Cargando…
Interspecific differences in the effects of masking and distraction on anti-predator behavior in suburban anthropogenic noise
Predation is a common threat to animal survival. The detection of predators or anti-predator communication signals can be disrupted by anthropogenic noise; however, the mechanism by which responses are affected is unclear. Masking and distraction are the two hypotheses that have emerged as likely ex...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10437853/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37594981 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290330 |
_version_ | 1785092630945726464 |
---|---|
author | Chou, Trina L. Krishna, Anjali Fossesca, Mark Desai, Avani Goldberg, Julia Jones, Sophie Stephens, Morgan Basile, Benjamin M. Gall, Megan D. |
author_facet | Chou, Trina L. Krishna, Anjali Fossesca, Mark Desai, Avani Goldberg, Julia Jones, Sophie Stephens, Morgan Basile, Benjamin M. Gall, Megan D. |
author_sort | Chou, Trina L. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Predation is a common threat to animal survival. The detection of predators or anti-predator communication signals can be disrupted by anthropogenic noise; however, the mechanism by which responses are affected is unclear. Masking and distraction are the two hypotheses that have emerged as likely explanations for changes in behavior in noise. Masking occurs when the signal and noise fall within the same sensory domain; noise overlapping the energy in the signal reduces signal detection. Distraction can occur when noise in any sensory domain contributes to a greater cognitive load, thereby reducing signal detection. Here, we used a repeated measures field experiment to determine the relative contributions of masking and distraction in mediating reduced anti-predator responses in noise. We recorded the approaches and vocalizations of black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus), tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor), and white-breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis) to both visual and acoustic cues of predator presence, either with or without simultaneous exposure to anthropogenic noise. Titmice increased their calling to both visual and acoustic cues of predator presence. However, there was no significant effect of noise on the calling responses of titmice regardless of stimulus modality. Noise appeared to produce a distraction effect in chickadees; however, this effect was small, suggesting that chickadees may be relatively unaffected by low levels of anthropogenic noise in suburban environments. White-breasted nuthatch calling behavior was affected by the interaction of the modality of the predator stimulus and the noise condition. Nuthatches had a delayed response to the predator presentations, with a greater calling rate following the presentation of the acoustic stimulus in quiet compared to the presentation of the acoustic stimulus in noise. However, there was no difference in calling rate between the quiet and noise conditions for the visual stimulus. Together this suggests that even moderate levels of noise have some masking effect for white-breasted nuthatches. We suggest that the mechanisms through which noise influences anti-predator behavior may depend on the social roles, foraging ecology and auditory capabilities of each species. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10437853 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104378532023-08-19 Interspecific differences in the effects of masking and distraction on anti-predator behavior in suburban anthropogenic noise Chou, Trina L. Krishna, Anjali Fossesca, Mark Desai, Avani Goldberg, Julia Jones, Sophie Stephens, Morgan Basile, Benjamin M. Gall, Megan D. PLoS One Research Article Predation is a common threat to animal survival. The detection of predators or anti-predator communication signals can be disrupted by anthropogenic noise; however, the mechanism by which responses are affected is unclear. Masking and distraction are the two hypotheses that have emerged as likely explanations for changes in behavior in noise. Masking occurs when the signal and noise fall within the same sensory domain; noise overlapping the energy in the signal reduces signal detection. Distraction can occur when noise in any sensory domain contributes to a greater cognitive load, thereby reducing signal detection. Here, we used a repeated measures field experiment to determine the relative contributions of masking and distraction in mediating reduced anti-predator responses in noise. We recorded the approaches and vocalizations of black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus), tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor), and white-breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis) to both visual and acoustic cues of predator presence, either with or without simultaneous exposure to anthropogenic noise. Titmice increased their calling to both visual and acoustic cues of predator presence. However, there was no significant effect of noise on the calling responses of titmice regardless of stimulus modality. Noise appeared to produce a distraction effect in chickadees; however, this effect was small, suggesting that chickadees may be relatively unaffected by low levels of anthropogenic noise in suburban environments. White-breasted nuthatch calling behavior was affected by the interaction of the modality of the predator stimulus and the noise condition. Nuthatches had a delayed response to the predator presentations, with a greater calling rate following the presentation of the acoustic stimulus in quiet compared to the presentation of the acoustic stimulus in noise. However, there was no difference in calling rate between the quiet and noise conditions for the visual stimulus. Together this suggests that even moderate levels of noise have some masking effect for white-breasted nuthatches. We suggest that the mechanisms through which noise influences anti-predator behavior may depend on the social roles, foraging ecology and auditory capabilities of each species. Public Library of Science 2023-08-18 /pmc/articles/PMC10437853/ /pubmed/37594981 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290330 Text en © 2023 Chou et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Chou, Trina L. Krishna, Anjali Fossesca, Mark Desai, Avani Goldberg, Julia Jones, Sophie Stephens, Morgan Basile, Benjamin M. Gall, Megan D. Interspecific differences in the effects of masking and distraction on anti-predator behavior in suburban anthropogenic noise |
title | Interspecific differences in the effects of masking and distraction on anti-predator behavior in suburban anthropogenic noise |
title_full | Interspecific differences in the effects of masking and distraction on anti-predator behavior in suburban anthropogenic noise |
title_fullStr | Interspecific differences in the effects of masking and distraction on anti-predator behavior in suburban anthropogenic noise |
title_full_unstemmed | Interspecific differences in the effects of masking and distraction on anti-predator behavior in suburban anthropogenic noise |
title_short | Interspecific differences in the effects of masking and distraction on anti-predator behavior in suburban anthropogenic noise |
title_sort | interspecific differences in the effects of masking and distraction on anti-predator behavior in suburban anthropogenic noise |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10437853/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37594981 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290330 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT choutrinal interspecificdifferencesintheeffectsofmaskinganddistractiononantipredatorbehaviorinsuburbananthropogenicnoise AT krishnaanjali interspecificdifferencesintheeffectsofmaskinganddistractiononantipredatorbehaviorinsuburbananthropogenicnoise AT fossescamark interspecificdifferencesintheeffectsofmaskinganddistractiononantipredatorbehaviorinsuburbananthropogenicnoise AT desaiavani interspecificdifferencesintheeffectsofmaskinganddistractiononantipredatorbehaviorinsuburbananthropogenicnoise AT goldbergjulia interspecificdifferencesintheeffectsofmaskinganddistractiononantipredatorbehaviorinsuburbananthropogenicnoise AT jonessophie interspecificdifferencesintheeffectsofmaskinganddistractiononantipredatorbehaviorinsuburbananthropogenicnoise AT stephensmorgan interspecificdifferencesintheeffectsofmaskinganddistractiononantipredatorbehaviorinsuburbananthropogenicnoise AT basilebenjaminm interspecificdifferencesintheeffectsofmaskinganddistractiononantipredatorbehaviorinsuburbananthropogenicnoise AT gallmegand interspecificdifferencesintheeffectsofmaskinganddistractiononantipredatorbehaviorinsuburbananthropogenicnoise |