Royal Society
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Royal Society Hunting at the highway: traffic noise reduces foraging efficiency in acoustic predators Author(s): Björn M. Siemers and Andrea Schaub Source: Proceedings: Biological Sciences, Vol. 278, No. 1712 (7 June 2011), pp. 1646-1652 Published by: Royal Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41314835 Accessed: 28-10-2015 22:35 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41314835?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Royal Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings: Biological Sciences. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:35:10 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PROCEEDINGS OF Proc.R. Soc. B (2011) 278, 1646-1652 THE ROYAL doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.2262 SOCIETY AJ Publishedonline 17 November2010 Hunting at the highway: traffic noise reduces foraging efficiency in acoustic predators Bjorn M. Siemers1'* and Andrea Schaub2 1 Max PlanckInstitute for Ornithology , Sensory Ecology Group , Eberhard-Gwinner-Strasse, 82319 Seewiesen, Germany 2 AnimalPhysiology, Institute for Neurobiology, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 28, 72076 Tubingeny Germany Noise pollutionfrom human trafficnetworks and industrialactivity impacts vast areas of our planet. Whileanthropogenic noise effectson animalcommunication are welldocumented, we havevery limited understandingof noise impact on morecomplex ecosystem processes, such as predator-preyinteractions, albeiturgently needed to devisemitigation measures. Here, we showthat traffic noise decreasesthe fora- gingefficiency of an acousticpredator, the greatermouse-eared bat ( Myotismyotis). These bats feedon large,ground-running arthropods that they find by listeningto theirfaint rustling sounds. We measured the bats' foragingperformance on a continuousscale of acousticallysimulated highway distances in a behaviouralexperiment, designed to rule out confoundingfactors such as generalnoise avoidance. Successfulforaging bouts decreased and searchtime drastically increased with proximity to thehighway. At 7.5 m to theroad, search time was increasedby a factorof five. From this increase, we predicta 25-fold decreasein surveyedground area and thusin foragingefficiency for a wildbat. As mostof the bats' prey arepredators themselves, the noise impact on thebats' foragingperformance will have complex effects on the food web and ultimatelyon the ecosystemstability. Similar scenarios apply to otherecologically importantand highlyprotected acoustic predators, e.g. owls. Our studyprovides the empiricalbasis forquantitative predictions of anthropogenicnoise impactson ecosystemprocesses. It highlightsthat an understandingof the effectsof noise emissionsand otherforms of 'sensorypollution' are crucially importantfor the assessmentof environmentalimpact of humanactivities. Keywords: anthropogenicnoise; sensoryecology; foraging; bats; masking;attention 1. INTRODUCTION noise interactswith the foragingefficiency of a predator. Noise pollutionfrom human traffic networks and industrial We hypothesizethat acoustic predators,such as owls activityoccurs in vast areas of our planet [1] and potentially [15], some carnivoresand nocturnalprimates [16], and affectswildlife over both terrestrialand aquatic environ- many species of bat [17-19], that detect and localize ments[2,3]. A considerablebody of researchdocuments animalprey by eavesdroppingon theircommunication or how anthropogenicnoise impactsanimal communication locomotionsounds, are likelyto experiencereduced fora- [4-6]. Some birds adjust pitch [7,8], amplitude[9] or gingsuccess in noise,because it masksthe preycues. In timing[10] of theirsong to counteractmasking, right the presentstudy, we assessed forthe firsttime, to our whaleschange the tune of theircommunication calls in knowledge,anthropogenic noise impacton preydetection responseto shippingnoise [11] and malefrogs lose acoustic performanceof an acousticpredator. We chosethe greater space forattracting females to trafficnoise [12]. mouse-earedbat {Myotismyotis ) as a modelspecies. These A morecomprehensive understanding of how anthropo- batsfeed on large,ground-running arthropods such as car- genicnoise influences ecosystem processes, albeit urgendy abid beedes,hunting spiders and centipedes[20] thatthey neededto devisemitigation measures [2,6], is onlystarting detectand trackdown by listeningto the faintrustling to emerge,however. Here, a cruciallyimportant question is sounds that the arthropodsproduce when walking how noise pollutionaffects predator-prey interactions, as [21,22]. Most ofthese arthropods are predators themselves these stand at the heart of ecosystemstability and and thusnoise impacton the bats' foragingperformance dynamics.Recent evidence suggests that songbirds experi- mighthave complex effects on thefood web (B. M. Siemers, ence decreasedpredation rate in noisyenvironments [13], S. Greif,I. Borissov,S. L. Voigt-Heucke& C. C. Voigt and hermitcrabs are distractedby boat motornoise and 2010, unpublished data). Greater mouse-eared bats hence less vigilantagainst approaching predators [14]. occur in mostof Centraland SouthernEurope and can No studyhas as yetdirectly assessed how anthropogenic cover nightlyforaging distances of more than 25 km [23]. Most of Europe's existingand planned highways thus cross potentialmouse-eared bat foraginghabitat. * Authorfor correspondence ([email protected]). As thespecies is protectedunder the highest conservation the Electronicsupplementary material is availableat http://dx.doi.org/category of the European Habitats Directive, potential 10.1098/rspb.2010.2262 or via http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org. impactof traffic noise on thebats' foragingefficiency is of Received19 October2010 Accepted26 October2010 1646 Thisjournal is © 2010The Royal Society This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:35:10 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Road noisereduces foraging efficiency B. M. Siemers& A. Schaub 1647 kHz kHz silence 50m 35m 25m 15m 7.5m silence generated continuous transient Figure1. Experimentalset-up and soundstimuli, (a) Video screenshotof the experimental foraging area. ( b) Exampleof a carabidbeede walking sound that we usedto signalprey to thebats. ( c) Noisetreatments in experiment1; 'silence'as a control and digitallygenerated, standardized traffic noise corresponding to differentdistances to a highway(from the right, i.e. outer, lane.(< d ) Examplesof the noise treatments in experiment2; thedigitally generated 15 m stimulusfrom experiment 1, recorded trafficnoise as 15 m froma highway,but with silent intervals between passing cars cut out, unchanged recorded traffic noise as 15 m froma highway,and again 'silence'.All sound examplesin spectrogramrepresentation with oscillogram below and averagedpower spectrum on theright. Amplitude is colourcoded (relativedB scale). strongpractical relevance. In laboratoryexperiments, scenarioof these bats. As soon as theyheard the prey thesebats avoid loud, broadbandnoise, includingplay- walkingsounds they landed briefly on therespective plat- back of trafficnoise correspondingto 10-15 m froma formand pickedup a foodreward from above the speaker highway[24], but the reason for noise avoidance has (see electronicsupplementary material, video SI). We notbeen studied.Here, we testedthe hypothesis that traf- thenapplied differentnoise treatmentsthrough an array fic noise affectsforaging efficiency in these bats, as a of broadbandloudspeakers mounted on two sides of the model foracoustic predators. In a largeflight room, we experimentalforaging area and conducted a total of set up an experimentalforaging area with64 platforms 5069 1 minforaging trials with eight bats. It was notposs- (figurela) in each of whichwe hid a loudspeakerthat ible forthe bats to avoid the noise,as the entireforaging could playrustling sound ofthe bats' mainprey - carabid area was ensonified.Thus, we could measurethe bats' beetles [20,22]- at naturalistic amplitudes [25] preydetection and localizationperformance under the (figurelb). The set-up mimickedthe naturalforaging noise profilesof a seriesof highwaydistances. Proc.R. Soc.B (2011) This content downloaded from 128.114.34.22 on Wed, 28 Oct 2015 22:35:10 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1648 B. M. Siemers& A. Schaub Road noisereduces foraging efficiency 2. MATERIALAND METHODS (c) Acousticstimuli (a) Animals and housing All playbackfiles were arrangedor generatedin Adobe Eightadult male greatermouse-eared bats (Myotismyotis ) Audition1.5 (adobe) and had a samplingrate of 192 kHz, wereused forexperimentation. The animalswere captured i.e. containedfrequencies up to 96 kHz. All fileswere high- forthese experiments under licence from Regierungsprasi- pass-filteredat 1 kHz (digitalfast Fourier transform filter, diumFreiburg (licence no. 55-8852.44/1095)and heldand 2048 points,Blackman window) to