| Literature DB >> 36203628 |
Meelyn M Pandit1,2, Eli S Bridge1,2, Jeremy D Ross1,2.
Abstract
Climate change is increasing aridity in grassland and desert habitats across the southwestern United States, reducing available resources and drastically changing the breeding habitat of many bird species. Increases in aridity reduce sound propagation distances, potentially impacting habitat soundscapes, and could lead to a breakdown of the avian soundscapes in the form of loss of vocal culture, reduced mating opportunities, and local population extinctions. We developed an agent-based model to examine how changes in aridity will affect both sound propagation and the ability of territorial birds to audibly contact their neighbors. We simulated vocal signal attenuation under a variety of environmental scenarios for the south, central semi-arid prairies of the United States, ranging from contemporary weather conditions to predicted droughts under climate change. We also simulated how changes in physiological conditions, mainly evaporative water loss (EWL), would affect singing behavior. Under contemporary and climate change-induced drought conditions, we found that significantly fewer individuals successfully contacted all adjacent neighbors than did individuals in either the contemporary or predicted climate change conditions. We also found that at higher sound frequencies and higher EWL, fewer individuals were able to successfully contact all their neighbors, particularly in drought and climate change drought conditions. These results indicate that climate change-mediated aridification may alter the avian soundscape, such that vocal communication no longer effectively functions for mate attraction or territorial defense. As climate change progresses, increased aridity in current grasslands may favor shifts toward low-frequency songs, colonial resource use, and altered songbird community compositions.Entities:
Keywords: agent‐based model; aridity; climate change; evaporative water loss; house finch; vocal communication
Year: 2022 PMID: 36203628 PMCID: PMC9526030 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.9359
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 3.167
FIGURE 1Pictogram of questions, hypotheses, and predictions for the ABM. The questions, variables, and values outlined in the orange box represent the FAB1 hypothesis, while the blue box represents the FAB2 hypothesis.
Model testing parameters
| Weather conditions | Data | Territory size diameter (km) | Song frequencies (kHz) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contemporary | Average of 2010–2019 ERIC Mesonet data | 1 | 4, 8, 12 |
| Contemporary drought | 2011 ERIC Mesonet data | 1 | 4, 8, 12 |
| Mean climate change | Average of 2010–2019 ERIC Mesonet data (+7.5°C, −6%) | 1 | 4, 8, 12 |
| Climate change drought | 2011 ERIC Mesonet data (+7.5°C, −6%) | 1 | 4, 8, 12 |
| Medium (climate change drought) | 2011 ERIC Mesonet data (+7.5°C, −6%) | 1 | 8 |
| Bad (climate change drought) | 2011 ERIC Mesonet data (+7.5°C, −6%) | 1.5 | 8 |
| Worst (climate change drought) | 2011 ERIC Mesonet data (+7.5°C, −6%) | 3 | 8 |
Note: We tested multiple combinations of weather conditions, territory sizes, and mean song frequencies with our model. The mean contemporary weather conditions were an average of the 2010–2019 ERIC Mesonet weather data, and the contemporary drought weather data were a subset of the contemporary weather dataset, specifically the year 2011, in which a severe drought occurred in Oklahoma. The mean climate change data were the predicted weather conditions in 2070, and to obtain these values we took the mean contemporary conditions and added 7.5°C to the air temperature (TAIR) and subtracted 6% from the relative humidity (RELH) values. The drought climate change conditions were the predicted extreme weather conditions in 2070 and, to obtain these values, we took the contemporary drought dataset and added 7.5°C to the air temperature (TAIR) and subtracted 6% from the relative humidity (RELH) values. In these conditions, we tested three mean song frequencies (4, 8, and 12 kHz) to determine if frequency would affect neighbor contact rate. For these conditions, we set the territory size to 1 km diameter. For the medium, bad, and worst conditions, we used the climate change drought conditions, kept the mean song frequency to 8 kHz, while varying the territory size diameter to 1 km for the medium conditions, 1.5 km for the bad conditions, and 3 km for the worst conditions.
Model completion percentages
| Condition | Frequency (kHz) | EWL inclusion/absence |
| Percent | SE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean contemporary | 4 | No EWL | 5 | 100.000 | 0.000 |
| EWL | 5 | 100.000 | 0.000 | ||
| 8 | No EWL | 5 | 71.867 | 0.418 | |
| EWL | 5 | 63.948 | 0.191 | ||
| 12 | No EWL | 5 | 0.838 | 0.049 | |
| EWL | 5 | 0.301 | 0.026 | ||
| Contemporary drought | 4 | No EWL | 5 | 99.832 | 0.020 |
| EWL | 5 | 99.417 | 0.060 | ||
| 8 | No EWL | 5 | 40.278 | 0.367 | |
| EWL | 5 | 30.032 | 0.095 | ||
| 12 | No EWL | 5 | 3.374 | 0.093 | |
| EWL | 5 | 2.928 | 0.152 | ||
| Mean climate change | 4 | No EWL | 5 | 100.000 | 0.000 |
| EWL | 5 | 100.000 | 0.000 | ||
| 8 | No EWL | 5 | 91.448 | 0.262 | |
| EWL | 5 | 79.781 | 0.360 | ||
| 12 | No EWL | 5 | 12.350 | 0.349 | |
| EWL | 5 | 1.198 | 0.028 | ||
| Climate change drought | 4 | No EWL | 5 | 99.736 | 0.042 |
| EWL | 5 | 97.910 | 0.138 | ||
| 8 | No EWL | 5 | 50.328 | 0.222 | |
| EWL | 5 | 29.763 | 0.294 | ||
| 12 | No EWL | 5 | 5.433 | 0.166 | |
| EWL | 5 | 0.779 | 0.091 | ||
| Medium | 8 | No EWL | 5 | 49.754 | 0.291 |
| EWL | 5 | 30.233 | 0.268 | ||
| Bad | No EWL | 5 | 21.034 | 0.164 | |
| EWL | 5 | 6.913 | 0.266 | ||
| Worst | No EWL | 5 | 0.077 | 0.015 | |
| EWL | 5 | 0.014 | 0.006 |
Note: These percentages represent the percent of individuals that contacted all six neighbors by the end of the 6‐h model duration.
FIGURE 2Virtual environment for a population of virtual birds. Each hexagon represents a bird's territory in which the bird moves around. Each bird has six adjacent neighbors, except for the hexagons on the grid edge, which were not included in the final calculations since they could not contact all six neighbors. A bird will either sing, move, or rest until all neighbors were contacted. Birds that have contacted all six neighbors will turn gray and that bird will stop exhibiting behavior for the rest of the day.
FIGURE 3Heatmaps of frequencies affected by extreme temperatures across different territory sizes. We applied the ABM to multiple territory sizes ranging from 25 m radius territories to 1500 m radius territories across the audible bird song frequencies for the differences in drought versus contemporary weather data (a), and the differences in climate change drought versus climate change weather data (b). Cooler colors represent frequencies and territory sizes that would lead to fewer birds successfully contacting all neighbors under extreme conditions in both the extreme and climate change drought data, suggesting that selection may drive bird populations toward smaller territory sizes and higher frequency songs.
FIGURE 4Population completion percentages across four different environment conditions: (a) mean contemporary, an average of air temperature (TAIR), relative humidity (RELH), and air pressure (PRES) from the ERIC Mesonet station from 2010 to 2019. (b) Contemporary drought, the weather data from the 2011 drought from the ERIC Mesonet station. (c) Mean climate change, 7.5°C TAIR increase, and 6% RELH decrease to the mean contemporary data. (d) Climate change drought, 7.5°C TAIR increase, and 6% RELH decrease to the contemporary drought weather data. Three frequencies that span the songbird frequency bandwidth were tested (4 kHz: Orange, 8 kHz: Blue, 12 kHz: Gray). Models without (solid) and with (dotted) the evaporative water loss (EWL) equation are included.
FIGURE 5Total contacts decrease as territory size increases under extreme climate change conditions (i.e., the “worst case scenarios”) for 8 kHz. A total number of contacts is represented on the y‐axis and time (min) is represented on the x‐axis. We tested the model under these conditions without (solid) and with (dotted) the evaporative water loss (EWL) equation.