Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect amphibian call rate

By Jennifer C Sun, P. Narins. 2005

297 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7ed98c0c698c9294db6036ecb57e829bfd6e272f

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

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

The effects of wind turbines on antipredator behavior in California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) (2006, background): “…sensitive easures of the effects of anthropogenic habitat-modificaions on animals (for examples, see Witherington, 1997; Eadie t al., 1998; Pettifor et al., 2000; Rabin et al., 2003; Slabbekoorn nd Peet, 2003; Brumm, 2004; Foote et al., 2004; McDonald and t Clair, 2004; Sun and Narins, 2005).”
Vessel noise effects on delphinid communication (2009, background): “Many animal species, including birds (Brumm & Todt 2002, Slabbekoorn & Peet 2003) and frogs (Sun & Narins 2005, Bee & Swanson 2007), change the frequency content or source level of their sounds to decrease the masking effects of anthropogenic noise whenever possible.”
Wind-induced noise alters signaler and receiver behavior in vibrational communication (2010, background): “…pattern of signaling is consistent with the noise-avoidance behavior seen in other taxa (Saxena and Kumar 1980; Greenfield 1988; Douglas and Conner 1999; Lengagne and Slater 2002; Sun and Narins 2005; Patricelli and Blickley 2006; Fuller et al. 2007) we have no evidence for a causal relationship.”
Evidence of the Lombard effect in fishes (2014, background): “2003; Sun and Narins 2005; Sara et al.”
The “Cocktail Party Problem”: What Is It? How Can It Be Solved? And Why Should Animal Behaviorists Study It? (2008, background): “Recent experimental evidence from frogs suggests that anthropogenic noise can inhibit calling by males (Sun & Narins, 2005) and mask the perception of signals by females (Bee & Swanson, in press; see Lohr et al., 2003, for related work in birds).”
Measuring acoustic habitats (2015, background): “, 2009) and elicit behavioural responses (Sun and Narins, 2005; Nowacek et al., 2007), with the potential to cause chronic physiological stress (Rolland et al.”
Research, part of a Special Feature on Effects of Roads and Traffic on Wildlife Populations and Landscape Function Impacts of Traffic Noise and Traffic Volume on Birds of Roadside Habitats (2009, background): “Most research to date on the impact of traffic noise on wildlife has focused on birds in the northern hemisphere (but see Sun and Narins 2005, Bee and Swanson 2007).”
AVIAN COMMUNICATION IN URBAN NOISE: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF VOCAL ADJUSTMENT (2006, background): “…for example, suppression of call rates in one species in response to urban noise may stimulate increased song rates in another species, as was recently found in frogs (Microhyla bulteri, Rana nigrovittata, R. taipehensis, and Kaloula pulchra) exposed to anthropogenic noise (Sun and Narins 2005).”
Evolution and behavioural responses to human-induced rapid environmental change (2011, background): “In detection theory models, the organism’s response is ultimately determined by where perceived cue intensity falls in relation to one or more thresholds.”
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, background): “The overall effect was to change the proportion of time each species spent calling, and potentially their relative breeding success (Sun and Narins 2005).”
SONG SPARROW (MELOSPIZA MELODIA) SONG VARIES WITH URBAN NOISE (2006, background): “…present evolutionarily novel acoustic environments for many birds worldwide and studies have only recently begun to address the eff ects of anthropogenic noise on acoustic signalers (see Slabbekorn and Peet 2003, Foote et al. 2004, Ka i and Warren 2004, Leader et al. 2005, Sun and Narins 2005).”
Auditory monitoring of anuran populations (2009, background): “Additionally, anthropogenic noise can also reduce a species proclivity to call, thus lowering its detectability ( Sun and Narins 2005; C. Steelman, personal communication)”