Eric K. Frazier1,2
Todd M. Freeberg1,2,3*- 1Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States
- 2Collaborative for Animal Behavior, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States
- 3Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States
Mixed-species groups (MSGs) are composed of individuals of two or more species with such close associations that they can be regarded as members of the same social group. MSGs are ubiquitous and are often advantageous for the individuals involved, as these groups confer benefits of exploiting food resources and increased predator detection. Individuals often suffer negative impacts from human-caused disturbances to their habitats. Types of anthropogenic disturbance include outright loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation, and noise. Anthropogenic disturbance can negatively impact behaviors such as communication, foraging, and predator detection. Unsurprisingly, anthropogenic disturbance is a key driver in biodiversity changes across the world. Many studies have focused on the impact of anthropogenic disturbance on single species, but comparatively little work has addressed the influence of anthropogenic disturbance on MSGs. Therefore, a framework is needed to explore how anthropogenic disturbance affects the behavior, composition, and function of MSGs. This brief review paper aims to start to craft such a framework to stimulate research into these questions.
Introduction
Mixed-species groups (MSGs) are composed of individuals of two or more species with such close associations that they can be regarded as members of the same social group (Goodale et al., 2017). MSGs are common in fish (Lukoschek and McCormick, 2000), birds (Sridhar et al., 2009), and mammals (Stensland et al., 2003) and may be far more ubiquitous than typically appreciated (Carlson et al., 2023). MSGs are often advantageous for the individuals involved, as these groups confer benefits of exploiting food resources and increased predator detection (Goodale et al., 2017). For example, some species benefit from their involvement in MSGs by eavesdropping on the alarm and mobbing calls of Carolina chickadees (Poecile carolinensis) and tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor; Sullivan, 1984; Nolen and Lucas, 2009). Vigilance rates decline and foraging rates increase when different species of gazelle group together in large numbers (FitzGibbon, 1990) and when two different species of Cercopithecus monkeys move together compared to when they occur in single-species groups (Wolters and Zuberbühler, 2003).
Individuals often suffer negative impacts from human-caused disturbances to their habitats. Types of anthropogenic disturbance include outright loss of habitat (e,g., forest clearcuts), habitat fragmentation, and noise. Although relatively brief exposure to human presence can influence behavior of individuals in their natural habitats (as in Metcalfe et al., 2022), we focus here on longer-term changes to the habitat due to alterations like forestry practices or sustained exposure to noise. Habitat loss, for example, is thought to negatively affect a much higher number of avian species and families than the combination of human hunting and introduced predators (Bennett and Owens, 2002). Furthermore, anthropogenic disturbance can negatively impact behaviors such as communication, foraging, and predator detection. For example, when exposed to motorboat noises, fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) failed to respond to chemical alarm cues (Hasan et al., 2018).
Some prey species may respond to anthropogenic disturbance to their habitats similarly to how they respond to predator stimuli and so may suffer similar sub-lethal and stress effects (Frid and Dill, 2002). Unsurprisingly, anthropogenic disturbance is a key driver in biodiversity changes across the world (Chapin et al., 2000; Fontúrbel et al., 2015). Anthropogenic disturbance can lead to reductions in numbers and densities of single species and for MSGs it can also potentially lead to reductions in cross-species interactions (Tylianakis et al., 2010; Valiente-Banuet et al., 2015). Additionally, Van Houtan et al. (2006) found that species that had higher probabilities of joining MSGs in undisturbed habitat were less likely to be found in fragmented areas.
Many studies have focused on the impact of anthropogenic disturbance on single species, but comparatively little work has addressed the influence of anthropogenic disturbance on MSGs. Therefore, a framework is needed to explore how anthropogenic disturbance affects the behavior, composition, and function of MSGs. This brief (and nowhere near comprehensive) review paper aims to start to craft such a framework to stimulate research into these questions. In the sections that follow we highlight key questions that need addressing if we are to gain a greater understanding of associations between anthropogenic disturbance and MSGs in hopes of minimizing the negative effects of the former on the latter.
Are species roles in MSGs influenced by anthropogenic disturbance?
The interdependence of individuals participating in MSGs has often been represented in the description of their roles (Winterbottom, 1943; Munn and Terborgh, 1979; Harrison and Whitehouse, 2011). There are two common terms used for individual species within the group: nuclear and satellite. Nuclear (often, leader) species are those that are central to the formation of the group largely because of their frequent signaling behavior that alerts flock members to predators and potentially to food resources (Goodale et al., 2017). Often, MSGs contain more than one nuclear species that may differ in their behaviors (Harrison and Whitehouse, 2011). Farley et al. (2008) found that tufted titmice in MSGs were more likely to be passive nuclear species, where their movements define flock paths, whereas birds like blue-gray gnatcatchers (Polioptila caerulea) and ruby crowned kinglets (Regulus calendula) possibly served as active nuclear species, deliberately seeking out other species. The other major category of species in MSGs are satellite (often, follower) species, those that are attracted to the presence, and take advantage, of nuclear species. Unlike nuclear species, satellite species do not actively behave in ways to form or maintain MSGs.
Whereas there are typically set nuclear/satellite roles for each species within an MSG, these can change with environmental variation. For instance, in a study of tropical forest bird communities, Mangini et al. (2022) found 35 different species that behaved like leader species with many switching between the leader and follower roles based on the flock composition (role reversals: see Zhou et al., 2019 for another avian MSG example). Goodale et al. (2015) found that habitat disturbance was associated with fewer individuals and diminished species richness in avian MSGs - including nuclear species - as well as decreased likelihood of MSG presence. Thus, changes in the physical environment of species, such as anthropogenic disturbance, can influence the presence and numbers of certain species, altering the size and composition of MSGs. To what extent does anthropogenic disturbance affect nuclear and satellite species differently? What are the fitness consequences of role reversals, if they occur, in such disturbed environments?
Nuclear species are often considered ‘keystone’ species in an ecosystem (Simberloff, 1998; Caro and Girling, 2010). In disturbed or fragmented habitats, the presence of these species can be associated with a wider range of habitat use by satellite species (Sieving et al., 2004) and perhaps better condition of satellite species (Dolby and Grubb, 1998). Some nuclear species may be more tolerant of anthropogenic disturbance but if they are negatively impacted by such disturbance the result may be diminishment or loss of the associated MSGs (Mammides et al., 2015). Are conservation efforts aimed at protecting nuclear species more effective at maintaining robust MSGs (and overall greater species richness) than efforts aimed at protecting potentially rare satellite species? This question has been answered in the affirmative for nesting fish assemblages (Peoples and Frimpong, 2013) but additional research is required.
Do different types of anthropogenic disturbance have different effects on MSGs?
The effects of urbanization can cause both biotic and abiotic changes to the ecosystem, such as impoverishment of natural habitats, increases in the diversity and intensity of different channels of noise, fragmentation, and destruction (Morelli et al., 2023). Zou et al. (2018) found that in habitats with high human disruption, there was a decline in avian MSG composition. Furthermore, some nuclear species are more sensitive to disturbance (Zou et al., 2018), particularly if the species are inherently highly gregarious (Martínez et al., 2024), and this may exacerbate the negative impacts of anthropogenic disturbances and lead to reduced MSG size. One major anthropogenic disturbance is habitat fragmentation, the process by which a large expanse of habitat is transformed into patches of a smaller total area, with patches isolated from each other by a matrix of habitats unlike the original (Wilcove et al., 1986). Habitat fragmentation is common in many ecosystems and increases discontinuity in the spatial patterning of resource availability, which can cause changes in individual fitness (Hagen et al., 2012) and negatively influence individuals’ interactions with other species (Quiles and Barrientos, 2024). Many species living in areas that are impacted by urban fragmentation undergo reductions in their spatial distribution (Hagen et al., 2012).
Habitat fragmentation due to agricultural practices has been shown to constrain individual movement in crested mangabeys (Cercocebus galeritus; Kinnaird and O’Brien, 2000). Conversely, mixed-species groups of tamarin monkeys and marmosets were found to move together more often in areas of fragmentation (Tisovec et al., 2014; see also Martínez et al., 2023 for an avian example), suggesting a resiliency in MSGs that we touch on further in the penultimate section below. A summary of over 20 published studies found that fragmentation and intensity of land use were typically associated with lower species richness and number of individuals, as well as diminished likelihood of individuals being in MSGs (Goodale et al., 2017). However, two of those studies found a positive association between anthropogenic disturbance and species richness in MSGs (Péron and Crochet, 2009; Mokross et al., 2014). Both studies (one in the Democratic Republic of Congo and one in Brazil) were conducted in areas of alteration and fragmentation to rainforest that produced high rates of edge habitat that perhaps led to the higher overall number of the avian species detected. However, Mokross et al. (2014) used social network approaches to their analyses of MSGs in these habitats and found that actual interactions among different species declined in areas with more disturbed habitat.
In most cases, extensive habitat loss has a detrimental effect on individual numbers and that influence is particularly strong if the lost habitat is higher in quality (Sidhu et al., 2010). Avian MSGs in forested habitats tend to be more consistent in membership and tend to have more stable home ranges and territories in comparison to avian MSGs in more open habitat like grasslands (Terborgh, 1990). Greater stability in place and membership should create greater possibilities for mutual benefits of group members through social learning processes and pro-social behavior. Do areas with increased fragmentation result in less spatially and temporally stable MSGs? Additionally, research suggests that group composition and likelihood to form MSGs are contingent on the specific types of habitat, alteration to habitat, and successional complexity (see Stouffer and Bierregaard, 1995; Knowlton and Graham, 2011; Colorado Zuluaga and Rodewald, 2015). Some habitat types may be more sensitive to the effects of anthropogenic disturbance (such as the presence of roads: Kroeger et al., 2022) and so prioritizing conservation efforts of these areas may be crucial to maintain group persistence in MSGs. To what extent does the specific type of habitat undergoing fragmentation affect MSG sensitivity to that disturbance?
We would expect habitat fragmentation, but not necessarily increased levels of anthropogenic noise, to make MSG membership less consistent and territories less stable, though this possibility awaits testing (see Fort and Otter, 2004 for a single species study). Anthropogenic noise can be defined as human-generated acoustic stimuli that result in changes in soundscapes both due to an increase in sound levels and the addition of sounds that are different from those arising from natural sources (McDonald et al., 2006; Watts et al., 2007; Herbert-Read et al., 2017). Anthropogenic noise can have negative consequences for individuals in terms of both behavior and physiology. For example, such noise has been associated with a wide array of negative consequences like higher levels of stress (Anderson et al., 2011), increased vigilance (Matyjasiak et al., 2024), decreased responses to fitness-related signals like alarm or mobbing calls (Herbert-Read et al., 2017), and diminished foraging efficiency (Willems et al., 2022).
Jung et al. (2020) found that in areas with higher background noise compared to lower background noise, both tufted titmice (Baeolophus bicolor) and white-breasted nuthatches (Sitta carolinensis) called less in response to playbacks of a simulated approaching avian predator. Grade and Sieving (2016) reported that in low levels of traffic noise, northern cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis) displayed predator avoidance in response to alarm calls of tufted titmice, but in high levels of traffic noise cardinals were less likely to show predator avoidance. Both studies suggest a masking effect of human-caused noise. A potential solution to masking by traffic noise is for individuals to maintain closer proximity to one another to increase the relative intensity of the signal compared to the noise. A study with captive flocks of tufted titmice found support for this idea (Owens et al., 2012), but we do not know if individuals in MSGs maintain closer proximity in contexts of higher levels of noise. Do higher levels of anthropogenic noise drive closer proximities among individuals in MSGs, potentially affecting social networks and stability of MSGs? As an added complication, predators themselves may abandon areas or hunt in them less often if those areas are exposed to sufficient levels of noise and other disturbance (Schueck et al., 2001). Perhaps in some systems the costs imposed on individuals in MSGs by anthropogenic disturbance are somewhat offset by benefits of reduced predation intensity.
How does species richness relate to MSGs and how does anthropogenic disturbance influence that relationship?
In areas of minimal habitat fragmentation, the species richness detected may predict species presence in MSGs, but this species richness may not be associated with MSG composition in areas of greater fragmentation (Brandt et al., 2009; Mokross et al., 2014). As mentioned above, there is relatively limited research focused on effects of anthropogenic disturbance on multiple species at a time, and of those studies, most use species richness as the key metric (Ibáñez-Álamo et al., 2020). Although this is essential information to know, we believe we also need to focus on the impact of anthropogenic disturbance on the behavior and interactions of individuals in MSGs. It is widely known that anthropogenic disturbance regularly impairs communication within single species (Jung et al, 2020; Halfwerk and Jerem, 2021; Tilgar et al., 2022). Although heterospecific communication is common, the extent to which anthropogenic disturbance impacts receiver detection of signals and cues of heterospecifics is little known. Does anthropogenic disturbance influence the relationship between local species diversity and membership in MSGs? Are species less able to respond adaptively to the signals and cues of other species in MSGs in conditions of such disturbance?
As mentioned avove, individuals in MSGs can benefit from being in those groups in terms of avoiding predation and finding food (Goodale et al., 2017). There is some recent evidence that individuals in more diverse MSGs can particularly benefit (Freeberg et al., 2017, 2024). These benefits of MSG diversity may stem from the groups’ larger perceptual and cognitive ‘toolkits’ (e.g., the “Diversity Bonus” of Page, 2017), though this possibility awaits testing. If true, these larger ‘toolkits’ should result in these groups – particularly if they are stable in space and time – being more robust and resilient and perhaps better able to function in anthropogenic disturbance. Are more diverse MSGs (whether based on species richness or feeding guild diversity or some other metric of diversity) better able to persist in areas of anthropogenic disturbance?
Readers will likely have noticed that many of the examples we have provided here come from work on avian species. This bird-centrism is largely because this is where much of the work on anthropogenic disturbance and MSGs has focused (Goodale et al., 2017). We do believe that more work is needed in avian systems but stress the need for much more work in non-avian systems.
Can we move into experimental studies of these questions?
Once an area has been impacted by anthropogenic disturbance, are there additional manipulations that can lessen the negative impacts on MSGs? Noise mitigation through artificial sound barriers or plantings of sound-dampening species near major roadways can help (Nilsson et al., 2008). Even small forest plots in seas of agricultural fields can support persistence of MSGs in some areas (Russo et al., 2023). In areas of forest fragmentation, the planting of fencerows or hedgerows can increase movement of certain species from one fragment to another (Gillies and St Clair, 2008) and if those species are nuclear species, this manipulation could potentially increase movement of other species in MSGs (Sieving et al., 2004). Experimental work on efforts to remediate anthropogenic disturbance is needed to assess potential benefits to MSGs.
Beyond that request for a specific type of experimental work, a final concluding remark is simply that more experimental science is needed on associations between anthropogenic disturbance and MSGs. There is a small but growing body of literature on the influences of anthropogenic disturbance on MSGs and we are now in a position where we should start more experimental testing to get at questions of causation. For example, how do the presence, composition, and networks of different species in an MSG differ in the context of experimental manipulations of traffic noise or habitat structure or density? While the body of literature on this is small, the studies that have used such methods in their exploration of these topics have been crucial to our understanding of how sensitive MSGs are to habitat degradation. Increased experimental research on these questions could be essential for developing conservation methods for both MSGs and the species that depend on them.
Concluding remarks
The last few decades of research have made clear the largely negative impacts of human activity on the presence and number of individuals of different species in affected habitat. Increasingly, this research has addressed how different kinds of anthropogenic disturbance are associated with the presence and number of species in MSGs in affected habitat. Fundamental questions remain, however. In this brief review, we hope we have raised a sufficient ‘call-to-arms’ to generate increased research into key topics raised here. Boiled down to essentials, we believe increased research efforts devoted to the following could transform our understanding of the relationship between anthropogenic disturbance and MSGs:
– the extent to which species roles in MSGs change in anthropogenic disturbance.
– the roles of different types of anthropogenetic disturbance on MSG presence and composition.
– the extent to which anthropogenic disturbance affects the relationship between species richness and species presence in MSGs.
– experimental manipulations of disturbance (including habitat repair) to test impacts on MSGs.
Author contributions
EF: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Writing – original draft. TF: Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization.
Funding
The authors declare that no financial support was received for the research, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The authors declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Anderson P. A., Berzins I. K., Fogarty F., Hamlin H. J., and Guillette L. J. (2011). Sound, stress, and seahorses: the consequences of a noisy environment to Animal Health. Aquaculture 311, 129–138. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.11.013
Bennett P. M. and Owens I. P. F. (2002). Evolutionary ecology of birds: life histories, mating systems, and extinction (Oxford University Press: Oxford).
Brandt C. S., Hasenack H., Laps R. R., and Hartz S. M. (2009). Composition of mixed-species bird flocks in forest fragments of southern Brazil. Zoologia 26, 488–498. doi: 10.1590/s198446702009000300013
Carlson N. V., Freeberg T. M., Goodale E., and Theo A. H. (2023). Mixed-species groups and aggregations: shaping ecological and behavioural patterns and processes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B 378, 20220093. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2022.0093
Caro T. M. and Girling S. (2010). Conservation by proxy: indicator, umbrella, keystone, flagship, and other surrogate species. (Washington DC: Island Press).
Chapin F. S. III, Zavaleta E. S., Eviner V. T., Naylor R. L., Vitousek P. M., Reynolds H. L., et al. (2000). Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405, 234–242. doi: 10.1038/35012241
Colorado Zuluaga G. J. and Rodewald A. D. (2015). Response of mixed-species flocks to habitat alteration and deforestation in the Andes. Biol. Conserv. 188, 72–81. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.008
Dolby A. S. and Grubb T. C. (1998). Benefits to satellite members in mixed-species foraging groups: an experimental analysis. Anim. Behav. 56, 501–509. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0808
Farley E. A., Sieving K. E., and Contreras T. A. (2008). Characterizing complex mixed-species bird flocks using an objective method for determining species participation. J. Ornithology 149, 451–468. doi: 10.1007/s10336-008-0284-z
FitzGibbon C. D. (1990). Mixed-species grouping in Thomson’s and Grant’s gazelles: the antipredator benefits. Anim. Behav. 40, 837–845. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80784-5
Fontúrbel F. E., Candia A. B., Malebrán J., Salazar D. A., González-Browne C., and Medel R. (2015). Meta-analysis of anthropogenic habitat disturbance effects on animal-mediated seed dispersal. Global Change Biol. 21, 3951–3960. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13025
Fort K. T. and Otter K. A. (2004). Territorial breakdown of black-capped chickadees, Poecile atricapillus, in disturbed habitats? Anim. Behav. 68, 407–415. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.08.023
Freeberg T. M., Adams C. B., Price C. A., and Papeş M. (2024). Mixed-species flock sizes and compositions influence flock members’ success in three field experiments with novel feeders. PloS One 19, e0301270. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301270
Freeberg T. M., Eppert S. K., Sieving K. E., and Lucas J. R. (2017). Diversity in mixed species groups improves success in a novel feeder test in a wild songbird community. Sci. Rep. 7, 43014. doi: 10.1038/srep43014
Frid A. and Dill L. (2002). Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conserv. Ecol. 6, 11. doi: 10.5751/ES-00404-060111
Gillies C. S. and St Clair C. C. (2008). Riparian corridors enhance movement of a forest specialist bird in fragmented tropical forest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sciences U.S.A. 105, 19774–19779. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0803530105
Goodale E., Beauchamp G., and Ruxton G. D. (2017). Mixed-species groups of animals: behavior, community structure, and conservation (London: Academic Press).
Goodale E., Ding P., Liu X., Martínez A., Si X., Walters M., et al. (2015). The structure of mixed-species bird flocks, and their response to anthropogenic disturbance, with special reference to East Asia. Avian Res. 6, 1–11. doi: 10.1186/s40657-015-0023-0
Grade A. M. and Sieving K. E. (2016). When the birds go unheard: highway noise disrupts information transfer between bird species. Biol. Lett. 12, 20160113. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2016.0113
Hagen M., Kissling W. D., Rasmussen C., De Aguiar M. A. M., Brown L. E., Carstensen D. W., et al. (2012). Biodiversity, species interactions and ecological networks in a fragmented world. Adv. Ecol. Res. 46, 89–210. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-396992-7.00002-2
Halfwerk W. and Jerem P. (2021). A systematic review of research investigating the combined ecological impact of anthropogenic noise and artificial light at night. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.765950
Harrison N. M. and Whitehouse M. J. (2011). Mixed-species flocks: an example of niche construction? Anim. Behav. 81, 675–682. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.01.013
Hasan M. R., Crane A. L., Poulin N. P., Ferrari M. C. O., and Chivers D. P. (2018). Altered acoustic environments influence boldness in minnows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 209, 109–113. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.08.020
Herbert-Read J. E., Kremer L., Bruintjes R., Radford A. N., and Ioannou C. C. (2017). Anthropogenic noise pollution from pile-driving disrupts the structure and dynamics of Fish Shoals. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 284, 20171627. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2017.1627
Ibáñez-Álamo J. D., Morelli F., Benedetti Y., Rubio E., Jokimäki J., Pérez-Contreras T., et al. (2020). Biodiversity within the city: Effects of land sharing and land sparing urban development on avian diversity. Sci. Total Environ. 707, 135477. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135477
Jung H., Sherrod A., LeBreux S., Price J. M., and Freeberg T. M. (2020). Traffic noise and responses to a simulated approaching avian predator in mixed-species flocks of chickadees, titmice, and nuthatches. Ethology 126, 620–629. doi: 10.1111/eth.13013
Kinnaird M. F. and O’Brien T. G. (2000). “Comparative movement patterns of two semi-terrestrial Cercopithecene primates: the Tana River crested mangabey and the Sulawesi crested black macaque.,” in On the move: how and why animals travel in groups. Eds. Boinski S. and Garber P. A. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 327–350.
Knowlton J. L. and Graham C. H. (2011). Species interactions are disrupted by habitat degradation in the highly threatened Tumbesian region of Ecuador. Ecol. Appl. 21, 2974–2986. doi: 10.1890/10-1886.1
Kroeger S. B., Hanslin H. M., Lennartsson T., D’Amico M., Kollmann J., Fischer C., et al. (2022). Impacts of roads on bird species richness: a meta-analysis considering road types, habitats, and feeding guilds. Sci. Total Environ. 812, 151478. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151478
Lukoschek V. and McCormick M. I. (2000). A review of multi-species foraging associations in fishes and their ecological significance. In: Proceeding Ninth Int. Coral Reef Symposium Bali Indonesia 1, 467–474.
Mammides C., Chen J., Goodale U. M., Kotagama S. W., Sidhu S., and Goodale E. (2015). Does mixed-species flocking influence how birds respond to land-use intensity? Proc. R. Soc. London B 282, 20151118. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2015.1118
Mangini G. G., Gandoy F. A., Areta J. I., and Blendinger P. G. (2022). Benefits of foraging in mixed-species flocks depend on species role and foraging strategy. Ibis 165, 629–646. doi: 10.1111/ibi.13162
Martínez A. E., Si X., Zhou L., Zeng D., Ding P., and Goodale E. (2023). Interspecific sociality alters the colonization and extinction rates of birds on subtropical reservoir islands. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B 378, 20220096. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2022.0096
Martínez A., Zhou L., Si X., Ding P., and Goodale E. (2024). Island biogeography of mixed-species bird flocks: a gregarious nuclear species influences island area effects. J. Biogeography 51, 1670–1678. doi: 10.1111/jbi.14757
Matyjasiak P., Chacińska P., and Książka P. (2024). Anthropogenic noise interacts with the predation risk assessment in a free-ranging bird. Curr. Zoology 70, 277–283. doi: 10.1093/cz/zoad019
McDonald M. A., Hildebrand J. A., and Wiggins S. M. (2006). Increases in deep ocean ambient noise in the Northeast Pacific west of San Nicolas Island, California. J. Acoustical Soc. America 120, 711–718. doi: 10.1121/1.2216565
Metcalfe C. A., Yaicurima A. Y., and Papworth S. (2022). Observer effects in a remote population of large-headed capuchins, Sapajus macrocephalus. Int. J. Primatology 43, 216–234. doi: 10.1007/s10764-021-00264-w
Mokross K., Ryder T. B., Côrtes M. C., Wolfe J. D., and Stouffer P. C. (2014). Decay of interspecific avian flock networks along a disturbance gradient in Amazonia. Proc. R. Soc. London B 281, 20132599. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.2599
Morelli F., Tryjanowski P., Ibáñez-Álamo J. D., Díaz M., Suhonen J., Pape Møller A., et al. (2023). Effects of light and noise pollution on avian communities of European cities are correlated with the species’ diet. Sci. Rep. 13, 1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-31337-w
Munn C. A. and Terborgh J. W. (1979). Multi-species territoriality in Neotropical foraging flocks. Condor 81, 338. doi: 10.2307/1366956
Nilsson M. E., Andéhn M., and Lesna P. (2008). Evaluating roadside noise barriers using an annoyance-reduction criterion. J. Acoustical Soc. America 124, 3561–3567. doi: 10.1121/1.2997433
Nolen M. T. and Lucas J. R. (2009). Asymmetries in mobbing behaviour and correlated intensity during predator mobbing by nuthatches, chickadees and titmice. Anim. Behav. 77, 1137–1146. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.01.023
Owens J. L., Stec C. L., and O’Hatnick A. (2012). The effects of extended exposure to traffic noise on parid social and risk-taking behavior. Behav. Processes 91, 61–69. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2012.05.010
Page S. E. (2017). The diversity bonus: how great teams pay off in the knowledge economy. (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press).
Peoples B. K. and Frimpong E. A. (2013). Evidence of mutual benefits of nest association among freshwater cyprinids and implications for conservation. Aquat. Conservation: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 23, 911–923. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2361
Péron G. and Crochet P.-A. (2009). Edge effect and structure of mixed-species bird flocks in an Afrotropical lowland forest. J. Ornithology 150, 585–599. doi: 10.1007/s10336-009-0376-4
Quiles P. and Barrientos R. (2024). Interspecific interactions disrupted by roads. Biol. Rev. 99, 1121–1139. doi: 10.1111/brv.13061
Russo D., Maenurm A., Martinoli A., Zotti M., and Cistrone L. (2023). Forest islands in farmland provide vital roost trees year-round for giant and common noctule bats: management implications. For. Ecol. Manage. 540, 121053. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2023.121053
Schueck L. S., Marzluff J. M., and Steenhof K. (2001). Influence of military activities on raptor abundance and behavior. Condor 103, 606–615. doi: 10.1093/condor/103.3.606
Sidhu S., Raman T. R. S., and Goodale E. (2010). Effects of plantations and home-gardens on tropical forest bird communities and mixed-species bird flocks in the southern Western Ghats. J. Bombay Natural History Soc. 107, 91–108.
Sieving K. E., Contreras T. A., and Maute K. L. (2004). Heterospecific facilitation of forest boundary crossing by mobbing understory birds in north-central Florida. Auk 121, 738–751. Available online at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4090311 (Accessed September 1, 2025).
Simberloff D. (1998). Flagships, umbrella, and keystones: is single-species management passé in the landscape era? Biol. Conserv. 83, 247–257. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00081-5
Sridhar H., Beauchamp G., and Shanker K. (2009). Why do birds participate in mixed-species foraging flocks? A large-scale synthesis. Anim. Behav. 78, 337–347. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.05.008
Stensland E., Angerbjörn A., and Berggen P. (2003). Mixed species groups in mammals. Mammal Rev. 33, 205–223. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2907.2003.00022.x
Stouffer P. C. and Bierregaard R. O. Jr. (1995). Use of Amazonian forest fragments by understory insectivorous birds. Ecology 76, 2429–2445. doi: 10.2307/2265818
Sullivan K. A. (1984). Information exploitation by downy woodpeckers in mixed-species flocks. Behaviour 91, 294–311. doi: 10.1163/156853984X00128
Terborgh J. (1990). Mixed flock and polyspecific associations: costs and benefits of mixed groups to birds and monkeys. Am. J. Primatology 21, 87–100. doi: 10.1002/ajp.1350210203
Tilgar V., Hein K., and Viigipuu R. (2022). Anthropogenic noise alters the perception of a predator in a local community of great tits. Anim. Behav. 189, 91–99. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2022.05.001
Tisovec K. C., Cassano C. R., Boubli J. P., and Pardini R. (2014). Mixed-species groups of marmosets and tamarins across a gradient of agroforestry intensification. Biotropica 46, 248–255. doi: 10.1111/btp.12098
Tylianakis J. M., Laliberté E., Nielsen A., and Bascompte J. (2010). Conservation of species interaction networks. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2270–2279. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.12.004
Valiente-Banuet A., Aizen M. A., Alcántara J. M., Arroyo J., Cocucci A., Galetti M., et al. (2015). Beyond species loss: the extinction of ecological interactions in a changing world. Funct. Ecol. 29, 299–307. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12356
Van Houtan K. S., Pimm S. L., Bierregaard R. O. Jr., Lovejoy T. E., and Stouffer P. C. (2006). Local extinctions in flocking birds in Amazonian forest fragments. Evolutionary Ecol. Res. 8, 129–148.
Watts R. D., Compton R. W., McCammon J. H., Rich C. L., Wright S. M., Owens T., et al. (2007). Roadless space of the conterminous United States. Science 316, 736–738. doi: 10.1126/science.1138141
Wilcove D. S., McLellan C. H., and Dobson A. P. (1986). “Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone,” in Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Ed. Soulé M. E. (Sunderland Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates Inc.), 237–256.
Willems J. S., Phillips J. N., and Francis C. D. (2022). Artificial light at night and anthropogenic noise alter the foraging activity and structure of vertebrate communities. Sci. Total Environ. 805, 150223. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150223
Winterbottom J. M. (1943). On woodland bird parties in Northern Rhodesia. Ibis 85, 437–442. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919x.1943.tb03857.x
Wolters S. and Zuberbühler K. (2003). Mixed-species associations of Diana and Campbell’s monkeys: the costs and benefits of a forest phenomenon. Behaviour 140, 371–385. doi: 10.1163/156853903321826684
Zhou L., Peabotuwage I., Gu H., Jiang D., Hu G., Jiang A., et al. (2019). The response of mixed-species bird flocks to anthropogenic disturbance and elevational variation in southwest China. Condor 121, 1–13. doi: 10.1093/condor/duz028
Keywords: anthropogenic disturbance, mixed-species groups, habitat fragmentation, noise, species interactions, species richness
Citation: Frazier EK and Freeberg TM (2025) Anthropogenic disturbance and mixed-species groups. Front. Ecol. Evol. 13:1624615. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2025.1624615
Received: 07 May 2025; Accepted: 18 September 2025;
Published: 06 October 2025.
Edited by:
Steven Petersen, Brigham Young University, United StatesReviewed by:
Margarida Barcelo-Serra, Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies, SloveniaCopyright © 2025 Frazier and Freeberg. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Todd M. Freeberg, dGZyZWViZXJAdXRrLmVkdQ==