB) followed by N2 (65dB) and solid line the other way around N1 (65dB) and N2 (75dB). During road noise treatments, Boana bischoffi decreased call rate (A). Peak frequency was significantly different for B. bischoffi, decreasing from period P1 to P2 (C). Call duration showed changes in B. leptolineata depending on the order of the treatment (E). Letters “a” and “–b” indicate statistically different values due to treatments (intensity) or playback periods, and “*” indicate differences due to playback type/order (65 or 75dB first).