Why conservation biology can benefit from sensory ecology

Abstract

Global expansion of human activities is associated with the introduction of novel stimuli, such as anthropogenic noise, artificial lights, and chemical agents. Progress in documenting the ecological effects of sensory pollutants is weakened by sparse knowledge of the mechanisms underlying these effects. This severely limits our capacity to devise mitigation measures. Here, we integrate knowledge of animal sensory ecology, physiology, and life history to articulate three perceptual mechanismsmasking, distracting, and misleadingthat clearly explain how and why anthropogenic sensory pollutants impact organisms. We then link these three mechanisms to ecological consequences, and discuss their implications for conservation. We argue that this framework can reveal the presence of 'sensory danger zones', hotspots of conservation concern where sensory pollutants overlap in space and time with an organism's activity, and foster development of strategic interventions to mitigate the impact of sensory pollutants. Future research that applies this framework will provide critical insight to preserve the natural sensory world.

Artificial light at night can modify ecosystem functioning beyond the lit area

“…However, so far, research has mostly focused on the impact ALAN has on species interactions and ecosystem functioning in directly illuminated areas 5 , 12 , 18 , 19 , ignoring what happens in areas in the surroundings of the illuminated area. Yet animals such as moths, might be attracted from long distances to the illuminated area potentially leading to lowered densities, interaction frequencies and ecosystem functioning in the dark surroundings 20 , 21 . Alternatively, they might be deterred by ALAN leading to an accumulation in the dark areas adjacent to the illuminated areas, with consequences for species interactions and ecosystem functioning 20 , 21 .…”

“…Yet animals such as moths, might be attracted from long distances to the illuminated area potentially leading to lowered densities, interaction frequencies and ecosystem functioning in the dark surroundings 20 , 21 . Alternatively, they might be deterred by ALAN leading to an accumulation in the dark areas adjacent to the illuminated areas, with consequences for species interactions and ecosystem functioning 20 , 21 . Here we therefore experimentally tested whether the effect of ALAN on ecosystem functioning can also propagate beyond the directly illuminated area.…”

Species Recognition Is Constrained by Chorus Noise, but Not Inconsistency in Signal Production, in Cope’s Gray Treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis)

“…While the impacts of biotic, abiotic, and anthropogenic sources of ambient noise are increasingly recognized (Römer, 2013;Reichert and Ronacher, 2015;Wiley, 2015;Slabbekoorn et al, 2018;Dominoni et al, 2020), other potential sources of noise in animal communication are rarely explored. One such source is inconsistency in signal production (Gerhardt and Watson, 1995;Nehring et al, 2013;Bee, 2019, 2020).…”

Lungs contribute to solving the frog’s cocktail party problem by enhancing the spectral contrast of conspecific vocal signals

“…Noise creates problems for effective acoustic communication by increasing signal detection thresholds, disrupting source localization and sound pattern recognition, and impairing auditory discrimination. There is widespread and increasing interest in understanding how animals are adapted to cope with noise problems (1, 2), particularly in light of the recent global rise in anthropogenic noise pollution (3). For many insects (4), frogs (5), and birds (6) that signal acoustically in large and often multi-species aggregations, the signals of other individuals represent particularly potent sources of environmental noise that reduce the signal-to-noise ratio for communication.…”