Patterns of Song across Natural and Anthropogenic Soundscapes Suggest That White-Crowned Sparrows Minimize Acoustic Masking and Maximize Signal Content

Soundscapes pose both evolutionarily recent and long-standing sources of selection on acoustic communication. We currently know more about the impact of evolutionarily recent human-generated noise on communication than we do about how natural sounds such as pounding surf have shaped communication signals over evolutionary time. Based on signal detection theory, we hypothesized that acoustic phenotypes will vary with both anthropogenic and natural background noise levels and that similar mechanisms of cultural evolution and/or behavioral flexibility may underlie this variation. We studied song characteristics of white-crowned sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrys nuttalli) across a noise gradient that includes both anthropogenic and natural sources of noise in San Francisco and Marin counties, California, USA. Both anthropogenic and natural soundscapes contain high amplitude low frequency noise (traffic or surf, respectively), so we predicted that birds would produce songs with higher minimum frequencies in areas with higher amplitude background noise to avoid auditory masking. We also anticipated that song minimum frequencies would be higher than the projected lower frequency limit of hearing based on site-specific masking profiles. Background noise was a strong predictor of song minimum frequency, both within a local noise gradient of three urban sites with the same song dialect and cultural evolutionary history, and across the regional noise gradient, which encompasses 11 urban and rural sites, several dialects, and several anthropogenic and natural sources of noise. Among rural sites alone, background noise tended to predict song minimum frequency, indicating that urban sites were not solely responsible for driving the regional pattern. These findings support the hypothesis that songs vary with local and regional soundscapes regardless of the source of noise. Song minimum frequency from five core study sites was also higher than the lower frequency limit of hearing at each site, further supporting the hypothesis that songs vary to transmit through noise in local soundscapes. Minimum frequencies leveled off at noisier sites, suggesting that minimum frequencies are constrained to an upper limit, possibly to retain the information content of wider bandwidths. We found evidence that site noise was a better predictor of song minimum frequency than territory noise in both anthropogenic and natural soundscapes, suggesting that cultural evolution rather than immediate behavioral flexibility is responsible for local song variation. Taken together, these results indicate that soundscapes shape song phenotype across both evolutionarily recent and long-standing soundscapes.

[1]  Christopher S. Evans,et al.  Animal Acoustic Communication: Sound Analysis and Research Methods , 2011 .

[2]  Franz Goller,et al.  On the relationship between, and measurement of, amplitude and frequency in birdsong , 2012, Animal Behaviour.

[3]  Esteban Fernández-Juricic,et al.  Microhabitat Selection and Singing Behavior Patterns of Male House Finches ( Carpodacus mexicanus ) in Urban Parks in a Heavily Urbanized Landscape in the Western U . S . * , 2006 .

[4]  P. Marler,et al.  Culturally Transmitted Patterns of Vocal Behavior in Sparrows , 1964, Science.

[5]  Peter J. Corkeron,et al.  Changes in Humpback Whale Song Occurrence in Response to an Acoustic Source 200 km Away , 2012, PloS one.

[6]  H. Slabbekoorn,et al.  Habitat-related birdsong divergence: a multi-level study on the influence of territory density and ambient noise in European blackbirds , 2009, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[7]  Luis J. Villanueva-Rivera,et al.  Soundscape Ecology: The Science of Sound in the Landscape , 2011 .

[8]  Nathan J. Kleist,et al.  Anthropogenic Noise Alters Bat Activity Levels and Echolocation Calls , 2015 .

[9]  Eugene S. Morton,et al.  On the learning of degraded and undegraded songs in the Carolina wren , 1986, Animal Behaviour.

[10]  H. Brumm.  The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird , 2004 .

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

[12]  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.

[13]  Songbirds learn songs least degraded by environmental transmission , 2012, Biology Letters.

[14]  M. C. Baker,et al.  Song Dialects of White-Crowned Sparrows: Historical Processes Inferred from Patterns of Geographic Variation , 1985 .

[15]  H. Akaike,et al.  Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle , 1973 .

[16]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

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

[18]  Henrik Brumm,et al.  Animal Communication and Noise , 2013, Animal Signals and Communication.

[19]  W. E. Wood,et al.  SONG SPARROW (MELOSPIZA MELODIA) SONG VARIES WITH URBAN NOISE , 2006 .

[20]  K. Parris,et al.  Research, part of a Special Feature on Effects of Roads and Traffic on Wildlife Populations and Landscape Function Frogs Call at a Higher Pitch in Traffic Noise , 2009 .

[21]  P. J. B. Slater,et al.  Bird Song: Contents , 2008 .

[22]  P. Marler.  A comparative approach to vocal learning: Song development in white-crowned sparrows. , 1970 .

[23]  E. Snell-Rood,et al.  An overview of the evolutionary causes and consequences of behavioural plasticity , 2013, Animal Behaviour.

[24]  S. Nowicki,et al.  Vocal performance influences female response to male bird song: an experimental test , 2004 .

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

[26]  P. Marler,et al.  The capacity for song memorization varies in populations of the same species , 1996, Animal Behaviour.

[27]  P. Slater,et al.  Ambient noise, motor fatigue, and serial redundancy in chaffinch song , 2006, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[28]  Clive K. Catchpole,et al.  Bird song: Biological themes and variations, 2nd ed. , 2008 .

[29]  R. Haven Wiley,et al.  Signal Detection and Animal Communication , 2006 .

[30]  Alejandro A. Ríos-Chelén,et al.  Experimental evidence for real-time song frequency shift in response to urban noise in a passerine bird , 2011, Biology Letters.

[31]  Elizabeth P. Derryberry,et al.  Birdsongs keep pace with city life: changes in song over time in an urban songbird affects communication , 2012, Animal Behaviour.

[32]  P. Marler,et al.  Song "Dialects" in Three Populations of White-Crowned Sparrows , 1962 .

[33]  M. Kreutzer,et al.  Directional female preference for an exaggerated male trait in canary (Serinusanaria) song , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[34]  Jessica L. Blickley,et al.  POTENTIAL ACOUSTIC MASKING OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE (CENTROCERCUS UROPHASIANUS) DISPLAY COMPONENTS BY CHRONIC INDUSTRIAL NOISE , 2012 .

[35]  Clinton D. Francis,et al.  Noise Pollution Filters Bird Communities Based on Vocal Frequency , 2011, PloS one.

[36]  H. Slabbekoorn,et al.  Immediate spectral flexibility in singing chiffchaffs during experimental exposure to highway noise , 2010, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[37]  Hans Slabbekoorn,et al.  Habitat-dependent acoustic divergence affects playback response in urban and forest populations of the European blackbird , 2010 .

[38]  D. Kroodsma,et al.  Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds , 1997 .

[39]  Wouter Halfwerk,et al.  A behavioural mechanism explaining noise-dependent frequency use in urban birdsong , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[40]  Robert J. Dooling,et al.  Avian Hearing and the Avoidance of Wind Turbines , 2002 .

[41]  Kevin R. Crooks,et al.  Road traffic noise modifies behaviour of a keystone species , 2014, Animal Behaviour.

[42]  Gonçalo C. Cardoso,et al.  Are bird species that vocalize at higher frequencies preadapted to inhabit noisy urban areas , 2009 .

[43]  K. Beeman,et al.  Digital Signal Analysis, Editing, and Synthesis , 1998 .

[44]  J. N. Phillips,et al.  Not so sexy in the city: urban birds adjust songs to noise but compromise vocal performance , 2016 .

[45]  Benjamin N. Taft,et al.  Bird Song: The Interface of Evolution and Mechanism , 2004 .

[46]  Poul Hansen.  Vocal learning: its role in adapting sound structures to long-distance propagation, and a hypothesis on its evolution , 1979, Animal Behaviour.

[47]  H. Brumm,et al.  Blackbirds sing higher-pitched songs in cities: adaptation to habitat acoustics or side-effect of urbanization? , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

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

[49]  P. Slater,et al.  Bird Song: Biological Themes and Variations , 1995 .

[50]  J. Endler.  Signals, Signal Conditions, and the Direction of Evolution , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[51]  Hansjoerg P. Kunc,et al.  Behavioral Plasticity Allows Short‐Term Adjustment to a Novel Environment , 2010, The American Naturalist.

[52]  Robert J. Dooling,et al.  The Effects of Highway Noise on Birds , 2007 .

[53]  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.

[54]  David A. Luther,et al.  A framework to assess evolutionary responses to anthropogenic light and sound. , 2015, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[55]  R. Hinde,et al.  Advances in the study of behavior , 1966 .

[56]  E. Morley,et al.  The importance of invertebrates when considering the impacts of anthropogenic noise , 2014, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[57]  Caitlin R. Kight,et al.  Eastern Bluebirds Alter their Song in Response to Anthropogenic Changes in the Acoustic Environment. , 2015, Integrative and comparative biology.

[58]  Alain Dubois,et al.  A case of possible vocal convergence between frogs and a bird in Himalayan torrents , 1984, Journal für Ornithologie.

[59]  Gonçalo C. Cardoso,et al.  Which birds adjust the frequency of vocalizations in urban noise? , 2010, Animal Behaviour.

[60]  A. A. Ríos-Chelén,et al.  Strategies of song adaptation to urban noise in the house finch: syllable pitch plasticity or differential syllable use? , 2009 .

[61]  H. Slabbekoorn,et al.  Cities Change the Songs of Birds , 2006, Current Biology.

[62]  D. M. Campbell,et al.  Springer Handbook of Acoustics , 2015 .

[63]  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.

[64]  David A. Luther,et al.  Urban noise and the cultural evolution of bird songs , 2010, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[65]  H. Brumm,et al.  Birds and Anthropogenic Noise: Are Urban Songs Adaptive? , 2010, The American Naturalist.

[66]  R. H. Wiley.  A receiver–signaler equilibrium in the evolution of communication in noise , 2013 .

[67]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[68]  L. Baptista.  Song dialects and demes in sedentary populations of the white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys nuttalli) , 1975 .

[69]  Alejandro Vélez,et al.  Song structure, not high‐frequency song content, determines high‐frequency auditory sensitivity in nine species of New World sparrows (Passeriformes: Emberizidae) , 2015 .

[70]  Hans Slabbekoorn,et al.  Songs of the city: noise-dependent spectral plasticity in the acoustic phenotype of urban birds , 2013, Animal Behaviour.

[71]  R. Haven Wiley,et al.  Signal Detection, Noise, and the Evolution of Communication , 2013 .

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

[73]  M. Feldman,et al.  Cultural transmission and evolution: a quantitative approach. , 1981, Monographs in population biology.

[74]  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.