1
|
Boycott TJ, Sherrard MG, Gall MD, Ronald KL. Deer management influences perception of avian plumage in temperate deciduous forests. Vision Res 2023; 213:108312. [PMID: 37703599 DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2023.108312] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2023] [Revised: 08/07/2023] [Accepted: 08/17/2023] [Indexed: 09/15/2023]
Abstract
Many animals use visual signals to communicate; birds use colorful plumage to attract mates and repel intruders. Visual signal conspicuousness is influenced by the lighting environment, which can be altered by human-induced changes. For example, deer-management efforts can affect vegetation structure and light availability. Whether these changes alter animal communication is still unknown. We investigated the effect of deer management on forest light and the contrast of understory birds against the forest background. We modeled visual perception using: (1) an ultraviolet-sensitive (UVS) avian model and plumage parameters representative of red, yellow, and blue birds (2) species-specific turkey visual and plumage parameters, and (3) individual-specific brown-headed cowbird visual and plumage parameters. Deer management led to greater light irradiance and lowered forest background reflectance. Management increased chromatic contrasts in the UVS model, primarily in deciduous forests and low understory, and across all habitat types in turkey and cowbird models. Deer management did not affect achromatic contrasts in the UVS model, but was associated with lower contrast in mixed forests for turkeys and across habitats for cowbirds. Together, this suggests that management of deer browsing is likely to impact visual signaling for a wide range of avian species. However, we also suspect that species- and individual-specific parameters increased the resolution of models, warranting consideration in future studies. Further work should determine if differences in visual perception translate to biologically relevant consequences. Our results suggest that, at least for some species, deer browsing and anthropogenic change may impose an evolutionary driver on visual communication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy J Boycott
- Department of Biology, Vassar College, 124 Raymond Ave., Poughkeepsie, NY 12604, USA; New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, Cornell University, 226 Mann Drive, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
| | - Morgan G Sherrard
- Department of Biology, Hope College, 35 East 12th Street, Holland, MI 49423, USA; University of Detroit Mercy School of Dentistry, 2700 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Detroit, MI 48208-2576, USA
| | - Megan D Gall
- Department of Biology, Vassar College, 124 Raymond Ave., Poughkeepsie, NY 12604, USA; Neuroscience and Behavior Program, Vassar College, 124 Raymond Ave., Poughkeepsie, NY 12604, USA
| | - Kelly L Ronald
- Department of Biology, Hope College, 35 East 12th Street, Holland, MI 49423, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lunn R, Baumhardt PE, Blackwell BF, Freyssinier JP, Fernández-Juricic E. Light wavelength and pulsing frequency affect avoidance responses of Canada geese. PeerJ 2023; 11:e16379. [PMID: 38025716 PMCID: PMC10668863 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.16379] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2023] [Accepted: 10/09/2023] [Indexed: 12/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Collisions between birds and aircraft cause bird mortality, economic damage, and aviation safety hazards. One proposed solution to increasing the distance at which birds detect and move away from an approaching aircraft, ultimately mitigating the probability of collision, is through onboard lighting systems. Lights in vehicles have been shown to lead to earlier reactions in some bird species but they could also generate attraction, potentially increasing the probability of collision. Using information on the visual system of the Canada goose (Branta canadensis), we developed light stimuli of high chromatic contrast to their eyes. We then conducted a controlled behavioral experiment (i.e., single-choice test) to assess the avoidance or attraction responses of Canada geese to LED lights of different wavelengths (blue, 483 nm; red, 631 nm) and pulsing frequencies (steady, pulsing at 2 Hz). Overall, Canada geese tended to avoid the blue light and move towards the red light; however, these responses depended heavily on light exposure order. At the beginning of the experiment, geese tended to avoid the red light. After further exposure the birds developed an attraction to the red light, consistent with the mere exposure effect. The response to the blue light generally followed a U-shape relationship (avoidance, attraction, avoidance) with increasing number of exposures, again consistent with the mere exposure effect, but followed by the satiation effect. Lights pulsing at 2 Hz enhanced avoidance responses under high ambient light conditions; whereas steady lights enhanced avoidance responses under dim ambient light conditions. Our results have implications for the design of lighting systems aimed at mitigating collisions between birds and human objects. LED lights in the blue portion of the spectrum are good candidates for deterrents and lights in the red portion of the spectrum may be counterproductive given the attraction effects with increasing exposure. Additionally, consideration should be given to systems that automatically modify pulsing of the light depending on ambient light intensity to enhance avoidance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ryan Lunn
- Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States of America
| | - Patrice E. Baumhardt
- Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States of America
| | - Bradley F. Blackwell
- United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health and Inspection Services, National Wildlife Research Center, Sandusky, OH, United States of America
| | - Jean Paul Freyssinier
- Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, United States of America
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Cooke SJ, Madliger CL, Lennox RJ, Olden JD, Eliason EJ, Cramp RL, Fuller A, Franklin CE, Seebacher F. Biological mechanisms matter in contemporary wildlife conservation. iScience 2023; 26:106192. [PMID: 36895647 PMCID: PMC9988666 DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.106192] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/16/2023] Open
Abstract
Given limited resources for wildlife conservation paired with an urgency to halt declines and rebuild populations, it is imperative that management actions are tactical and effective. Mechanisms are about how a system works and can inform threat identification and mitigation such that conservation actions that work can be identified. Here, we call for a more mechanistic approach to wildlife conservation and management where behavioral and physiological tools and knowledge are used to characterize drivers of decline, identify environmental thresholds, reveal strategies that would restore populations, and prioritize conservation actions. With a growing toolbox for doing mechanistic conservation research as well as a suite of decision-support tools (e.g., mechanistic models), the time is now to fully embrace the concept that mechanisms matter in conservation ensuring that management actions are tactical and focus on actions that have the potential to directly benefit and restore wildlife populations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven J. Cooke
- Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
- Corresponding author
| | - Christine L. Madliger
- Department of Biology, Algoma University, 1520 Queen St. East, Sault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 2G4, Canada
| | - Robert J. Lennox
- Norwegian Research Centre (NORCE), Laboratory for Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, 5008 Bergen, Norway
| | - Julian D. Olden
- School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-5020, USA
| | - Erika J. Eliason
- Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
| | - Rebecca L. Cramp
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
| | - Andrea Fuller
- Brain Function Research Group, School of Physiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Parktown 2193, South Africa
| | - Craig E. Franklin
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
| | - Frank Seebacher
- School of Life and Environmental Sciences A08, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Classen-Rodríguez L, Tinghitella R, Fowler-Finn K. Anthropogenic noise affects insect and arachnid behavior, thus changing interactions within and between species. CURRENT OPINION IN INSECT SCIENCE 2021; 47:142-153. [PMID: 34252592 DOI: 10.1016/j.cois.2021.06.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2021] [Revised: 06/23/2021] [Accepted: 06/29/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
Urbanization and the by-product pollutants of anthropogenic activity pose unique threats to arthropods by altering their sensory environments. Sounds generated by human activities, like construction and road traffic, can oversaturate or interfere with biotic acoustic cues that regulate important ecological processes, such as trophic interactions and the coordination of mating. Here, we review recent work exploring how anthropogenic noise impacts inter-intra-specific interactions in insects and arachnids. We outline empirical frameworks for future research that integrate three mechanisms by which anthropogenic noise alters behavior through interference with acoustic cues: masking, distraction, and misleading. Additionally, we emphasize the need for experimental designs that more accurately replicate natural soundscapes. We encourage future investigations on the effects of developmental exposure to noise pollution and the impacts of multiple interacting sensory pollutants on insect and arachnid behavior.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leticia Classen-Rodríguez
- Department of Biology, Saint Louis University, Macelwane Hall, 3507 Laclede Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63103, USA.
| | - Robin Tinghitella
- Department of Biological Sciences, University of Denver, Olin Hall, 2190 E Iliff Avenue, Denver, CO 80210, USA
| | - Kasey Fowler-Finn
- Department of Biology, Saint Louis University, Macelwane Hall, 3507 Laclede Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63103, USA; Living Earth Collaborative, Saint Louis, MO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Cooke SJ, Bergman JN, Madliger CL, Cramp RL, Beardall J, Burness G, Clark TD, Dantzer B, de la Barrera E, Fangue NA, Franklin CE, Fuller A, Hawkes LA, Hultine KR, Hunt KE, Love OP, MacMillan HA, Mandelman JW, Mark FC, Martin LB, Newman AEM, Nicotra AB, Raby GD, Robinson SA, Ropert-Coudert Y, Rummer JL, Seebacher F, Todgham AE, Tomlinson S, Chown SL. One hundred research questions in conservation physiology for generating actionable evidence to inform conservation policy and practice. CONSERVATION PHYSIOLOGY 2021; 9:coab009. [PMID: 33859825 PMCID: PMC8035967 DOI: 10.1093/conphys/coab009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2020] [Revised: 01/28/2021] [Accepted: 01/29/2021] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
Environmental change and biodiversity loss are but two of the complex challenges facing conservation practitioners and policy makers. Relevant and robust scientific knowledge is critical for providing decision-makers with the actionable evidence needed to inform conservation decisions. In the Anthropocene, science that leads to meaningful improvements in biodiversity conservation, restoration and management is desperately needed. Conservation Physiology has emerged as a discipline that is well-positioned to identify the mechanisms underpinning population declines, predict responses to environmental change and test different in situ and ex situ conservation interventions for diverse taxa and ecosystems. Here we present a consensus list of 10 priority research themes. Within each theme we identify specific research questions (100 in total), answers to which will address conservation problems and should improve the management of biological resources. The themes frame a set of research questions related to the following: (i) adaptation and phenotypic plasticity; (ii) human-induced environmental change; (iii) human-wildlife interactions; (iv) invasive species; (v) methods, biomarkers and monitoring; (vi) policy, engagement and communication; (vii) pollution; (viii) restoration actions; (ix) threatened species; and (x) urban systems. The themes and questions will hopefully guide and inspire researchers while also helping to demonstrate to practitioners and policy makers the many ways in which physiology can help to support their decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven J Cooke
- Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada
- Corresponding author: Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada.
| | - Jordanna N Bergman
- Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada
| | - Christine L Madliger
- Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada
| | - Rebecca L Cramp
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia
| | - John Beardall
- Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future, School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia
| | - Gary Burness
- Department of Biology, Trent University, 1600 West Bank Drive, Peterborough, Ontario K9L 0G2, Canada
| | - Timothy D Clark
- School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria 3216, Australia
| | - Ben Dantzer
- Department of Psychology, Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
| | - Erick de la Barrera
- Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Antigua Carretera a Pátzcuaro 8701, Morelia, Michoacán, 58190, Mexico
| | - Nann A Fangue
- Department of Wildlife, Fish & Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA
| | - Craig E Franklin
- School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia
| | - Andrea Fuller
- Brain Function Research Group, School of Physiology, University of the Witwatersrand, 7 York Rd, Parktown, 2193, South Africa
| | - Lucy A Hawkes
- College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Hatherly Laboratories, University of Exeter, Prince of Wales Road, Exeter EX4 4PS, UK
| | - Kevin R Hultine
- Department of Research, Conservation and Collections, Desert Botanical Garden, Phoenix, AZ 85008, USA
| | - Kathleen E Hunt
- Smithsonian-Mason School of Conservation, 1500 Remount Road, Front Royal, VA 22630, USA
| | - Oliver P Love
- Department of Integrative Biology, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4, Canada
| | - Heath A MacMillan
- Department of Biology and Institute of Biochemistry, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada
| | - John W Mandelman
- Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life, New England Aquarium, 1 Central Wharf, Boston, MA, 02110, USA
| | - Felix C Mark
- Department of Integrative Ecophysiology, Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Center for Polar and Marine Research, Am Handelshafen 12, 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany
| | - Lynn B Martin
- Global Health and Infectious Disease Research, University of South Florida, 3720 Spectrum Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33612, USA
| | - Amy E M Newman
- Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
| | - Adrienne B Nicotra
- Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 2601, Australia
| | - Graham D Raby
- Department of Biology, Trent University, 1600 West Bank Drive, Peterborough, Ontario K9L 0G2, Canada
| | - Sharon A Robinson
- School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences (SEALS) and Centre for Sustainable Ecosystem Solutions, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia
| | - Yan Ropert-Coudert
- Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, CNRS UMR 7372—La Rochelle Université, 79360 Villiers-en-Bois, France
| | - Jodie L Rummer
- ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia
| | - Frank Seebacher
- School of Life and Environmental Sciences A08, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia
| | - Anne E Todgham
- Department of Animal Science, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA
| | - Sean Tomlinson
- School of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia
| | - Steven L Chown
- Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future, School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia
| |
Collapse
|