Accounting for artificial light impact on bat activity for a biodiversity-friendly urban planning

Pauwels, Julie; Viol, Isabelle Le; Azam, Clémentine; Valet, Nicolas; Julien, Jean‐François; Bas, Yves; Lemarchand, Charles; Miguel, Alejandro Sánchez de; Kerbiriou, Christian

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.030

Cited by 51 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Echolocation calls were recorded using one automatic acoustic recorder per site survey (Song Meter SM2Bat+, Wildlife Acoustics Inc., Concord, MA, USA). The detectors automatically recorded all ultrasounds using predefined settings as recommended by the French bat monitoring program ‘Vigie‐Chiro’ (trigger level set to 6 dB Signal Noise Ratio and set to continue recording until 2.0 s after last trigger event, 384 kHz sampling rate; for further details see Azam et al., ; Barré et al., ; Claireau et al., ; Pauwels et al., ). Whilst continuous recording is typically used for monitoring birds and several other species groups, for bats which echolocate at high frequency, and so produce heavy sound files, it is necessary to use triggered recording, to be able to manage and store the data and process the recordings.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The latter four variables presented important environmental variability, and a similar gradient between sites located close to hedgerows and those in open areas ( Figure S1). for further details see Azam et al, 2018;Barré et al, 2018;Claireau et al, 2019;Pauwels et al, 2019). Whilst continuous recording is typically used for monitoring birds and several other species groups, for bats which echolocate at high frequency, and so produce heavy sound files, it is necessary to use triggered recording, to be able to manage and store the data and process the recordings.…”

Section: Bat Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This method can be applied to any acoustic taxa for which automated identification software and acoustic signature knowledge are already developed, and where confidence scores are provided. Taking the case of bats, we first manually checked a representative sample of a large number of bat recordings identified using an automated identification software (Tadarida; Bas et al, 2017) commonly used in bat studies (Barré, Le Viol, Bas, Julliard, & Kerbiriou, 2018;Barré, Le Viol, Julliard, Chiron, & Kerbiriou, 2017;Claireau et al, 2019;Pauwels et al, 2019;Pinaud, Claireau, Leuchtmann, & Kerbiriou, 2018). Using this sample, we then modelled the identification success for 10 species and two species groups of bats in relation to the confidence score provided by the software.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accounting for automated identification errors in acoustic surveys

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing the state and trend of biodiversity in the face of anthropogenic threats requires large‐scale and long‐time monitoring, for which new recording methods offer interesting possibilities. Reduced costs and a huge increase in storage capacity of acoustic recorders have resulted in an exponential use of passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) on a wide range of animal groups in recent years. PAM has led to a rapid growth in the quantity of acoustic data, making manual identification increasingly time‐consuming. Therefore, software detecting sound events, extracting numerous features and automatically identifying species have been developed. However, automated identification generates identification errors, which could influence analyses which look at the ecological response of species. Taking the case of bats for which PAM constitutes an efficient tool, we propose a cautious method to account for errors in acoustic identifications of any taxa without excessive manual checking of recordings. We propose to check a representative sample of the outputs of a software commonly used in acoustic surveys (Tadarida), to model the identification success probability of 10 species and two species groups as a function of the confidence score provided for each automated identification. Using this relationship, we then investigated the effect of setting different false positive tolerances (FPTs), from a 50% to 10% false positive rate, above which data are discarded, by repeating a large‐scale analysis of bat response to environmental variables and checking for consistency in the results. Considering estimates, standard errors and significance of species response to environmental variables, the main changes occurred between the naive (i.e. raw data) and robust analyses (i.e. using FPTs). Responses were highly stable between FPTs. We conclude it was essential to, at least, remove data above 50% FPT to minimize false positives. We recommend systematically checking the consistency of responses for at least two contrasting FPTs (e.g. 50% and 10%), in order to ensure robustness, and only going on to conclusive interpretation when these are consistent. This study provides a huge saving of time for manual checking, which will facilitate the improvement in large‐scale monitoring, and ultimately our understanding of ecological responses.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Bat Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accounting for automated identification errors in acoustic surveys

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, various measurements of ALAN have been used in this growing body of research. For instance, some studies used a broad estimate of ALAN from satellite based data such as "Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite" or "Visible and Near-Infrared" (Azam et al, 2016;Straka et al, 2016;Pauwels et al, 2019) to investigate the impact of ALAN on bats in the urban environment. Other studies investigated the response of bats to ALAN on a street lamp level by comparing different types of light sources (e.g., Lacoeuilhe et al, 2014;Lewanzik and Voigt, 2017), light colors (e.g., Spoelstra et al, 2017) or the number of street lamps (Blake et al, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tree Cover Mediates the Effect of Artificial Light on Urban Bats

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With urban areas growing worldwide, so does artificial light at night (ALAN) which negatively affects many nocturnal animals, including bats. The response of bats to ALAN ranges from some opportunistic species taking advantage of insect aggregations around street lamps, particularly those emitting ultraviolet (UV) light, to others avoiding lit areas at all. Tree cover has been suggested to mitigate the negative effects of ALAN on bats by shielding areas against light scatter. Here, we investigated the effect of tree cover on the relationship between ALAN and bats in Berlin, Germany. In particular, we asked if this interaction varies with the UV light spectrum of street lamps and also across urban bat species. We expected trees next to street lamps to block ALAN, making the adjacent habitat more suitable for all species, irrespective of the wavelength spectrum of the light source. Additionally, we expected UV emitting lights next to trees to attract insects and thus, opportunistic bats. In summer 2017, we recorded bat activity at 22 green open spaces in Berlin using automated ultrasonic detectors. We analyzed bat activity patterns and landscape variables (number of street lamps with and without UV light emission, an estimate of light pollution, and tree cover density around each recording site within different spatial scales) using generalized linear mixed-effects models with a negative binomial distribution. We found a species-specific response of bats to street lamps with and without UV light, providing a more detailed picture of ALAN impacts than simply total light radiance. Moreover, we found that dense tree cover dampened the negative effect of street lamps without UV for open-space foraging bats of the genera Nyctalus, Eptesicus, and Vespertilio, yet it amplified the already existing negative or positive effect of street lamps with or without UV on Pipistrellus pipistrellus, P. pygmaeus, and Myotis spp. Our study underpins the importance of minimizing artificial light at night close to vegetation, particularly for bats adapted to spatial complexity in the environment (i.e., clutter-adapted species), and to increase dense vegetation in urban landscape to provide, besides roosting opportunities, protection against ALAN for open-space foraging bats in city landscapes.

show abstract

“…The latter is mostly observed within almost all species at roosts (day and winter) and when drinking [51]. The behavior of light-sensitive bats can be impaired within the radius of up to 50 m distance to the light source, even if the luminance level is as low as 1 lux [52,53]. High intensity lighting can create a barrier to movements at foraging transfer flights across illuminated streets to even relatively common and opportunistic or neutrally behaving bats, such as the common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) [54].…”

Section: Prohibition To Disturb Specimen Of Protected Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Working with Inadequate Tools: Legislative Shortcomings in Protection against Ecological Effects of Artificial Light at Night

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fundamental change in nocturnal landscapes due to the increasing use of artificial light at night (ALAN) is recognized as being detrimental to the environment and raises important regulatory questions as to whether and how it should be regulated based on the manifold risks to the environment. Here, we present the results of an analysis of the current legal obligations on ALAN in context with a systematic review of adverse effects. The legal analysis includes the relevant aspects of European and German environmental law, specifically nature conservation and immission control. The review represents the results of 303 studies indicating significant disturbances of organisms and landscapes. We discuss the conditions for prohibitions by environmental laws and whether protection gaps persist and, hence, whether specific legislation for light pollution is necessary. While protection is predominantly provided for species with special protection status that reveal avoidance behavior of artificially lit landscapes and associated habitat loss, adverse effects on species and landscapes without special protection status are often unaddressed by existing regulations. Legislative shortcomings are caused by difficulties in proving adverse effect on the population level, detecting lighting malpractice, and applying the law to ALAN-related situations. Measures to reduce ALAN-induced environmental impacts are highlighted. We discuss whether an obligation to implement such measures is favorable for environmental protection and how regulations can be implemented.

show abstract

Accounting for artificial light impact on bat activity for a biodiversity-friendly urban planning

Cited by 51 publications

References 48 publications

Accounting for automated identification errors in acoustic surveys

Accounting for automated identification errors in acoustic surveys

Tree Cover Mediates the Effect of Artificial Light on Urban Bats

Working with Inadequate Tools: Legislative Shortcomings in Protection against Ecological Effects of Artificial Light at Night

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About