Traffic noise affects communication behaviour in a breeding anuran, Hyla arborea

Modern human societies generate new patterns of noise that may affect acoustic communication in many animal species. Whilst animals have evolved several mechanisms to cope with natural background noise, the rapid increase of anthropogenic alteration of acoustic environment could challenge the potential for adjustments of communicative systems. Because acoustic communication is involved in crucial behaviours, noise pollution can be particularly detrimental in affecting breeding success or survival. I investigated the impact of traffic noise on acoustic communication in a tree frog by way of an experimental approach using noise playback. Traffic noise triggered a decrease of the males’ calling activity, with males being more affected when noise amplitude increased. Additionally, the males’ social situation (calling in chorus versus alone) exerted a strong influence on sensitiveness to noise. Males were only weakly affected by noise pollution when calling in a chorus situation, probably because they were more stimulated and because traffic noise emergence was lower. Moreover results showed that in response to noise playback, males are not able to adjust their temporal or frequency call structures to increase efficiency of the information transfer. Understanding species’ ability to adapt their communicative systems to cope with human-made noise constitutes an important contribution to wildlife conservation.

[1]  K. Henwood,et al.  A Quantitative Analysis of the Dawn Chorus: Temporal Selection for Communicatory Optimization , 1979, The American Naturalist.

[2]  A. Veitch,et al.  Calving Success of Woodland Caribou Exposed to Low-Level Jet Fighter Overflights , 1992 .

[3]  K. Wells,et al.  Interspecific acoustic interactions of the neotropical treefrog Hyla ebraccata , 1984, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[4]  J. Thein,et al.  Energetics of calling and metabolic substrate use during prolonged exercise in the European treefrog Hyla arborea , 2001, Journal of Comparative Physiology B.

[5]  R. Forman,et al.  ROADS AND THEIR MAJOR ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS , 1998 .

[6]  M. A. Bee,et al.  Sound source segregation in grey treefrogs: spatial release from masking by the sound of a chorus , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[7]  L. J. Lyon,et al.  Management Implications of Elk and Deer Use of Clear-Cuts in Montana , 1980 .

[8]  Friedrich Ladich,et al.  Ship noise and cortisol secretion in European freshwater fishes , 2006 .

[9]  A. Frid,et al.  Synthesis Human-caused Disturbance Stimuli as a Form of Predation Risk , 2002 .

[10]  Bernd Würsig,et al.  Influences of man‐made noise and other human actions on cetacean behaviour , 1997 .

[11]  Wylie C. Barrow,et al.  Influences of roads and development on bird communities in , 2003 .

[12]  Ruud Foppen,et al.  The effects of traffic on the density of breeding birds in Dutch agricultural grasslands , 1996 .

[13]  R. Wiley,et al.  Background noise from a natural chorus alters female discrimination of male calls in a Neotropical frog , 2002, Animal Behaviour.

[14]  J. Lauga,et al.  Intra-syllabic acoustic signatures used by the king penguin in parent-chick recognition: an experimental approach. , 2001, The Journal of experimental biology.

[15]  D. Lemon,et al.  Effects of low‐level jet aircraft noise on the behaviour of nesting osprey , 1998 .

[16]  J. Lauga,et al.  Perceptual salience of individually distinctive features in the calls of adult king penguins. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  J. Berger,et al.  Conflicts in national parks : a case study of helicopters and bighorn sheep time budgets at the Grand Canyon , 1991 .

[18]  Björn Lardner,et al.  Animal communication: Tree-hole frogs exploit resonance effects , 2002, Nature.

[19]  Paul Nelson,et al.  Transportation Noise Reference Book , 1987 .

[20]  Claude E. Shannon,et al.  The Mathematical Theory of Communication , 1950 .

[21]  Eric Stone,et al.  Separating the Noise from the Noise: A Finding in Support of the “Niche Hypothesis,” That Birds are Influenced by Human-Induced Noise in Natural Habitats , 2000 .

[22]  B. McCowan,et al.  Anthropogenic Noise and its Effect on Animal Communication: An Interface Between Comparative Psychology and Conservation Biology , 2003, International Journal of Comparative Psychology.

[23]  Effects of jet aircraft overflights on parental care of peregrine falcons , 2003 .

[24]  LORI WOLLERMAN,et al.  Acoustic interference limits call detection in a Neotropical frogHyla ebraccata , 1999, Animal Behaviour.

[25]  Peter M. Narins,et al.  Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect amphibian call rate , 2005 .

[26]  Georg M. Klump,et al.  Masking of acoustic signals by the chorus background noise in the green tree frog: A limitation on mate choice , 1988, Animal Behaviour.

[27]  Gail L. Patricelli,et al.  AVIAN COMMUNICATION IN URBAN NOISE: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF VOCAL ADJUSTMENT , 2006 .

[28]  Peter L. Tyack,et al.  Whale songs lengthen in response to sonar , 2000, Nature.

[29]  M. Penna,et al.  Susceptibility of evoked vocal responses to noise exposure in a frog of the temperate austral forest , 2007, Animal Behaviour.

[30]  Eliot A. Brenowitz.  The active space of red-winged blackbird song , 1982, Journal of comparative physiology.

[31]  J. Krebs,et al.  Mate selection in Pacific tree frogs , 1975, Nature.

[32]  Anil Kumar,et al.  Acoustic communication in birds , 2003 .

[33]  D. Deyoung,et al.  Effects of Jet Aircraft on Mountain Sheep , 1998 .

[34]  Thierry Aubin,et al.  How do king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus apply the mathematical theory of information to communicate in windy conditions? , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[35]  Bernd Fritzsch,et al.  The Evolution of the amphibian auditory system , 1988 .

[36]  M. A. Bee,et al.  Male green frogs lower the pitch of acoustic signals in defense of territories: a possible dishonest signal of size? , 2000 .

[37]  L. Fahrig,et al.  Effect of road traffic on amphibian density , 1995 .

[38]  P Nelson.  Controlling vehicle noise: a general review , 1992 .

[39]  C.J.F. ter Braak,et al.  The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. Ill. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads , 1995 .

[40]  Nicolas Perrin,et al.  Multiscale determinants of tree frog (Hyla arborea L.) calling ponds in western Switzerland , 2004, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[41]  G. Klump,et al.  Use of non-arbitrary acoustic criteria in mate choice by female gray tree frogs , 1987, Nature.

[42]  R. Haven Wiley,et al.  5 – Adaptations for Acoustic Communication in Birds: Sound Transmission and Signal Detection , 1982 .

[43]  Claude E. Shannon,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[44]  A. Arak.  Female mate selection in the natterjack toad: active choice or passive atraction? , 1988, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[45]  F. Dyke,et al.  Reactions of mountain lions to logging and human activity , 1986 .

[46]  C. Greene,et al.  Changes to acoustic communication systems in human-altered environments. , 2002, Journal of comparative psychology.

[47]  Christopher G. Murphy,et al.  The effect of call amplitude on male spacing in choruses of barking treefrogs, Hyla gratiosa , 2005, Animal Behaviour.

[48]  H. Slabbekoorn,et al.  Fluid dynamics: Vortex rings in a constant electric field , 2003, Nature.

[49]  Eliot A. Brenowitz,et al.  The Role of Body Size, Phylogeny, and Ambient Noise in the Evolution of Bird Song , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[50]  Ruth Y Litovsky,et al.  The benefit of binaural hearing in a cocktail party: effect of location and type of interferer. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[51]  M. Ryan.  Sexual selection and communication in frogs. , 1991, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[52]  H. Brumm,et al.  Acoustic Communication in Noise , 2005 .

[53]  Eliot A. Brenowitz,et al.  Acoustic cues mediate inter-male spacing in a neotropical frog , 1988, Animal Behaviour.

[54]  R. Dooling,et al.  Detection and discrimination of natural calls in masking noise by birds: estimating the active space of a signal , 2003, Animal Behaviour.

[55]  P. Slater,et al.  The effects of rain on acoustic communication: tawny owls have good reason for calling less in wet weather , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[56]  R. Noss,et al.  Ecosystems as conservation targets. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[57]  Edwin R. Lewis,et al.  Acoustically induced call modification in the white-lipped frog, Leptodactylus albilabris , 1988, Animal Behaviour.