PERSPECTIVE The silence of biogeographyMark V. Lomolino1*, Bryan C. Pijanowski2 and Amandine Gasc2
1Department of Environmental and Foresty
Biology, College of Environmental Science and
Forestry, Syracuse, NY 13031, USA,2Department of Forestry and Natural
Resources, and Center for Global
Soundscapes, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN 47906, USA
*Correspondence: Mark V. Lomolino, College
of Environmental Science and Forestry,
Syracuse, NY 13031, USA.
E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Modern biogeography now encompasses an impressive diversity of patterns
and phenomena of the geography of nature, providing insights fundamental to
understanding the forces influencing the spatial and temporal dynamics of bio-
logical diversity. However, rather than praise our discipline for its great breadth
of visions, our purpose here is to point out our glaring oversight of a poten-
tially transformative frontier in the geography of nature. A new, emerging area
called soundscape ecology, if guided by the principles of biogeography, holds
the promise of ‘opening the ears’ of our field and providing fresh perspectives
on fundamental problems being addressed by biogeographers.
Keywords
Acoustics, bioacoustics, biogeography, ecology, soundscape ecology, von
Humboldt.
INTRODUCTION
Biogeography is the study of geographical variation in all
biological traits and entities and, from the early classics of
Alexander von Humboldt, Charles Darwin and Alfred Rus-
sel Wallace, biogeographers have explored a marvellous
diversity of the patterns in nature – from local to global
scales. Alexander von Humboldt’s contributions, in particu-
lar the narrative account of his explorations to the Canary
Islands and the New World tropics (1852) and his classic,
comprehensive Essay on the Geography of Plants (von Hum-
boldt & Bonpland, 1807), not only inspired Darwin and
Wallace and generations of others to become naturalists,
but also served as exemplars of holistic approaches to
exploring the geography of nature. The Essay on the Geogra-
phy of Plants included his Tableau Physique which, in addi-
tion to detailing the distributions of plants and animals
along the slopes of Mount Chimborazo (6268 m), describes
elevational variation in air temperature, chemical composi-
tion of the atmosphere, its electrical tension, barometric
pressure, temperature at boiling point, gravity, azureness of
the sky, light intensity, horizontal refractions of the light,
the limits of perpetual snow, geological phenomena, and
cultivation of the soil (i.e. for grazing by domesticated ani-
mals or for crops such as potatoes, barley, wheat, cotton,
corn, sugar or coffee).
Although we can think of no other single work that is as
holistic and eclectic as von Humboldt’s Essay on the Geogra-
phy of Plants and its Tableau Physique, the collective interests
of modern biogeographers have of course expanded to
include an even greater diversity of biotic variables – ranging
from genetic, physiological and morphological traits of indi-
viduals, to the characteristics of entire communities and
regional to continental (whole ocean) scale biotas. Our pur-
pose here, however, is not to praise our modern discipline
for all its insights and breadth of visions, but to point out
our glaring oversight of a potentially transformative frontier
in the geography of nature. The ‘silence of biogeography’
that we allude to in our title refers to the surprising paucity
of studies on the geographical variation of sound. This
neglect of the acoustic character of the environment, at least
in hindsight, is striking given that we, as mammals, are dis-
tinguished by relatively acute hearing and, as humans, by
our highly developed cultural traditions, which are often
based on natural and anthropogenic sounds.
Here, we first provide an account of an exception to the
silence of biogeography, one provided again in von Hum-
boldt’s narrative of his voyages along the Orinoco River of
South America. We then summarize the very limited atten-
tion sound has garnered from modern biogeographers before
describing how we may advance our science in synergy with
an emerging discipline – soundscape ecology. We believe, of
course, that this synergy will be mutualistic. That is, not only
can soundscape ecologists offer tools and methodologies for
objectively describing acoustic features of the natural world,
but it is just as likely that soundscape ecology can gain key
insights by applying the principles and often powerful, infer-
ential approaches of biogeography.
ª 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jbi 1doi:10.1111/jbi.12525
Journal of Biogeography (J. Biogeogr.) (2015)
VON HUMBOLDT’S PARROT AND THE
DISTINCTIVENESS OF PLACE
This account has been described elsewhere (Lomolino, 2010),
but it bears repeating here given its relevance to the geogra-
phy of sound and, in particular, to biogeography’s first and
most fundamental principle – the biological distinctiveness
of place (Buffon’s law; see Lomolino et al., 2010).
At the period of our voyage an old parrot was shown at
Maypures, of which the inhabitants said, and the fact is worthy
of observation, that they did not understand what it said, because
it spoke the language of the [now extinct tribe] Atures.
von Humboldt (1852, p. 620)
von Humboldt meticulously recorded the phonetic
descriptions of the Ature phrases spoken by this old parrot
and, in so doing, preserved at least a few precious features of
the distinctiveness of a lost people and of a place as well.
This lesson speaks to a fundamental theme that is com-
mon to biogeography, anthropology and many related disci-
plines – that evolution (natural or cultural) occurs not just
over time but across space as well, and some of the strongest
evidence for this is preserved in the distinctiveness of place.
Buffon appears to be the first to articulate this for biogeogra-
phers (then simply called ‘naturalists’ or ‘geologists’) during
the 18th century when he described the distinctiveness of
mammals from the New and the Old World tropics (Buffon,
1761). What later became known as Buffon’s law has now
been generalized to describe the distinctiveness of biotas (i.e.
endemic species, genera or families) from different regions,
even those with similar environmental conditions. It is, in
turn, these endemics that can be used to reconstruct the his-
torical development of those regional biotas.
The concept of distinctiveness of place applies to cultural
features, including anthropogenic sounds and sites (Smith &
Pijanowski, 2014), as much as it does to biotic features and
the loss of endemic species. After visiting the area where she
grew up near Oakland, California, Gertrude Stein lamented
that it had lost its defining character:
of rain and wind, of hunting, of cows and dogs and horses, of
chopping wood, of making hay, of dreaming, of lying in a hollow
all warm with the sun shining while the wind was howling . . .
what was the use of my having come from Oakland, it was not
natural to have come from there, yes write about it if I like or
anything if I like but not there, there is no there there.
Stein (1937, p. 289)
The distinctiveness of place and the need to conserve it is
also a theme central to conservation biology. Along with
Aldo Leopold’s (1949) Sand County Almanac, Rachel Car-
son’s (1962) Silent Spring was a watershed wakeup ‘call to
arms’ for the conservationist movement. Here, she warned
us about the devastating effects of pesticides on native spe-
cies of birds and other wildlife. But it is not only that we
experienced a silence in the loss of ivory-billed woodpeckers
(Campephilus principalis), Carolina parakeets (Conuropsis car-
olinensis) and scores of other birds and other vertebrates and
invertebrates whose voices once defined our native land-
scapes, but we are left with, or have created, soundscapes
that are increasingly more homogenized (Schafer, 1993; Kra-
use, 1999; Joo et al., 2011). And this was also anticipated by
Carson who, in her classic book, recounted the lament of a
Wisconsin naturalist who reported that ‘[w]rens, robins, cat-
birds and screech owls have nested each year in our garden.
There are none now. . . . Only pest birds, pigeons, starlings
and English sparrows remain. It is tragic and I can’t bear it’
(Carson 1960, p. 112). These ‘pest birds’ are the same ones
that can be seen and heard in most cities and towns across
the USA, much of Europe, and other developed countries as
well. This homogenization of nature results from anthropo-
genic transformations of natural landscapes, introductions of
a limited collection of commensal species, and extinctions of
the endemics that once distinguished the biota of a particular
place from other places (Lockwood & McKinney, 2001).
Moreover, the impacts of some anthropogenic sounds – or
noise – are well documented for a variety of organisms
across terrestrial and marine habitats (Sun & Narins, 2005;
Codarin et al., 2009; Hu & Cardoso, 2010; Francis et al.,
2011, 2012; Chan & Blumstein, 2012; Melc�on et al., 2012;
McClure et al., 2013).
BIOACOUSTICS AND SOUNDSCAPE ECOLOGY
Biogeographers can draw on two acoustically centric views of
nature – the traditional field of bioacoustics and the emerging
field of soundscape ecology. Bioacoustics (cf. Bradbury & Ve-
hrencamp, 2011) encompasses the topics of animal vocaliza-
tion, signal production, hearing and sound perception,
recording techniques, sound propagation and noise interfer-
ence. Bioacoustics is a subarea of research that can broadly be
defined as animal communication. Research in bioacoustics
has been carried out since the early 1900s (e.g. Yerkes, 1905;
Shepard, 1911, 1912; Lashley, 1913; Greene, 1924; Bierens de
Haan, 1929; Myers, 1929; Burkenroad, 1931) and has focused
on attempts to determine the purpose and methods of com-
munication principally in mammals, birds, fish, reptiles,
amphibians and insects. This research initially grew out of the
fields of psychology and animal behaviour. Much subsequent
work has focused on a variety of aspects of bioacoustics such
as neurobiology (Konishi, 1969; Williams & Nottenbohm,
1985), energetics (e.g. Wells & Taigen, 1986), anatomical fea-
tures of sound production (e.g. Alexander, 1959; Nowicki,
1987; Goller & Daley, 2001), learning (Kroodsma, 1976; Marler
& Peter, 1981; Nelson, 2000), structure of complex songs of ani-
mals (especially marine mammals; Payne & McVay, 1971; Clark
& Clark, 1980; Parks et al., 2013), and acoustic niche separation
(Ficken et al., 1974; Sueur et al., 2008a,b, 2012). Recently, how-
ever, bioacoustics studies have begun to expand into the geogra-
phy of sound, either as the spatial arrangement of animal
sounds or as sound propagation over space as it relates to habi-
tat (e.g. see Lobel, 2002; Laiolo & Tella, 2006; Laiolo, 2008; Vie-
ites et al., 2009).
Just as conservation biologists attempt to conserve ende-
mic species in the face of anthropogenic and natural
Journal of Biogeographyª 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
2
M. V. Lomolino et al.
challenges, soundscape ecologists strive to describe and
archive the acoustic distinctiveness of place (Pijanowski
et al., 2011a,b; Farina, 2014). Soundscape refers to the collec-
tion of sounds – biological, geophysical and anthropogenic –that emanate from and characterize a particular landscape.
Soundscapes, thus, can be distinguished at the simplest level
by the production of particular sounds characterized by spe-
cific frequencies and amplitudes of waves travelling through
air and perceived by organisms (Farina & Morri, 2011; Far-
ina, 2014). In nature, sound qualities are described using a
complex combination of acoustic and musical attributes,
including harmonics, spectral envelope, rise and decay time,
vibrato (frequency modulation), tremolo (amplitude modu-
lation), attack (initial sound), timbre (tonal quality or colour
of a sound) and final sound (Truax, 2001). Finally, these
complex sounds (analogous to distinct musical instruments)
combine over time and space into a natural orchestration of
sounds to form the entire soundscape (Krause, 2012). The
arrangement of all biological sounds are referred to as bio-
phony, while those from the geophysical sources – which
include the movement of fluids (air and wind), and changes
in energy, such as thunder – are geophonies. All sounds pro-
duced by humans have been termed anthrophony, and the
subset of those sounds produced by machines constitutes
technophony (Qi et al., 2008). Soundscape ecologists,
through these various perspectives, study spatial and tempo-
ral variation in complex acoustic environments and the
underlying causal explanations for those patterns, including
the effects of human activities and natural ecological and
evolutionary processes (see also R€omer & Bailey, 1986;
Gogala & Riede, 1995; Pijanowski et al., 2011b).
Soundscape ecologists utilize a variety of technologies to
record and analyse sounds and their patterns of variation
over time and space. We refer readers to Villanueva-Rivera
et al. (2011) and Farina (2014) for summaries of the tools
useful for soundscape analysis, Obrist et al. (2010) for an
overview of bioacoustics approaches in biological inventories,
and Sueur et al. (2014) for a technical review of acoustic
diversity indices that can be applied in the context of sound-
scape studies. These new advances in technology, with the
miniaturization of acoustic sensors and abilities to store and
analyse massive amounts of data, have created opportunities
for integrating data from long-term acoustic recording into
studies of animal communication, climate change and bioge-
ography.
FROM SILENCE TO SYNERGIES
We may assume that biogeographers appreciate the sounds
of nature as much as other natural scientists and, indeed, we
have often used sound to help determine occurrence, relative
densities and behavioural activities of a great variety of spe-
cies (in particular, insects, frogs and toads, bats and birds in
the terrestrial environment, and whales and related species of
mammals in the marine realm). Seldom, however, have we
focused on sound and its geographical variation as a subject
worthy of study in its own right. Reviews of the leading jour-
nals and texts in the field will bear this out. For example, a
review of abstracts from the Journal of Biogeography from
2013 to 2014 (including over 250 papers) reveals that only
three papers specifically use sound, and two of these employ
sound as a surrogate method for species survey. A search of
the issues of this journal from 1996 to 2013 (about 2500
papers spanning 181 issues and over 32,000 pages) finds the
word ‘acoustic’ used in only 33 (1.3%) papers, and only 16
of these use it as a trait of interest. Similarly, a search of the
4th edition of the text Biogeography by Lomolino et al.
(2010) shows that the term ‘acoustic’ is not used at all, and
the term ‘sound’ is used just once (in relation to geographi-
cal variation in ear length). Although our searches were lim-
ited to just these sources, we believe they will be
representative for the body of publications across the disci-
pline of biogeography. On the other hand, we acknowledge
the likelihood that journals in other fields may feature more
frequent focus on the sounds of nature. Our assertion, how-
ever, is that much is to be gained by putting sound into an
explicit geographical context, and on this front biogeogra-
phers have regrettably remained almost silent.
Why then the neglect of the geography of sound? We
believe the simplest and most logical answer is that, up until
relatively recent times, the technologies for objectively
recording and describing sound were either not available or
known to only a small fraction of biogeographers and ecolo-
gists. Fortunately, this is changing, thanks to the efforts of
scientists who are defining and advancing the frontiers of
soundscape ecology and actively seeking collaborations and
synergies with other disciplines, including landscape ecology
and biogeography (see Servick, 2014). Perhaps foremost
among these technological advances is the development of
equipment to automatically record sounds at a broad range
of frequencies (subsonic to ultrasonic, c. 1 Hz to c. 184 kHz,
including those generated by the geophysical, biological and
anthropogenic sources). These acoustic recordings can be
manually or remotely downloaded and transformed in differ-
ent objects easily analysable (i.e. the oscillogram, spectrogram
or mean spectrum), utilizing a variety of specialized software
packages to characterize soundscapes based on the features
of sound described earlier (see primer on acoustic analysis of
soundscapes by Villanueva-Rivera et al., 2011; see also Sueur
et al., 2008a,b; Kasten et al., 2010; Depraetere et al., 2012;
Gasc et al., 2013a,b).
MOVING FORWARD
We see great potential for making fundamental and perhaps
transformative insights by utilizing these technologies and
basic concepts of soundscape ecology to expand the empiri-
cal and conceptual spectra of our research to study sound,
not just as a surrogate indicator of the occurrence and activ-
ity of particular species, but as an important and integral fea-
ture of the natural world. Biogeography can, in turn, provide
the strategic geographical design for studies of soundscapes –
Journal of Biogeographyª 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
3
The silence of biogeography
i.e. strategies for locating acoustic recorders along the princi-
pal geographical gradients including those of latitude, eleva-
tion, depth, area and isolation. In addition, we anticipate
some creative but well-reasoned applications of the biogeog-
raphers’ and macroecologists’ toolkit, including strategies for
processing huge, geo-referenced databases and statistical
approaches for gradients analyses or those for determining
the distinctiveness and similarity among soundscapes.
Central to this work will be the visualization and analysis
of soundscape recordings taken in representative ecosystems
around the world. Accomplishing this will require the use of
some of the soundscape ecologists’ tools, much of which
focuses on the concept of a spectrogram. Spectrograms dis-
play acoustic frequency on the y-axis, time on the x-axis and
the amplitude of sound is shown using a colour ramp. The
spectrogram of Fig. 1 represents a 1-min recording from a
wetland in Indiana at night in May of 2008. The large
amount of activity occurring in the 3–4 kHz range is created
by spring peepers (Pseudacris crucifer). Sounds produced by
other frogs (e.g. green frogs, Rana clamitans, and the Ameri-
can bullfrog, Lithobates catesbeianus) and by a few birds are
also depicted in this spectrogram, along with those of road
noise from a nearby highway.
The requisite for this becoming part of the biogeographer’s
domain, however, is the need to place acoustic variation
within an explicit geographical context. There are several
ways to accomplish this, and ongoing soundscape ecological
studies using automated acoustic sensor recordings are pav-
ing the way for biogeographical inquiry. One of the authors
is leading a large-scale, long-term project entitled, the Van-
ishing Soundscapes Project (http://centerforglobalsound-
scapes.org/vsp.php), where acoustic data for representative
ecosystems around the world are being collected and analy-
sed in the context of the geography of sound (Fig. 2a). Con-
tinuous acoustic recordings for the subarctic, temperate
forests, estuaries, Sonoran Desert, grasslands/steppes, Neo-
tropical forests and the Palaeotropical forests are being used
to assess how these soundscapes vary in three key dimen-
sions: acoustic composition, spatial variability and temporal
dynamics. A variety of metrics (e.g. Farina, 2014; Sueur
et al., 2014) are being employed that quantify soundscape
composition and characterize dynamics. Many soundscape
metrics are based on traditional measures of species diversity
in ecology. For example, indices of acoustic diversity [based
on the Shannon index (Shannon, 1948; Shannon & Weaver,
1949)] and evenness [employing a Gini (1912) coefficient of
evenness] can be estimated by first discretizing a sound file
into 10 or more frequency bands between 1 to 20 kHz, and
then calculating these metrics using the proportion of acous-
tic activity in each band. Figure 2b shows several examples
of the acoustic diversity index (see Villanueva-Rivera et al.,
2011 for details), in this case for four of the biomes that are
part of the Vanishing Soundscapes Project. This index was
calculated for 10-min recordings that started at the top of
the hour for a 24-h period (acoustic data were recorded with
a 44.1 kHz sampling rate). Note that the subarctic boreal
forest (Denali, Alaska), temperate forest (Tippecanoe County,
Indiana), Neotropical forest (La Selva, Costa Rica) and Pal-
aeotropical forest (Kuala Belalong Forest Reserve, Borneo) all
vary in levels of acoustic evenness through time (1 = acoustic
activity occurs in only one frequency band; 0 = acoustic
activity is spread evenly across all frequency bands). The sub-
arctic and the temperate forests exhibit opposite trends, with
the subarctic site having the most even distribution of
sounds across acoustic frequencies during the midday, while
temperate forests have the most evenness at night. The tropi-
cal forests vary less across the day, although inter-hour vari-
ability appears to be greater for Borneo than for Costa Rica.
The examples above represent only a small subset of the
opportunities to conduct near continuous, long-term studies
across large areas and along the principal biogeographical
gradients. One especially powerful approach employed in the
classic biogeographical literature is the use of montane, ele-
vational gradients to study broad-scale biogeographical pat-
terns in conveniently small study areas (e.g. von Humboldt
& Bonpland, 1807; Whittaker & Niering, 1965; see Lomolino
Freq
uenc
y (k
Hz)
0 30 60Time (s)
Band 10
Band 9
Band 8
Band 7
Band 6
Band 5
Band 4
Band 3
Band 2
Band 1
Amplitude(dBFS)
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
10
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 1 A spectrogram illustratingvariation in frequency (pitch; y-axis) and
amplitude (intensity or volume; colour keyon right) during a one-minute recording of
a wetland in Indiana, USA, at night duringMay 2008. Note that this spectrogram is
dominated by the biophonies (soundsgenerated by species) of chorusing frogs
(Band 4) and, to a lesser degree, of toads(Band 2), with harmonics (sounds produced
at multiples of the primary frequency of asound) evident in Bands 5 and 7. Road
noise from a nearby highway is audible inthe very low frequencies (Band 1) (after
Villanueva-Rivera et al., 2011).
Journal of Biogeographyª 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
4
M. V. Lomolino et al.
et al., 2010; fig. 3.21 for von Humboldt’s classic Tableau
Physique of elevational gradients in the Andes). The spectro-
grams from research started in early 2013 by Pijanowski and
his students in the Chiricahua Sky Islands of the Sonoran
Desert (Fig. 2c) show dramatic differences in acoustic pat-
terns between life zones for the same day and time (2 May
2014 at 05:00 h local time). In the morning, sounds from
the oak–pine life zone are dominated by birds that warble,
with acoustic activity spread across a range of frequencies;
those of an oak–chaparral are dominated birds that possess
complex whistles intermixed with distinct simple notes, but
their sounds are limited to a small range of acoustic frequen-
cies. In comparison, the hot desert is relatively silent.
We anticipate many additional, creative means to visualize
spatial variation of acoustic measures at local to global scales,
including integrating maps of acoustic parameters (in shad-
ing or colour) onto three-dimensional relief maps or vegeta-
tion structural maps produced by other remote-sensing
technologies. Soundscape metrics, such as the acoustic diver-
sity index (Villanueva-Rivera et al., 2011), have been used to
correlate acoustic frequency band diversity (top map,
Fig. 2d) with vegetation structural complexity at La Selva
Biological Station (Costa Rica), following MacArthur &
MacArthur’s (1961) classic work on the relationship between
faunal diversity and vegetation structure (MacArthur, 1964).
The Pekin et al. (2012) study accomplished this by compar-
ing long-term acoustic recording data with vegetation struc-
tural complexity metrics calculated from LiDAR (light
detection and ranging) remote-sensing imagery (Fig. 2d,
middle map; see Jung & Pijanowski, 2012), revealing a statis-
tically strong correlation between acoustic diversity and
structural complexity of canopy layers. A map of topography
(Fig. 2d, lower map) helps to visualize key features of this
landscape, such as rivers, wetlands and small hills that
may influence both the vegetative structure and acoustic
composition of this landscape. An alternative, but possibly
(a) (b)Legend Subarctic Boreal Forest Temperate Forest Neotropical Forest Palaeotropical Forest
5 Desert
23
5.0
1680 231680
10
.05
10
5. 01
0. 05
10
(d)
Acoustic Diversity
Layer Count
Elevation (m a.s.l.)
0 200
0
0
10
1.75
No data
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
5
4
4321
5Elevation (metres)(c)
Figure 2 Examples of ongoing soundscape ecology studies that are relevant to biogeography: (a) map of four locations included in the
existing Vanishing Soundscape Project (http://centerforglobalsoundscapes.org/vsp.php) in a variety of representative ecosystems aroundthe world. Point 1: a subarctic boreal forest in Alaska, USA; Point 2: a temperate forest in Indiana, USA; Point 3: a Neotropical forest in
the La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica; Point 4: a Palaeotropical forest in Borneo; Point 5: a transect across different habitats along anelevational gradient in the Madrean Sky Islands, Arizona, USA; (b) the variation in acoustic evenness across the locations points 1, 2, 3
and 4; (c) a sample spectrograms of three life zones at Point 5 (recordings done simultaneously on the 4 June 2013 at 05:00 h; duration of20 seconds, the frequency range is between 1 and 10 kHz), and (d) a set of maps that show the relationships between an acoustic diversity
index [top, based on the Shannon index (Shannon, 1948; Shannon & Weaver, 1949), interpolated from 2 months of recordings at 24stations], number of vegetation layers in the tropical forest (middle, derived from LiDAR), and elevation (bottom) at La Selva Biological
Station, Costa Rica. Pekin et al.’s (2012) statistical analyses of the relationship between the two top layers revealed a strong correlationbetween vegetative structure (in particular, forest canopy structure and proximity to swamps) and acoustic diversity. The area shown is
approximately 24 km2, covering nearly the entire station. As the acoustic diversity index was interpolated using number of layers as acovariate, the index has no data where the number of layers is 0.0 (see Pekin et al., 2012 for details).
Journal of Biogeographyª 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
5
The silence of biogeography
complementary, means of visualization of the geography of
sounds may include global maps of soundscapes that can be
created using cartograms that purposely distort geographical
units (e.g. countries, continents or ocean basins) to map
soundscapes in proportion to their acoustic diversity (see
Fig. 3 for an example of using the cartogram methodology
based on species diversity).
In short, soundscape ecologists are demonstrating how
acoustic data can supply a wide range of information about
the community structure of vocal organisms at a place, and
this information can be combined with other spatial infor-
mation to describe and explore the correlates of biogeo-
graphical patterns across broader scales of space and time.
We are, however, recommending much more than new field
studies on the geography of sound. Rather, we see much
greater promise and inferential power in field research pro-
grammes that follow von Humboldt’s lead and simulta-
neously record key features of soundscapes with those on the
distributions, densities and activities of species (including
humans), and environmental factors that may influence all
components of biotic communities.
Potential research questions
We conclude with a short list of some of the many potential
research questions that may be addressed by a synergistic
programme of soundscape ecology and biogeography.
1. Geographical clines in soundscapes: does acoustic diversity
(in particular, the diversity of biophonies) increase in a simi-
lar manner along gradients of latitude, elevation and depth
as does species diversity?
2. Distinctiveness of place: does the distinctiveness of sound-
scapes vary in a manner analogous to or parallel with dis-
tinctiveness of biotic communities? For example, is acoustic
distinctiveness of island soundscapes a simple function of
endemicity and distinctiveness of their biotas? Was Janzen
(1967) correct? Or, in the present context, do soundscapes
tend to be more distinct (exhibit higher beta diversity in
acoustic characters) for tropical versus higher latitude sys-
tems?
3. Three dimensional soundscapes: the elevational gradients
referred to above are distinct from altitudinal gradients, as
the former refers to phenomena along the Earth’s surface
and the latter to those within the atmosphere. In another
emerging discipline of natural sciences – aeroecology, Kunz
et al. (2008) emphasize that much of life’s important phe-
nomena occur well above the relatively thin surface film of
the terrestrial environment, i.e. in the aerosphere. In an
entirely analogous fashion, much of the phenomena studied
by marine ecologists and oceanographers occur across a
three-dimensional realm, where simple gradient analyses may
prove inappropriate and insufficient. What patterns in acous-
tic and soundscape character do we predict across these
three-dimensional realms (i.e. the aerosphere and the marine
environment), and should they be analogous to each other
or to those observed for gradients (elevational, latitudinal or
otherwise) along the surface of the Earth?
4. Ecological release and displacement: do the members of
species-poor communities exhibit ecological release to more
fully utilize the available acoustic space and occupy those
features of soundscapes vacated by now absent species [see
Krause (1987) and Forrest (1994) for articulations of their
acoustic niche and acoustic adaptation hypotheses]? On
islands and along gradients where animal species often exhi-
bit clines in body size (e.g. the island and Bergmann’s rules;
see summaries in Lomolino et al., 2010, pp. 593–599,642–647; see also Lomolino et al., 2012, 2013), can we expect
corresponding shifts in the dominant frequencies of sounds
produced by these species (lower frequency, louder sounds
produced by larger individuals)?
5. Historical reconstructions: can we utilize information from
the acoustic character of today’s species and soundscapes,
along with palaeontological and phylogenetic methods, to
reconstruct ancient and now extinct soundscapes? Can par-
ticular acoustic features of biophonies serve as characters to
inform and generate phylogenetic and phylogeographical
Figure 3 Cartograms utilize projections
that purposely exaggerate or otherwisedistort the relative sizes of geographical
units (e.g. countries, continents or oceanbasins) in order to emphasize geographical
variation in a particular characteristic ofthose units (in this case, countries). This
example illustrates geographical variationand concentrations of species diversity of
amphibians among countries across theglobe [after Wake & Vredenburg (2008); see
Gastner & Newman (2004) for anexplanation of cartogram projection
methods].
Journal of Biogeographyª 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
6
M. V. Lomolino et al.
reconstructions? Can we utilize the sounds most particular
to a region (which have been called ‘keynote sounds’ by
Schafer, 1993) to construct maps depicting acoustically
related regions of the world analogous to Alfred Russel Wal-
lace’s classic map of the world’s zoogeographical regions
(Wallace, 1876; see also Holt et al., 2013)?
6. Soundscape diversity and islands: are biophonies on large
islands close to mainland more diverse than those that are
small and more isolated? In other words, does the composi-
tion of biological sounds correspond to those predictive fea-
tures of island theory (see Whittaker & Fern�andez-Palacios,
2007; Lomolino et al., 2010)?
While benefitting from the rich information being gener-
ated on the acoustic nature of the Earth, biogeographers are
perhaps uniquely qualified to reciprocate by contributing to
the nascent development of soundscape ecology. The cacoph-
ony of sounds to be archived from the world’s ecosystems
(natural and anthropogenic) may be likened to Henri Poin-
car�e’s (1905, p. 141) metaphorical heap of stones: ‘The scien-
tist must set in order. Science is built of with facts, as a
house is with stones; but a collection of facts is no more a
science than a heap of stones is a house.’ Well before the
transformative insights of Darwin and Wallace, biogeogra-
phers (then simply referred to as ‘geographers’ or ‘geolo-
gists’) began to provide naturalists with the conceptual
framework and geographical context that served as a blue-
print for understanding the facts and intriguing patterns of
nature. By adding the ‘sounds of nature’ to the long list of
characters we study, and by applying the fundamental princi-
ples of our science along with its ever-advancing battery of
tools for visualizing and analysing patterns across space and
time, we will simultaneously advance the frontiers of bioge-
ography and soundscape ecology.
How vivid is the impression produced by the calm of nature, at
noon, in these burning climates! The beasts of the forests retire
to the thickets; the birds hide themselves beneath the foliage of
the trees, or the crevices of the rocks. Yet, amidst this apparent
silence, when we lend an attentive ear to the most feeble sounds
transmitted through the air, we hear a dull vibration, a continual
murmur, a hum of insects, filling, if we may use the expression,
all the lower strata of the air. . .These are so many voices, pro-
claiming to us that all nature breathes.
von Humboldt (1852, p. 199)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank two anonymous referees for their comments
and suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript.
We thank Matthew Harris, Benjamin Gottesman and Jar-
rod Doucette for assistance in developing the images of
Fig. 2. Figure 3 was published with permission under
Copyright (2008) National Academy of Sciences, USA.
MaryAm Ghadiri provided comments on an earlier draft.
Data used for illustrations were collected with the financial
support of grants from NSF (CNH) IIS 0705836 and BCS
1114945 and Purdue’s Office of Vice-President for
Research.
REFERENCES
Alexander, R. (1959) The physical properties of the swim
bladder in intact Cypriniformes. Journal of Experimental
Biology, 36, 315–332.Bierens de Haan, J.A. (1929) Animal psychology for biologists.
University of London Press, London.
Bradbury, J.W. & Vehrencamp, S.L. (2011) Principles of ani-
mal communication, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunder-
land, MA.
Buffon, G.L.L., Comte de (1761) Histoire naturelle, g�en�erale
et particuli�ere. Imprimerie Royale, Paris.
Burkenroad, M.D. (1931) Notes on the sound-producing
marine fishes of Louisiana. Copeia, 1931, 20–28.Carson, R. (1962) Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt,
New York.
Chan, A.Y. & Blumstein, D.T. (2012) Anthropogenic
noise’s first reverberation into community ecology. Pro-
ceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279,
2725–2726.Clark, C.W. & Clark, J.M. (1980) Sound playback experi-
ments with southern right whales (Eubalaena australis).
Science, 207, 663–664.Codarin, A., Wysocki, L.E., Ladich, F. & Picciulin, M. (2009)
Effects of ambient and boat noise on hearing and commu-
nication in three fish species living in a marine protected
area (Miramare, Italy). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58,
1880–1887.Depraetere, M., Pavoine, S., Jiguet, F., Gasc, A., Duvail, S. &
Sueur, J. (2012) Monitoring animal diversity using acous-
tic indices: implementation in a temperate woodland. Eco-
logical Indicators, 13, 46–54.Farina, A. (2014) Soundscape ecology: principles, patterns,
methods and applications. Springer Verlag, New York.
Farina, A. & Morri, D. (2011) A new methodology to infer
the singing activity of an avian community: the Acoustic
Complexity Index (ACI). Ecological Indicators, 11, 868–873.
Ficken, R.W., Ficken, M.S. & Hailman, J.P. (1974) Temporal
pattern shift to avoid acoustic interference in singing
birds. Science, 183, 762–763.Forrest, T.G. (1994) From sender to receiver: propagation
and environmental effects on acoustic signals. American
Zoologist, 34, 644–654.Francis, C.D., Ortega, C.P. & Cruz, A. (2011) Noise pollution
changes avian communities and species interactions. Cur-
rent Biology, 19, 1415–1419.Francis, C.D., Kleist, N.J., Ortega, C.P. & Cruz, A. (2012)
Noise pollution alters ecological services: enhanced polli-
nation and disrupted seed dispersal. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279, 2727–2735.Gasc, A., Sueur, J., Jiguet, F., Devictor, V., Grandcolas, P.,
Burrow, C., Depraetere, M. & Pavoine, S. (2013a) Assess-
ing biodiversity with sound: do acoustic diversity indices
reflect phylogenetic and functional diversities of bird com-
munities? Ecological Indicators, 25, 279–287.
Journal of Biogeographyª 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
7
The silence of biogeography
Gasc, A., Sueur, J., Pavoine, S., Pellens, R. & Grandcolas, P.
(2013b) Biodiversity sampling using a global acoustic
approach: contrasting sites with microendemics in New
Caledonia. PLoS ONE, 8, e65311.
Gastner, M.T. & Newman, M.E.J. (2004) Diffusion-based
method of producing density-equalization maps. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Science USA, 101, 7499–7504.Gini, C. (1912) Variabilit�a e mutabilit�a. Memorie di metodo-
logia statistica (ed. by E. Pizzetti and T. Salvemini), pp.
211–382. Libreria Eredi Virgilio Veschi, Rome.
Gogala, M. & Riede, K. (1995) Time sharing of song activity
of cicadas in Temengor Forest Reserve, Hulu Perak, and
in Sabah, Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal, 48, 297–305.Goller, F. & Daley, M.A. (2001) Novel motor gestures for
phonation during inspiration enhance the acoustic com-
plexity of birdsong. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Bio-
logical Sciences, 268, 2301–2305.Greene, C.W. (1924) Physiological reactions and structure of
the vocal apparatus of the California singing fish, Porich-
thys notatus. American Journal of Physiology, 70, 496–499.Holt, B.G., Lessard, J.-P., Borregaard, M.K., Fritz, S.A., Ara�ujo,
M.B., Dimitrov, D., Fabre, P.-H., Graham, C.H., Graves,
G.R., Jønsson, K.A., Nogu�es-Bravo, D., Wang, Z., Whittaker,
R.J., Fjelds�a, J. & Rahbek, C. (2013) An update of Wallace’s
zoogeographic regions of the world. Science, 339, 74–78.Hu, Y. & Cardoso, G.C. (2010) Which birds adjust the fre-
quency of vocalizations in urban noise? Animal Behaviour,
79, 863–867.von Humboldt, A. (1852) Personal narrative of travels to the
equinoctial regions of America, during the years 1799–1804,by Alexander von Humboldt and Aim�e Bonpland, Vols 1–3(translated by T. Ross). H. Bohn, London.
von Humboldt, A. & Bonpland, A. (1807) Essay on the geog-
raphy of plants. Edited and with an introduction by Ste-
phen T. Jackson; translated by Sylvie Romanowski (2009).
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Janzen, D.H. (1967) Why mountain passes are higher in the
tropics. The American Naturalist, 101, 233–249.Joo, W., Gage, S.H. & Kasten, E.P. (2011) Analysis and inter-
pretation of variability in soundscape along an urban–ruralgradient. Landscape and Urban Planning, 103, 259–276.
Jung, J. & Pijanowski, B. (2012) Mapping vegetation volume
in urban environments by fusing LiDAR and multispectral
data. Korean Journal of Remote Sensing, 28, 661–670.Kasten, E.P., McKinley, P.K. & Gage, S.H. (2010) Ensemble
extraction for classification and detection of bird species.
Ecological Informatics, 5, 153–166.Konishi, M. (1969) Time resolution by single auditory neu-
rons in birds. Nature, 222, 566–567.Krause, B. (1987) Bioacoustics, habitat ambience in ecologi-
cal balance. Whole Earth Review, 57, 14–18.Krause, B. (1999) Loss of natural soundscapes within the
Americas. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
106, 2201.
Krause, B. (2012) Sounds from the great animal orchestra
(enhanced): air. Little Brown & Company, Boston, MA.
Kroodsma, D. (1976) The effect of large song repertoires on
neighbourhood recognition in male song sparrows. The
Condor, 78, 97–99.Kunz, T.H., Gauthreaux, S.A., Jr, Hristov, N.I., Horn, J.W.,
Jones, G., Kalko, E.K.V., Larkin, R.P., McCracken, G.F.,
Swartz, S.W., Srygley, R.B., Dudley, R., Westbrook, J.K. &
Wikelski, M. (2008) Aeroecology: probing and modeling
the aerosphere. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48,
1–11.Laiolo, P. (2008) Characterizing the spatial structure of song-
bird cultures. Ecological Applications, 18, 1774–1780.Laiolo, P. & Tella, J.L. (2006) Landscape bioacoustics allow
detection of the effects of habitat patchiness on population
structure. Ecology, 87, 1203–1214.Lashley, K.S. (1913) Reproduction of inarticulate sounds in
the parrot. Journal of Animal Behavior, 3, 361–366.Leopold, A. (1949) Sand County Almanac. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Lobel, P. (2002) Diversity of fish spawning sounds and the
application of passive acoustic recorders. Bioacoustics, 12,
286–289.Lockwood, J.L. & McKinney, M.L. (2001) Biotic homogeniza-
tion. Kluwer Academic, New York.
Lomolino, M.V. (2010) Four Darwinian themes on the ori-
gin, evolution and preservation of island life. Journal of
Biogeography, 37, 985–994.Lomolino, M.V., Riddle, B.R., Whittaker, R.J. & Brown, J.H.
(2010) Biogeography, 4th edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunder-
land, MA.
Lomolino, M.V., Sax, D.F., Palombo, M.R. & van der Geer,
A.A. (2012) Of mice and mammoths: evaluations of causal
explanations for body size evolution in insular mammals.
Journal of Biogeography, 39, 842–854.Lomolino, M.V., van der Geer, A.A., Lyras, G.A., Palombo,
M.R., Sax, D.F. & Rozzi, R. (2013) Of mice and mam-
moths: generality and antiquity of the island rule. Journal
of Biogeography, 40, 1427–1439.MacArthur, R.H. (1964) Environmental factors affecting bird
species diversity. The American Naturalist, 98, 387–397.MacArthur, R.H. & MacArthur, J.W. (1961) On bird species
diversity. Ecology, 42, 594–598.Marler, P. & Peter, S. (1981) Sparrows learn adult song and
more from memory. Science, 213, 780–782.McClure, C.J., Ware, H.E., Carlisle, J., Kaltenecker, G. & Bar-
ber, J.R. (2013) An experimental investigation into the
effects of traffic noise on distributions of birds: avoiding
the phantom road. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Bio-
logical Sciences, 280, 2013–2290.Melc�on, M.L., Cummins, A.J., Kerosky, S.M., Roche, L.K.,
Wiggins, S.M. & Hildebrand, J.A. (2012) Blue whales
respond to anthropogenic noise. PLoS ONE, 7, e32681.
Myers, J.G. (1929) Insect singers: a natural history of the cica-
das. George Routledge & Sons Ltd, London.
Nelson, D.A. (2000) A preference for own-subspecies song
guides vocal learning in a song bird. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences USA, 97, 13348–13353.
Journal of Biogeographyª 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
8
M. V. Lomolino et al.
Nowicki, W. (1987) Vocal tract resonances in oscine bird
sound production: evidence from birdsongs in a helium
atmosphere. Nature, 325, 53–55.Obrist, M.K., Pavan, G., Sueur, J., Riede, K., Llusia, D. &
M�arquez, R. (2010) Bioacoustics approaches in biodiver-
sity inventories. Abc Taxa, 8, 68–99.Parks, S.E., Miksis-Olds, J.L. & Denes, S.L. (2013) Assessing
marine ecosystem acoustic diversity across ocean basins.
Ecological Informatics, 21, 81–88.Payne, R.S. & McVay, S. (1971) Songs of humpback whales.
Science, 173, 585–597.Pekin, B.K., Jung, J., Villanueva-Rivera, L.J., Pijanowski, B.C.
& Ahumada, J.A. (2012) Modeling acoustic diversity using
soundscape recordings and LIDAR-derived metrics of ver-
tical forest structure in a neotropical rainforest. Landscape
Ecology, 27, 1513–1522.Pijanowski, B.C., Farina, A., Gage, S.H., Dumyahn, S.L. &
Krause, B.L. (2011a) What is soundscape ecology? An
introduction and overview of an emerging new science.
Landscape Ecology, 26, 1213–1232.Pijanowski, B.C., Villanueva-Rivera, L.J., Dumyahn, S.L., Far-
ina, A., Krause, B.L., Napoletano, B.M., Gage, S.H. & Pier-
etti, N. (2011b) Soundscape ecology: the science of sound
in the landscape. BioScience, 61, 203–216.Poincar�e, H. (1905) Hypotheses in physics. Science and
hypothesis, pp. 140–159. Walter Scott Publishing Company,
Ltd, London.
Qi, J., Gage, S.H., Joo, W., Napoletano, B. & Biswas, S.
(2008) Soundscape characteristics of an environment: a
new ecological indicator of ecosystem health. Wetland and
water resource modeling and assessment (ed. by W. Ji), pp.
201–211. CRC Press, New York.
R€omer, H. & Bailey, W.J. (1986) Insect hearing in the field
II. Male spacing behavior and correlated acoustic cues in
the bushcricket Mygalopsis marki. Journal of Comparative
Physiology A, 159, 627–638.Schafer, R.M. (1993) The soundscape. Destiny Books, Roches-
ter, VT.
Servick, K. (2014) Eavesdropping on ecosystems. Science,
343, 834–837.Shannon, C.E. (1948) A mathematical theory of communica-
tion. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423.Shannon, C.E. & Weaver, W. (1949) The mathematical
theory of communication. University of Illinois Press,
Urbana, IL.
Shepard, W.T. (1911) The discrimination of articulate
sounds by raccoons. The American Journal of Psychology,
22, 116–119.Shepard, W.T. (1912) The discrimination of articulate
sounds by cats. The American Journal of Psychology, 23,
461–463.Smith, J.W. & Pijanowski, B.C. (2014) Social and policy
dimensions to soundscape ecology. Global Environmental
Change, 28, 63–74.Stein, G. (1937) Everybody’s autobiography. Random House,
Toronto.
Sueur, J., Aubin, T. & Simonis, C. (2008a) Equipment
review: Seewave, a free modular tool for sound analysis
and synthesis. Bioacoustics, 18, 213–226.Sueur, J., Pavoine, S., Hamerlynck, O. & Duvail, S. (2008b)
Rapid acoustic survey for biodiversity appraisal. PLoS
ONE, 3, e4065.
Sueur, J., Gasc, A., Grandcolas, P. & Pavoine, S. (2012) Glo-
bal estimation of animal diversity using automatic acoustic
sensors. Sensors for ecology: towards integrated knowledge of
ecosystems (ed. by J.F. Le Galliard, J.M. Guarini and F. Ga-
ill), pp. 101–119. CNRS Editions, Paris.
Sueur, J., Farina, A., Gasc, A., Pieretti, N. & Pavoine, S.
(2014) Acoustic indices for biodiversity assessment and
landscape ecology. Acta Acustica, 100, 772–781.Sun, J.W.C. & Narins, P.M. (2005) Anthropogenic sounds
differentially affect amphibian call rate. Biological conserva-
tion, 121, 419–427.Truax, B. (2001) Acoustic communication, 2nd edn. Ablex,
Westport, CT.
Vieites, D.R., Wollenberg, K.C., Andreone, F., K€ohler, J.,
Glaw, F. & Vences, M. (2009) Vast underestimation of
Madagascar’s biodiversity evidenced by an integrative
amphibian inventory. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences USA, 106, 8267–8272.Villanueva-Rivera, L.J., Pijanowski, B.C., Doucette, J. & Bu-
rak Pekin, B. (2011) A primer of acoustic analysis for
landscape ecologists. Landscape Ecology, 26, 1233–1246.Wake, D.B. & Vredenburg, V.T. (2008) Are we in the midst
of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of
amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA, 105, 11466–11473.Wallace, A.R. (1876) The geographical distribution of animals;
with a study of the relations of living and extinct faunas as
elucidating the past changes of the Earth’s surface. Macmil-
lan & Co., London.
Wells, K.D. & Taigen, T.L. (1986) The effect of social inter-
actions on calling energetics in the gray tree frog. Behav-
ioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 19, 9–18.Whittaker, R.J. & Fern�andez-Palacios, J.M. (2007) Island bio-
geography: ecology, evolution, and conservation, 2nd edn.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Whittaker, R.H. & Niering, W.A. (1965) Vegetation of the
Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona: a gradient analysis of
the south slope. Ecology, 46, 429–452.Williams, H. & Nottenbohm, F. (1985) Auditory responses
in avian local motor neurons: a mother theory for song
perception in birds. Science, 229, 279–282.Yerkes, R.M. (1905) The sense of hearing in frogs. Journal of
Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 15, 279–304.
DATA ACCESSIBILITY
Sample recordings of soundscapes, acoustical databases, pub-
lications and descriptions of ongoing research on soundscape
ecology may be found at http://ltm.agriculture.purdue.edu/
soundscapes.htm.
Journal of Biogeographyª 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
9
The silence of biogeography
BIOSKETCHES
Mark V. Lomolino is a Professor of Biology, and founding member and past president of the International Biogeography Soci-
ety (http://www.biogeography.org/). His research and teaching focus on the biogeography, community ecology, evolution and
conservation of animals inhabiting islands or island-like ecosystems.
Bryan Pijanowski is a Professor and University Faculty Scholar in the Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue
University and is the Director of Discovery Park’s Center for Global Soundscapes. His research integrates concepts of soundscape
ecology, landscape ecology and geography. He teaches courses in spatial ecology, geographic information systems and sustainabil-
ity.
Amandine Gasc is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at Purdue University. Her research focuses on bioacoustics and the analy-
sis and monitoring of animal biodiversity using passive acoustic devices.
Editor: Richard Ladle
Journal of Biogeographyª 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
10
M. V. Lomolino et al.