Experience modulates an insect’s response to anthropogenic noise

Abstract

In response to anthropogenic noise, vertebrates express modified acoustic communication signals either through individual plasticity or local population adaptation. In contrast, how insects respond to this stressor is poorly studied. Field crickets Gryllus bimaculatus use acoustic signals to attract and locate mates and are commonly found in noisy roadside environments, offering a powerful system to study the effects of anthropogenic noise on insect communication. Rapid repetition of sexual calls (chirps) is essential to attract females, but calling incurs energetic costs and attracts predators. As a result, males are predicted to reduce calling rates when background noise is high. Here, we combine observations and experimental playbacks to show that the responses of field cricket males to anthropogenic noise also depend on their previous experience with passing cars. First, we show that males living on highway edges decrease their chirp rate in response to passing cars. To assess whether this behavioral response depends on previous exposure to car noise, we then broadcast recordings of car noise to males located at different distances from the road and, therefore, with different previous exposure to car noise. Although all tested individuals responded to broadcasted traffic noise, males closest to the road decreased their chirp rate less than individuals calling further from the road. These results suggest that regular exposure to anthropogenic noise may decrease individuals’ sensitivity and behavioral responses to noise, allowing them to maintain effective signaling rates. Behavioral plasticity modulated by experience may thus allow some insect species to cope with human-induced environmental stressors.

Soundscape of urban-tolerant crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae, Trigonidiidae) in a tropical Southeast Asia city, Singapore

“…Secondly, low threshold for fear to human and anthropogenic noises is crucial for the males to continuing calling in the highly disturbed environment and for the females to be bold enough to travel and search for mates (Møller 2009;Lowry et al 2011;Gallego-Abenza et al 2019). This appears to be the case for most species recorded here, as noises generated by passing vehicles did not stop or modify the calling of many species.…”

From distraction to habituation: Ecological and behavioural responses of invasive fish to anthropogenic noise

“…Under the distraction hypothesis, predators can take longer to process their food and make foraging errors (Purser & Radford, 2011) while prey can increase (Rabin et al., 2006; Voellmy et al., 2014) or decrease (Chan et al., 2010; Simpson et al., 2015) their vigilance. In some species, the response to noise was found to weaken after repeated exposure (Gallego‐Abenza et al., 2020; Johansson et al., 2016; Magnhagen et al., 2017; Mooney et al., 2016; Nedelec et al., 2016), suggesting they can habituate to noise. Tolerance and habituation to anthropogenic noise in invasive species might make them more competitive than their native analogues, thereby promoting their trophic impact.…”

Acoustic signalling in Orthoptera

“…Bent et al, 2021;Gurule-Small and Tinghitella, 2019;Schmidt et al, 2014). Some species are able to adapt to anthropogenic noise to some extent at least (Gallego-Abenza et al, 2020;Lampe et al, 2014;Sathyan and Couldridge, 2021;Tan, 2020). Others may be relatively unaffected (e.g.…”