Advertisement

Potential Uses of Anthropogenic Noise as a Source of Information in Animal Sensory and Communication Systems

  • Amanda StansburyEmail author
  • Volker Deecke
  • Thomas Götz
  • Vincent M. Janik
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 875)

Abstract

Although current research on the impact of anthropogenic noise has focused on the detrimental effects, there is a range of ways by which animals could benefit from increased noise levels. Here we discuss two potential uses of anthropogenic noise. First, local variations in the ambient-noise field could be used to perceive objects and navigate within an environment. Second, introduced sound cues could be used as a signal for prey detection or orientation and navigation. Although the disadvantages of noise pollution will likely outweigh any positive effects, it is important to acknowledge that such changes may benefit some species.

Keywords

Ambient-noise imaging Acoustic daylight Prey detection Acoustic landmark 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by Natural Environment Research Council of the United Kingdom Grant No. NE/I024682/1.

References

  1. Ashmead DH, Wall RS (1999) Auditory perception of walls via spectral variations in the ambient sound field. J Rehabil Res Dev 36:1–9Google Scholar
  2. Barber JR, Crooks KR, Fristrup K (2009) The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends Ecol Evol 25:180–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bordino P, Kraus S, Albareda D, Fazio A, Palmerio A, Mendez M, Botta S (2002) Reducing incidental mortality of Franciscana dolphin Pontoporia blainvillei with acoustic warning devices attached to fishing nets. Mar Mamm Sci 18:833–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowles AE, Denes SL, Shane MA (2010) Acoustic characteristics of ultrasonic coded transmitters for fishery applications: could marine mammals hear them? J Acoust Soc Am 128:3223–3231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brumm H, Slabbekoorn H (2005) Acoustic communication in noise. Adv Study Behav 35:151–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckingham MJ, Berhout BV, Glegg SAL (1992) Imaging the ocean with ambient noise. Nature 356:327–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan AAYH, Giraldo-Perez P, Smith S, Blumstein DT (2010) Anthropogenic noise affects risk assessment and attention: the distracted prey hypothesis. Biol Lett 6:458–461PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng K, Collett TS, Pickhard A, Wehner R (1987) The use of visual landmarks by honeybees: bees weight landmarks according to their distance from the goal. J Comp Psychol 161:469–475Google Scholar
  9. Chilvers BL, Corkeron PJ (2001) Trawling and bottlenose dolphins’ social structure. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268:1901–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collett M (2010) How desert ants use a visual landmark for guidance along a habitual route. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:11638–11643PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooke SJ, Iverson SJ, Stokesbury MJ, Hinch SG, Fisk AT, VanderZwaag DL, Whoriskey F (2011) Ocean tracking network Canada: a network approach to addressing critical issues in fisheries and resource management with implications for ocean governance. Fisheries 36:583–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deecke VB, Slater PJB, Ford JKB (2002) Selective habituation shapes acoustic predator recognition in harbour seals. Nature 420:171–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dehnhardt G, Mauck B, Hanke W, Bleckmann H (2001) Hydrodynamic trial following in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). Science 293:102–104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Epifanio CL, Potter JR, Deane GB, Readhead ML, Buckingham MJ (1999) Imaging in the ocean with ambient noise: the ORB experiments. J Acoust Soc Am 106:3211–3225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fay RR (1998) Auditory stream segregation in goldfish (Carassius auratus). Hear Res 120:69–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fay RR (2009) Soundscapes and the sense of hearing in fish. Integr Biol 4:26–32Google Scholar
  17. Francis CD, Ortega CP, Cruz A (2009) Noise pollution changes avian communities and species interactions. Curr Biol 19:1415–1419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gannon DP, Barros NB, Nowacek DP, Read AJ, Waples DM, Wells RS (2005) Prey detection by bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus: an experimental test of the passive listening hypothesis. Anim Behav 69:709–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gordon MS, Rosenblum LD (2004) Perception of sound-obstructing surfaces using body-scaled judgments. Ecol Psychol 16:87–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Götz T, Janik VM (2010) Aversiveness of sounds in phocid seals: psycho-physiological factors, learning processes and motivation. J Exp Biol 213:1536–1548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Götz T, Janik VM (2013) Acoustic deterrent devices to prevent pinniped depredation: efficiency, conservation concerns and possible solutions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 492:285–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jefferson TA, Curry BE (1996) Acoustic methods of reducing or eliminating marine mammal-fishery interactions: do they work? Ocean Coast Manage 31:41–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leis JM, Carson-Ewart BM, Hay AC, Cato DH (2003) Coral-reef sounds enable nocturnal navigation by some reef-fish larvae in some places and at some times. J Fish Biol 63:724–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewis T, Rogers P (1992) Detection of scattered ambient noise by fish. J Acoust Soc Am 91:2435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Milgram NW, Adams B, Callahan H, Head E, Mackay B, Thirlwell C, Cotman CW (1999) Landmark discrimination learning in the dog. Learn Mem 6:54–61PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nowacek DP, Thorne LH, Johnston DW, Tyack PL (2007) Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise. Mamm Rev 37:81–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oliver GW (1978) Navigation in mazes by a grey seal, Halichoerus grypus Fabricius. Behaviour 67:97–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Potter JR (1997) Could marine mammals use ambient noise imaging techniques? J Acoust Soc Am 102:3104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Richardson WJ, Greene CR Jr, Malme CI, Thomson DH (1995) Marine mammals and noise. Academic, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  30. Riley DA, Rosenzweig MR (1956) Echolocation in rats. J Comp Physiol Psychol 50:323–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rosenblum LD, Robart RL (2007) Hearing silent shapes: identifying the shape of a sound-obstructing surface. Ecol Psychol 19:351–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schaub A, Ostwald J, Siemers BM (2008) Foraging bats avoid noise. J Exp Biol 211:3174–3180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Simpson SD, Meekan MG, McCauley R, Jeffs A (2004) Attraction of settlement stage coral reef fish to reef noise. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 276:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simpson SD, Meekan MG, Montgomery J, McCauley R, Jeffs A (2005) Homeward sound. Science 308:221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Simpson SD, Meekan MG, Larsen NJ, McCauley RD, Jeffs A (2010) Behavioral plasticity in larval reef fish: orientation is influenced by recent acoustic experiences. Behav Ecol 21:1098–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Slabbekoorn H, Bouton N, van Opzeeland I, Coers A, ten Cate C, Popper AN (2010) A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish. Trends Ecol Evol 25:419–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Thode A, Straley J, Tiemann CO, Folkert K, O’Connell V (2007) Observations of potential acoustic cues that attract sperm whales to longline fishing in the Gulf of Alaska. J Acoust Soc Am 122:1265–1277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Tyack P (2009) Acoustic playback experiments to study behavioral responses of free-ranging marine animals to anthropogenic sound. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 395:187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amanda Stansbury
    • 1
    Email author
  • Volker Deecke
    • 1
  • Thomas Götz
    • 1
  • Vincent M. Janik
    • 1
  1. 1.Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU)Scottish Oceans Institute, University of St. AndrewsSt. Andrews, FifeUK

Personalised recommendations