IMPACTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC NOISE ON AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES IN WETLAND HABITATS A dissertation submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Adrienne M. Hopson August 2019 Copyright All rights reserved Except for previously published materials Dissertation written by Adrienne M. Hopson B.S., Long Island University: Southampton College, 1999 M.Ed., University of Houston, 2010 Ph.D., Kent State University, 2019 Approved by Ferenc de Szalay, Ph.D. , Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Mark Kershner, Ph.D. , Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Sean Veney, Ph.D. Emariana Widner, Ph.D. Daniel Holm, Ph.D. Accepted by Laura G. Leff, Ph.D. , Chair, Department of Biological Sciences James L. Blank, Ph.D. , Dean, College of Arts and Sciences ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................................iii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...........................................................................................................ix I. INTRODUCTION……………...............................................................................1 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………..10 II. THE IMPACT OF SUBMERSED VEGETATION ON UNDERWATER SOUND TRANSMISSION IN FRESHWATER WETLANDS………………...16 ABSTRACT……............................................................................................…...16 INTRODUCTION……………………….............................................................18 METHODS………..........................................................................................…..20 RESULTS..............................................................................................................22 DISCUSSION........................................................................................................33 REFERENCES………..........................................................................................37 III. COMPARING HOW ABOVE-WATER AND BELOW-WATER SOUNDSCAPES DIFFER BETWEEN RURAL WETLANDS AND SITES AFFECTED BY ROAD NOISE…………………………………………………41 ABSTRACT…….......................................................................................………41 INTRODUCTION……………………….............................................................42 METHODS………................................................................................................44 RESULTS..............................................................................................................50 DISCUSSION........................................................................................................62 REFERENCES………..........................................................................................65 iii IV. THE IMPACT OF SHORT-TERM ANTHROPOGENIC NOISE ON SOUND PRODUCTION AND BEHAVIOR OF THE WHITE RIVER CRAYFISH, PROCAMBARUS ACUTUS (DECAPODA: CAMBARIDAE)………………….69 ABSTRACT……...................................................................................................69 INTRODUCTION……………………….............................................................70 METHODS………................................................................................................72 RESULTS..............................................................................................................77 DISCUSSION........................................................................................................83 REFERENCES………..........................................................................................86 V. DOES ANTHROPOGENIC NOISE AFFECT BEHAVIOR AND ACOUSTIC COMMUNICATION IN THE WHITE RIVER CRAYFISH, PROCAMBARUS ACUTUS (DECAPODA: CAMBARIDAE)?........................................................91 ABSTRACT……...................................................................................................91 INTRODUCTION……………………….............................................................92 METHODS………................................................................................................95 RESULTS............................................................................................................100 DISCUSSION......................................................................................................106 REFERENCES………........................................................................................108 VI. SUMMARY CHAPTER…..................................................................................113 REFERENCES………........................................................................................117 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. Spectrograms recorded at 1 m from sound source in wetland ponds arranged from lowest (Pond 1) to highest submersed plant density (Pond 5). ………………………………….25 Figure 2.2. Spectrograms recorded at 7 m from sound source in wetland ponds arranged from lowest (Pond 1) to highest submersed plant density (Pond 5)…………………………………...26 Figure 2.3. Spectrograms recorded at 15 m from sound source in wetland ponds arranged from lowest (Pond 1) to highest submersed plant density (Pond 5). …………………………….........27 Figure 2.4. Mean number of frequency bands (+/- 1 standard error) detected in two treatments (unvegetated, vegetated) at three distances (1 m, 7 m,15 m) from the sound source.…………...28 Figure 2.5. Mean (+/- 1 standard error) intensity (dB) of the Hi-mix sound in two treatments (unvegetated, vegetated) at three distances (1 m, 7 m, 15 m) from the sound source ..................31 Figure 2.6. Mean (+/- 1 standard error) intensity (decibel) of Low Base Tones recorded in two treatments (unvegetated and vegetated) at three distances (1,7,15m) from the sound source. ….32 Figure 2.7. Mean (+/- 1 standard error) intensity (dB) of motorboat noise recorded in two treatments (unvegetated and vegetated) at three distances (1,7,15m) from the sound source…...33 Figure 3.1. Locations of wetlands sampled during study ……………………………………….48 Figure 3.2. Number (mean +/- 1 SE) of above-water natural and anthropogenic sounds in Disturbed and Undisturbed wetlands in May, August and October……………………………..55 Figure 3.3. Number (mean +/- 1 SE) of above-water natural and anthropogenic sounds in Disturbed and Undisturbed wetlands in May, August and October in low, mid, and high frequency bands …………………………………………………………………………………56 Figure 3.4. Number (mean +/- 1 SE) of bird, frog and insect calls in Disturbed and Undisturbed wetlands at 8:00 in May. ………………………………………………………………………...57 v Figure 3.5 Above water soundscape diversity (mean +/- 1SE) in Disturbed and Undisturbed wetlands in May, August and October. Acoustic diversity is given as Shannon’s diversity (H’)……………………………………………………………………………………………….58 Figure 3.6. Number (mean +/- 1 SE) of below-water natural and anthropogenic sounds in Disturbed and Undisturbed wetlands in May, August and October……………………………..60 Figure 3.7. Number (mean +/- 1 SE) of below-water natural and anthropogenic sounds in Disturbed and Undisturbed wetlands in May, August and October in low, mid and high frequency ban…………………………………………………………………………..………...61 Figure 3.8. Below water soundscape diversity (mean +/- 1 SE) in Disturbed and Undisturbed wetlands in May, August and October. Acoustic diversity is given as Shannon’s diversity (H’)……………………………………………………………………………………………….62 Figure 4.1. Spectrograms of a representative Procambarus acutus pulse train……………….....78 Figure 4.2. Average count of crayfish behavior in each treatment group (NS = No Sound, S = Sound) during each Time period (Before, During, After)………………………………..……...80 Figure 4.3. Total activity levels (mean +/- 1 SE) of crayfish in each treatment group (No Sound, Sound) during each Time period (Before, During, After)………………………………….........82 Figure 4.4. Number of clicks produced (mean +/- 1 SE) of crayfish in each treatment group (No Sound, Sound) during each Time period (Before, During, After)…...…………………………..83 Figure 5.1. Total activity levels (mean +/- 1 SE) of crayfish in each treatment group (No Sound, Sound) during each Time point (Pre, 2 week, 4 week, Post). Note that values are expressed in log10 ………………………………………………………………………………………….....102 Figure 5.2. Levels of behaviors (mean +/- 1 SE) of crayfish in each treatment group (No Sound, Sound) during each Time point (Pre, 2 week, 4 week, Post). ………………………………….103 vi Figure 5.3. Number of clicks produced (mean +/- 1 SE) of crayfish in each treatment group (No Sound, Sound) during each Time period (Pre, 2 week, 4 week, Post). Note that values are expressed in log10. ……………………………………………………………………………...104 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Environmental conditions of wetlands at HAERF in July 2012……………………...23 Table 3.1. Treatment site locations, distance to nearest paved road, and sound levels during Initial visit………………………………………………………………………………………..46 Table 3.2. Baseline characteristics of sites by treatment ………………………………………..52 Table 4.1 Modified crayfish behavior ethogram…………………………………………………76 Table 5.1. Modified crayfish behavior ethogram…………………………………………….......99 Table 5.2. Results of correlation analyses between the sound production and behavior…….....105 viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I dedicate my dissertation to my parents, Cynthia and Harvey Hopson. Thank you for always making education the most