Résumé
Acoustic communication plays a prominent role in various ecological and evolutionary processes involving social interactions. The properties of acoustic signals are thought to be influenced not only by the interaction between signaller and receiver but also by the acoustic characteristics of the environment through which the signal is transmitted. This conjecture forms the core of the so‐called “acoustic adaptation hypothesis” (AAH), which posits that vegetation structure affects frequency and temporal parameters of acoustic signals emitted by a signaller as a function of their acoustic degradation properties. Specifically, animals in densely vegetated “closed habitats” are expected to produce longer acoustic signals with lower repetition rates and lower frequencies (minimum, mean, maximum, and peak) compared to those inhabiting less‐vegetated “open habitats”. To date, this hypothesis has received mixed results, with the level of support depending on the taxonomic group and the methodology used. We conducted a systematic literature search of empirical studies testing for an effect of vegetation structure on acoustic signalling and assessed the generality of the AAH using a meta‐analytic approach based on 371 effect sizes from 75 studies and 57 taxa encompassing birds, mammals and amphibians. Overall, our results do not provide consistent support for the AAH, neither in within‐species comparisons (suggesting no overall phenotypically plastic response of acoustic signalling to vegetation structure) nor in among‐species comparisons (suggesting no overall evolutionary response). However, when considering birds only, we found weak support for the AAH in within‐species comparisons, which was mainly driven by studies that measured frequency bandwidth, suggesting that this variable may exhibit a phenotypically plastic response to vegetation structure. For among‐species comparisons in birds, we also found support for the AAH, but this effect was not significant after excluding comparative studies that did not account for phylogenetic non‐independence. Collectively, our synthesis does not support a universal role of vegetation structure in the evolution of acoustic communication. We highlight the need for more empirical work on currently under‐studied taxa such as amphibians, mammals, and insects. Furthermore, we propose a framework for future research on the AAH. We specifically advocate for a more detailed and quantitative characterisation of habitats to identify frequencies with the highest detection probability and to determine if frequencies with greater detection distances are preferentially used. Finally, we stress that empirical tests of the AAH should focus on signals that are selected for increased transmission distance.