MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380684285 · doi:10.7717/peerj.15297

Anthropogenic noise decreases activity and calling behavior in wild mice

2023· article· en· W4380684285 on OpenAlexaff
Radmila Petric, Matina C. Kalcounis‐Rueppell

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of North Carolina at Greensboro
KeywordsForagingNoise (video)WoodlandWildlifeNatural soundsEcologyEnvironmental scienceNocturnalNoise exposureNoise pollutionBiologyMedicineAudiologyAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Animals rely on sound to mediate a myriad of daily activities, and anthropogenic noise is a pollutant that alters the natural soundscape within which they are active. As human infrastructure expands, broadband anthropogenic noise increases, which can affect behaviors of free-living nocturnal animals. Mice are nocturnal animals that produce ultrasonic calls as part of their behavioral repertoire. Methods We assessed effects of anthropogenic and natural noise on the behaviors of wild deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and woodland jumping mice (Napaeozapus insignis), two species of mice that produce ultrasonic calls. We measured activity, foraging behavior at a foraging tray, and calling behavior to broadcasts of natural and anthropogenic noise, compared to a baseline with no broadcasting, at 25 focal areas in the Southern Appalachian Mountain Range of North Carolina, USA. Results Deer mice exposed to anthropogenic noise spent less time in focal areas with broadcasted anthropogenic noise. Mice took longer to begin foraging in the presence of anthropogenic noise, they spent less time at the foraging tray, and left fewer husks but consumed the same number of seeds as mice exposed to natural noise. Deer mice were less likely than woodland jumping mice to be the first to enter the focal area and approach food when in the presence of anthropogenic noise. Both species produced few ultrasonic calls in the presence of broadcasted natural and anthropogenic noise compared to their baseline level of calling. We present the first calls recorded from woodland jumping mice. Conclusion Anthropogenic noise affects activity, foraging behavior, and calling behavior of nocturnal mice. Natural noise also affects the calling behavior of mice. Mouse species respond differently to anthropogenic noise, with deer mice appearing more sensitive to anthropogenic noise than woodland jumping mice. Responses to noise could have important effects on the ecology of mice and these two species respond differently. Species differences should be considered when mitigating the effects of noise in conservation ecology.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207