Estimates suggest that each year millions of birds, predominantly Neotropical migrating songbirds, collide with communication towers. To determine the relative collision risks that different nighttime Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) communication tower obstruction lighting systems pose to night-migrating birds, we compared fatalities at towers with different systems: white strobe lights only; red strobe-like lights only; red, flashing, incandescent lights only; and red, strobe-like lights combined with non-flashing, steady-burning, red lights. Avian fatality data used to compare these tower light systems were collected simultaneously in Michigan on 20 consecutive days during early morning hours during peak songbird migration at 24 towers in May and September 2005 (total = 40 days). Twenty-one towers were 116-146 m above ground level (AGL), and three were > or = 305 m AGL. During the two 20-day sample periods, we found a mean of 3.7 birds under 116-146 m AGL towers equipped with only red or white flashing obstruction lights, whereas towers with non-flashing/steady-burning lights in addition to the flashing lights were responsible for 13.0 fatalities per season. Kruskal-Wallis test, ANOVA, Student's t test, and multiple comparisons procedures determined that towers lit at night with only flashing lights were involved in significantly fewer avian fatalities than towers lit with systems that included the FAA "status quo" lighting system (i.e., a combination of red, flashing lights and red, non-flashing lights). There were no significant differences in fatality rates among towers lit with red strobes, white strobes, and red, incandescent, flashing lights. Results from related studies at the same towers in May and September 2004 and September 2003 provide ancillary support for these findings. Our results suggest that avian fatalities can be reduced, perhaps by 50-71%, at guyed communication towers by removing non-flashing/steady-burning red lights. Our lighting change proposal can be accomplished at minimal cost on existing towers, and such changes on new or existing towers greatly reduce the cost of tower operation. Removing non-flashing lights from towers is one of the most effective and economically feasible means of achieving a significant reduction in avian fatalities at existing communication towers.

Avian mortality at communication towers in the continental United States and Canada is an issue of pressing conservation concern. Previous estimates of this mortality have been based on limited data and have not included Canada. We compiled a database of communication towers in the continental United States and Canada and estimated avian mortality by tower with a regression relating avian mortality to tower height. This equation was derived from 38 tower studies for which mortality data were available and corrected for sampling effort, search efficiency, and scavenging where appropriate. Although most studies document mortality at guyed towers with steady-burning lights, we accounted for lower mortality at towers without guy wires or steady-burning lights by adjusting estimates based on published studies. The resulting estimate of mortality at towers is 6.8 million birds per year in the United States and Canada. Bootstrapped subsampling indicated that the regression was robust to the choice of studies included and a comparison of multiple regression models showed that incorporating sampling, scavenging, and search efficiency adjustments improved model fit. Estimating total avian mortality is only a first step in developing an assessment of the biological significance of mortality at communication towers for individual species or groups of species. Nevertheless, our estimate can be used to evaluate this source of mortality, develop subsequent per-species mortality estimates, and motivate policy action.

a b s t r a c tBirds migrating to and from breeding grounds in the United States and Canada are killed by the millions in collisions with lighted towers and their guy wires. Avian mortality at towers is highly variable across species, and the importance to each population depends on its size and trajectory. Building on our previous estimate of avian mortality at communication towers, we calculated mortality by species and by regions. To do this, we constructed a database of mortality by species at towers from available records and calculated the mean proportion of each species killed at towers within aggregated Bird Conservation Regions. These proportions were combined with mortality estimates that we previously calculated for those regions. We then compared our estimated bird mortality rates to the estimated populations of these species in the United States and Canada. Neotropical migrants suffer the greatest mortality; 97.4% of birds killed are passerines, mostly warblers (Parulidae, 58.4%), vireos (Vireonidae, 13.4%), thrushes (Turdidae, 7.7%), and sparrows (Emberizidae, 5.8%). Thirteen birds of conservation concern in the United States or Canada suffer annual mortality of 1-9% of their estimated total population. Of these, estimated annual mortality is >2% for Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis), Swainson's Warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii), Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), Bay-breasted Warbler (Setophaga castanea), Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), Worm-eating Warbler (Helmitheros vermivorum), Prairie Warbler (Setophaga discolor), and Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla). Avian mortality from anthropogenic sources is almost always reported in the aggregate (''number of birds killed''), which cannot detect the species-level effects necessary to make conservation assessments. Our approach to per species estimates could be undertaken for other sources of chronic anthropogenic mortality.

Ambient levels of electromagnetic fields (EMF) have risen sharply in the last 80 years, creating a novel energetic exposure that previously did not exist. Most recent decades have seen exponential increases in nearly all environments, including rural/remote areas and lower atmospheric regions. Because of unique physiologies, some species of flora and fauna are sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that may surpass human reactivity. There is limited, but comprehensive, baseline data in the U.S. from the 1980s against which to compare significant new surveys from different countries. This now provides broader and more precise data on potential transient and chronic exposures to wildlife and habitats. Biological effects have been seen broadly across all taxa and frequencies at vanishingly low intensities comparable to today’s ambient exposures. Broad wildlife effects have been seen on orientation and migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance and defense, and longevity and survivorship. Cyto- and geno-toxic effects have been observed. The above issues are explored in three consecutive parts: Part 1 questions today’s ambient EMF capabilities to adversely affect wildlife, with more urgency regarding 5G technologies. Part 2 explores natural and man-made fields, animal magnetoreception mechanisms, and pertinent studies to all wildlife kingdoms. Part 3 examines current exposure standards, applicable laws, and future directions. It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a novel form of pollution and develop rules at regulatory agencies that designate air as ‘habitat’ so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants. Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. Long-term chronic low-level EMF exposure standards, which do not now exist, should be set accordingly for wildlife, and environmental laws should be strictly enforced.

Ambient levels of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) have risen sharply in the last five decades to become a ubiquitous, continuous, biologically active environmental pollutant, even in rural and remote areas. Many species of flora and fauna, because of unique physiologies and habitats, are sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that surpass human reactivity. This can lead to complex endogenous reactions that are highly variable, largely unseen, and a possible contributing factor in species extinctions, sometimes localized. Non-human magnetoreception mechanisms are explored. Numerous studies across all frequencies and taxa indicate that current low-level anthropogenic EMF can have myriad adverse and synergistic effects, including on orientation and migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance and defense, and on vitality, longevity and survivorship itself. Effects have been observed in mammals such as bats, cervids, cetaceans, and pinnipeds among others, and on birds, insects, amphibians, reptiles, microbes and many species of flora. Cyto- and geno-toxic effects have long been observed in laboratory research on animal models that can be extrapolated to wildlife. Unusual multi-system mechanisms can come into play with non-human species — including in aquatic environments — that rely on the Earth’s natural geomagnetic fields for critical life-sustaining information. Part 2 of this 3-part series includes four online supplement tables of effects seen in animals from both ELF and RFR at vanishingly low intensities. Taken as a whole, this indicates enough information to raise concerns about ambient exposures to nonionizing radiation at ecosystem levels. Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a novel form of pollution and develop rules at regulatory agencies that designate air as ‘habitat’ so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants. Long-term chronic low-level EMF exposure standards, which do not now exist, should be set accordingly for wildlife, and environmental laws should be strictly enforced — a subject explored in Part 3.

Every year an estimated 4–5 million migratory birds collide with communication towers in the United States. We examined the relative risks that tower support systems and tower height pose to migrating and other birds. We collected data comparing tower support systems (guyed vs. unguyed) and tower height categories in Michigan during 20 days of the peak of songbird migration at 6 towers in September–October 2003, 23 towers in May 2004, 24 towers in September 2004, and 6 towers in both May and September 2005. We systematically and simultaneously searched for bird carcasses under each tower and measured carcass removal and observer detection rates each season. Of those towers, 21 were between 116 and 146 m above ground level (AGL, medium) and 3 were >305 m AGL (tall). During the five 20‐day sample periods we found a mean of 8.2 bird carcasses per guyed medium tower and a mean of 0.5 bird carcasses under unguyed medium towers. During four 20‐day sample periods we detected a mean of 34.7 birds per guyed tall tower. Using both parametric and nonparametric tests (Mann–Whitney U‐test, Kruskal–Wallis test, and Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference multiple comparison procedure) we determined that unguyed medium towers were involved in significantly fewer fatalities than guyed medium towers. We detected 54–86% fewer fatalities at guyed medium towers than at guyed tall towers. We found 16 times more fatalities at guyed medium towers than at unguyed medium towers. Tall, guyed towers were responsible for 70 times as many bird fatalities as the unguyed medium towers and nearly five times as many as guyed medium towers. These findings will provide managers and regulators, such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service, with quantitative data; thereby, allowing them to effectively work with the Federal Communications Commission in siting and authorizing tower placement. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.

Parasites collected from free-ranging black bears, Ursus americanus, in northern Wisconsin included Dermacentor variabilis, D. albipictus, Ixodes scapularis, Demodex sp., Trichodectes pinguis euarctidos, Baylisascaris transfuga and Dirofilaria ursi. Mange, possibly caused by the Demodex sp., also was observed. Dental caries were common and periodontal disease was observed in one animal.

Due to the continuous rising ambient levels of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) used in modern societies—primarily from wireless technologies—that have now become a ubiquitous biologically active environmental pollutant, a new vision on how to regulate such exposures for non-human species at the ecosystem level is needed. Government standards adopted for human exposures are examined for applicability to wildlife. Existing environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the U.S. and others used in Canada and throughout Europe, should be strengthened and enforced. New laws should be written to accommodate the ever-increasing EMF exposures. Radiofrequency radiation exposure standards that have been adopted by worldwide agencies and governments warrant more stringent controls given the new and unusual signaling characteristics used in 5G technology. No such standards take wildlife into consideration. Many species of flora and fauna, because of distinctive physiologies, have been found sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that surpass human reactivity. Such exposures may now be capable of affecting endogenous bioelectric states in some species. Numerous studies across all frequencies and taxa indicate that low-level EMF exposures have numerous adverse effects, including on orientation, migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance, defense, vitality, longevity, and survivorship. Cyto- and geno-toxic effects have long been observed. It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a novel form of pollution and develop rules at regulatory agencies that designate air as ‘habitat’ so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants. Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. A robust dialog regarding technology’s high-impact role in the nascent field of electroecology needs to commence. Long-term chronic low-level EMF exposure standards should be set accordingly for wildlife, including, but not limited to, the redesign of wireless devices, as well as infrastructure, in order to reduce the rising ambient levels (explored in Part 1). Possible environmental approaches are discussed. This is Part 3 of a three-part series.