Noise-generating human activities affect hearing, communication and movement in terrestrial and aquatic animals, but direct evidence for impacts on survival is rare. We examined effects of motorboat noise on post-settlement survival and physiology of a prey fish species and its performance when exposed to predators. Both playback of motorboat noise and direct disturbance by motorboats elevated metabolic rate in Ambon damselfish (Pomacentrus amboinensis), which when stressed by motorboat noise responded less often and less rapidly to simulated predatory strikes. Prey were captured more readily by their natural predator (dusky dottyback, Pseudochromis fuscus) during exposure to motorboat noise compared with ambient conditions, and more than twice as many prey were consumed by the predator in field experiments when motorboats were passing. Our study suggests that a common source of noise in the marine environment has the potential to impact fish demography, highlighting the need to include anthropogenic noise in management plans.

The use of artificial lighting to illuminate the night has provided substantial benefits to humankind. It has also disrupted natural daily, seasonal, and lunar light cycles as experienced by a diversity of organisms, and hence it has also altered cues for the timings of many biological activities. Here we review the evidence for impacts of artificial nighttime lighting on these timings. Although the examples are scattered, concerning a wide variety of species and environments, the breadth of such impacts is compelling. Indeed, it seems reasonable to conclude that the vast majority of impacts of artificial nighttime lighting stem from effects on biological timings. This adds support to arguments that artificial nighttime lighting has a quite pervasive and marked impact on ecological systems, that the rapid expansion in the global extent of both direct illuminance and skyglow is thus of significant concern, and that a widespread implementation of mitigation measures is required.

Summary1. Sound waves in water have both a pressure and a particle-motion component, yet few studies of underwater acoustic ecology have measured the particle-motion component of sound. While mammal hearing is based on detection of sound pressure, fish and invertebrates (i.e. most aquatic animals) primarily sense sound using particle motion. Particle motion can be calculated indirectly from sound pressure measurements under certain conditions, but these conditions are rarely met in the shelf-sea and shallow-water habitats that most aquatic organisms inhabit. Direct measurements of particle motion have been hampered by the availability of instrumentation and a lack of guidance on data analysis methods. 2. Here, we provide an introduction to the topic of underwater particle motion, including the physics and physiology of particle-motion reception. We include a simple computer program for users to determine whether they are working in conditions where measurement of particle motion may be relevant. We discuss instruments that can be used to measure particle motion and the types of analysis appropriate for data collected. A supplemental tutorial and template computer code in MATLAB will allow users to analyse impulsive, continuous and fluctuating sounds from both pressure and particle-motion recordings. 3. A growing body of research is investigating the role of sound in the functioning of aquatic ecosystems, and the ways in which sound influences animal behaviour, physiology and development. This work has particular urgency for policymakers and environmental managers, who have a responsibility to assess and mitigate the risks posed by rising levels of anthropogenic noise in aquatic ecosystems. As this paper makes clear, because many aquatic animals senses sound using particle motion, this component of the sound field must be addressed if acoustic habitats are to be managed effectively.

Ecosystems and the communities they support are changing at alarmingly rapid rates. Tracking species diversity is vital to managing these stressed habitats. Yet, quantifying and monitoring biodiversity is often challenging, especially in ocean habitats. Given that many animals make sounds, these cues travel efficiently under water, and emerging technologies are increasingly cost-effective, passive acoustics (a long-standing ocean observation method) is now a potential means of quantifying and monitoring marine biodiversity. Properly applying acoustics for biodiversity assessments is vital. Our goal here is to provide a timely consideration of emerging methods using passive acoustics to measure marine biodiversity. We provide a summary of the brief history of using passive acoustics to assess marine biodiversity and community structure, a critical assessment of the challenges faced, and outline recommended practices and considerations for acoustic biodiversity measurements. We focused on temperate and tropical seas, where much of the acoustic biodiversity work has been conducted. Overall, we suggest a cautious approach to applying current acoustic indices to assess marine biodiversity. Key needs are preliminary data and sampling sufficiently to capture the patterns and variability of a habitat. Yet with new analytical tools including source separation and supervised machine learning, there is substantial promise in marine acoustic diversity assessment methods.

Some anthropogenic noise is now considered pollution, with evidence building that noise from human activities such as transportation, construction and exploration can impact behaviour and physiology in a broad range of taxa. However, relatively little research has considered the effects of repeated or chronic noise; extended exposures may result in habituation or sensitisation, and thus changes in response. We conducted a field-based experiment at Moorea Island to investigate how repeated exposure to playback of motorboat noise affected a coral reef fish (Dascyllus trimaculatus). We found that juvenile D. trimaculatus increased hiding behaviour during motorboat noise after two days of repeated exposure, but no longer did so after one and two weeks of exposure. We also found that naïve individuals responded to playback of motorboat noise with elevated ventilation rates, but that this response was diminished after one and two weeks of repeated exposure. We found no strong evidence that baseline blood cortisol levels, growth or body condition were affected by three weeks of repeated motorboat-noise playback. Our study reveals the importance of considering how tolerance levels may change over time, rather than simply extrapolating from results of short-term studies, if we are to make decisions about regulation and mitigation.