Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323447551
CITATIONS READS
0 63
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Robin M Tinghitella on 01 March 2018.
Animal behaviour
& 2018 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on March 1, 2018
Table 1. ANCOVAs testing effects of rearing and phonotaxis noise environments on female location of mates. Significant p-values are indicated in italics. 2
rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org
outcome variable effect F d.f. p
The taxonomic focus on vertebrate study systems in noise of the five locations into a single continuous 5 min track
research [11,17,21] limits our understanding of the effects (electronic supplementary material, figure S1A). We produced
of anthropogenic noise on reproductive success (but see a non-masking traffic noise by filtering out frequencies from
[14 –16,18]); this is likely because of logistical difficulties 3 to 6 kHz using the ‘filter’ command in RavenPro14 (electronic
supplementary material, figure S1B).
measuring their fitness. Yet, mating behaviour is key to the
We pulled females from our laboratory stock (established in
evolution of male signals, and to fitness more generally.
2014 from Mo’orea, French Polynesia) when sex could be reliably
Switching the focus to invertebrates offers advantages: invert-
identified and the hearing organs were apparent, and randomly
ebrates compose most of the biodiversity on earth, are often assigned them to one of three acoustic rearing environments:
small, have short generations, and can be laboratory- masking (n ¼ 44), non-masking (n ¼ 43) or silence (n ¼ 42). We
maintained under experimental conditions [11]. We use a broadcast the masking or non-masking noise inside the incubators
field cricket study system to ask (i) does pre-reproductive (Percival I36VLC8) crickets were reared in for 14 h a day (1 h pre-
exposure to anthropogenic noise impact adults’ ability to dawn to 1 h post-dusk, mimicking traffic patterns) from EcoXBT
locate mates, and, if so, (ii) does developing in noise improve wireless speakers. We rotated treatments among incubators
performance in noisy environments? every two weeks and rotated container positions within incubators
Teleogryllus oceanicus lives in habitats ranging from urban during cleanings. Because incubators produce background noise
(76–92 dBA), we kept them off during the entire experiment, but
lots in Australia to undisturbed fields on sparsely populated
maintained a photo-reversed 12 h light–dark cycle. The tempera-
Pacific Islands. Traffic noise overlaps with the frequency of
ture fluctuated between light and dark phases (21.28C230.58C at
the calling and courtship songs males use to attract mates
the light source) but did not exceed those experienced in nature.
from afar and to entice them to mate once in close proximity We reared females in 64 oz Tupperware containers until sexual
(4–6 kHz). Females are locomotory and search for stationary maturity with rabbit food ad libitum egg carton shelters and
calling males less than 1 m to more than 20 m away in a fresh water [3]. Females spent 15.5 + 0.7 days in their rearing
matrix of grass and rocks. We manipulated pre-reproductive treatment prior to eclosion, regardless of treatment (F2,126 ¼ 2.58,
experience with traffic noise, rearing female T. oceanicus p ¼ 0.08, electronic supplementary material, figure S2).
under masking noise (traffic noise that overlaps spectrally We conducted phonotaxis (mate location) trials in a ran-
and temporally with male calling song; electronic supplemen- domly assigned acoustic environment (masking, non-masking
tary material, figure S1), non-masking noise (traffic noise that or silent) when females were 7 days post-eclosion. Phonotaxis
trials took place inside of a square arena 1.45 m2 in size, with a
does not overlap spectrally with male calling song), or silence,
10 cm grid on its floor, located within a 2.3 2 m room with
and then tested adult female location of mates under the same
acoustic foam-lined walls. We conducted phonotaxis trials
three acoustic environments in a fully factorial design.
0 – 7.5 h post-dusk (mean ¼ 2.9 + 0.2 h). Time of testing did not
differ among rearing (F2,126 ¼ 1.81, p ¼ 0.17) or phonotaxis
environments (F2,126 ¼ 1.50, p ¼ 0.23). In each trial we placed
the focal female at the centre of the arena under an inverted plas-
2. Material and methods tic cup for 2 min, after which we simultaneously released the
To produce masking and non-masking traffic noises, we female and projected (i) a strongly preferred T. oceanicus calling
recorded traffic noise at five Denver, CO, USA locations using song (electronic supplementary material, figure S3) from a
a Marantz (PMD620MKII) digital recorder and Shure SM58 speaker in one randomly assigned corner and (ii) the noise treat-
microphone. Locations captured varied vehicular types, volumes ment from a speaker suspended 141 cm above the arena. Both the
and speeds. We compiled two representative 30 s clips from each song and noise treatment were broadcast at realistic volumes
Downloaded from http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on March 1, 2018
(70 dBA from the female’s starting point) using EcoXBT wireless (a) 3
speakers. We measured the time to first movement, whether or 125
A
not a female contacted the speaker broadcasting song, contact
rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org
time (the difference between start of trial and touching the AB
100
30 AB
3. Results 20
B
Rearing environment was the most important predictor of
adult female mate location behaviour (table 1). Differences in
contact time (figure 1a) were due to the time it took females 10
to initially move (figure 1b), rather than the search time or
n = 44 n = 43 n = 42
search path (number of grids crossed) (table 1). Females 0
reared in masking noise took 209% longer to begin searching masking non-masking silent
(figure 1b), and 81% longer to reach the signalling male than rearing enviroment
females reared without traffic noise (figure 1a). Surprisingly, Figure 1. Adult female mate location responses by rearing environment.
the acoustic environment experienced during phonotaxis (a) Time to first movement and (b) total time to contact the speaker
never influenced mate location behaviour (table 1; electronic from the start of the trial. Non-transformed means and standard errors are
supplementary material, figure S4), and we found no inter- shown for ease of interpretation. Letters indicate statistically significant
actions between rearing environment and phonotaxis differences according to a Tukey’s test ( p , 0.05).
environment (table 1). Females who were larger were slower
to begin moving and crossed fewer grids during the search
anthropogenic noise ([21], but see [23]). While certainly valu-
(table 1; electronic supplementary material, figure S5).
able, such studies can miss effects of prior exposure altogether
Female mate location behaviour did not depend on phonotaxis
or confound previous and current experience. In general, we
testing times (time post-dusk; all p . 0.39), or on the interaction
expect masking noise to affect both signals and receiver
between rearing environment and phonotaxis testing times (all
responses [24], but organisms like singing insects that cannot
p . 0.11) (electronic supplementary material, table S1). Of the
alter their signal frequency plastically [25] or those that
129 females, 120 contacted the speaker. Whether or not females
cannot quickly leave undesired areas [26] may suffer greater
contacted the speaker did not depend on rearing environment
costs of noise, unless receiver behaviour can compensate.
(x 22 ¼ 5.77, p ¼ 0.12) or phonotaxis environment (x 22 ¼ 3.21,
Similar to our results (figure 1; see also electronic sup-
p ¼ 0.36). All data have been deposited in Dryad [22].
plementary material), noise that masks a focal signal often
elicits greater plastic and evolutionary change in signals
and signalling behaviour than non-masking noise [17,27].
4. Discussion The mechanism underlying reduced mate location ability of
Anthropogenic noise experienced prior to sexual maturity hin- females reared in masking noise is currently unknown, but
dered adult mate location behaviour, regardless of the acoustic we are testing several possibilities. There are strong effects
environment encountered at the time of searching. Females of juvenile experience with sexual signals (or lack thereof )
reared in masking noise took more than 200% as long to on adult mating decisions in this species [3], and masking
move and more than 80% longer to contact a simulated calling noise might decrease signal detection during development,
male than females reared in silence. Effects of previous and sub- limiting learning opportunities, for instance. Alternative
adult exposure to noise may be underappreciated because explanations for our results include generalized stress
studies often test for immediate behavioural responses (i.e. responses, physiological damage or impaired hearing devel-
vigilance or foraging) to projected noise or make comparisons opment stemming from juvenile experience with masking
across habitats that are regularly exposed to more or less noise [9].
Downloaded from http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on March 1, 2018
We were surprised to find no effect of phonotaxis environ- exposure, a search environment that includes males of varying 4
ment on female location of mates, though there is precedence attractiveness at more realistic (longer) search distances, and/
rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org
for this in the literature (e.g. [25]). Nearly all females eventually or unpredictable onset and cessation of noise disturbances.
located the speaker broadcasting song, which lends support to
the hypothesis that juvenile exposure to masking noise pro- Data accessibility. Data can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.5061/
duced a more generalized effect on physiology or learning dryad.53qb3 [22].
that hindered location of mates, but that the broadcast noise Authors’ contributions. G.A.G.-S. and R.M.T. conceived of the study, and
did not completely eliminate females’ ability to localize song. contributed to experimental design, data interpretation, and writing.
With repeated adult exposure to noise, females may become G.A.G.-S. collected and analysed the data. Both authors approve the
tolerant, reducing the costs of developing in noise. However, our final content and are accountable for all aspects of the work.
experimental design minimized factors other than noise that Competing interests. We declare we have no competing interests.
might impede female mate location. Animals searched for a Funding. Research was supported by grants from Sigma Xi and the
References
1. Snell-Rood EC. 2013 An overview of the 11. Morley EL, Jones G, Radford AN. 2014 The 19. Kern JM, Radford AN. 2016 Anthropogenic noise
evolutionary causes and consequences of importance of invertebrates when considering the disrupts use of vocal information about predation
behavioural plasticity. Anim. Behav. 85, 1004 – impacts of anthropogenic noise. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, risk. Environ. Pollut 218, 988–995. (doi:10.1016/
1011. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.12.031) 20132683. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.2683) j.envpol.2016.08.049)
2. Godin JG, Briggs SE. 1996 Female mate choice 12. Orci KM, Petróczki K, Barta Z. 2016 Instantaneous 20. McMullen H, Schmidt R, Kunc HP. 2014
under predation risk in the guppy. Anim. Behav. 51, song modification in response to fluctuating traffic Anthropogenic noise affects vocal interactions.
117–130. (doi:10.1006/anbe.1996.0010) noise in the tree cricket Oecanthus pellucens. Anim. Behav. Processes 103, 125– 128. (doi:10.1016/j.
3. Bailey NW, Zuk M. 2008 Acoustic experience shapes Behav. 112, 187 –194. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav. beproc.2013.12.001)
female mate choice in field crickets. Proc. R. Soc. B 2015.12.008) 21. Shannon G et al. 2015 A synthesis of two decades
275, 2645 –2650. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0859) 13. Cunnington GM, Fahrig L. 2013 Mate attraction by of research documenting the effects of noise on
4. Kasumovic MM, Hall MD, Brooks RC. 2012 The male anurans in the presence of traffic noise. Anim. wildlife. Biol. Rev. 91, 982–1005. (doi:10.1111/
juvenile social environment introduces variation in Conserv. 16, 275–285. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795. brv.12207)
the choice and expression of sexually selected traits. 2012.00598.x) 22. Gurule-Small GA, Tinghitella RM. 2018 Data from:
Ecol. Evol. 2, 1036–1047. (doi:10.1002/ece3.230) 14. Francis CD, Paritsis J, Ortega CP, Cruz A. 2011 Developmental experience with anthropogenic noise
5. Gillespie SR, Tudor MS, Moore AJ, Miller CW. 2014 Landscape patterns of avian habitat use and nest hinders adult mate location in an acoustically
Sexual selection is influenced by both success are affected by chronic gas well compressor signaling invertebrate. Dryad Digital Repository.
developmental and adult environments. Evolution noise. Landsc. Ecol. 26, 1269–1280. (doi:10.1007/ (doi:10.5061/dryad.53qb3)
68, 3421 –3432. (doi:10.1111/evo.12526) s10980-011-9609-z) 23. Radford, AN, Lebre L, Lecaillon G, Nedelec SL,
6. Lampe U, Reinhold K, Schmoll T. 2014 How 15. Habib L, Bayne EM, Boutin S. 2007 Chronic Simpson SD. 2016 Repeated exposure reduces the
grasshoppers respond to road noise: developmental industrial noise affects pairing success and age response to impulsive noise in European sea bass.
plasticity and population differentiation in acoustic structure of ovenbirds Seiurus aurocapilla. J. Appl. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 3349– 3360. (doi:10.1111/
signalling. Funct. Ecol. 28, 660–668. (doi:10.1111/ Ecol. 44, 176–184. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006. gcb.13352)
1365-2435.12215) 01234.x) 24. Costello RA, Symes LB. 2014 Effects of
7. Barber JR, Crooks KR, Fristrup KM. 2009 The costs of 16. Nedelec SL, Radford AN, Pearl L, Nedelec B, anthropogenic noise on male signalling behaviour
chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. McCormick MI, Meekan MG, Simpson SD. and female phonotaxis in Oecanthus tree crickets.
Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 180 –189. (doi:10.1016/j.tree. 2017 Motorboat noise impacts parental Anim. Behav. 95, 15 –22. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.
2009.08.002) behaviour and offspring survival in a reef fish. 2014.05.009)
8. Wright AJ et al. 2007 Anthropogenic noise as a Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20170143. (doi:10.1098/ 25. Bennet-Clark HC. 1998 Size and scale effects as
stressor in animals: a multidisciplinary perspective. rspb.2017.0143) constraints in insect sound communication. Phil.
Int. J. Comp. Psychol. 31, 20. 17. Roca IT et al. 2016 Shifting song frequencies in Trans. R. Soc. B 353, 407– 419. (doi:10.1098/rstb.
9. Kight CR, Swaddle JP. 2011 How and why response to anthropogenic noise: a meta-analysis 1998.0219)
environmental noise impacts animals: an integrative, on birds and anurans. Behav. Ecol. 27, 1269–1274. 26. Francis CD, Ortega CP, Cruz A. 2011 Noise pollution
mechanistic review. Ecol. Lett. 14, 1052–1061. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arw060) filters bird communities based on vocal frequency.
(doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01664.x) 18. Simpson SD, Radford AN, Nedelec SL, Ferrari MC, PLoS ONE 6, e27052. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.
10. Kunc HP, McLaughlin KE, Schmidt R. 2016 Aquatic Chivers DP, McCormick MI, Meekan MG. 2016 0027052)
noise pollution: implications for individuals, Anthropogenic noise increases fish mortality by 27. Slabbekoorn H, Peet M. 2003 Ecology: birds sing
populations, and ecosystems. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, predation. Nat. Commun. 7, 10544. (doi:10.1038/ at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 424,
20160839. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.0839) ncomms10544) 267–268. (doi:10.1038/424267a)