An experimental test of the allotonic frequency hypothesis to isolate the effects of light pollution on bat prey selection

Bailey, Lauren A.; Brigham, R. Mark; Bohn, Shelby J.; Boyles, Justin G.; Smit, Ben

doi:10.1007/s00442-019-04417-w

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Gene expression (40) Hormone level (145) Immune response (40) Stress response (20) Glands/structures (28) Phenology (33) Seafinding turtles (79) Predation risk (45) Size (37) Cognition (30) Feeding ( 34) Predation ( 23…”

Section: Community Activity Life History Traits Physiologymentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analysis of biological impacts of artificial light at night

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Community Activity Life History Traits Physiologymentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analysis of biological impacts of artificial light at night

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many studies have focused on the impacts of noise and light individually on bat behaviour, predominantly in a laboratory setting, focusing on a single or select few species. Some exceptions have investigated these impacts in the field in habitats that are naturally dark and lit for experimental purposes (Stone et al, 2009;Minnaar et al, 2014;Bailey et al, 2019) or areas that experience temporary lighting depending on human activities, e.g., at stadiums (Schoeman, 2015). The response of bats to light and noise in their environment is species-specific (Schaub et al, 2008;Stone et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Artificial night time lighting delays and reduces the number of bats emerging from their roosts (Boldogh et al, 2007), influences species-specific foraging behaviour (Minnaar et al, 2014;Stone et al, 2015;Lewanzik, 2017;Bailey et al, 2019;Salinas-Ramos et al, 2021), affects commuting behaviour (Stone et al, 2009(Stone et al, , 2015Gaston et al, 2013;Lewanzik, 2017), interferes with navigation (Lewanzik, 2017;Lewanzik and Voigt, 2017), and could affect the stability of bat communities through competitive exclusion (Arlettaz et al, 2000;Stone et al, 2015). If adults have to forage further afield from maternity roosts, the resulting higher energetic cost and decreased foraging time could negatively impact the growth rates of young bats (Stone et al, 2015;Lewanzik, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anthropogenic Light, Noise, and Vegetation Cover Differentially Impact Different Foraging Guilds of Bat on an Opencast Mine in South Africa

Toussaint

Taylor

2022

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bats are known to be sensitive to changes in their environment. The impact of natural vegetation cover, artificial light intensity and noise (dBA) were investigated on the bat community on the opencast Venetia diamond mine using mixed-effects models. Clutter-feeding bats were virtually absent compared to surrounding natural habitats, suggesting the negative impact of vegetation removal and/or light and/or noise pollution. Mixed-effect models revealed that natural vegetation was the most important factor impacting species richness and overall bat activity. In general, bat activity of both open-air and clutter-edge foragers was negatively impacted over areas close to mining operations that were devoid of vegetation cover. Artificial light only significantly affected feeding activity with less feeding activity in the lit areas. Anthropogenic noise had no significant impact on bat activity and species richness. Our study highlights the importance of vegetation cover and the complexity of the interaction between bats and the environment incorporating anthropogenic factors (artificial lighting, continuous noise, and habitat degradation) and natural factors such as minimum temperature, moon phase, and season that confound trends in bat species richness and responses in relation to opencast mining.

show abstract

“…Light pollution by artificial light at night (ALAN) has increased substantially over the last decades (Falchi et al., 2016; Fouquet, 2006; Hölker et al., 2010), adversely affecting plants and animals (Davies & Smyth, 2018; Knop et al., 2017; Longcore & Rich, 2004). The effects of light range from single individual's orientation, reproduction, and communication (Longcore & Rich, 2004) to whole communities, for example, by shifting the balance of predator–prey interactions (Bailey et al., 2019; Davies et al., 2013, 2014; Miller et al., 2017; Russo et al., 2019; Yurk & Trites, 2000). Echolocating bats and eared moths constitute a globally occurring predator–prey system of high ecological relevance (Boyles et al., 2011; Kasso & Balakrishnan, 2013; Kunz et al., 2011; Van Toor et al., 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Light might suppress both types of sound‐evoked antipredator flight in moths

Hügel

Goerlitz

2020

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urbanization exposes wild animals to increased levels of light, affecting particularly nocturnal animals. Artificial light at night might shift the balance of predator-prey interactions, for example, of nocturnal echolocating bats and eared moths. Moths exposed to light show less last-ditch maneuvers in response to attacking close-by bats. In contrast, the extent to which negative phonotaxis, moths' first line of defense against distant bats, is affected by light is unclear. Here, we aimed to quantify the overall effect of light on both types of sound-evoked antipredator flight, last-ditch maneuvers and negative phonotaxis. We caught moths at two light traps, which were alternately equipped with loudspeakers that presented ultrasonic playbacks to simulate hunting bats. The light field was omnidirectional to attract moths equally from all directions. In contrast, the sound field was directional and thus, depending on the moth's approach direction, elicited either only negative phonotaxis, or negative phonotaxis and last-ditch maneuvers. We did not observe an effect of sound playback on the number of caught moths, suggesting that light might suppress both types of antipredator flight, as either type would have caused a decline in the number of caught moths. As control, we confirmed that our playback was able to elicit evasive flight in moths in a dark flight room. Showing no effect of a treatment, however, is difficult. We discuss potential alternative explanations for our results, and call for further studies to investigate how light interferes with animal behavior.

show abstract

An experimental test of the allotonic frequency hypothesis to isolate the effects of light pollution on bat prey selection

Cited by 17 publications

References 34 publications

A meta-analysis of biological impacts of artificial light at night

A meta-analysis of biological impacts of artificial light at night

Anthropogenic Light, Noise, and Vegetation Cover Differentially Impact Different Foraging Guilds of Bat on an Opencast Mine in South Africa

Light might suppress both types of sound‐evoked antipredator flight in moths

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About