acta ethologica

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 33–38 | Cite as

Acoustic adaptations to anthropogenic noise in the cicada Cryptotympana takasagona Kato (Hemiptera: Cicadidae)

  • Bao-Sen Shieh
  • Shih-Hsiung Liang
  • Chao-Chieh Chen
  • Hsiang-Hao Loa
  • Chen-Yu Liao
Original Paper


Anthropogenic noise produced by human activities affects acoustic communication in animals living in urban habitats. We recorded the calling songs of the cicada Cryptotympana takasagona in the Kaohsiung metropolitan areas of southern Taiwan to investigate possible acoustic adaptations to anthropogenic noise. C. takasagona did not call more in noise gaps. Acoustic features (peak frequency, quartile 25%, quartile 50%, and quartile 75%) of calling songs significantly increased with ambient noise levels. C. takasagona shifted the energy distribution of calling songs to higher frequencies in the presence of higher noise levels. We suggest that the acoustic adaptation by which song frequencies increase with levels of anthropogenic noise in C. takasagona may result from a size-dependent calling strategy in which small-sized males call more in noise conditions or large-sized males adjust their song frequency by changing their abdominal cavities.


Acoustic adaptations Communication Cicada Cryptotympana takasagona Anthropogenic noise 



This work was funded by the Taiwan National Science Council through a research grant awarded to Bao-Sen Shieh (NSC98-2313-B-037-MY3). We are very grateful to the reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript.


  1. Chen CH (2004) Cicadas of Taiwan. Big Trees Publication, Taipei, Taiwan (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  2. Cooley JR, Marshall DC (2001) Sexual signaling in periodical cicadas. Magicicada spp. (Homoptera: Cicadidae). Behaviour 65:827–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ficken RW, Ficken MS, Hailman JP (1974) Temporal pattern shifts to avoid acoustic interference in singing birds. Science 183:762–763PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Francis CD, Ortega CP, Cruz A (2009) Noise pollution changes avian communities and species interactions. Curr Biol 19:1415–1419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gogala M, Riede K (1995) Time sharing of song activity by cicadas in Temengor Forest Reserve, Hulu Perak, and in Sabah, Malaysia. Malay Nat J 48:297–305Google Scholar
  6. Laiolo P (2010) The emerging significance of bioacoustics in animal species conservation. Biol Conserv 143:1635–1645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lohr B, Wright TF, Dooling RJ (2003) Detection and discrimination of natural calls in masking noise by birds: estimating the active space of a signal. Anim Behav 65:763–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Oberdörster U, Grant PR (2007) Acoustic adaptations of periodical cicadas (Homoptera: Magicicada). Biol J Linn Soc 90:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Patricelli GL, Blickley JL (2006) Avian communication in urban noise: causes and consequences of vocal adjustment. Auk 123:639–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pringle JWS (1953) Physiology of song in cicadas. Nature 172:248–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Seabra SG, André G, Quartau JA (2008) Variation in the acoustic properties of the calling songs of Cicada barbara and C. orni (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) at the individual and population levels. Zool Stud 47:1–10Google Scholar
  12. Slabbekoorn H (2004) Habitat-dependent ambient noise: consistent spectral profiles in two African forest types. J Acoust Soc Am 116:3727–3733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Slabbekoorn H, Peet M (2003) Ecology: birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature 424:267–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Slabbekoorn H, Ripmeester EAP (2008) Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation. Mol Eco 17:72–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sueur J (2001) Audiospectrographical analysis of cicada sound production: a catalogue (Hemiptera, Cicadidae). Deut Entomol Z 48:33–51Google Scholar
  16. Sueur J (2002) Cicada acoustic communication: potential sound partitioning in a multispecies community from Mexico (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Cicadidae). Biol J Linn Soc 75:379–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sueur J, Aubin T (2002) Acoustic communication in the palaearctic red cicada Tibicina haematodes: chorus organisation, calling song structure, and signal recognition. Can J Zool 80:126–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Warren PS, Katti M, Ermann M, Brazel A (2006) Urban bioacoustics: it's not just noise. Anim Behav 71:491–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wiley RH, Richards DG (1982) Adaptations for acoustic communication in birds: sound transmission and signal detection. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH, Ouellet H (eds) Acoustic communication in birds. Academic, New York, pp 131–181Google Scholar
  20. Wood WE, Yezerinac SM (2006) Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) song varies with urban noise. Auk 123:650–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag and ISPA 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bao-Sen Shieh
    • 1
  • Shih-Hsiung Liang
    • 2
  • Chao-Chieh Chen
    • 1
  • Hsiang-Hao Loa
    • 1
  • Chen-Yu Liao
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical Science and Environmental BiologyKaohsiung Medical UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of BiotechnologyNational Kaohsiung Normal UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations