Why conservation biology can benefit from sensory ecology

Davide M. Dominoni*, Wouter Halfwerk, Emily Baird, Rachel T. Buxton, Esteban Fernández-Juricic, Kurt M. Fristrup, Megan F. McKenna, Daniel J. Mennitt, Elizabeth K. Perkin, Brett M. Seymoure, David C. Stoner, Jennifer B. Tennessen, Cory A. Toth, Luke P. Tyrrell, Ashley Wilson, Clinton D. Francis, Neil H. Carter, Jesse R. Barber

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    12 Downloads (Pure)


    Global expansion of human activities is associated with the introduction of novel stimuli, such as anthropogenic noise, artificial lights and chemical agents. Progress in documenting the ecological effects of sensory pollutants is weakened by sparse knowledge of the mechanisms underlying these effects. This severely limits our capacity to devise mitigation measures. Here, we integrate knowledge of animal sensory ecology, physiology and life history to articulate three perceptual mechanisms—masking, distracting and misleading—that clearly explain how and why anthropogenic sensory pollutants impact organisms. We then link these three mechanisms to ecological consequences and discuss their implications for conservation. We argue that this framework can reveal the presence of ‘sensory danger zones’, hotspots of conservation concern where sensory pollutants overlap in space and time with an organism’s activity, and foster development of strategic interventions to mitigate the impact of sensory pollutants. Future research that applies this framework will provide critical insight to preserve the natural sensory world.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)502-511
    Number of pages10
    JournalNature Ecology and Evolution
    Issue number4
    Early online date16 Mar 2020
    Publication statusPublished - Apr 2020


    Dive into the research topics of 'Why conservation biology can benefit from sensory ecology'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this