2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01664.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How and why environmental noise impacts animals: an integrative, mechanistic review

Abstract: Both authors contributed equally to this research. AbstractThe scope and magnitude of anthropogenic noise pollution are often much greater than those of natural noise and are predicted to have an array of deleterious effects on wildlife. Recent work on this topic has focused mainly on behavioural responses of animals exposed to noise. Here, by outlining the effects of acoustic stimuli on animal physiology, development, neural function and genetic effects, we advocate the use of a more mechanistic approach in a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

4
340
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 481 publications
(356 citation statements)
references
References 87 publications
(194 reference statements)
4
340
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Anthropogenic noise can interfere with acoustic communication in four main ways which are not mutually exclusive: by masking information either completely or partially (Brumm and Slabbekoorn, 2005); by diverting an individual's finite attention away from detecting or responding to a signal (Chan and Blumstein, 2011); by inducing physiological stress that results in inappropriate responses (Kight and Swaddle, 2011); or by increasing perceived threat levels and thus indirectly affecting behaviour (Frid and Dill, 2002). The consequences of masking for signallers has received considerable research attention, with numerous studies showing that anthropogenic noise can lead to adjustments in the acoustic parameters of vocalisations via behavioural plasticity, ontogenetic changes or adaptation (Slabbekoorn and Ripmeester, 2008;Gross et al, 2010;Luther and Baptista, 2010;Roca et al, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Anthropogenic noise can interfere with acoustic communication in four main ways which are not mutually exclusive: by masking information either completely or partially (Brumm and Slabbekoorn, 2005); by diverting an individual's finite attention away from detecting or responding to a signal (Chan and Blumstein, 2011); by inducing physiological stress that results in inappropriate responses (Kight and Swaddle, 2011); or by increasing perceived threat levels and thus indirectly affecting behaviour (Frid and Dill, 2002). The consequences of masking for signallers has received considerable research attention, with numerous studies showing that anthropogenic noise can lead to adjustments in the acoustic parameters of vocalisations via behavioural plasticity, ontogenetic changes or adaptation (Slabbekoorn and Ripmeester, 2008;Gross et al, 2010;Luther and Baptista, 2010;Roca et al, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given the extent of the disturbance and the complexity of responses reported to noise, which range from the molecular to the community level, there remain many gaps in our understanding, especially field-based studies that explore the subject (Kight and Swaddle 2011). Consequently, it has become a target area for applied ecologists and conservationists who seek to better understand the environmental impact that results from widereaching noise stimuli, which differ, depending on production source, in their frequency, intensity, and timing (Francis and Barber 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is now substantial evidence that anthropogenic noise has detrimental impacts on a variety of species (3,(7)(8)(9)(10). For example, work in natural gas extraction fields has demonstrated that compressor station noise alters songbird breeding distribution and species richness (11)(12)(13).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%