Fish in habitats with higher motorboat disturbance show reduced sensitivity to motorboat noise

Harding, Harry R.; Gordon, Timothy; Hsuan, Rachel E.; Mackaness, Alex C. E.; Radford, Andrew N.; Simpson, Stephen D.

doi:10.1098/rsbl.2018.0441

Cited by 29 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Within the audible range, fish exhibit auditory capabilities that go beyond mere detection, such as discrimination ability among sounds of different frequency and amplitude (auditory scene segregation), or among sounds from different directions (directional hearing, azimuth detection) or distances (ranging). Furthermore, fish also exhibit relevant perceptual phenomena, such as habituation and sensitization (Neo, Hubert, Bolle, Winter, & Slabbekoorn, ; Radford, Lefèbre, Lecaillon, Nedelec, & Simpson, ; Rankin et al., ), which may play a critical role in impact assessment (Bejder, Samuels, Whitehead, Finn, & Allen, ; Harding et al., ) and which apply across marine taxa (e.g. Götz & Janik, ; Samson, Mooney, Gussekloo, & Hanlon, ).…”

Section: The Auditory World Of Fishesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population‐level consequences of seismic surveys on fishes: An interdisciplinary challenge

Slabbekoorn

Dalen

Haan³

et al. 2019

Fish and Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Offshore activities elevate ambient sound levels at sea, which may affect marine fauna. We reviewed the literature about impact of airgun acoustic exposure on fish in terms of damage, disturbance and detection and explored the nature of impact assessment at population level. We provided a conceptual framework for how to address this interdisciplinary challenge, and we listed potential tools for investigation. We focused on limitations in data currently available, and we stressed the potential benefits from cross‐species comparisons. Well‐replicated and controlled studies do not exist for hearing thresholds and dose–response curves for airgun acoustic exposure. We especially lack insight into behavioural changes for free‐ranging fish to actual seismic surveys and on lasting effects of behavioural changes in terms of time and energy budgets, missed feeding or mating opportunities, decreased performance in predator‐prey interactions, and chronic stress effects on growth, development and reproduction. We also lack insight into whether any of these effects could have population‐level consequences. General “population consequences of acoustic disturbance” (PCAD) models have been developed for marine mammals, but there has been little progress so far in other taxa. The acoustic world of fishes is quite different from human perception and imagination as fish perceive particle motion and sound pressure. Progress is therefore also required in understanding the nature and extent to which fishes extract acoustic information from their environment. We addressed the challenges and opportunities for upscaling individual impact to the population, community and ecosystem level and provided a guide to critical gaps in our knowledge.

show abstract

Section: The Auditory World Of Fishesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population‐level consequences of seismic surveys on fishes: An interdisciplinary challenge

Slabbekoorn

Dalen

Haan³

et al. 2019

Fish and Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is interesting to note that, in our study on mountain chickadees, had we only used focal males from quiet areas, we would have concluded that mountain chickadees clearly discriminated between Urban and Rural stimuli in experimental noise. This highlights the importance again of considering context and the effect that long-term familiarity with anthropogenic noise may have on free-ranging animals (Gentry et al, 2017;Harding et al, 2018;LaZerte et al, 2016;Nedelec et al, 2016). Finally, we appreciated comments provided by Walt Koenig and two anonymous reviewers that helped us improve the manuscript.…”

Section: Con Clus Ionsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…This highlights the importance again of considering context and the effect that long-term familiarity with anthropogenic noise may have on free-ranging animals (Gentry et al, 2017;Harding et al, 2018;LaZerte et al, 2016;Nedelec et al, 2016). Further laboratory and field studies of receiver detection and discrimination are needed to help determine whether this is the result of improved perception in noisy habitats by urban receivers or increased aggression in urban habitats, or some combination of the two.…”

Section: Con Clus Ionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A field test of the audibility of urban versus rural songs in mountain chickadees

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic noise can mask avian vocalizations, and several urban‐dwelling species adjust frequency or amplitude of vocalizations in ways that appear to compensate for increased noise levels. Playback studies have investigated whether receivers differentiate between signals produced by rural and urban males, but it is difficult to determine whether differential response to stimulus reflects differences in audibility versus perceived differences in male signals/condition that result from urban settlement. Here, we performed paired‐playback trials to determine whether mountain chickadees (Poecile gambeli) differentiate urban versus rural songs when both stimuli were broadcast within noise. For each playback, stimuli were played in short bouts starting at a low signal‐to‐noise ratio and increasing in relative amplitude with each successive bout. If the primary function of adjusted urban songs is propagation in noise, we hypothesized that focal males would respond sooner to urban versus rural playbacks (detect at lower signal‐to‐noise ratios). If urban songs solely encode information about the male's condition (such as increased aggression), then we predicted only a differential aggressive response to playbacks once detected. If urban songs both increase propagation and embed information on male condition, we predicted a combination of both response types. We found no difference in latency to first response in urban versus rural songs, but some evidence for differential aggression to playback dependent on both stimulus type (urban vs. rural) and local ambient noise levels; focal males in noisy (urban) sites responded aggressively to both stimulus types, whereas focal males in quiet (rural) sites responded more aggressively to urban than to rural stimuli. This context‐dependent discrimination may be the result of increased aggression in urban habitats, improved communication in noisy habitats by urban signallers and receivers, or some combination of the two.

show abstract

“…The recently published meta‐analysis by Cox, Brennan, Gerwing, Dudas, and Juanes () revealed adverse effects of noise on fish, ranging from behavioural changes in foraging efficiency, reproductive success or predation risks to physiological effects such as increased hearing thresholds or high levels of stress hormones. However, it seems that fish from noisy environments are less susceptible to noise (Harding et al., ). Desjonquères, Rybak, Ulloa, et al.…”

Section: Study Areas For Pam: Freshwater Ecoacousticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Passive acoustic monitoring as a potential tool to survey animal and ecosystem processes in freshwater environments

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biodiversity in freshwater habitats is decreasing faster than in any other type of environment, mostly as a result of human activities. Monitoring these losses can help guide mitigation efforts. In most studies, sampling strategies predominantly rely on collecting animal and vegetal specimens. Although these techniques produce valuable data, they are invasive, time‐consuming and typically permit only limited spatial and temporal replication. There is need for the development of complementary methods. As observed in other ecosystems, freshwater environments host animals that emit sounds, either to communicate or as a by‐product of their activity. The main freshwater soniferous groups are amphibians, fish, and macroinvertebrates (mainly Coleoptera and Hemiptera, but also some Decapoda, Odonata, and Trichoptera). Biophysical processes such as flow or sediment transport also produce sounds, as well as human activities within aquatic ecosystems. Such animals and processes can be recorded, remotely and autonomously, and provide information on local diversity and ecosystem health. Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) is an emerging method already deployed in terrestrial environments that uses sounds to survey environments. Key advantages of PAM are its non‐invasive nature, as well as its ability to record autonomously and over long timescales. All these research topics are the main aims of ecoacoustics, a new scientific discipline investigating the ecological role of sounds. In this paper, we review the sources of sounds present in freshwater environments. We then underline areas of research in which PAM may be helpful emphasising the role of PAM for the development of ecoacoustics. Finally, we present methods used to record and analyse sounds in those environments. Passive acoustics represents a potentially revolutionary development in freshwater ecology, enabling continuous monitoring of dynamic bio‐physical processes to inform conservation practitioners and managers.

show abstract

Fish in habitats with higher motorboat disturbance show reduced sensitivity to motorboat noise

Cited by 29 publications

References 17 publications

Population‐level consequences of seismic surveys on fishes: An interdisciplinary challenge

Population‐level consequences of seismic surveys on fishes: An interdisciplinary challenge

A field test of the audibility of urban versus rural songs in mountain chickadees

Passive acoustic monitoring as a potential tool to survey animal and ecosystem processes in freshwater environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About