Plasticity in the vocalizations of anurans in response to traffic noise

Acta Oecologica

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 463-470

  Cunnington, Glenn M ^a   Fahrig, Lenore ^a  

^a CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Acoustic communication; Amphibian; Mate attraction; Mating calls; Road

Indexed keywords

ABUNDANCE; AMPHIBIAN; BIOACOUSTICS; BREEDING SITE; HUMAN ACTIVITY; MATE ATTRACTION; NATURE-SOCIETY RELATIONS; NOISE POLLUTION; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY; ROAD TRANSPORT; VOCALIZATION;

AMPHIBIA; ANURA;

EID: 77956473197     PISSN: 1146609X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.actao.2010.06.002     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Barrass, A.N., 1985. The effects of highway traffic noise on the phonotactic and associated reproductive behavior of selected anurans. Ph.D. Dissertation, Vanderbuilt University.
2. Bee M.A. Male green frogs lower the pitch of acoustic signals in defence of territories: a possible dishonest signal of size?. Behavioral Ecology 2000, 11:169-177.
3. Bee M.A., Swanson E.M. Auditory masking of anuran advertisement calls by road traffic noise. Animal Behaviour 2007, 74:1765-1776.
4. Beebee T.J.C., Griffiths R.A. The amphibian decline crisis: a watershed for conservation biology?. Biological Conservation 2005, 125:271-285.
5. Brown T.J., Handford P. Sounds design for vocalizations: quality in the woods, consistency in the fields. The Condor 2000, 102:81-92.
6. Brumm H. The impact of environmental noise on song amplitude in a territorial bird. Journal of Animal Ecology 2004, 73:434-440.
7. Carr L.W., Fahrig L. Effect of road traffic on two amphibian species of differing vagility. Conservation Biology 2001, 15:1071-1078.
8. Castellano S., Giacoma C., Ryan M.J. Call degradation in diploid and tetraploid green toads. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 2003, 78:11-26.
9. Charif R.A., Waack A.M., Strickman L.M. Raven Pro 1.3 User's Manual 2008, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.
10. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2007. Raven Pro v1.3. http://www.birds.cornell.edu/raven.
11. Eigenbrod F., Hecnar S.J., Fahrig L. The relative effects of road traffic and forest cover on anuran populations. Biological Conservation 2008, 141:35-46.
12. Eigenbrod F., Hecnar S.J., Fahrig L. Accessible habitat: an improved measure of the effects of habitat loss and roads on wildlife populations. Landscape Ecology 2008, 23:159-168.
13. Eigenbrod F., Hecnar S.J., Fahrig L. Quantifying the road effect zone: threshold effects of a motorway on anuran populations in Ontario, Canada. Ecology and Society 2009, 14:24. (online).
14. Fahrig L., Pedlar J.H., Pope S.E., Taylor P.D., Wegner J.F. Effect of road traffic on amphibian density. Biological Conservation 1995, 74:117-182.
15. Findlay C.S., Houlahan J. Anthropogenic correlates of species richness in southeastern Ontario wetlands. Conservation Biology 1997, 11:1000-1009.
16. Forrest T.G. From sender to receiver: Propagation and environmental effects on acoustic signals. American Zoologist 1994, 34:644-654.
17. Forester D.C., Czarnowsky R. Sexual selection in the spring peeper Hyla crucifer (Anura: Hylidae): the role of the advertisement call. Behaviour 1985, 92:112-128.
18. Gerhardt H.C. The evolution of vocalizations in frogs and toads. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1994, 25:293-324.
19. Ghalambor C.K., McKay J.K., Carroll S.P., Reznick D.N. Adaptive versus non-adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the potential for contemporary adaptation in new environments. Functional Ecology 2007, 21:394-407.
20. Hels T., Buchwald E. The effect of road kills on amphibian populations. Biological Conservation 2001, 99:331-340.
21. Houlahan J.E., Findlay C.S. The effects of adjacent land use on wetland amphibian species richness and community composition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 2003, 60:1078-1094.
22. Howard R.D., Young J.R. Individual variation in male vocal traits and female mating preferences in Bufo americanus. Animal Behaviour 1998, 55:1165-1179.
23. Howard R.D., Palmer J.G. Female choice in Bufo americanus: effects of dominant frequency and call order. Copeia 1995, 1995:212-217.
24. Lardner B., bin Lakim M. Tree-hole frogs exploit resonance effects. Nature 2002, 420:475.
25. Lengagne T. Traffic noise affects communication behaviour in a breeding anuran, Hyla arborea. Biological Conservation 2008, 141:2023-2031.
26. Lengagne T., Aubin T., Jouventin P., Lauga J. Acoustic communication in a king penguin colony: importance of bird location within the colony and of the body position of the listener. Polar Biology 1999, 21:262-268.
27. Martin K., Quine D., Marler P. Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalization. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 1977, 2:291-302.
28. Mazerolle M.J. Amphibian road mortality in response to nightly variations in traffic intensity. Herpetologica 2004, 60:45-53.
29. Narins P.M. Effects of masking noise on evoked calling in the Puerto Rican coqui (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Journal of Comparative Physiology 1982, 147:439-446.
30. Padilla D.K., Adolph S.C. Plastic inducible morphologies are not always adaptive: the importance of time delays in a stochastic environment. Evolutionary Ecology 2005, 10:105-117.
31. Parris K.M., Velik-Lord M., North J.M.A. Frogs call at a higher pitch in traffic noise. Ecology and Society 2009, 14:25. URL:, (online). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art25/.
32. Parris K.M. More bang for your buck: the effect of caller position, habitat and chorus noise on the efficiency of calling in the spring peeper. Ecological Modeling 2002, 156:213-224.
33. Penna M., Hamilton-West C. Susceptibility of evoked vocal responses to noise exposure in a frog of the temperate austral forest. Animal Behaviour 2007, 74:45-56.
34. Pick H.L., Siegel G.M., Fox P.W., Garber S.R., Kearney J.K. Inhibiting the Lombard effect. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1989, 85:894-900.
35. Pough F., Magnusson W.E., Ryan M.J., Taigen T.L., Wells K.D. Behavioral energetics. Environmental Physiology of the Amphibians 1992, 395-436. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. M.E. Feder, W.W. Burggren (Eds.).
36. Rabin L.A., McCowan B., Hooper S.L., Owings D.H. Anthropogenic noise and its effect on animal communication: an interface between comparative psychology and conservation biology. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 2003, 16:172-192.
37. Ryan M.J., Rand A.S. Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 1993, 47:647-657.
38. Ryan M.J., Wilczynski W. Coevolution of sender and receiver: effect on local mate preference in cricket frogs. Science 1988, 240:1786-1788.
39. Slabbekoorn H., Peet M. Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 2003, 424:267.
40. Smith A.M., Green D.M. Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations?. Ecography 2005, 28:110-128.
41. Stuart S.N., Chanson J.S., Cox N.A., Young B.E., Rodrigues A.S.L., Fischman D.L., Waller R.W. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 2004, 306:1783-1786.
42. Sun J.W.C., Narins P.M. Anthropogenic sounds differentially affect amphibian call rate. Biological Conservation 2005, 121:419-427.
43. Thissen D., Steinberg L., Kuang D. Quick and easy implementation of the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure for controlling the false positive rate in multiple comparisons. Journal of Educational and Behavioural Statistics 2002, 27:77-83.
44. Warren P.S., Kati M., Ermann M., Brazel A. Urban bioacoustics: it's not just noise. Animal Behaviour 2006, 71:491-502.
45. Wells K.D. The Ecology and Behavior of Amphibians 2007, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
46. Wells K.D., Schwarts J.J. The behavioral ecology of anuran communication. Hearing and Sound Communication in Amphibians 2007, 44-85. Springer, New York, USA. P.M. Narins, A.S. Feng, R.R. Fay, A.N. Popper (Eds.).
47. Wollerman L., Wiley H. Background noise from a natural chorus alters female discrimination of male calls in a Neotropical frog. Animal Behaviour 2002, 63:15-22.