A meta‐analysis of the influence of anthropogenic noise on terrestrial wildlife communication strategies

Human‐caused noise pollution dominates the soundscape of modern ecosystems, from urban centres to national parks. Although wildlife can generally alter their communication to accommodate many types of natural noise (e.g. wind, wave action, heterospecific communication), noise pollution from anthropo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of applied ecology 2021-06, Vol.58 (6), p.1112-1121
Main Authors: Duquette, Cameron Albert, Loss, Scott R., Hovick, Torre J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
acoustic masking
Amplitudes
Anthropogenic factors
anthropogenic sound
Communication
Environmental assessment
Environmental impact
Environmental risk
global change
Human influences
Meta-analysis
Mitigation
National parks
Noise pollution
Noise reduction
Peak frequency
Pollution effects
Pollution research
Population studies
Risk assessment
sound pollution
soundscapes
Taxa
Terrestrial environments
Urban noise
Wave action
Wildlife
wildlife communication
Wildlife management
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Human‐caused noise pollution dominates the soundscape of modern ecosystems, from urban centres to national parks. Although wildlife can generally alter their communication to accommodate many types of natural noise (e.g. wind, wave action, heterospecific communication), noise pollution from anthropogenic sources pushes the limits of wildlife communication flexibility by causing loud, low‐pitched and near‐continuous interference. Because responses to noise pollution are variable and taxa specific, multi‐species risk assessments and mitigation are not currently possible. We conducted a meta‐analysis to synthesize noise pollution effects on terrestrial wildlife communication. Specifically, we assessed: (a) the impacts of noise pollution on modulation of call rate, duration, amplitude and frequency (including peak, minimum and maximum frequency); and (b) the literature on anthropogenic noise pollution by region, taxa, study design and disturbance type. Terrestrial wildlife (results driven by avian studies) generally respond to noise pollution by calling with higher minimum frequencies, while they generally do not alter the amplitude, maximum frequency, peak frequency, duration and rate of calling. The literature on noise pollution research is biased towards birds, population‐level studies, urban noise sources and study systems in North America. Synthesis and applications. Our study reveals the ways in which wildlife can alter their signals to contend with anthropogenic noise, and discusses the potential fitness and management consequences of these signal alterations. This information, combined with an identification of current research needs, will allow researchers and managers to better develop noise pollution risk assessment protocols and prioritize mitigation efforts to reduce anthropogenic noise. Our study reveals the ways in which wildlife can alter their signals to contend with anthropogenic noise, and discusses the potential fitness and management consequences of these signal alterations. This information, combined with an identification of current research needs, will allow researchers and managers to better develop noise pollution risk assessment protocols and prioritize mitigation efforts to reduce anthropogenic noise.
ISSN:0021-8901
1365-2664
DOI:10.1111/1365-2664.13880