Soundscape ecology

Last updated
A spectrogram of the soundscape of Mount Rainier National Park in the United States. Highlighted areas show marmot, bird, insect and aircraft noises. Mount Rainier soundscape.jpg
A spectrogram of the soundscape of Mount Rainier National Park in the United States. Highlighted areas show marmot, bird, insect and aircraft noises.

Soundscape ecology is the study of the acoustic relationships between living organisms, human and other, and their environment, whether the organisms are marine or terrestrial. First appearing in the Handbook for Acoustic Ecology edited by Barry Truax, in 1978, [1] the term has occasionally been used, sometimes interchangeably, with the term acoustic ecology. Soundscape ecologists also study the relationships between the three basic sources of sound that comprise the soundscape: those generated by organisms are referred to as the biophony; those from non-biological natural categories are classified as the geophony, and those produced by humans, the anthropophony.

Contents

Increasingly, soundscapes are dominated by a sub-set of anthropophony (sometimes referred to in older, more archaic terminology as "anthropogenic noise"), or technophony, the overwhelming presence of electro-mechanical noise. This sub-class of noise pollution or disturbance may produce a negative effect on a wide range of organisms. Variations in soundscapes as a result of natural phenomena and human endeavor may have wide-ranging ecological effects as many organisms have evolved to respond to acoustic cues that emanate primarily from undisturbed habitats.

Soundscape ecologists use recording devices, audio tools, and elements of traditional ecological and acoustic analyses to study soundscape structure. Soundscape ecology has deepened current understandings of ecological issues and established profound visceral connections to ecological data. The preservation of natural soundscapes is now a recognized conservation goal.

Background

As an academic discipline, soundscape ecology shares some characteristics with other fields of inquiry but is also distinct from them in significant ways. [2] For instance, acoustic ecology is also concerned with the study of multiple sound sources. However, acoustic ecology, which derives from the founding work of R. Murray Schafer and Barry Truax, primarily focuses on human perception of soundscapes. Soundscape ecology seeks a broader perspective by considering soundscape effects on communities of living organisms, human and other, and the potential interactions between sounds in the environment. [3] Compared to soundscape ecology, the discipline of bioacoustics tends to have a narrower interest in individual species’ physiological and behavioral mechanisms of auditory communication. Soundscape ecology also borrows heavily from some concepts in landscape ecology, which focuses on ecological patterns and processes occurring over multiple spatial scales. [2] [4] [5] Landscapes may directly influence soundscapes as some organisms use physical features of their habitat to alter their vocalizations. For example, baboons and other animals exploit specific habitats to generate echoes of the sounds they produce. [2] [3]

The function and importance of sound in the environment may not be fully appreciated unless one adopts an organismal perspective on sound perception, and, in this way, soundscape ecology is also informed by sensory ecology. [2] [4] Sensory ecology focuses on understanding the sensory systems of organisms and the biological function of information obtained from these systems. In many cases, humans must acknowledge that sensory modalities and information used by other organisms may not be obvious from an anthropocentric viewpoint. This perspective has already highlighted many instances where organisms rely heavily on sound cues generated within their natural environments to perform important biological functions. For example, a broad range of crustaceans are known to respond to biophony generated around coral reefs. Species that must settle on reefs to complete their developmental cycle are attracted to reef noise while pelagic and nocturnal crustaceans are repelled by the same acoustic signal, presumably as a mechanism to avoid predation (predator densities are high in reef habitats). [6] Similarly, juvenile fish may use biophony as a navigational cue to locate their natal reefs, [7] and may also be encouraged to resettle damaged coral reefs by playback of healthy reef sound. [8] Other species’ movement patterns are influenced by geophony, as in the case of the reed frog which is known to disperse away from the sound of fire. [9] In addition, a variety of bird and mammal species use auditory cues, such as movement noise, in order to locate prey. [10] Disturbances created by periods of environmental noise may also be exploited by some animals while foraging. For example, insects that prey on spiders concentrate foraging activities during episodes of environmental noise to avoid detection by their prey. [11] These examples demonstrate that many organisms are highly capable of extracting information from soundscapes.

Terminology

Natural soundscapes include natural but non-biological "geophonic" sounds (such as the water of the ocean) and the "biophonic" sounds of animals (such as bird calls). mrG nwrwzy y y`w z khnwdh khkhy'yn Gull 19.jpg
Natural soundscapes include natural but non-biological "geophonic" sounds (such as the water of the ocean) and the "biophonic" sounds of animals (such as bird calls).

According to academic Bernie Krause, soundscape ecology serves as a lens into other fields including medicine, music, dance, philosophy, environmental studies, etc. (the soundscape). [12] [2] Krause sees the soundscape of a given region as the sum of three separate sound sources (as described by Gage and Krause) defined as follows:

According to Krause various combinations of these acoustic expressions across space and time generate unique soundscapes.[ citation needed ]

Soundscape ecologists seek to investigate the structure of soundscapes, explain how they are generated, and study how organisms interrelate acoustically. A number of hypotheses have been proposed to explain the structure of soundscapes, particularly elements of biophony. For instance, an ecological theory known as the acoustic adaptation hypothesis predicts that acoustic signals of animals are altered in different physical environments in order to maximize their propagation through the habitat. [2] [20] In addition, acoustic signals from organisms may be under selective pressure to minimize their frequency (pitch) overlap with other auditory features of the environment. This acoustic niche hypothesis is analogous to the classical ecological concept of niche partitioning. It suggests that acoustic signals in the environment should display frequency partitioning as a result of selection acting to maximize the effectiveness of intraspecific communication for different species. Observations of frequency differentiation among insects, birds, and anurans support the acoustic niche hypothesis. [21] [3] Organisms may also partition their vocalization frequencies to avoid overlap with pervasive geophonic sounds. For example, territorial communication in some frog species takes place partially in the high frequency ultrasonic spectrum. [22] This communication method represents an evolutionary adaptation to the frogs' riparian habitat where running water produces constant low frequency sound. Invasive species that introduce new sounds into soundscapes can disrupt acoustic niche partitioning in native communities, a process known as biophonic invasion. [4] Although adaptation to acoustic niches may explain the frequency structure of soundscapes, spatial variation in sound is likely to be generated by environmental gradients in altitude, latitude, or habitat disturbance. [4] These gradients may alter the relative contributions of biophony, geophony, and anthrophony to the soundscape. For example, when compared with unaltered habitats, regions with high levels of urban land-use are likely to have increased levels of anthrophony and decreased physical and organismal sound sources. Soundscapes typically exhibit temporal patterns, with daily and seasonal cycles being particularly prominent. [4] These patterns are often generated by the communities of organisms that contribute to biophony. For example, birds chorus heavily at dawn and dusk while anurans call primarily at night; the timing of these vocalization events may have evolved to minimize temporal overlap with other elements of the soundscape. [4] [23]

Methods

Acoustic information describing the environment is the primary data required in soundscape ecology studies. Technological advances have provided improved methods for the collection of such data. Automated recording systems allow for temporally replicated samples of soundscapes to be gathered with relative ease. Data collected from such equipment can be extracted to generate a visual representation of the soundscape in the form of a spectrogram. [2] Spectrograms provide information on a number of sound properties that may be subject to quantitative analysis. The vertical axis of a spectrogram indicates the frequency of a sound while the horizontal axis displays the time scale over which sounds were recorded. In addition, spectrograms display the amplitude of sound, a measure of sound intensity. Ecological indices traditionally used with species-level data, such as diversity and evenness, have been adapted for use with acoustic metrics. [2] These measures provide a method of comparing soundscapes across time or space. For example, automated recording devices have been used to gather acoustic data in different landscapes across yearlong time scales, and diversity metrics were employed to evaluate daily and seasonal fluctuations in soundscapes across sites. The demise of a habitat can be seen by measuring before and after "logging" for example. [24] [2] Spatial patterns of sound may also be studied using tools familiar to landscape ecologists such as geographic information systems (GIS). [4] Finally, recorded samples of the soundscape can provide proxy measures for biodiversity inventories in cases where other sampling methods are impractical or inefficient. [25] These techniques may be especially important for the study of rare or elusive species that are especially difficult to monitor in other ways.

Insights from soundscape ecology: anthropophony

Although soundscape ecology has only recently been defined as an independent academic discipline (it was first described in 2011 and formalized at the first meeting of the International Society of Ecoacoustics, held in Paris in 2014), many earlier ecological investigations have incorporated elements of soundscape ecology theory. For instance, a large body of work has focused on documenting the effects of anthropophony on wildlife. Anthropophony (the uncontrolled version, is often used synonymously with noise pollution) can emanate from a variety of sources, including transportation networks or industry, and may represent a pervasive disturbance to natural systems even in seemingly remote regions such as national parks. [10] A major effect of noise is the masking of organismal acoustic signals that contain information. Against a noisy background, organisms may have trouble perceiving sounds that are important for intraspecific communication, foraging, predator recognition, or a variety of other ecological functions. [10] In this way, anthropogenic noise may represent a soundscape interaction wherein increased anthropophony interferes with biophonic processes. The negative effects of anthropogenic noise impact a wide variety of taxa including fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals. [26] In addition to interfering with ecologically important sounds, anthropophony can also directly affect the biological systems of organisms. Noise exposure, which may be perceived as a threat, can lead to physiological changes. [10] For example, noise can increase levels of stress hormones, impair cognition, reduce immune function, and induce DNA damage. [27] Although much of the research on anthropogenic noise has focused on behavioral and population-level responses to noise disturbance, these molecular and cellular systems may prove promising areas for future work.

Anthropophony and birds

Anthropophony, sound generated from human activities, plays an important role in contemporary soundscapes. Congestion caused by a road accident, Algarve, Portugal.jpg
Anthropophony, sound generated from human activities, plays an important role in contemporary soundscapes.

Birds have been used as study organisms in much of the research concerning wildlife responses to anthropogenic noise, and the resulting literature documents many effects that are relevant to other taxa affected by anthropophony. Birds may be particularly sensitive to noise pollution given that they rely heavily on acoustic signals for intraspecific communication. Indeed, a wide range of studies demonstrate that birds use altered songs in noisy environments. [26] Research on great tits in an urban environment revealed that male birds inhabiting noisy territories tended to use higher frequency sounds in their songs. [28] Presumably these higher-pitched songs allow male birds to be heard above anthropogenic noise, which tends to have high energy in the lower frequency range thereby masking sounds in that spectra. A follow-up study of multiple populations confirmed that great tits in urban areas sing with an increased minimum frequency relative to forest-dwelling birds. [29] In addition, this study suggests that noisy urban habitats host birds that use shorter songs but repeat them more rapidly. In contrast to frequency modulations, birds may simply increase the amplitude (loudness) of their songs to decrease masking in environments with elevated noise. [30] Experimental work and field observations show that these song alterations may be the result of behavioral plasticity rather than evolutionary adaptations to noise (i.e., birds actively change their song repertoire depending on the acoustic conditions they experience). [31] In fact, avian vocal adjustments to anthropogenic noise are unlikely to be the products of evolutionary change simply because high noise levels are a relatively recent selection pressure. [23] However, not all bird species adjust their songs to improve communication in noisy environments, which may limit their ability to occupy habitats subject to anthropogenic noise. [32] In some species, individual birds establish a relatively rigid vocal repertoire when they are young, and these sorts of developmental constraints may limit their ability to make vocal adjustments later in life. [23] Thus, species that do not or cannot modify their songs may be particularly sensitive to habitat degradation as a result of noise pollution. [28] [32]

Effects of anthropophony on auditory communication are well studied in the great tit. Meise 900.jpg
Effects of anthropophony on auditory communication are well studied in the great tit.

Even among birds that are able to alter their songs to be better heard in environments inundated with anthropophony, these behavioral changes may have important fitness consequences. In the great tit, for example, there is a tradeoff between signal strength and signal detection that depends on song frequency. [33] Male birds that include more low frequency sounds in their song repertoire experience better sexual fidelity from their mates which results in increased reproductive success. However, low frequency sounds tend to be masked when anthropogenic noise is present, and high frequency songs are more effective at eliciting female responses under these conditions. Birds may therefore experience competing selective pressures in habitats with high levels of anthropogenic noise: pressure to call more at lower frequencies in order to improve signal strength and secure good mates versus opposing pressure to sing at higher frequencies in order to ensure that calls are detected against a background of anthrophony. In addition, use of certain vocalizations, including high amplitude sounds that reduce masking in noisy environments, may impose energetic costs that reduce fitness. [23] Because of the reproductive trade-offs and other stresses they impose on some birds, noisy habitats may represent ecological traps, habitats in which individuals have reduced fitness yet are colonized at rates greater than or equal to other habitats. [26] [34]

Anthropophony may ultimately have population- or community-level impacts on avian fauna. One study focusing on community composition found that habitats exposed to anthropophony hosted fewer bird species than regions without noise, but both areas had similar numbers of nests. [35] In fact, nests in noisy habitats had higher survival than those laid in control habitats, presumably because noisy environments hosted fewer western scrub jays which are major nest predators of other birds. Thus, anthropophony can have negative effects on local species diversity, but the species capable of coping with noise disturbance may actually benefit from the exclusion of negative species interactions in those areas. Other experiments suggest that noise pollution has the potential to affect avian mating systems by altering the strength of pair bonds. When exposed to high amplitude environmental noise in a laboratory setting, zebra finches, a monogamous species, show a decreased preference for their mated partners. [36] Similarly, male reed buntings in quiet environments are more likely to be part of a mated pair than males in noisy locations. [31] Such effects may ultimately result in reduced reproductive output of birds subject to high levels of environmental noise. [37]

Anthropophony and insects

Introduction

In comparison to other taxa, relatively little research has been done on the effects of anthropogenic noise on insects. However, current knowledge indicates that they are likely affected by anthropogenic noise to a greater extent than many other animal groups [38] [39] . Insects, like birds, rely heavily on acoustic signals for communication, which can be disrupted by noise. However, while birds and other taxa often studied for effects of anthropogenic noise primarily rely on airborne acoustic signals, insects frequently utilize vibrational signals for communication. [40] The properties of vibrational signals increases the threat posed to them by anthropogenic noise. Furthermore, due to limited dispersal capacity and narrow habitat requirements, insects may be unable to avoid anthropogenic noise by moving to quieter locations. [39] Certain behavioral responses could allow for insects to compensate for the presence of anthropogenic noise, but physiological and environmental constraints limit the efficacy of these strategies.

As a result of interference with communication, insects are at a greater risk of experiencing negative fitness consequences due to impacts on mating, foraging, and survival. Noise that masks or distorts signals used for mate location or courtship can prevent mating from taking place. [41] Similarly, noise that prevents insects from perceiving prey or potential dangers may result in decreased foraging success and survival. [42]

Mechanism of Impact

Vibrational signals used by most insects have the majority of their power concentrated below 2kHz, a frequency range that is lower than most airborne communication but has high overlap with many types of anthropogenic noise. [38] As a result, anthropogenic noise can mask and/or distort the properties of vibrational signals. [39] Noise that overlaps acoustic signals can prevent insects from identifying intraspecific courtship signals, discerning the meaning of signals, and perceiving signals made by predator or prey species. [43] Any reduced ability to recognize and locate mates, avoid predation and other dangers, or forage for food is likely to have negative consequences for survival and reproduction. [39]

Responses to Noise

Insects display a variety of responses to noise, such as shifting signal frequency or rate to reduce overlap with noise [44] and altering signal timing to take advantage of noise gaps. The efficacy of these responses varies depending on insects' ability to plastically modulate their behavior or signals, as well as the characteristics of the anthropogenic noise [45] .

Some insects can modulate the frequencies of their signals, shifting them higher or lower to avoid overlap with other noise. [44] For example, male Chorthippus biguttulus grasshoppers, which use airborne signals, produce higher frequency signals when living by roads to avoid overlap with low frequency traffic noise. [44] Similarly, female Nezara viridula stinkbugs, which use vibrational signals, alter the dominant frequency of their calling song to avoid overlap and interference by vibratory disturbances. [46] The ability of an insect species to modulate signals is constrained by physiological limits to the range of frequencies they are capable of producing. [47] Additionally, numerous anthropogenic noises occupy a wide range of frequencies that may exceed the frequency range that insects can produce. [39]

Insects may alter the timing or structure of their signals to avoid overlap with noise by changing the rate of signal production, the pacing of signal components, or the length of signal components. [39] Thermals constraints on signal rates and timing can limit the ability to modulate signal behavior to seasons or times of day when the temperature is within an optimal range. [48]

Enchenopa binotata treehoppers respond to noise by identifying and signaling within gaps of noise. Treehoppers credit Kasey Fowler-Finn IMG 2873 WEB.jpg
Enchenopa binotata treehoppers respond to noise by identifying and signaling within gaps of noise.

Insects can also alter their behavior in response to noise by signaling within "gaps" of anthropogenic noise, during which there is less noise and less risk of being overlap. [47] This response is dependent on both the ability to quickly perceive a noise gap and then to initiate a signal. Insect species that utilize this technique include the treehopper Enchenopa Binotata and katydid Copiphora brevirostris, both of which identify gaps in wind noise to initiate signaling during short quiet periods. [49] [50] In environments when anthropogenic noise is constant, such as gas fields and wind farms, this behavioral modification likely is not a potential option for insects. [48]

Fitness Consequences

Interference from anthropogenic noise on insect communication can affect mating, foraging, and survival.

Disruption of mating by noise masking occurs when noise overlap reduces perception of signals and insects are unable to modulate signaling to avoid it. This can hinder species recognition and mate location, and may preclude courtship and mating altogether. [41] [51] [52] Decreased mating has been observed in multiple species as a result of interfering noise, including Schizocosa ocreata wolf spiders, Graminella nigrifrons leafhoppers, and Dendroctonus pine beetles. [53] [54] [55] Even if insects can alter signaling behavior, they still might suffer reductions in fitness if females do not recognize the altered signals or respond to them as readily as non-altered signals. [56] Under noisy conditions, females may also choose to mate with the first male encountered rather than sampling and comparing between males. [57]

Noise can also affect interactions among species. When noise masks airborne or vibrational signals made by prey, insects that rely on these cues to locate prey may be unable to, or prey species may alter their behavior to compensate for the noise. [42] These changes can reduce foraging success, thus constraining growth and limiting reproduction. Alternatively, insects that utilize warning signals or that detect potential dangers through predator vibrations may be unable to do so, leading to increased predation rates. [58]

Ecological Impacts

While there is little research on community or ecosystem level impacts of anthropogenic noise on insects, studies indicate that noise can decrease the diversity and abundance of insect communities. [59] [60] Potential consequences of these shifts may lead to cascading effects on higher levels of the food chain, reduced ecological resilience, and the provision of critical ecosystem services such as pollination. [38]

Soundscape conservation

The discipline of conservation biology has traditionally been concerned with the preservation of biodiversity and the habitats that organisms are dependent upon. However, soundscape ecology encourages biologists to consider natural soundscapes as resources worthy of conservation efforts. Soundscapes that come from relatively untrammeled habitats have value for wildlife as demonstrated by the numerous negative effects of anthropogenic noise on various species. [10] Organisms that use acoustic cues generated by their prey may be particularly impacted by human-altered soundscapes. [61] In this situation, the (unintentional) senders of the acoustic signals will have no incentive to compensate for masking imposed by anthropogenic sound. In addition, natural soundscapes can have benefits for human wellbeing and may help generate a distinct sense of place, connecting people to the environment and providing unique aesthetic experiences. [25] Because of the various values inherent in natural soundscapes, they may be considered ecosystem services that are provisioned by intact, functioning ecosystems. [2] Targets for soundscape conservation may include soundscapes necessary for the persistence of threatened wildlife, soundscapes that are themselves being severely altered by anthrophony, and soundscapes that represent unique places or cultural values. [25] Some governments and management agencies have begun to consider preservation of natural soundscapes as an environmental priority. [62] [63] [64] In the United States, the National Park Service's Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division is working to protect natural and cultural soundscapes.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Noise pollution</span> Excessive, displeasing environmental noise

Noise pollution, or sound pollution, is the propagation of noise or sound with potential harmful effects on humans and animals. The source of outdoor noise worldwide is mainly caused by machines, transport and propagation systems. Poor urban planning may give rise to noise disintegration or pollution, side-by-side industrial and residential buildings can result in noise pollution in the residential areas. Some of the main sources of noise in residential areas include loud music, transportation, lawn care maintenance, construction, electrical generators, wind turbines, explosions and people.

Animal communication is the transfer of information from one or a group of animals to one or more other animals that affects the current or future behavior of the receivers. Information may be sent intentionally, as in a courtship display, or unintentionally, as in the transfer of scent from the predator to prey with kairomones. Information may be transferred to an "audience" of several receivers. Animal communication is a rapidly growing area of study in disciplines including animal behavior, sociology, neurology, and animal cognition. Many aspects of animal behavior, such as symbolic name use, emotional expression, learning, and sexual behavior, are being understood in new ways.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bioacoustics</span> Study of sound relating to biology

Bioacoustics is a cross-disciplinary science that combines biology and acoustics. Usually it refers to the investigation of sound production, dispersion and reception in animals. This involves neurophysiological and anatomical basis of sound production and detection, and relation of acoustic signals to the medium they disperse through. The findings provide clues about the evolution of acoustic mechanisms, and from that, the evolution of animals that employ them.

A soundscape is the acoustic environment as perceived by humans, in context. The term was originally coined by Michael Southworth was popularized by R. Murray Schafer. There is a varied history of the use of soundscape depending on discipline, ranging from urban design to wildlife ecology to computer science. An important distinction is to separate soundscape from the broader acoustic environment. The acoustic environment is the combination of all the acoustic resources, natural and artificial, within a given area as modified by the environment. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standardized these definitions in 2014.

Natural sounds are any sounds produced by non-human organisms as well as those generated by natural, non-biological sources within their normal soundscapes. It is a category whose definition is open for discussion. Natural sounds create an acoustic space.

Acoustic ecology, sometimes called ecoacoustics or soundscape studies, is a discipline studying the relationship, mediated through sound, between human beings and their environment. Acoustic ecology studies started in the late 1960s with R. Murray Schafer a musician, composer and former professor of communication studies at Simon Fraser University with the help of his team there as part of the World Soundscape Project. The original WSP team included Barry Truax and Hildegard Westerkamp, Bruce Davies and Peter Huse, among others. The first study produced by the WSP was titled The Vancouver Soundscape. This innovative study raised the interest of researchers and artists worldwide, creating enormous growth in the field of acoustic ecology. In 1993, the members of the by now large and active international acoustic ecology community formed the World Forum for Acoustic Ecology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bernie Krause</span> American musician, author, soundscape recordist and bio-acoustician (born 1938)

Bernard L. Krause is an American musician and soundscape ecologist. In 1968, he founded Wild Sanctuary, an organization dedicated to the recording and archiving of natural soundscapes. Krause is an author, a bio-acoustician, a speaker, and natural sound artist who coined the terms geophony, biophony, and anthropophony.

Ecology and evolutionary biology is an interdisciplinary field of study concerning interactions between organisms and their ever-changing environment, including perspectives from both evolutionary biology and ecology. This field of study includes topics such as the way organisms respond and evolve, as well as the relationships among animals, plants, and micro-organisms, when their habitats change. Ecology and evolutionary biology is a broad field of study that covers various ranges of ages and scales, which can also help us to comprehend human impacts on the global ecosystem and find measures to achieve more sustainable development.

Sensory ecology is a relatively new field focusing on the information organisms obtain about their environment. It includes questions of what information is obtained, how it is obtained, and why the information is useful to the organism.

Biomusic is a form of experimental music which deals with sounds created or performed by non-humans. The definition is also sometimes extended to include sounds made by humans in a directly biological way. For instance, music that is created by the brain waves of the composer can also be called biomusic as can music created by the human body without the use of tools or instruments that are not part of the body.

A mating call is the auditory signal used by animals to attract mates. It can occur in males or females, but literature is abundantly favored toward researching mating calls in females. In addition, mating calls are often the subject of mate choice, in which the preferences of one gender for a certain type of mating call can drive sexual selection in a species. This can result in sympatric speciation of some animals, where two species diverge from each other while living in the same environment.

An autonomous recording unit (ARU) is a self-contained audio recording device that is deployed in marine or terrestrial environments for bioacoustical monitoring. The unit is used in both marine and terrestrial environments to track the behavior of animals and monitor their ecosystems. On a terrestrial level, the ARU can detect noises coming from bird habitats and determine relative emotions that each bird conveys along with the population of the birds and the relative vulnerability of the ecosystem. The ARU can also be used to understand noises made by marine life to see how the animals' communication affects the operation of their ecosystem. When underwater, the ARU can track the sound that human made machines make and see the effect those sounds have on marine life ecosystems. Up to 44 work days can be saved through the utilization of ARU's, along with their ability to discover more species.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Seismic communication</span>

Seismic or vibrational communication is a process of conveying information through mechanical (seismic) vibrations of the substrate. The substrate may be the earth, a plant stem or leaf, the surface of a body of water, a spider's web, a honeycomb, or any of the myriad types of soil substrates. Seismic cues are generally conveyed by surface Rayleigh or bending waves generated through vibrations on the substrate, or acoustical waves that couple with the substrate. Vibrational communication is an ancient sensory modality and it is widespread in the animal kingdom where it has evolved several times independently. It has been reported in mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, arachnids, crustaceans and nematode worms. Vibrations and other communication channels are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but can be used in multi-modal communication.

Road ecology is the study of the ecological effects of roads and highways. These effects may include local effects, such as on noise, water pollution, habitat destruction/disturbance and local air quality; and the wider environmental effects of transport such as habitat fragmentation, ecosystem degradation, and climate change from vehicle emissions.

Ecomusicology is an area of study that explores the relationships between music or sound, and the natural environment. It is a study which encompasses a variety of academic disciplines including musicology, biology, ecology and anthropology. Ecomusicology combines these disciplines to explore how sound is produced by natural environments and, more broadly how cultural values and concerns about nature are expressed through sonic mediums. Ecomusicology explores the ways that music is composed to replicate natural imagery, as well as how sounds produced within the natural environment are used within musical composition. Ecological studies of sounds produced by animals within their habitat are also considered to be part of the field of ecomusicology. In the 21st century, studies within the field the ecomusicology have also become increasingly interested in the sustainability of music production and performance.

Pollutant-induced abnormal behaviour refers to the abnormal behaviour induced by pollutants. Chemicals released into the natural environment by humans impact the behaviour of a wide variety of animals. The main culprits are endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which mimic, block, or interfere with animal hormones. A new research field, integrative behavioural ecotoxicology, is emerging. However, chemical pollutants are not the only anthropogenic offenders. Noise and light pollution also induce abnormal behaviour.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christian Lorenzi</span>

Christian Lorenzi is Professor of Experimental Psychology at École Normale Supérieure in Paris, France, where he has been Director of the Department of Cognitive Studies and Director of Scientific Studies until. Lorenzi works on auditory perception.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Communication in aquatic animals</span>

Communication occurs when an animal produces a signal and uses it to influences the behaviour of another animal. A signal can be any behavioural, structural or physiological trait that has evolved specifically to carry information about the sender and/or the external environment and to stimulate the sensory system of the receiver to change their behaviour. A signal is different from a cue in that cues are informational traits that have not been selected for communication purposes. For example, if an alerted bird gives a warning call to a predator and causes the predator to give up the hunt, the bird is using the sound as a signal to communicate its awareness to the predator. On the other hand, if a rat forages in the leaves and makes a sound that attracts a predator, the sound itself is a cue and the interaction is not considered a communication attempt.

Urban evolution refers to the heritable genetic changes of populations in response to urban development and anthropogenic activities in urban areas. Urban evolution can be caused by non-random mating, mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, or evolution by natural selection. In the context of Earth's living history, rapid urbanization is a relatively recent phenomenon, yet biologists have already observed evolutionary change in numerous species compared to their rural counterparts on a relatively short timescale.

Human auditory ecology (HAE) is a research program in hearing sciences studying the interactions between humans and their acoustic environments.

References

  1. Truax, Barry (1978). Handbook for Acoustic Ecology, A. R. C Publications, Vancouver, BC.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pijanowski, B. C.; Villanueva-Rivera, L. J.; Dumyahn, S. L.; Farina, A.; Krause, B. L.; Napoletano, B. M.; Gage, S. H.; Pieretti, N. (2011). "Soundscape Ecology: The Science of Sound in the Landscape". BioScience. 61 (3): 203. doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.6 .
  3. 1 2 3 Krause, Bernie. (2012). "The Great Animal Orchestra: Finding the Origins of Music in the World's Wild Places," Little Brown/Hachette, New York.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pijanowski, B. C.; Farina, A.; Gage, S. H.; Dumyahn, S. L.; Krause, B. L. (2011). "What is soundscape ecology? An introduction and overview of an emerging new science". Landscape Ecology. 26 (9): 1213. doi:10.1007/s10980-011-9600-8. S2CID   29097340.
  5. 1 2 3 Dein, Jacob; Rüdisser, Johannes (2020-07-03). "Landscape influence on biophony in an urban environment in the European Alps". Landscape Ecology. 35 (8): 1875–1889. doi: 10.1007/s10980-020-01049-x . ISSN   0921-2973.
  6. Simpson, S. D.; Radford, A. N.; Tickle, E. J.; Meekan, M. G.; Jeffs, A. G. (2011). Klimley, A. Peter (ed.). "Adaptive Avoidance of Reef Noise". PLOS ONE. 6 (2): e16625. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...616625S. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016625 . PMC   3033890 . PMID   21326604.
  7. Simpson, S. D.; Meekan, M.; Montgomery, J.; McCauley, R.; Jeffs, A. (2005). "Homeward Sound". Science. 308 (5719): 221. doi:10.1126/science.1107406. PMID   15821083. S2CID   1064954.
  8. Gordon, Timothy A. C.; Radford, Andrew N.; Davidson, Isla K.; Barnes, Kasey; McCloskey, Kieran; Nedelec, Sophie L.; Meekan, Mark G.; McCormick, Mark I.; Simpson, Stephen D. (2019-11-29). "Acoustic enrichment can enhance fish community development on degraded coral reef habitat". Nature Communications. 10 (1): 5414. Bibcode:2019NatCo..10.5414G. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13186-2 . ISSN   2041-1723. PMC   6884498 . PMID   31784508.
  9. Grafe, T. U.; Dobler, S.; Linsenmair, K. E. (2002). "Frogs flee from the sound of fire". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 269 (1495): 999–1003. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.1974. PMC   1690992 . PMID   12028755.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 Barber, J. R.; Crooks, K. R.; Fristrup, K. M. (2010). "The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 25 (3): 180–9. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.08.002. PMID   19762112.
  11. Wignall, A. E.; Jackson, R. R.; Wilcox, R. S.; Taylor, P. W. (2011). "Exploitation of environmental noise by an araneophagic assassin bug". Animal Behaviour. 82 (5): 1037. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.07.038. S2CID   53148100.
  12. Krause, Bernie (August, 2015). Voices of the Wild, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
  13. "Studying Nature's Rhythms: Soundscape Scientists Spawn New Field". National Science Foundation. 6 February 2012. Retrieved 7 March 2019.
  14. Dybas, Cheryl. "Soundscape Ecology: Studying Nature's Rhythms". Ecology. Retrieved 7 March 2019.
  15. Eric Stonea (2000), "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" Anthroös, Vol 13, Issue 4, pgs 225-231
  16. Luis J. Villanueva-Rivera (2014)." Eleutherodactylus frogs show frequency but no temporal partitioning: implications for the acoustic niche hypothesis," Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
  17. Jerome Sueur (2001). "Cicada acoustic communication: potential sound partitioning in a multispecies community from Mexico (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Cicadidae)," Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2002, 75, 379–394. France.
  18. "Voices of the Wild: Animal Songs, Human Din, and the Call to Save Natural Soundscapes" Krause 2015, Yale University Press
  19. Joe Ferguson, Collaboration: Biophony, an Evolutionary Collaboration, SciArt in America, p. 36–42, June, 2015
  20. 1 2 Krause, Bernie. (2008). "Anatomy of the Soundscape: Evolving Perspectives," J Aud Eng Soc. Vol 56 No 1/2 January/February.
  21. Bernie Krause 1993. "The Niche Hypothesis: A virtual symphony of animal sounds, the origins of musical expression and the health of habitats," The Soundscape Newsletter./> file:///Users/garywf/Desktop/WFAE%20PROJECT/WFAE%20New/library/readings/niche.html
  22. Feng, A. S.; Narins, P. M.; Xu, C. H.; Lin, W. Y.; Yu, Z. L.; Qiu, Q.; Xu, Z. M.; Shen, J. X. (2006). "Ultrasonic communication in frogs". Nature. 440 (7082): 333–336. Bibcode:2006Natur.440..333F. doi:10.1038/nature04416. PMID   16541072. S2CID   2364920.
  23. 1 2 3 4 Patricelli, G. L.; Blickley, J. L. (2006). "Avian Communication in Urban Noise: Causes and Consequences of Vocal Adjustment". The Auk. 123 (3): 639. doi:10.1642/0004-8038(2006)123[639:ACIUNC]2.0.CO;2. S2CID   85985255.
  24. Sample, Ian; Jackson, Graihagh (June 15, 2018). "Soundscape ecology with Bernie Krause – Science Weekly podcast". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 June 2018.
  25. 1 2 3 Dumyahn, S. L.; Pijanowski, B. C. (2011). "Soundscape conservation". Landscape Ecology. 26 (9): 1327. doi:10.1007/s10980-011-9635-x. S2CID   5820389.
  26. 1 2 3 Laiolo, P. (2010). "The emerging significance of bioacoustics in animal species conservation". Biological Conservation. 143 (7): 1635–2013. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.03.025. hdl: 10261/159286 .
  27. Kight, C. R.; Swaddle, J. P. (2011). "How and why environmental noise impacts animals: An integrative, mechanistic review". Ecology Letters. 14 (10): 1052–1061. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01664.x . PMID   21806743.
  28. 1 2 Slabbekoorn, H.; Peet, M. (2003). "Ecology: Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise". Nature. 424 (6946): 267. Bibcode:2003Natur.424..267S. doi: 10.1038/424267a . PMID   12867967. S2CID   4348883.
  29. Slabbekoorn, H.; Den Boer-Visser, A. (2006). "Cities Change the Songs of Birds". Current Biology. 16 (23): 2326–2331. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.10.008 . PMID   17141614. S2CID   14962858.
  30. Brumm, H. (2004). "The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird". Journal of Animal Ecology. 73 (3): 434–440. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00814.x .
  31. 1 2 Gross, K.; Pasinelli, G.; Kunc, H. P. (2010). "Behavioral Plasticity Allows Short-Term Adjustment to a Novel Environment" (PDF). The American Naturalist. 176 (4): 456–464. doi:10.1086/655428. PMID   20701531. S2CID   30790440.
  32. 1 2 Francis, C. D.; Ortega, C. P.; Cruz, A. (2010). "Vocal frequency change reflects different responses to anthropogenic noise in two suboscine tyrant flycatchers". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 278 (1714): 2025–31. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1847. PMC   3107642 . PMID   21123268.
  33. Halfwerk, W.; Bot, S.; Buikx, J.; Van Der Velde, M.; Komdeur, J.; Ten Cate, C.; Slabbekoorn, H. (2011). "Low-frequency songs lose their potency in noisy urban conditions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (35): 14549–54. Bibcode:2011PNAS..10814549H. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1109091108 . PMC   3167545 . PMID   21876157.
  34. Robertson, B. A.; Hutto, R. L. (2006). "A Framework for Understanding Ecological Traps and an Evaluation of Existing Evidence". Ecology. 87 (5): 1075–1085. doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[1075:AFFUET]2.0.CO;2. PMID   16761584.
  35. Francis, C. D.; Ortega, C. P.; Cruz, A. (2009). "Noise Pollution Changes Avian Communities and Species Interactions". Current Biology. 19 (16): 1415–1419. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.06.052 . PMID   19631542. S2CID   15985432.
  36. Swaddle, J. P.; Page, L. C. (2007). "High levels of environmental noise erode pair preferences in zebra finches: Implications for noise pollution". Animal Behaviour. 74 (3): 363. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.01.004. S2CID   17555825.
  37. Halfwerk, W.; Holleman, L. J. M.; Lessells, C. M.; Slabbekoorn, H. (2011). "Negative impact of traffic noise on avian reproductive success". Journal of Applied Ecology. 48: 210–219. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01914.x .
  38. 1 2 3 Morley, Erica L.; Jones, Gareth; Radford, Andrew N. (2014-02-07). "The importance of invertebrates when considering the impacts of anthropogenic noise". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 281 (1776): 20132683. doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.2683. ISSN   0962-8452. PMC   3871318 . PMID   24335986.
  39. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Raboin, Maggie; Elias, Damian O. (2019-06-15). "Anthropogenic noise and the bioacoustics of terrestrial invertebrates". Journal of Experimental Biology. 222 (12). doi:10.1242/jeb.178749. ISSN   1477-9145. PMID   31217253.
  40. Caldwell, Michael S. (2014), Cocroft, Reginald B.; Gogala, Matija; Hill, Peggy S.M.; Wessel, Andreas (eds.), "Interactions Between Airborne Sound and Substrate Vibration in Animal Communication", Studying Vibrational Communication, Animal Signals and Communication, vol. 3, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 65–92, doi:10.1007/978-3-662-43607-3_6, ISBN   978-3-662-43607-3 , retrieved 2024-09-09
  41. 1 2 Gurule-Small, Gabrielle A.; Tinghitella, Robin M. (2018). "Developmental experience with anthropogenic noise hinders adult mate location in an acoustically signalling invertebrate". Biology Letters. 14 (2). doi:10.1098/rsbl.2017.0714. ISSN   1744-9561. PMC   5830664 . PMID   29491025.
  42. 1 2 Wu, Chung-Huey; Elias, Damian O. (2014-04-01). "Vibratory noise in anthropogenic habitats and its effect on prey detection in a web-building spider". Animal Behaviour. 90: 47–56. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.01.006. ISSN   0003-3472.
  43. Wilcox, Stimpson R.; Jackson, Robert R.; Gentile, Kristen (1996). "Spiderweb smokescreens: spider trickster uses background noise to mask stalking movements". Animal Behaviour. 51 (2): 313–326. doi:10.1006/anbe.1996.0031.
  44. 1 2 3 Lampe, Ulrike; Schmoll, Tim; Franzke, Alexandra; Reinhold, Klaus (2012). Patek, Sheila (ed.). "Staying tuned: grasshoppers from noisy roadside habitats produce courtship signals with elevated frequency components". Functional Ecology. 26 (6): 1348–1354. doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12000. ISSN   0269-8463.
  45. Morley, Erica L.; Jones, Gareth; Radford, Andrew N. (2014-02-07). "The importance of invertebrates when considering the impacts of anthropogenic noise". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 281 (1776): 20132683. doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.2683. PMC   3871318 . PMID   24335986.
  46. Polajnar, Jernej; Čokl, Andrej (2008-06-01). "The effect of vibratory disturbance on sexual behaviour of the southern green stink bug Nezara viridula (Heteroptera, Pentatomidae)". Open Life Sciences. 3 (2): 189–197. doi:10.2478/s11535-008-0008-7. ISSN   2391-5412.
  47. 1 2 Shieh, Bao-Sen; Liang, Shih-Hsiung; Chen, Chao-Chieh; Loa, Hsiang-Hao; Liao, Chen-Yu (2012-04-01). "Acoustic adaptations to anthropogenic noise in the cicada Cryptotympana takasagona Kato (Hemiptera: Cicadidae)". Acta Ethologica. 15 (1): 33–38. doi:10.1007/s10211-011-0105-x. ISSN   1437-9546.
  48. 1 2 Classen-Rodríguez, Leticia; Tinghitella, Robin; Fowler-Finn, Kasey (2021). "Anthropogenic noise affects insect and arachnid behavior, thus changing interactions within and between species". Current Opinion in Insect Science. 47: 142–153. doi:10.1016/j.cois.2021.06.005. PMID   34252592.
  49. McNett, Gabriel D.; Luan, Lucia H.; Cocroft, Reginald B. (2010-12-01). "Wind-induced noise alters signaler and receiver behavior in vibrational communication". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 64 (12): 2043–2051. doi:10.1007/s00265-010-1018-9. ISSN   1432-0762.
  50. Velilla, Estefania; Muñoz, Matías; Quiroga, Nicol; Symes, Laurel; ter Hofstede, Hannah M.; Page, Rachel A.; Simon, Ralph; Ellers, Jacintha; Halfwerk, Wouter (2020-05-04). "Gone with the wind: Is signal timing in a neotropical katydid an adaptive response to variation in wind-induced vibratory noise?". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 74 (5): 59. doi:10.1007/s00265-020-02842-z. ISSN   1432-0762.
  51. Gallego-Abenza, Mario; Mathevon, Nicolas; Wheatcroft, David (2019-09-27). "Experience modulates an insect's response to anthropogenic noise". Behavioral Ecology. 31 (1): 90–96. doi:10.1093/beheco/arz159. ISSN   1045-2249. PMC   7191250 . PMID   32372854.
  52. Bent, Adam M; Ings, Thomas C; Mowles, Sophie L (2018-10-04). "Anthropogenic noise disrupts mate searching in Gryllus bimaculatus". Behavioral Ecology. 29 (6). doi:10.1093/beheco/ary126. ISSN   1045-2249.
  53. Gordon, Shira D.; Uetz, George W. (2012-07-01). "Environmental interference: impact of acoustic noise on seismic communication and mating success". Behavioral Ecology. 23 (4): 707–714. doi:10.1093/beheco/ars016. ISSN   1465-7279.
  54. Hunt, Randy E.; Morton, Thomas L. (October 2001). "Regulation of Chorusing in the Vibrational Communication System of the Leafhopper Graminella nigrifrons". American Zoologist. 41 (5): 1222–1228. doi:10.1093/icb/41.5.1222. ISSN   0003-1569.
  55. Hofstetter, Richard W; Dunn, David D; McGuire, Reagan; Potter, Kristen A (January 2014). "Using acoustic technology to reduce bark beetle reproduction: Using acoustic technology to reduce bark beetle reproduction". Pest Management Science. 70 (1): 24–27. doi:10.1002/ps.3656. PMID   24105962.
  56. McNett, Gabriel D.; Luan, Lucia H.; Cocroft, Reginald B. (2010-12-01). "Wind-induced noise alters signaler and receiver behavior in vibrational communication". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 64 (12): 2043–2051. doi:10.1007/s00265-010-1018-9. ISSN   1432-0762.
  57. Bowen, Anne E.; Gurule-Small, Gabrielle A.; Tinghitella, Robin M. (2020-07-27). "Anthropogenic noise reduces male reproductive investment in an acoustically signaling insect". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 74 (8): 103. doi:10.1007/s00265-020-02868-3. ISSN   1432-0762.
  58. Wignall, Anne E.; Jackson, Robert R.; Wilcox, R. Stimson; Taylor, Phillip W. (2011-11-01). "Exploitation of environmental noise by an araneophagic assassin bug". Animal Behaviour. 82 (5): 1037–1042. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.07.038. ISSN   0003-3472.
  59. Senzaki, Masayuki; Kadoya, Taku; Francis, Clinton D. (2020-03-25). "Direct and indirect effects of noise pollution alter biological communities in and near noise-exposed environments". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 287 (1923): 20200176. doi:10.1098/rspb.2020.0176. ISSN   0962-8452. PMC   7126038 . PMID   32183626.
  60. Bunkley, Jessie P.; McClure, Christopher J. W.; Kawahara, Akito Y.; Francis, Clinton D.; Barber, Jesse R. (2017). "Anthropogenic noise changes arthropod abundances". Ecology and Evolution. 7 (9): 2977–2985. doi:10.1002/ece3.2698. ISSN   2045-7758. PMC   5415529 . PMID   28479997.
  61. Krause, Bernie; Farina, Almo (2016). "Using ecoacoustic methods to survey the impacts of climate change on biodiversity". Biological Conservation. 195: 245–254. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.01.013.
  62. Bernie Krause. (2002) "Wild Soundscapes in the National Parks: An Educational Program Guide to Listening and Recording, pub. National Park Service. 1–86.
  63. Krause, Bernie; Gage, Stuart H.; Joo, Wooyeong (2011). "Measuring and interpreting the temporal variability in the soundscape at four places in Sequoia National Park". Landscape Ecol. 26 (9): 1247–1256. doi:10.1007/s10980-011-9639-6. S2CID   2490762.
  64. Dumyahn, S. L.; Pijanowski, B. C. (2011). "Soundscape conservation". Landscape Ecology. 26 (9): 1327. doi:10.1007/s10980-011-9635-x. S2CID   5820389.

Further reading