Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34031384›Full record

ArticleNature communications2021

Phantom rivers filter birds and bats by acoustic niche.

D G E Gomes, C A Toth, H J Cole, C D Francis, J R Barber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Cut through the noise: vocal signals and auditory processing vary along an urbanization gradient in Pacific treefrogs.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

D G E GomesBoise State University, Boise, ID, USA. dylangomes@u.boisestate.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2642-3728
C A TothBoise State University, Boise, ID, USA.
H J ColeBoise State University, Boise, ID, USA.
C D FrancisCalifornia Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2018-4954
J R BarberBoise State University, Boise, ID, USA. jessebarber@boisestate.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3084-2973

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Natural sensory environments, despite strong potential for structuring systems, have been neglected in ecological theory. Here, we test the hypothesis that intense natural acoustic environments shape animal distributions and behavior by broadcasting whitewater river noise in montane riparian zones for two summers. Additionally, we use spectrally-altered river noise to explicitly test the effects of masking as a mechanism driving patterns. Using data from abundance and activity surveys across 60 locations, over two full breeding seasons, we find that both birds and bats avoid areas with high sound levels, while birds avoid frequencies that overlap with birdsong, and bats avoid higher frequencies more generally. We place 720 clay caterpillars in willows, and find that intense sound levels decrease foraging behavior in birds. For bats, we deploy foraging tests across 144 nights, consisting of robotic insect-wing mimics, and speakers broadcasting bat prey sounds, and find that bats appear to switch hunting strategies from passive listening to aerial hawking as sound levels increase. Natural acoustic environments are an underappreciated niche axis, a conclusion that serves to escalate the urgency of mitigating human-created noise.

Indexed as

AcousticsBehavior, AnimalRiversAnimalsAuditory PerceptionBirdsChiropteraEcholocationHumansInsectaMothsNoisePredatory BehaviorSound

Identifiers

PMID34031384
PMCPMC8144611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.