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

By Kirsten M. Parris, Meah Velik-Lord, J. North. 2009

268 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Male frogs call to attract females for mating and to defend territories from rival males. Female frogs of some species prefer lower-pitched calls, which indicate larger, more experienced males. Acoustic interference occurs when background noise reduces the active distance or the distance over which an acoustic signal can be detected. Birds are known to call at a higher pitch or frequency in urban noise, decreasing acoustic interference from low-frequency noise. Using Bayesian linear regression, we investigated the effect of traffic noise on the pitch of advertisement calls in two species of frogs, the southern brown tree frog (Litoria ewingii) and the common eastern froglet (Crinia signifera). We found evidence that L. ewingii calls at a higher pitch in traffic noise, with an average increase in dominant frequency of 4.1 Hz/dB of traffic noise, and a total effect size of 123 Hz. This frequency shift is smaller than that observed in birds, but is still large enough to be detected by conspecific frogs and confer a significant benefit to the caller. Mathematical modelling predicted a 24% increase in the active distance of a L. ewingii call in traffic noise with a frequency shift of this size. Crinia signifera may also call at a higher pitch in traffic noise, but more data are required to be confident of this effect. Because frog calls are innate rather than learned, the frequency shift demonstrated by L. ewingii may represent an evolutionary adaptation to noisy conditions. The phenomenon of frogs calling at a higher pitch in traffic noise could therefore constitute an intriguing trade-off between audibility and attractiveness to potential mates.

Subfields: Developmental Biology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2880c606a10242b77ecd118fac6500f2fe8db3d7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental Biology

1. M. Jansen
2. B. Wong
3. Paola Laiolo
4. H. Lowry
5. Andrew Sih
6. L. Fahrig
7. A. Lill
8. Glenn M. Cunnington

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. M. Vences
2. Gabriel D. McNett
3. Andrew Sih
4. F. Glaw
5. Lucia H. Luan
6. M. Jansen
7. L. Kats
8. B. Wong

In Global and Planetary Change

1. Andrew Sih
2. M. Vences
3. M. Jansen
4. F. Glaw
5. L. Kats
6. J. Köhler
7. Glenn M. Cunnington
8. Paola Laiolo

Citations in the corpus

• Plasticity in the vocalizations of anurans in response to traffic noise (2010, background): “All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.actao.2010.06.002 Brumm, 2004; Parris et al., 2009) and anurans (Bee, 2000; Lardner and bin Lakim, 2002; Penna and Hamilton-West, 2007; Parris et al., 2009) it is not yet knownwhether this is a plastic or fixed response.”
• The use of bioacoustics in anuran taxonomy: theory, terminology, methods and recommendations for best practice. (2017, background): “Spontaneous changes in vocalizations which prevent masking interference between sound signals have been well documented in birds (Brumm & Slabbekoorn 2005; reviewed in Brumm 2013), and recent studies indicate that some frogs vary call frequency, avoiding overlap with the spectral components of synto”
• The emerging significance of bioacoustics in animal species conservation (2010, background): “As in the case of birds, frogs calling at higher pitches in traffic noise may face trade-offs between audibility (achieved through high frequencies) and attractiveness to potential mates (attained by giving lower frequencies calls) (Parris et al. 2009).”
• Research, part of a Special Feature on Effects of Roads and Traffic on Wildlife Populations and Landscape Function Quantifying the Road-Effect Zone: Threshold Effects of a Motorway on Anuran Populations in Ontario, Canada (2009, unknown): “This interference with acoustic communication could then lead to lower breeding success and smaller populations over time (Warren et al. 2006, Parris et al. 2009).”
• Understanding variation in behavioural responses to human-induced rapid environmental change: a conceptual overview (2013, background): “To avoid interference from the background, animals should adjust their frequency to be different from their environment (Patricelli & Blickley 2006; Slabbekoorn & den Boer-Visser 2006; Parris et al. 2009; Potvin et al. 2011).”
• Behavioural responses of wildlife to urban environments (2013, background): “Notably, for both the southern brown tree frog, Litoria ewingii (Parris et al., 2009) and the noisy miner (H.”
• Wind-induced noise alters signaler and receiver behavior in vibrational communication (2010, background): “, Gerhardt and Klump 1987; Greenfield 1988; Aubin and Jouventin 1998), although human activity is also a significant noise source for urban species (Slabbekoorn and Ripmeester 2008; Parris et al. 2009).”
• Invasion Complexities: The Diverse Impacts of Nonnative Species on Amphibians (2014, background): “Frogs demonstrate higher pitched calls in urban settings (Parris et al., 2009), and to compensate for the extremely broad range of acoustic space that waterfalls occupy, some frogs have evolved calls that contain ultrasonic harmonics (Narins et al.”