ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2024
Anthropogenic noise disrupts acoustic cues for recruitment.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The combined effects of elevated predation risk and anthropogenic noise on dwarf mongoose vigilance behaviour.Biology letters · 2025Article
- Anthropogenic noise disrupts acoustic cues for recruitment.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Anthropogenic noise is rising and may interfere with natural acoustic cues used by organisms to recruit. Newly developed acoustic technology provides enriched settlement cues to boost recruitment of target organisms navigating to restoration sites, but can it boost recruitment in noise-polluted sites? To address this dilemma, we coupled replicated aquarium experiments with field experiments. Under controlled and replicated laboratory conditions, acoustic enrichment boosted recruitment by 2.57 times in the absence of anthropogenic noise, but yielded comparable recruitment in its presence (i.e. no boosting effect). Using the same technique, we then tested the replicability of these responses in real-world settings where independently replicated 'sites' are unfeasible owing to the inherent differences in soundscapes. Again, acoustic enrichment increased recruitment where anthropogenic noise was low (by 3.33 times), but had no effect at a site of noise pollution. Together, these coupled laboratory-to-field outcomes indicate that anthropogenic noise can mask the signal of acoustic enrichment. While noise pollution may reduce the effectiveness of acoustic enrichment, some of our reported observations suggest that anthropogenic noise
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.