Anthropogenic sensory pollution is affecting ecosystems worldwide. Human actions generate acoustic noise, emanate artificial light and emit chemical substances. All of these pollutants are known to ...affect animals. Most studies on anthropogenic pollution address the impact of pollutants in unimodal sensory domains. High levels of anthropogenic noise, for example, have been shown to interfere with acoustic signals and cues. However, animals rely on multiple senses, and pollutants often co-occur. Thus, a full ecological assessment of the impact of anthropogenic activities requires a multimodal approach. We describe how sensory pollutants can co-occur and how covariance among pollutants may differ from natural situations. We review how animals combine information that arrives at their sensory systems through different modalities and outline how sensory conditions can interfere with multimodal perception. Finally, we describe how sensory pollutants can affect the perception, behaviour and endocrinology of animals within and across sensory modalities. We conclude that sensory pollution can affect animals in complex ways due to interactions among sensory stimuli, neural processing and behavioural and endocrinal feedback. We call for more empirical data on covariance among sensory conditions, for instance, data on correlated levels in noise and light pollution. Furthermore, we encourage researchers to test animal responses to a full-factorial set of sensory pollutants in the presence or the absence of ecologically important signals and cues. We realize that such approach is often time and energy consuming, but we think this is the only way to fully understand the multimodal impact of sensory pollution on animal performance and perception.
Recently we showed that limb movements associated with anti-parasite defenses can enhance acoustic signal attraction in male little torrent frogs (Amolops torrentis), which suggests a potential ...pathway for physical movements to become co-opted into mating displays (Zhao et al., 2022). Anderson et al. argue for alternative explanations of our results and provide a reanalysis of part of our data (Anderson et al., 2023). We acknowledge some of the points raised and provide an additional analysis in support of our hypothesis.
Urbanisation is increasing globally at a rapid pace. Consequently, wild species face novel environmental stressors associated with urban sprawl, such as artificial light at night and noise. These ...stressors have pervasive effects on the behaviour and physiology of many species. Most studies have singled out the impact of just one of these stressors, while in the real world they are likely to co-occur both temporally and spatially, and we thus lack a clear understanding of the combined effect of anthropogenic stressors on wild species. Here, we experimentally exposed captive male great tits (Parus major) to artificial light at night and 24 h noise in a fully factorial experiment. We then measured the effect of both these stressors on their own and their combination on the amount and timing of activity patterns. We found that both light and noise affected activity patterns when presented alone, but in opposite ways: light increased activity, particularly at night, while noise reduced it, particularly during the day. When the two stressors were combined, we found a synergistic effect on the total activity and the nighttime activity, but an antagonistic effect on daytime activity. The significant interaction between noise and light treatment also differed among forest and city birds. Indeed, we detected a significant interactive effect on light and noise on daytime, nighttime, dusktime and offset of activity of urban birds, but not of forest birds. These results suggest that both artificial light at night and anthropogenic noise can drive changes in activity patterns, but that the specific impacts depend on the habitat of origin. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that co-occurring exposure to noise and light can lead to a stronger impact at night than predicted from the additive effects and thus that multisensory pollution may be a considerable threat for wildlife.
Display omitted
•Anthropogenic pollutants such as noise and light at night co-occur in urban areas.•Light and noise have a synergistic effect on nocturnal activity, but antagonist on diurnal activity of great tits.•Synergistic or antagonistic effects were found for urban but not forest great tits.•Interactive effects of sensory pollutants are under appreciated.
Anthropogenic light and noise have interactive effects on bird activity patterns, and urban and forest birds differ in their response to these sensory pollutants.
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 mechanisms-masking, distracting and misleading-that 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.
Human activities often impact the sensory environment of organisms. Wind energy turbines are a fast‐growing potential source of anthropogenic vibrational noise that can affect soil animals sensitive ...to vibrations and thereby alter soil community functioning. Larger soil animals, such as earthworms (macrofauna, > 1 cm in size), are particularly likely to be impacted by the low‐frequency turbine waves that can travel through soils over large distances. Here we examine the effect of wind turbine‐induced vibrational noise on the abundance of soil animals. We measured vibrational noise generated by seven different turbines located in organically‐farmed crop fields in the Netherlands. Vibratory noise levels dropped by an average of 23 ± 7 dB over a distance of 200 m away from the wind turbines. Earthworm abundance showed a strong decrease with increasing vibratory noise. When comparing the nearest sampling points in proximity of the wind energy turbines with the points furthest away, abundance dropped on average by 40% across all seven fields. The abundance of small‐sized soil animals (mesofauna, < 10 mm in size) differed between crop fields, but was not related to local noise levels. Our results suggest that anthropogenic vibratory noise levels can impact larger soil fauna, which has important consequences for soil functioning. Earthworms, for instance, are considered to be crucial ecosystem engineers and an impact on their abundance, survival and reproduction may have knock‐on effects on important processes such as water filtration, nutrient cycling and carbon sequestration.
Levels of anthropogenic noise and artificial light at night (ALAN) are rapidly rising on a global scale. Both sensory pollutants are well known to affect animal behavior and physiology, which can ...lead to substantial ecological impacts. Most studies on noise or light pollution to date have focused on single stressor impacts, studying both pollutants in isolation despite their high spatial and temporal co-occurrence. However, few studies have addressed their combined impact, known as multisensory pollution, with the specific aim to assess whether the interaction between noise and light pollution leads to predictable, additive effects, or less predictable, synergistic or antagonistic effects. We carried out a systematic review of research investigating multisensory pollution and found 28 studies that simultaneously assessed the impact of anthropogenic noise and ALAN on animal function (e.g., behavior, morphology or life-history), physiology (e.g., stress, oxidative, or immune status), or population demography (e.g., abundance or species richness). Only fifteen of these studies specifically tested for possible interactive effects when both sensory pollutants were combined. Four out of eight experimental studies revealed a significant interaction effect, in contrast to only three out seven observational studies. We discuss the benefits and limitations of experimental vs. observational studies addressing multisensory pollution and call for more specific testing of the diverse ways in which noise and light pollution can interact to affect wildlife.
Many animal species communicate with their mates through acoustic signals, but this communication seems to become a struggle in urbanized areas because of increasing anthropogenic noise levels. ...Several bird species have been reported to increase song frequency by which they reduce the masking impact of spectrally overlapping noise. However, it remains unclear whether such behavioral flexibility provides a sufficient solution to noisy urban conditions or whether there are hidden costs. Species may rely on low frequencies to attract and impress females, and the use of high frequencies may, therefore, come at the cost of reduced attractiveness. We studied the potential tradeoff between signal strength and signal detection in a successful urban bird species, the great tit (Parus major). We show that the use of low-frequency songs by males is related to female fertility as well as sexual fidelity. We experimentally show that urban noise conditions impair male–female communication and that signal efficiency depends on song frequency in the presence of noise. Our data reveal a response advantage for high-frequency songs during sexual signaling in noisy conditions, whereas low-frequency songs are likely to be preferred. These data are critical for our understanding of the impact of anthropogenic noise on wild-ranging birds, because they provide evidence for low-frequency songs being linked to reproductive success and to be affected by noise-dependent signal efficiency.
1. Traffic affects large areas of natural habitat worldwide. As a result, the acoustic signals used by birds and other animals are increasingly masked by traffic noise. Masking of signals important ...to territory defence and mate attraction may have a negative impact on reproductive success. Depending on the overlap in space, time and frequency between noise and vocalizations, such impact may ultimately exclude species from suitable breeding habitat. However a direct impact of traffic noise on reproductive success has not previously been reported. 2. We monitored traffic noise and avian vocal activity during the breeding season alongside a busy Dutch motorway. We measured variation in space, time and spectrum of noise and tested for negative effects on avian reproductive success using long-term breeding data on great tits Parus major. 3. Noise levels decreased with distance from the motorway, but we also found substantial spatial variation independent of distance. Noise also varied temporally with March being noisier than April, and the daytime being noisier than night-time. Furthermore, weekdays were clearly noisier than weekends. Importantly, traffic noise overlapped in time as well as acoustic frequency with avian vocalization behaviour over a large area. 4. Traffic noise had a negative effect on reproductive success with females laying smaller clutches in noisier areas. Variation in traffic noise in the frequency band that overlaps most with the lower frequency part of great tit song best explained the observed variation. 5. Additionally, noise levels recorded in April had a negative effect on the number of fledglings, independent of clutch size, and explained the observed variation better than noise levels recorded in March. 6. Synthesis and applications. We found that breeding under noisy conditions can carry a cost, even for species common in urban areas. Such costs should be taken into account when protecting threatened species, and we argue that knowledge of the spatial, temporal and spectral overlap between noise and species-specific acoustic behaviour will be important for effective noise management. We provide some cost-effective mitigation measures such as traffic speed reduction or closing of roads during the breeding season.
Many animals rely on complex signals that target multiple senses to attract mates and repel rivals. These multimodal displays can however also attract unintended receivers, which can be an important ...driver of signal complexity. Despite being taxonomically widespread, we often lack insight into how multimodal signals evolve from unimodal signals and in particular what roles unintended eavesdroppers play. Here, we assess whether the physical movements of parasite defense behavior increase the complexity and attractiveness of an acoustic sexual signal in the little torrent frog (
). Calling males of this species often display limb movements in order to defend against blood-sucking parasites such as frog-biting midges that eavesdrop on their acoustic signal. Through mate choice tests we show that some of these midge-evoked movements influence female preference for acoustic signals. Our data suggest that midge-induced movements may be incorporated into a sexual display, targeting both hearing and vision in the intended receiver. Females may play an important role in incorporating these multiple components because they prefer signals which combine multiple modalities. Our results thus help to understand the relationship between natural and sexual selection pressure operating on signalers and how in turn this may influence multimodal signal evolution.
PDF
