Cardoso Gonçalo C, Hu Yang, Francis Clinton D
CIBIO-Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Campus Agrário de Vairão, 4485-661 Vairão, Portugal.
Behavioural Ecology Group, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
R Soc Open Sci. 2018 Feb 21;5(2):172059. doi: 10.1098/rsos.172059. eCollection 2018 Feb.
Anthropogenic noise is more intense at lower sound frequencies, which could decrease urban tolerance of animals with low-frequency vocalizations. Four large comparative studies tested whether anthropogenic noise filters bird species according to the sound frequencies they use and produced discrepant results. We reanalysed data from these studies to explain their different results. Urban tolerance of bird species (defined here as often occurring and breeding in cities) is very weakly related to urban preference or relative abundance (defined based on changes in population density from urban to nearby rural environments). Data on urban preference/abundance are potentially accurate for individual cities but differ among cities for the same species, whereas existing data on urban tolerance are coarser but provide a more global synthesis. Cross-species comparisons find a positive association between the sound frequency of song and urban tolerance, but not urban preference/abundance. We found that showing an association between song frequency and urban tolerance requires controlling for additional species traits that influence urban living. On the contrary, controlling for other species traits is not required to show a positive association between song frequency and use of noisy relative to quiet areas within the same type of environment. Together, comparative evidence indicates that masking by urban noise is part of a larger set of factors influencing urban living: all else being equal, species with high-frequency sounds are more likely to tolerate cities than species with low-frequency sounds, but they are not more likely to prefer, or to be more abundant in, urban than non-urban habitats.
人为噪声在较低声频下更为强烈,这可能会降低具有低频发声的动物对城市环境的耐受性。四项大型比较研究测试了人为噪声是否会根据鸟类使用的声频对其进行筛选,结果却相互矛盾。我们重新分析了这些研究的数据,以解释它们不同的结果。鸟类对城市环境的耐受性(这里定义为经常在城市中出现和繁殖)与城市偏好或相对丰度(根据从城市到附近农村环境的种群密度变化来定义)的相关性非常弱。关于城市偏好/丰度的数据对于单个城市可能是准确的,但同一物种在不同城市的数据存在差异,而现有的关于城市耐受性的数据虽然较为粗略,但提供了更全面的综合信息。跨物种比较发现,鸣叫声的声频与城市耐受性之间存在正相关,但与城市偏好/丰度无关。我们发现,要显示鸣叫声频率与城市耐受性之间的关联,需要控制影响城市生活的其他物种特征。相反,要显示鸣叫声频率与在同一类型环境中嘈杂区域相对于安静区域的使用之间的正相关,则不需要控制其他物种特征。总体而言,比较证据表明,城市噪声的掩蔽是影响城市生活的一系列更大因素的一部分:在其他条件相同的情况下,发出高频声音的物种比发出低频声音的物种更有可能耐受城市环境,但它们并不更有可能偏好城市栖息地,也不会在城市中比在非城市栖息地更为丰富。