02337nas a2200217 4500008004100000245008600041210006900127520164500196653002401841653000901865653002201874653002701896653002001923653001801943100001701961700001601978700002101994700002102015700002102036856006202057 2019 eng d00aDoes bat response to traffic noise support the misleading cue hypothesis?Abstract0 aDoes bat response to traffic noise support the misleading cue hy3 a

The world has become a noisier place due to the increase in urbanization. Noise is generally considered an impediment, altering an animal’s behavior through masking or distraction. But noise can also provide useful information about the environment. For animals that rely on natural environmental noise as an indicator of favorable foraging conditions, increasing levels of anthropogenic noise might mislead informed decision-making. Bats use rain noise, a natural environmental cue, to delay their emergence from the roost, presumably to avoid sensory and metabolic costs associated with foraging in heavy rain. Here we tested the “misleading cue hypothesis,” asking whether traffic noise is mistaken for rain noise by bats. Given the acoustic similarity between rain noise and traffic noise, we predicted that bats would confuse the two. We conducted a playback experiment using rain, traffic, and ambient noise at natural roosts of common big-eared bats (Micronycteris microtis, Phyllostomidae) and recorded bat emergence behavior. In contrast to their response to rain noise, the bats did not delay roost emergence in response to traffic noise. Thus, we found that bats were able to discriminate between traffic noise and rain noise and were not misled by similarity in acoustic parameters in the two noise types, when emerging from their roost. Emerging bats did show more exploration flights during traffic noise than during rain noise, but not during ambient noise, suggesting that they perceive traffic noise as a novel acoustic cue. Our data provide new insights into perception of traffic noise by bats.

10aanthropogenic noise10abats10aevolutionary trap10aMicronycteris microtis10amisleading cues10aTraffic noise1 aGeipel, Inga1 aAmin, Bawan1 aPage, Rachel, A.1 aHalfwerk, Wouter1 aCandolin, Ulrika uhttps://academic.oup.com/beheco/article/30/6/1775/557481103171nas a2200289 4500008004100000245010300041210006900144260001600213490000600229520224200235653002502477653001502502653002702517653002002544653002102564653002102585653001002606653001402616653001702630653001802647653001602665100002102681700004202702700002202744700002102766856009402787 2019 eng d00aEvidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: a systematic map protocol0 aEvidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodi cJan-12-20190 v83 a

Background

For decades, biodiversity has suffered massive losses worldwide. Urbanization is one of the major drivers of extinction because it leads to the physical fragmentation and loss of natural habitats and it is associated with related effects, e.g. pollution and in particular noise pollution given that many man-made sounds are generated in cities (e.g. industrial and traffic noise, etc.). However, all human activities generate sounds, even far from any human habitation (e.g. motor boats on lakes, aircraft in the air, etc.). Ecological research now deals increasingly with the effects of noise pollution on biodiversity. Many studies have shown the impacts of anthropogenic noise and concluded that it is potentially a threat to life on Earth. The present work describes a protocol to systematically map evidence of the environmental impact of noise pollution on biodiversity. The resulting map will inform on the species most studied and on the demonstrated impacts. This will be useful for further primary research by identifying knowledge gaps and in view of further analysis, such as systematic reviews.

Methods

Searches will include peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English and French. Two online databases will be searched using English terms and search consistency will be assessed with a test list. No geographical restrictions will be applied. The subject population will include all species. Exposures will include all types of man-made sounds (industrial, traffic, etc.) in all types of environments (or media) (terrestrial, aerial, aquatic), including all contexts and sound origins (spontaneous or recorded sounds, in situ or laboratory studies, etc.). All relevant outcomes will be considered (space use, reproduction, communication, abundance, etc.). An open-access database will be produced with all relevant studies selected during the three screening stages. For each study, the database will contain metadata on key variables of interest (species, types of sound, outcomes, etc.). This database will be available in conjunction with a map report describing the mapping process and the evidence base with summary figures and tables of the study characteristics.

10aAnthropogenic sounds10aecosystems10aImpact of urbanization10aMan-made sounds10aMasking auditory10aNatural habitats10aNoise10aPollution10aSpecies loss10aTraffic noise10aurban noise1 aSordello, Romain1 aDe Lachapelle, Frédérique, Flamerie1 aLivoreil, Barbara1 aVanpeene, Sylvie uhttps://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-019-0146-6