Now Letã¢â‚¬â„¢s Look at the World Under the Low Pressure Sodium Light Again

• Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Inquiry Article

The Switch from Low-Pressure level Sodium to Low-cal Emitting Diodes Does Not Affect Bat Activity at Street Lights

• Stephen Harris,
• Gareth Jones

The Switch from Low-Pressure Sodium to Low-cal Emitting Diodes Does Not Affect Bat Activity at Street Lights

• Elizabeth Thou. Rowse,
• Stephen Harris,
• Gareth Jones

10

• Published: March 23, 2016
• https://doi.org/ten.1371/journal.pone.0150884

Figures

Abstract

We used a before-subsequently-control-affect paired pattern to examine the effects of a switch from low-pressure sodium (LPS) to calorie-free emitting diode (LED) street lights on bat action at twelve sites across southern England. LED lights produce broad spectrum 'white' low-cal compared to LPS street lights that emit narrow spectrum, orangish light. These spectral differences could influence the abundance of insects at street lights and thereby the activeness of the bats that prey on them. Most of the bats flying effectually the LPS lights were aerial-hawking species, and the species limerick of bats remained the aforementioned afterwards the switch-over to LED. Nosotros establish that the switch-over from LPS to LED street lights did not impact the activity (number of bat passes), or the proportion of passes containing feeding buzzes, of those bat species typically found in shut proximity to street lights in suburban environments in Britain. This is encouraging from a conservation perspective equally many existing street lights are beingness, or have been, switched to LED before the ecological consequences have been assessed. However, lighting of all spectra studied to date mostly has a negative touch on on several slow-flight bat species, and LED lights are rarely frequented past these 'calorie-free-intolerant' bat species.

Citation: Rowse EG, Harris S, Jones Thou (2016) The Switch from Depression-Pressure Sodium to Light Emitting Diodes Does Not Affect Bat Activity at Street Lights. PLoS ONE 11(three): e0150884. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150884

Editor: Brock Fenton, University of Western Ontario, CANADA

Received: December 7, 2015; Accepted: February xix, 2016; Published: March 23, 2016

Copyright: © 2016 Rowse et al. This is an open up access commodity distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in whatever medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The projection was funded by a studentship from the Natural Environment Research Council, grant number NE/K500823/1. The funders had no part in written report pattern, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors take alleged that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Increased utilize of artificial lighting over the final century has resulted in all-encompassing changes in the nocturnal landscape [1,2]. Although artificial lighting benefits people [iii,4], light pollution is widespread [5,half dozen] and tin touch on organisms across a range of spatial scales [7].

Street lights are widely used around the world and have the potential for far-reaching furnishings on the environment, biodiversity and homo health [viii,9]. During the first role of the 21^st century, the number of street lights in the Uk connected to increment by 3% per annum [5] and their spectral signatures, i.eastward. the range of wavelengths that the lights emit, have changed [10,11]. In that location is currently a shift in street lighting from narrow light spectrum sources such as orange low-pressure sodium (LPS) and yellow high pressure sodium (HPS) lights to broad spectrum "white" lighting technologies such equally light emitting diodes (LEDs) [9,12,13] (Fig 1). There are 3 types of LED lights, cool, neutral and warm, that vary according to their correlated color temperature (Kelvins). Cool LEDs appear 'cold' and have a high colour temperature (~6000 K), warm LEDs have a 'warmer' advent (~2700 K), and neutral LED lights have a colour temperature betwixt cool and warm LED lights (~4000 1000) [14]. LED lights accept a number of advantages, including increased energy efficiency, directionality, controllability (ability to dim and switch-off when not in apply), longevity and flexibility of colour pick [nine,thirteen,14]. LED lights also take a higher colour rendering alphabetize (CRI), which expresses the capacity for a light source to yield the "true" colour of an object in relation to man vision [14]. Street lights exist primarily for perceived human rubber benefits, and improved colour rendering for man vision enables people to see their surroundings more than clearly, making them feel less vulnerable at night [15].

Fig 1. The spectral output of LPS and LED street lights, representative of the lights used in this study.

LPS and neutral LED spectral outputs were taken from site J and the absurd LED spectral output from site K, shown in Fig 2.

https://doi.org/x.1371/journal.pone.0150884.g001

While these changes in spectral output accommodate human vision, many organisms accept dissimilar spectral sensitivities [16]. Insects, for instance, are attracted to shorter wavelengths, peculiarly nigh the UV role of the spectrum, as this corresponds with the peak spectral sensitivities of their eyes [17–19]. Hence insects are common effectually one-time technology gas belch street lamps that comprise a high proportion of short wavelengths, such every bit high force per unit area mercury vapour (HPMV) lights [18]. Still insects are rarer effectually LPS lights, which are substantially a monochromatic lite source [20].

Bats are a valuable taxon for understanding some of the ecological impacts of artificial light since they exhibit species-specific responses to lighting; some bat species feed on insects attracted to street lights, whereas others avoid calorie-free [21,22]. Street lights attract fast-flying bats such as those in the genera Eptesicus, Lasiurus, Nyctalus and Pipistrellus, most probably because they casualty on the insects attracted to the street lights [23–25]. These bats share a number of traits including aerial hawking [26], foraging in open habitats [27] and emerging relatively early after sunset, which is believed to coincide with top insect availability [26]. Eptesicus and Nyctalus species tend to fly above street lights, diving near the lite cone to feed, whereas Pipistrellus species hunt in and out of the lite cone [12,28]. P. pipistrellus bats spend the majority of their time in dim or dark areas [29,xxx], so are only likely to use lights if the benefits associated with increased foraging success outweigh the perceived take a chance of predation [25]. In contrast, slow-flying bats such as Myotis, Plecotus and Rhinolophus species do not appear to be attracted to bogus lights [21,25,31]; these species rarely feed effectually street lights, possibly because the perceived adventure of predation may be also high [26,32]. If bogus lights dominate the landscape, it may profoundly reduce the loftier quality habitat available to these tedious-flying species. A major concern is that the spread of artificial lights will take long-term effects on these slow-flying, light-intolerant bats.

Many local regime beyond U.k. are in the process of switching their old LPS and HPS lights to LED lights. One of the main drivers is toll, as local authorities can save coin from reduced energy use and maintenance costs. Similar changes are happening across continental Europe and elsewhere in the world. However, LED lights are spectrally different from either LPS or HPS lights, the predominant street lights in the UK and around the world [33]. Species have existed under the yellow and orange hues emitted by sodium street light for decades; how bat activeness will change following the introduction of modern wide spectrum lights is unclear [22]. The effect of an bogus light on each organism will depend on its photoreceptors, the spectral output of the calorie-free source, the intensity of the light and reflectance from the surrounding surround [9]. With that in mind we investigated how the switch-over from LPS to LED street lights affected bat activeness and feeding behaviour.

Methods

Ethics Argument

All the data were nerveless remotely and at that place was no creature handling or manipulation. The study was reviewed and approved by the University of Bristol Ideals Committee–approval number UB/14/031.

Site description and experimental set-upwards

A before-after-control-affect paired design (BACIP) [34], based on a previous report [35], was used to examine the effects of a switch from LPS to LED street lights at twelve sites in iv counties (East Sussex, Gloucestershire, Hampshire and Hertfordshire) across southern England (Fig ii). A BACIP identifies if the impact being tested affects the system in question as it controls for variables such as environmental factors and seasonal changes [36], and so it was essential that the control and experimental lighting columns were matched as closely as possible. We used existing street lights and so site choice was governed by where local authorities were switching from LPS to LED street lights. Each site consisted of a pair of lighting columns (street lights), i control (remaining LPS throughout the study) and 1 experimental (irresolute from LPS to LED). Command columns were restricted to areas where LPS lights remained the dominant street lights throughout the study, whereas experimental columns were restricted to areas where LPS lights were the dominant lighting type before switch-over and LED lighting after switch-over. Paired columns were separated by a hateful distance of 1.4 km (south.d. ± 0.ix km) to reduce the risk of recording the same bats around the control and experimental lighting columns. Sites were separated by a minimum distance of i.86 km to ensure the samples were independent.

The sites were in suburban areas close to bat commuting and foraging habitats [37]; ten sites were in residential areas, the other two (sites H and I) were on A-class roads. Aerial imagery on Google Globe was used to match the altitude to wooded areas, freshwater and grassland as closely equally possible between the command and experimental columns (Table 1), although some variation was inevitable because this was a "real-life" experimental set-up. However, all sites were no greater than 154 thousand from a wooded area, defined every bit a stand up of >10 continuous copse (hateful 54.0 m, due south.d. ± 32.3 m), 709 m from a freshwater source (hateful 220.0 m, s.d. ± 182.two m) and 428 m from grassland with an area >0.half dozen ha (mean 110.9 m, s.d. ± 110.1 m). Inside sites, at that place was a mean difference betwixt the control and experimental columns of 35.four thousand (s.d. ± 32.5 m) betwixt altitude to a wooded area, 130.4 g (south.d. ± 144.5 yard) to a freshwater source and 63.0 m (south.d. ± l.seven m) to grassland.

Table 1. Specifications of the LPS and LED street lights used in this study.

Control and experimental lighting columns in each pair were matched in terms of peak (one thousand) and output (watts) prior to switch-over. For the experimental columns, the output and illuminance readings of the LED lights afterward switch-over are shown in brackets. Proximity to key habitats is shown for each cavalcade. Letters denote the 12 study sites; the location of each site is shown in Fig 2. Power (watts) can reduce, merely illuminance (lux) tin can stay the same or increment after the switch-over to LED lights. This is considering LED lights are more free energy efficient and the lanterns are more than directional than LPS lights.

https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pone.0150884.t001

While there was variation betwixt sites, control and experimental columns in each pair were matched for height (m), output (watts) and illuminance (lux). The local authorities provided information on the light type, output and column tiptop. Within sites, the column heights, light blazon and output were identical between the command and experimental columns except for site A, where the control column was 6 chiliad in height and had an output of 55 watts, whereas the experimental column was 5 m in acme and had an output of 35 watts (Tabular array 1). A combination of neutral and cool LED lights (4000-5700K) was used. Lite measurements from control and experimental lighting columns were taken with a lux meter (photometric system) and a spectrometer (radiometric system) to ensure that the light output and intensity of the paired street lights were comparable. Illuminance was measured with a TES 1330 lux meter (ATP Instrumentation Ltd, Leicestershire, Uk) held horizontally 1.8 m from the ground directly beneath the street light. Irradiance (absolute intensity of the street light) was measured (μW/cm²/nm) 4 m direct below the lantern with a tripod and using a calibrated Body of water Optics USB 2000 spectrometer, a P200-five-UV/VIS patch cord and a CC-three cosine corrector. A Gershun tube was used to reduce the acceptance angle (the amount of light that falls on the sensor) to ensure that the irradiance measurement was from the street low-cal. Ensuring all light readings were taken 4 1000 from the lantern enabled accented intensities to be compared between columns of varying heights. Since environmental variables such every bit temperature, atmospheric precipitation and cloud cover bear on light readings [38], we took calorie-free measurements on clear dry nights when at that place was no full moon.

Measuring and identifying bat calls

Field work took place between May and October 2014. Bat activity was measured using Song Meter SM3 Bat Recorders (Wildlife Acoustics Inc., Massachusetts, USA). Prior to deployment, all detectors were tested in a semi-anechoic chamber and the microphone placed 1 yard and at an bending of 45° from the speaker of an ultrasound generator, which then played a serial of high frequency sounds between twenty and 120 kHz. All detector systems used were comparable in sensitivity as determined by visual inspection of waveforms in BatSound (Pettersson Elektronik, Uppsala Science Park, Sweden). Four detectors were used to further minimise bias: they were randomised between sites, but the same detector was used before and later switch-over for both the command and experimental lighting columns.

Street sign and tamtorque sign fixing clamps were used to attach the bat detectors on average 1.09 m (range 0.73 m to 2.07 m) from the lantern to ensure a standardised method across lighting columns (S1 Fig). Recordings were fabricated simultaneously at both the control and experimental columns for three consecutive nights before and after the switch-over. Bat detectors were gear up to tape bat action using triggers from thirty minutes before sunset on the first night until 30 minutes afterward sunrise on the fourth forenoon. The microphone on the detector was pointing in the same direction as the lantern. All detectors ran the same program, which was generated on SM3 Configurator 1.two.iv (Wildlife Acoustics Inc., 2015) and files were stored as waveform sound files (WAV). The settings on the detectors were: high laissez passer filter 16 kHz; sample frequency 384 kHz; minimum frequency 16 kHz; maximum frequency 120 kHz; maximum recording time xv seconds; and trigger level 12 dB. Detectors were removed betwixt treatments and post switch-over recordings were made a minimum of 7 days (hateful 14.9 days, s.d. ± 5.3 days) after conversion to enable the bats to conform to the new lights [35].

It is non possible to record private bats using acoustical methods, so bat action was monitored every bit the number of passes over the 3 recording nights. A bat pass was defined equally when the time betwixt pulse intervals was 4 times the interpulse interval [21,31,39]. We also investigated bat feeding behaviour around the control and experimental columns. Before communicable an insect, a bat produces a feeding buzz, which is distinguishable from other echolocation calls past its higher repetition rate [32,40]. Relative feeding activity was measured using a 'buzz ratio', which is the proportion of call sequences that included feeding buzzes over the three recording nights [41]. Buzz ratio acted as a proxy for insect activity, the assumption being that the higher the buzz ratio, the more attractive the light source was to insects. Nosotros used buzz ratios as a measure of feeding relative to general activity at LPS and LED street lights.

We analysed the bat calls using the automatic identification software program Kaleidoscope Pro (v0.one.ane.xx, Wildlife Acoustics Inc., Massachusetts, Usa) with British Bat Classifiers (v1.0.5). All bat calls were also validated manually using Kaleidoscope viewer and Bat Sound with the parameter values stipulated in [42] to ensure correct identification. If there were whatever discrepancies between the manual and automatic methods of species identification, the manual identification was used. Transmission validation was used to record multiple passes and/or species per file. Bats were identified to either species (Eptesicus serotinus, Pipistrellus nathusii, P. pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus) or species groups (Myotis spp., Nyctalus spp. and Plecotus spp.) depending on how diagnostic the calls of particular species were [43].

Data analysis

The pairings were an integral part of the experimental design as they accounted for any ecology and/or seasonal changes betwixt the 2 recording periods. To determine if the switch-over from LPS to LED street lights affected bat activity, we were interested in the difference in the number of bat passes before and after the switch-over between the command and experimental lighting columns [44]. If the LED lights did not bear on bat action, the difference between the control and experimental column in each pair would be negligible or inconsistent betwixt pairs [45].

As the bat activity data were not usually distributed, nosotros used a serial of Wilcoxon signed rank tests to determine if at that place was a difference in the number of bat passes betwixt LPS and LED street lights compared with differences in the paired control lights where no switch-over occurred. We compared bat activity of all species combined, and separately for P. pipistrellus, P. pygmaeus and Nyctalus spp., which together contributed 90% of all recorded bat calls. Similarly, buzz ratio data were not normally distributed and so a Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to examination for differences between LPS and LED lighting columns. The buzz ratios of all species were compared, as were the information for P. pipistrellus, which contributed 80% of all buzz ratios recorded. Bonferroni corrections were used to adjust for multiple testing to reduce the risk of false positives; a significant departure between LPS and LED for the bat activity and fizz ratios was accepted if p < 0.0125 and p < 0.025 respectively [46]. Species richness and species diverseness indices [47] were calculated to compare relative abundances of bat species around LPS and LED street lights; the diversity indices were based on the total number of bat passes for each species at control and experimental columns both earlier and after the switch to LED. All statistical and descriptive analyses were carried out in R Studio (version 0.99.451) [48]. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was conducted using the 'coin' bundle [49] and the species richness and species diversity indices were conducted using the 'vegan' package [50].

Results

Bat activity

In that location were 30,416 files from the 12 sites (24 columns). These contained 37,124 bat passes, an average of 1.two passes per file: lxx.0% of passes were P. pipistrellus, 13.0% Nyctalus spp., 9.4% P. pygmaeus and 7.7% Myotis spp. (electronic supplementary fabric, S1–S4 Tables). However, well-nigh all the Myotis spp. calls were recorded from site Eastward after the experimental column had been switched to an LED light. P. pipistrellus were found at both command and experimental lighting columns across all sites, P. pygmaeus were establish across all sites but merely at ten of the twelve control columns, and Nyctalus spp. were recorded at all command lighting columns only merely ix of the experimental columns.

At that place was no significant difference in the number of passes from all species before and after the switch-over to LED between the command and experimental columns (W = 30, Z = -0.706, p = 0.4802; Fig 3A). Bat activity was not significantly different between LPS and LED street lights for P. pipistrellus (W = 30, Z = -0.706, p = 0.4808; Fig 3B), P. pygmaeus (W = 36.5, Z = -0.1963, p = 0.8444; Fig 3C) or Nyctalus spp. (W = 35.v, Z = -0.2751, p = 0.7832.8136; Fig 3D). Thus the switch-over from LPS to LED street lights did not have a significant consequence on either full bat action or individual species/groups for which we had adequate data. In many cases the responses at the control and experimental lighting columns mirrored each other, i.e. when in that location was an increase in the number of bat passes at the command column, at that place was a like increment at the experimental column and vice versa. Furthermore, the management of change betwixt the control and experimental sites was consequent across eleven of the twelve sites, although at sites E and I the magnitude of change at the experimental columns was greater than that at the control columns.

Fig 3. The differences in the log bat passes (number of bat passes afterward the switch-over minus the number of bat passes before the switch-over) for the control and experimental columns in each pair.

A positive value indicates that at that place were more bat passes afterwards the switch-over compared with before, and a negative value indicates more bat passes before compared with later the switch-over. (a) full bat activity, (b) Pipistrellus pipistrellus, (c) Pipistrellus pygmaeus and (d) Nyctalus spp. Letters denote the 12 report sites; the location of each site is shown in Fig 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150884.g003

Buzz ratios

There was no pregnant deviation in buzz ratios between the LPS and LED street lights for all bat species (W = 53, Z = ane.0983p = 0.2721; Fig 4A) or for P. pipistrellus (W = 46, Z = 0.5491, p = 0.5829; Fig 4B). As with the total number of bat passes, patterns of alter at each site were usually the same at both the control and experimental columns. Yet, there was a marked deviation at site E, where there was a decrease in the buzz ratio fifty-fifty though the number of bat passes at the experimental site increased by more than 32 times after the switch-over to a LED light (Fig 3A).

Fig four. The difference in the buzz ratios (proportion of feeding buzzes after the switch-over minus the proportion of feeding buzzes before the switch-over) for both the command and experimental lighting columns.

(a) all bat species and (b) Pipistrellus pipistrellus. Letters denote the 12 study sites; the location of each site is shown in Fig 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150884.g004

Species richness

Species richness and variety indices showed that the same species were in the vicinity of the LPS and LED lights and diversities remained consequent across the control and experimental sites for the two time periods (Tabular array 2); thus the proportion of calls per species varied little between recording periods or light type.

Discussion

The activity of all bats combined, and Pipistrellus and Nyctalus species, was not significantly different effectually LED and LPS street lights. While several studies have recorded fewer bats effectually LPS compared to 'white' street lights [23,24,25], the 'white' lights used in those studies were HPMV street lights that, unlike LED lights, emit UV light. Compared to other spectral emissions, UV light is attractive to many insects that bats prey on. Although LED lights comprise more short wavelengths than LPS lights, it is likely that both light types are equally attractive to insects since neither contains UV light [24,26,35]. Moreover, we found that the buzz ratio did not alter between the 2 types of street lights, over again suggesting that LPS and LED lights had a like event on overall insect action.

In addition to LED lights, there has been interest in the ecological impacts of other new lighting technologies such as metal halide lights. Both metal halide and LED lights are wide spectrum lights and so have a high colour rendering index [35] merely, unlike LEDs, metallic halide lights are a gas discharge lamp and emit a high proportion of short wavelengths, including some UV emissions [14]. Some local authorities are replacing LPS lights with metallic halide rather than LED lights [51] to salve money on installation costs. Unlike our written report, activity of both Nyctalus and Pipistrellus species increased effectually metallic halide compared with LPS lights in a BACIP experiment with fewer study sites [35]. However, while information technology was predicted that insect activity would be greater effectually the metal halide lights, the fizz ratio did not vary betwixt the two calorie-free types, suggesting that the bats may be attracted to metal halide lights for some reason other than feeding. This may be related to the spectral sensitivities of bat eyes, every bit vesper bats can see UV light [52]. Alternatively, this may be due to the limitations of the AnaBat detectors (SD1 and AnaBat Ii; Titley Electronics, Ballina, New South Wales, Australia) used in that study [35]; these are less sensitive than the total spectrum Song Meter SM3 Bat Recorders nosotros used and can fail to record the lower-amplitude parts of bat calls, such as feeding buzzes [42]. Since LED lights do non touch bat action in any style that is unlike from LPS lights, replacing LPS lights with LED rather than metal halide lights volition cause less alter to bat activeness effectually street lights.

We recorded few bats from the genera Myotis, Plecotus and Rhinolophus, probably because they avoid lite when commuting and foraging; HPS and LED street lights showed like consequence sizes on reducing the number of passes of Rhinolophus hipposideros bats [21]. The depression intensity echolocation calls of Plecotus auritus [42], the commonest species of Plecotus in U.k., volition also take contributed to the paucity of data for this genus. The low numbers of Myotis, Plecotus and Rhinolophus bats we recorded is also probable to be attributable in role to the location of the written report sites. Street lights are mostly in built-upward locations, and so we worked in suburban areas where there were suitable habitats for bats. Withal, these are generally more than open, less cluttered habitats, where dull-flying species of Myotis, Plecotus and Rhinolophus are less likely to occur [26,53], although we recorded a three-fold increment in Myotis spp. activity at site E following switch-over. While artificial lighting mostly has a negative effect on Myotis species [21,27], this increase at the experimental site may exist related to nearby swarming behaviour, which takes place in autumn, and would explicate why in that location was such a large increase in bat activity despite a reduction in the number of feeding buzzes. When UV lights were erected in a desert in the United states of america, the insects attracted to the lamps were preyed on by a number of bats, including species of Myotis [54,55]; this may be due to differences in spectral properties and intensities betwixt the UV lamps and the LED light studied here that emitted no UV.

If buzz ratio is a skilful proxy for insect activity, our results propose that there is no difference in the absolute, but not necessarily relative, abundance of the groups of insects eaten past the species of bat we recorded [56] around LPS and LED street lights. While in that location accept been no direct comparisons of insect action around LPS and LED lights, there have between HPS and LED lights, although HPS lights take broader spectral emissions than LPS lights. All the same, the findings are conflicting. A report in New Zealand found that neutral 4000 K LED lights attracted 48% more insects than HPS lights [22], whereas a study in Germany with a mixture of cool (6500 K) and warm/neutral LEDs (3000/4100 G) establish that more insects were attracted to HPS lights [57]. These differences may reverberate differences in local insect communities, the habitats in which the two studies were carried out and/or considering neither study was broad-calibration.

The ecological impacts of bogus lighting are complex. More work is needed on how both bats and their insect prey, and other taxa, respond to different street lights before we tin properly assess the ecological impacts of new lighting technologies, specially LEDs, as these volition soon be used worldwide and then have the potential for far-reaching ecological effects [58]. Due to our experimental design, in that location was some variation between sites in the power of the different light sources (10–107 watts) and correlated colour temperature (4000–5700 G) of the LED street lights nosotros used. Nosotros were unable to control for this because the written report was carried out in a "real-life" setting, and nosotros had to utilise the lighting being installed by the local authority. However, we do non believe that colour temperature was a confounding variable because there is little difference in insect attraction between off-the-shelf LEDs with dissimilar colour temperatures (2700 Chiliad and 6000 G) [22]. To sympathize the furnishings of LED lighting on bats, and enable the results to exist incorporated into lighting polices, it is of import that time to come studies include all relevant information such as light source, output, spectral distribution, luminous flux and flicker rate [59], likewise equally data on habitat quality and environmental variables. It is as well important that studies should involve multiple sites in different areas to avoid drawing conclusions based on local effects.

Conservation perspective

From a conservation viewpoint, our results are encouraging because they suggest that the large-scale replacements of old lighting technologies by LED lights currently taking place in many parts of the Great britain, as well equally in other countries [9], volition non bear upon bat activity significantly differently from what currently occurs at LPS street lights. While at that place may be different impacts on other taxa, our data suggest that broad spectrum lite sources such as LEDs will non necessarily have a greater ecological effect on bats than narrow spectrum lights [ix].

However, information technology is important that these results are viewed alongside the wider impact of artificial lighting on bats. The majority of echolocation calls we recorded were from three species/groups of bats, which are typically considered as lite-tolerant. There have been a number of studies showing the detrimental effects of lighting on roost emergence [60], commuting [31,61] and fettle [62] of a number of tedious-flying bat species. Many of these are already vulnerable to habitat loss and urbanisation [63], and are further disadvantaged past the spread of artificial lighting.

Conclusions

LED lights are widely perceived every bit being environmentally friendly because of their lower CO₂ emissions. The results from this paired report also indicate that the switch-over from LPS to LED street lights did not affect the activity of bat species typically found in close proximity to street lights in suburban environments in the Great britain. The direction of alter within a pair was consistent for eleven of the twelve sites and, equally this experiment was carried out at a broad geographical scale, the switch-over from LPS to LED street lights is unlikely to have an effect on bat activeness. From a conservation perspective this is a positive result as many existing street lights are existence, or have already been, switched to LED in the UK and beyond the globe. The lack of change in the number of feeding buzzes suggests that there was no significant alter in the overall abundance around street lights of those insect groups eaten by bats, although more data are needed on individual insect groups, and how LEDs impact species interactions.

Supporting Information

Acknowledgments

We thank Shelby Temple for loaning the spectrometer and providing relevant training, also as Moth Broyles for helping with the transmission identification of bat calls. We also thank Due east Sussex, Gloucestershire, Hampshire and Hertfordshire County Councils for all their help with the experiments, particularly Mark Perkins and Peter Wiggins (Gloucestershire) and Graham Black and Jon Watt (Hertfordshire), and Neil Rowse and Pauline Smith for assistance in the field.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: EGR SH GJ. Performed the experiments: EGR. Analyzed the information: EGR. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: EGR GJ. Wrote the newspaper: EGR SH GJ. Supervised the study: SH GJ.

References

1. i. Hölker F, Moss T, Griefahn B, Kloas W, Voigt CC, Henckel D, et al. The dark side of light: a transdisciplinary research calendar for light pollution policy. Ecol Soc. 2010;15(4): thirteen. (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art13/)
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
2. 2. Kyba CCM, Hölker F. Practise artificially illuminated skies affect biodiversity in nocturnal landscapes? Landscape Ecol. 2013;28: 1637–1640. ()
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
3. 3. Jakle JA. City lights: illuminating the American night. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Printing; 2001.
4. 4. Gaston KJ, Gaston S, Bennie J, Hopkins J. Benefits and costs of artificial nighttime lighting of the environment. Environ Rev. 2015;23: 14–23. ()
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
5. 5. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Artificial lite in the environment. London: The Stationery Part; 2009.
6. 6. Kyba CCM, Tong KP, Bennie J, Birriel I, Birriel JJ, Cool A, et al. Worldwide variations in artificial skyglow. Sci. Rep. 2015;v: 8409. () pmid:25673335
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
7. 7. Gaston KJ, Visser ME, Hölker F. The biological impacts of artificial lite at nighttime: the research challenge. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2015;370: 20140133. () pmid:25780244
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
8. 8. Navara KJ, Nelson RJ. The dark side of light at night: physiological, epidemiological, and ecological consequences. J Pineal Res. 2007;43: 215–224. () pmid:17803517
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Gaston KJ, Davies TW, Bennie J, Hopkins J. Reducing the ecological consequences of night-time lite pollution: options and developments. J Appl Ecol. 2012;49: 1256–1266. () pmid:23335816
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
10. 10. Cinzano P, Falchi F, Elvidge CD. The first globe atlas of the artificial night sky brightness. Mon Not R Astronl Soc. 2001;328: 689–707. ()
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Schubert EF, Kim JK. Solid-state light sources getting smart. Science. 2005;308: 1274–1278. () pmid:15919985
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Rydell J. Bats and their insect prey at streetlights. In: Rich C, Longcore T, editors. Ecological consequences of bogus night lighting. Washington DC: Island Press; 2006. pp. 43–sixty.
13. 13. De Almeida A, Santos B, Paolo B, Quicheron K. Solid state lighting review—potential and challenges in Europe. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2014;34: thirty–48. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
14. xiv. Elvidge CD, Keith DM, Tuttle BT, Baugh KE. Spectral identification of lighting type and character. Sensors. 2010;ten: 3961–3988. () pmid:22319336
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Lyytimäki J, Petersen LK, Normander B, Bezák P. Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environ Sci. 2008;v: 161–172. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
16. xvi. Land MF, Nilsson D-E. Beast eyes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002.
17. 17. Muirhead-Thomson RC. Trap responses of flying insects: the influence of trap design on capture efficiency. London: Bookish Press; 1991.
18. 18. Eisenbeis G. Artificial night lighting and insects: allure of insects to streetlamps in a rural setting in Germany. In: Rich C, Longcore T, editors. Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Washington DC: Island Press; 2006. pp. 281–304.
19. xix. Cowan T, Gries G. Ultraviolet and violet light: attractive orientation cues for the Indian repast moth, Plodia interpunctella. Entomol Exp Appl. 2009;131: 148–158. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Frank KD. Effects of artificial dark lighting on moths. In: Rich C, Longcore T, editors. Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Washington DC: Island Press; 2006. pp. 305–344.
21. 21. Stone EL, Jones 1000, Harris Due south. Conserving energy at a cost to biodiversity? Impacts of LED lighting on bats. Glob Change Biol. 2012;xviii: 2458–2465. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Pawson SM, Bader MK-F. LED lighting increases the ecological bear upon of lite pollution irrespective of color temperature. Ecol Appl. 2014;24: 1561–1568. (http://dx.doi.org/x.1890/14-0468.i)
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Rydell J. Exploitation of insects around streetlamps by bats in Sweden. Funct Ecol. 1992;half dozen: 744–750. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Blake D, Hutson AM, Racey PA, Rydell J, Speakman JR. Use of lamplit roads by foraging bats in southern England. J Zool. 1994;234: 453–462. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Rydell J, Racey PA. Street lamps and the feeding ecology of insectivorous bats. Symp Zool Soc Lond. 1995;67: 291–307.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Jones G, Rydell J. Foraging strategy and predation chance as factors influencing emergence time in echolocating bats. Phil Trans R Soc B. 1994;346: 445–455. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Lacoeuilhe A, Machon Northward, Julien J-F, Le Bocq A, Kerbiriou C. The influence of low intensities of light pollution on bat communities in a semi-natural context. PLoS One. 2014;9(10): e103042. () pmid:25360638
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Jung K, Kalko EKV. Where woods meets urbanization: foraging plasticity of aerial insectivorous bats in an anthropogenically altered environment. J Mammal. 2010;91: 144–153. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1644/08-MAMM-A-313R.1)
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Hale JD, Fairbrass AJ, Matthews TJ, Davies G, Sadler JP. The ecological impact of city lighting scenarios: exploring gap crossing thresholds for urban bats. Glob Modify Biol. 2015;21: 2467–2478. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
30. 30. Mathews F, Roche N, Aughney T, Jones N, Day J, Baker J, et al. Barriers and benefits: implications of artificial nighttime-lighting for the distribution of mutual bats in Britain and Ireland. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2015;370: 20140124. () pmid:25780236
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Stone EL, Jones G, Harris South. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Curr Biol. 2009;19: 1123–1127. () pmid:19540116
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Rydell J, Entwistle A, Racey PA. Timing of foraging flights of 3 species of bats in relation to insect activeness and predation take a chance. Oikos. 1996;76: 243–252.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Davies TW, Bennie J, Inger R, de Ibarra NH, Gaston KJ. Artificial lite pollution: are shifting spectral signatures irresolute the balance of species interactions? Glob Change Biol. 2013;xix: 1417–1423. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
34. 34. Stewart-Oaten A, Murdoch WW, Parker KR. Environmental touch on assessment: "pseudoreplication" in time? Environmental. 1986;67: 929–940. (http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1939815)
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Rock EL, Wakefield A, Harris S, Jones G. The impacts of new street light technologies: experimentally testing the effects on bats of changing from low-force per unit area sodium to white metal halide. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2015;370: 20140127. () pmid:25780239
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. McDonald TL, Erickson WP, McDonald LL. Analysis of count data from before-later control-impact studies. J Agric Biol Environ Stat. 2000;5: 262–279.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Gaisler J, Zukal J, Rehak Z, Homolka M. Habitat preference and flight activity of bats in a metropolis. J Zool. 1998;244: 439–445. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Institution of Lighting Engineers. Technical report 22. Managing a vital nugget: lighting supports. Rugby: Institution of Lighting Engineers; 2007.
39. 39. Parsons Southward, Jones G. Acoustic identification of twelve species of echolocating bat by discriminant function assay and bogus neural networks. J Exp Biol. 2000;203: 2641–2656. pmid:10934005
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
40. forty. Britton ARC, Jones One thousand, Rayner JMV, Boonman AM, Verboom B. Flying performance, echolocation and foraging behaviour in pond bats, Myotis dasycneme (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). J Zool. 1997;241: 503–522. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. Vaughan N, Jones G, Harris Southward. Identification of British bat species by multivariate analysis of echolocation call parameters. Bioacoustics. 1997;7: 189–207. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Russ J. British bat calls: a guide to species identification. Exeter: Pelagic Publishing; 2012.
43. 43. Walters CL, Freeman R, Collen A, Dietz C, Fenton MB, Jones Chiliad, et al. A continental-calibration tool for audio-visual identification of European bats. J Appl Ecol. 2012;49: 1064–1074. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
44. 44. Schwarz CJ. Assay of BACI experiments. In: Grade notes for beginning and intermediate statistics. 2014. Available: http://www.stat.sfu.ca/~cschwarz/CourseNotes.
45. 45. Underwood AJ. Beyond BACI: experimental designs for detecting homo environmental impacts on temporal variations in natural populations. Mar Freshwater Res. 1991;42: 569–587. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991.
47. 47. Magurran AE. Measuring Biological Diversity. Oxford: Blackwells; 2003.
48. 48. R Core Team. R: a linguistic communication and surround for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2013. Bachelor: http://www.R-project.org/.
49. 49. Hothorn T,Hornik Thousand, van de Wiel MA, Zeileis A. Implementing a course of permutation tests: the coin package. J Stat Softw 2008;28: 1–23. Available: http://www.jstatsoft.org/v28/i08/.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
50. 50. Oksanen J,Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O'Hara RB, et al. vegan: customs environmental package. R bundle version 2.2–1. 2015. Bachelor: http://CRAN.R-projection.org/bundle=vegan
51. 51. Williams G. Cornwall future lighting strategy factsheet. 2009. Available: https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/media/3626966/Factsheet.pdf.
52. 52. Gorresen PM, Cryan PM, Dalton DC, Wolf South, Bonaccorso FJ. Ultraviolet vision may be widespread in bats. Acta Chiropterologica 2015;193: 193–198.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
53. 53. Norberg UM, Rayner JMV. Ecological morphology and flying in bats (Mammalia; Chiroptera): fly adaptations, flight functioning, foraging strategy and echolocation. Phil Trans R Soc B. 1987;316: 335–427. ()
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
54. 54. Fenton MB, Morris GK. Opportunistic feeding by desert bats (Myotis spp.). Tin J Zool. 1976;54: 526–530. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
55. 55. Bell GP. Habitat use and response to patches of prey by desert insectivorous bats. Can J Zool. 1980;58: 1876–1883. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
56. 56. Vaughan N. The diets of British bats (Chiroptera). Mamm Rev. 1997;27: 77–94. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
57. 57. Eisenbeis G, Eick 1000. Studie zur Anziehung nachtaktiver Insekten an die Straßenbeleuchtung unter Einbeziehung von LEDs. Nat Landsch. 2011;86: 298–306.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
58. 58. Wakefield A, Stone EL, Jones G, Harris S. Light-emitting diode street lights reduce last-ditch evasive manoeuvres by moths to bat echolocation calls. R Soc Open Sci. 2015;2: 150291. (http://dx.doi.org/x.1098/rsos.150291) pmid:26361558
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
59. 59. Jägerbrand AK. New framework of sustainable indicators for outdoor LED (lite emitting diodes) lighting and SSL (solid state lighting). Sustainability. 2015;7: 1028–1063. ()
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
60. 60. Downs NC, Beaton V, Guest J, Polanski J, Robinson SL, Racey PA. The furnishings of illuminating the roost entrance on the emergence behaviour of Pipistrellus pygmaeus. Biol Conserv. 2003;111: 247–252. ()
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
61. 61. Stone EL, Harris South, Jones G. Impacts of artificial lighting on bats: a review of challenges and solutions. Mamm Biol. 2015;80: 213–219. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
62. 62. Boldogh S, Dobrosi D, Samu P. The effects of the illumination of buildings on house-habitation bats and its conservation consequences. Acta Chiropterologica. 2007;9: 527–534. (http://dx.doi.org/10.3161/1733-5329(2007)9[527:TEOTIO]2.0.CO;2)
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
63. 63. Stebbings RE. Why should bats be protected? A challenge for conservation. Biol J Linn Soc. 1995;56: 103–118. ()
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

haleyforseir.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150884

Share this post