ArticleScientific reports2025
Sensory interference shapes habitat suitability for an acoustically specialized predator.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ambient acoustic conditions shape how animals perceive and interact with their environments, yet their role in structuring space use remains underexplored. Noise can mask biologically informative sounds which can impact foraging success, physiological fitness, and displace animals from viable habitat. Here, we test how landscape variables and soundscape characteristics across a mixed-use forest landscape affect spatial distribution of a nocturnal predator with specialized hearing. We used passive acoustic recordings to assess the effects of noise levels within biologically relevant frequency ranges on landscape use of the northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus) across 276 sites in Oregon, USA. Owl landscape use declined with increasing noise levels in the 1.60-7.10 kHz band, corresponding with species peak auditory sensitivity. In contrast, general low-frequency sound (0.25-1.00 kHz) was a poor predictor of landscape use but negatively affected acoustic detection probability. These results provide evidence that sensory masking from ambient soundscapes can constrain the realized acoustic niche and drive avoidance of otherwise suitable habitat. Our findings highlight the importance of considering full-spectrum acoustic environments in spatial ecology and suggest that species distributions are shaped not only by physical habitat but also by the perceptual accessibility of ecological information.
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.