| Autor: |
Senzaki M; Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA.; Faculty of Environmental Earth Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan., Barber JR; Biological Sciences, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA., Phillips JN; Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA.; Department of Science and Mathematics, Texas A&M San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA., Carter NH; School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA., Cooper CB; Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.; Leadership in Public Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA., Ditmer MA; School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA., Fristrup KM; National Park Service Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division, Fort Collins, CO, USA., McClure CJW; Biological Sciences, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA.; The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID, USA., Mennitt DJ; Exponent, Denver, CO, USA., Tyrrell LP; Department of Biological Sciences, State University of New York Plattsburgh, Plattsburgh, NY, USA., Vukomanovic J; Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.; Center for Geospatial Analytics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA., Wilson AA; Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA., Francis CD; Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA. cdfranci@calpoly.edu. |
| Abstrakt: |
Expansion of anthropogenic noise and night lighting across our planet 1,2 is of increasing conservation concern 3-6 . Despite growing knowledge of physiological and behavioural responses to these stimuli from single-species and local-scale studies, whether these pollutants affect fitness is less clear, as is how and why species vary in their sensitivity to these anthropic stressors. Here we leverage a large citizen science dataset paired with high-resolution noise and light data from across the contiguous United States to assess how these stimuli affect reproductive success in 142 bird species. We find responses to both sensory pollutants linked to the functional traits and habitat affiliations of species. For example, overall nest success was negatively correlated with noise among birds in closed environments. Species-specific changes in reproductive timing and hatching success in response to noise exposure were explained by vocalization frequency, nesting location and diet. Additionally, increased light-gathering ability of species' eyes was associated with stronger advancements in reproductive timing in response to light exposure, potentially creating phenological mismatches 7 . Unexpectedly, better light-gathering ability was linked to reduced clutch failure and increased overall nest success in response to light exposure, raising important questions about how responses to sensory pollutants counteract or exacerbate responses to other aspects of global change, such as climate warming. These findings demonstrate that anthropogenic noise and light can substantially affect breeding bird phenology and fitness, and underscore the need to consider sensory pollutants alongside traditional dimensions of the environment that typically inform biodiversity conservation. |
Full text from SpringerLink