Literature DB >> 33177710

Sensory pollutants alter bird phenology and fitness across a continent.

Masayuki Senzaki1,2, Clinton D Francis3, Jesse R Barber4, Jennifer N Phillips1,5, Neil H Carter6, Caren B Cooper7,8, Mark A Ditmer6, Kurt M Fristrup9, Christopher J W McClure4,10, Daniel J Mennitt11, Luke P Tyrrell12, Jelena Vukomanovic13,14, Ashley A Wilson1.   

Abstract

Expansion of anthropogenic noise and night lighting across our planet1,2 is of increasing conservation concern3-6. 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 mismatches7. 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33177710     DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2903-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nature        ISSN: 0028-0836            Impact factor:   49.962


  27 in total

1.  Artificial night lighting affects dawn song, extra-pair siring success, and lay date in songbirds.

Authors:  Bart Kempenaers; Pernilla Borgström; Peter Loës; Emmi Schlicht; Mihai Valcu
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2010-09-16       Impact factor: 10.834

Review 2.  The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms.

Authors:  Jesse R Barber; Kevin R Crooks; Kurt M Fristrup
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 17.712

Review 3.  A synthesis of two decades of research documenting the effects of noise on wildlife.

Authors:  Graeme Shannon; Megan F McKenna; Lisa M Angeloni; Kevin R Crooks; Kurt M Fristrup; Emma Brown; Katy A Warner; Misty D Nelson; Cecilia White; Jessica Briggs; Scott McFarland; George Wittemyer
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2015-06-26

4.  Noise pollution is pervasive in U.S. protected areas.

Authors:  Rachel T Buxton; Megan F McKenna; Daniel Mennitt; Kurt Fristrup; Kevin Crooks; Lisa Angeloni; George Wittemyer
Journal:  Science       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Anthropogenic noise is associated with reductions in the productivity of breeding Eastern Bluebirds (Sialia sialis).

Authors:  Caitlin R Kight; Margaret S Saha; John P Swaddle
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.657

Review 6.  Why conservation biology can benefit from sensory ecology.

Authors:  Davide M Dominoni; Wouter Halfwerk; Emily Baird; Rachel T Buxton; Esteban Fernández-Juricic; Kurt M Fristrup; Megan F McKenna; Daniel J Mennitt; Elizabeth K Perkin; Brett M Seymoure; David C Stoner; Jennifer B Tennessen; Cory A Toth; Luke P Tyrrell; Ashley Wilson; Clinton D Francis; Neil H Carter; Jesse R Barber
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2020-03-16       Impact factor: 15.460

Review 7.  A framework to assess evolutionary responses to anthropogenic light and sound.

Authors:  John P Swaddle; Clinton D Francis; Jesse R Barber; Caren B Cooper; Christopher C M Kyba; Davide M Dominoni; Graeme Shannon; Erik Aschehoug; Sarah E Goodwin; Akito Y Kawahara; David Luther; Kamiel Spoelstra; Margaret Voss; Travis Longcore
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 17.712

8.  The ecological impact of city lighting scenarios: exploring gap crossing thresholds for urban bats.

Authors:  James D Hale; Alison J Fairbrass; Thomas J Matthews; Gemma Davies; Jon P Sadler
Journal:  Glob Chang Biol       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 10.863

9.  Artificially lit surface of Earth at night increasing in radiance and extent.

Authors:  Christopher C M Kyba; Theres Kuester; Alejandro Sánchez de Miguel; Kimberly Baugh; Andreas Jechow; Franz Hölker; Jonathan Bennie; Christopher D Elvidge; Kevin J Gaston; Luis Guanter
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 14.136

Review 10.  Evolutionary and demographic consequences of phenological mismatches.

Authors:  Marcel E Visser; Phillip Gienapp
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2019-04-22       Impact factor: 15.460

View more
  10 in total

1.  Not like night and day: the nocturnal letter-winged kite does not differ from diurnal congeners in orbit or endocast morphology.

Authors:  Aubrey Keirnan; Trevor H Worthy; Jeroen B Smaers; Karine Mardon; Andrew N Iwaniuk; Vera Weisbecker
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 3.653

2.  Airport noise disturbs foraging behavior of Japanese pipistrelle bats.

Authors:  Weiwei Wang; Huimin Gao; Chengrong Li; Yingchun Deng; Daying Zhou; Yaqi Li; Wenyu Zhou; Bo Luo; Haiying Liang; Wenqin Liu; Pan Wu; Wang Jing; Jiang Feng
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-06-12       Impact factor: 3.167

3.  Raptor research during the COVID-19 pandemic provides invaluable opportunities for conservation biology.

Authors:  Petra Sumasgutner; Ralph Buij; Christopher J W McClure; Phil Shaw; Cheryl R Dykstra; Nishant Kumar; Christian Rutz
Journal:  Biol Conserv       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 7.497

4.  Future trends in measuring physiology in free-living animals.

Authors:  H J Williams; J Ryan Shipley; C Rutz; M Wikelski; M Wilkes; L A Hawkes
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2021-06-28       Impact factor: 6.671

5.  An experimental test of chronic traffic noise exposure on parental behaviour and reproduction in zebra finches.

Authors:  Quanxiao Liu; Esther Gelok; Kiki Fontein; Hans Slabbekoorn; Katharina Riebel
Journal:  Biol Open       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 2.422

6.  Artificial light impacts the mate success of female fireflies.

Authors:  Avalon C S Owens; Sara M Lewis
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 3.653

7.  Why and how we should join the shift from significance testing to estimation.

Authors:  Daniel Berner; Valentin Amrhein
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 2.516

8.  Long-term effects of noise pollution on the avian dawn chorus: a natural experiment facilitated by the closure of an international airport.

Authors:  Léna de Framond; Henrik Brumm
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-09-14       Impact factor: 5.530

9.  Using piecewise regression to identify biological phenomena in biotelemetry datasets.

Authors:  David W Wolfson; David E Andersen; John R Fieberg
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2022-07-31       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 10.  Have artificial lighting and noise pollution caused zoonosis and the COVID-19 pandemic? A review.

Authors:  Shanshan He; Wenyuan Shao; Jie Han
Journal:  Environ Chem Lett       Date:  2021-07-31       Impact factor: 9.027

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.