Dose reconstruction supports the interpretation of decreased abundance of mammals in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone

Abstract

We re-analyzed field data concerning potential effects of ionizing radiation on the abundance of mammals collected in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ) to interpret these findings from current knowledge of radiological dose-response relationships, here mammal response in terms of abundance. in line with recent work at fukushima, and exploiting a census conducted in february 2009 in the CEZ, we reconstructed the radiological dose for 12 species of mammals observed at 161 sites. We used this new information rather than the measured ambient dose rate (from 0.0146 to 225 µGy h −1) to statistically analyze the variation in abundance for all observed species as established from tracks in the snow in previous field studies. All available knowledge related to relevant confounding factors was considered in this re-analysis. this more realistic approach led us to establish a correlation between changes in mammal abundance with both the time elapsed since the last snowfall and the dose rate to which they were exposed. this relationship was also observed when distinguishing prey from predators. the dose rates resulting from our re-analysis are in agreement with exposure levels reported in the literature as likely to induce physiological disorders in mammals that could explain the decrease in their abundance in the ceZ. our results contribute to informing the Weight of Evidence approach to demonstrate effects on wildlife resulting from its field exposure to ionizing radiation. Thirty years after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (Ch-NPP), the subject of its consequences for wildlife living in the Exclusion Zone (the so-called CEZ, that is an approximately 30 km diameter evacuated area surrounding the NPP) is still hotly debated between scientists arguing it had a negative ecological impact 1 and proponents of no-effects, or even some collateral consequences such as human evacuation being beneficial for the fauna 2,3. However, whatever their conclusions, these studies do not sufficiently often analyze the underlying data with respect to the most relevant indicator of total exposure when attempting to quantify the dose-response relationship that characterizes the effects of animal exposure to ionizing radiation. As explained by Beresford et al. 4 simplistic measurements of exposure, such as ambient dose rates or soil concentration activities, cannot encompass all the complexity of actual exposure of wildlife. Contributions of internal and external irradiation pathways to the total dose rates have both to be considered, and this balance depends on radionuclides (type and energy of emitted radiation) and on animal species (age, diet, habitat, use of the environment). Largely used for humans, the dose reconstruction process would also allow the accurate characterization of wildlife exposure required to interpret it in terms of effect. It should be acknowledged that this approach incorporates larger

Radiocesium concentration ratios and radiation dose to wild rodents in Fukushima Prefecture

“…Conclusions from dose-effect research that rely on generic CRwo-soil values (e.g. Beaugelin-Seiller et al 2020;Garnier-Laplace et al, 2015) should be viewed cautiously.…”

Sorta Situ, Renaturalización y Una Salud: Tres conceptos de urgente integración en la conservación en México

“…Esto se pudo corroborar tres décadas después del accidente nuclear en Chernóbil, Ucrania, en 1986. Después de la evacuación de la gente, la vegetación se ha regenerado y al menos 14 especies de mamíferos, incluidos herbívoros grandes (como alces, corzos, jabalíes y caballos de Przewalski) y depredadores tope (como lobos grises y osos pardos) han ocupado la zona de exclusión de 4,200 km 2 libres de influencia humana directa (Deryabina et al, 2015), sin embargo, en las zonas más contaminadas la fauna es menos abundante (Beaugelin-Seiller et al, 2020).…”

Impact of ionizing radiation on the environmental microbiomes of Chernobyl wetlands

“…However, the effects of ionizing radiation are far from general; while some studies reported negative consequences on wildlife populations currently living in the area (e.g. Beaugelin-Seiller et al, 2020), others have reported population recoveries (e.g. Deryabina et al, 2015; Schlichting et al, 2019), and signs of adaptation to the chronic exposure (e.g.…”