Does traffic noise alter calling time in frogs and toads? A case study of anurans in Eastern Ontario, Canada

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Fernando Vargas-Salinas (1) (2)
  Glenn M. Cunnington (3)
  Adolfo Amézquita (1)
  Lenore Fahrig (3)
  
• 关键词：Acoustic communication ; Amphibian conservation ; Anthropogenic noise ; Anurans ; Masking interference ; Road ecology
• 刊名：Urban Ecosystems
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：December 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：17
• 期：4
• 页码：945-953
• 全文大小：2,994 KB
• 参考文献：1. Bee MA, Swanson EM (2007) Auditory masking of anuran advertisement calls by road traffic noise. Anim Behav 74:1765-776 CrossRef
  2. Both C, Grant T (2012) Biological invasions and the acoustic niche: the effect of bullfrog calls on the acoustic signals of white-banded tree frogs. Biol Lett 8:714-16 CrossRef
  3. Brumm H (2006) Signalling through acoustic windows: nightingales avoid interspecific competition by short-term adjustment of song timing. J Comp Physiol A 192:1279-285 CrossRef
  4. Brumm, H. (2013) Animal communication and noise. Springer Berlin Heidelberg
  5. Brumm H, Slabbekoorn H (2005) Acoustic communication in noise. Adv Stud Behav 35:151-09 CrossRef
  6. Cade WH, Otte D (1982) Alternation calling and spacing patterns in the field cricket / Acanthogryllus fortipes (Orthoptera; Gryllidae). Can J Zool 60:2916-920 CrossRef
  7. Cartwright LA, Taylor DR, Wilson DR, Chow-Fraser P (2013) Urban noise affects song structure and daily patterns of song production in Red-winged Blackbirds ( / Agelaius phoeniceus). Urban Ecosyst. doi:10.1007/s11252-013-0316-z
  8. Cocroft RB, Ryan MJ (1995) Patterns of advertisement call evolution in toads and chorus frogs. Anim Behav 49:283-03 CrossRef
  9. Cunnington GM, Fahrig L (2010) Plasticity in the vocalizations of anurans in response to traffic noise. Acta Oecol 36:463-70 CrossRef
  10. Cunnington GM, Fahrig L (2013) Mate attraction by male anurans in the presence of traffic noise. Anim Conserv 16:275-85 CrossRef
  11. Douglas HD, Conner WE (1999) Is there a sound reception window in coastal environments? Evidence from shorebird communication systems. Naturwissenschaften 86:228-30 CrossRef
  12. Eigenbrod F, Hecnar SJ, Fahrig L (2008) Accessible habitat: an improved measure of the effects of habitat loss and roads on wildlife populations. Landsc Ecol 23:159-68 CrossRef
  13. Ficken RW, Ficken MS, Hailman JP (1974) Temporal pattern shifts to avoid acoustic interference in singing birds. Science 183:762-63 CrossRef
  14. Francis CD, Ortega CP, Cruz A (2011a) Noise pollution filters bird communities based on vocal frequency. PLoS ONE 6:1-
  15. Francis CD, Ortega CP, Cruz A (2011b) Vocal frequency change reflects different responses to anthropogenic noise in two suboscine tyrant flycatchers. P Roy Soc B 278:2025-031 CrossRef
  16. Fuller RA, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Daytime noise predicts nocturnal singing in urban robins. Biol Lett 3:368-70 CrossRef
  17. Gerhardt HC, Huber F (2002) Acoustic communication in insects and anurans: common problems and diverse solutions. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
  18. Gerhardt HC, Klump GM (1988) Masking of acoustic signal by the chorus background noise in the green Treefrog: a limitation for female choice. Anim Behav 36:1247-249 CrossRef
  19. Grafe TU (1996) The function of call alternation in the African reed frog ( / Hyperolius marmoratus): precise call timing prevents auditory masking. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:149-58 CrossRef
  20. Halliday T, Tejedo M (1995) Intrasexual selection and alternative mating behavio
• 作者单位：Fernando Vargas-Salinas (1) (2)
  Glenn M. Cunnington (3)
  Adolfo Amézquita (1)
  Lenore Fahrig (3)
  
  1. Departmento de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, DC, Colombia
  2. Programa de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias Básicas y Tecnologías, Universidad del Quindío, Armenia, Colombia
  3. Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Research Laboratory (GLEL), Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
  
• ISSN：1573-1642

文摘

In habitats disturbed by anthropogenic noise, acoustically communicating species may develop behavioral responses that help them transmit information and overcome signal masking. We studied four anuran species breeding in wetlands, ponds, and ditches near a highway in eastern Ontario, Canada, to test whether they called more often when traffic noise intensity was lower, and stopped calling when the noise intensity increased (i.e., gap calling behavior). We made call recordings between April and July 2011, and compared the traffic noise intensity (sound pressure level) between times when the anurans were calling and times when they were not calling. We found that the two species with the highest call peak frequency (American toad, gray treefrog) called randomly with regard to traffic noise intensity. In contrast, the two species with the lowest call peak frequency (green frog, bullfrog) called more often when traffic noise intensity was low. The behavioral response in the two latter species likely represents a short-term strategy that enhances their signal-to-noise ratio thereby increasing the chance of effective communication. Our results support predictions derived from the acoustic adaptation hypothesis: low-frequency signals are more prone to be masked by anthropogenic noise and therefore require behavioral adjustments (in this study gap-calling behavior) to ameliorate this effect.