Effect of natural and synthetic noise on evoked vocal responses in a frog of the temperate austral forest

97 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Does ambient noise affect growth and begging call structure in nestling birds (2008, background): “For example, many species increase the amplitude of their signals in response to increased noise levels (Brumm and Slabbekoorn 2005; Warren et al. 2006), whereas others shift the frequency of their calls away from the frequencies that predominate in the noise (Slabbekoorn and Peet 2003; Wood and Yez”
A behavioural mechanism explaining noise-dependent frequency use in urban birdsong (2009, background): “Senders may also respond to noisier conditions by increasing signal duration or signalling rate, as reported for birds, frogs and mammals (Brumm et al. 2004; Penna et al. 2005; Leonard & Horn 2008), or by timing their signals to avoid temporal overlap (Brumm & Slabbekoorn 2005).”
The evolution of the Lombard effect: 100 years of psychoacoustic research (2011, methodology): “Frogs show an important precondition for the Lombard effect, i.e., individuals can vary the amplitude of their calls (Lopez et al., 1988; Penna et al., 2005) but Love & Bee (2010) found no evidence that they use this capacity for communication in noise.”