Anthropogenic light is associated with increased vocal activity by nocturnally migrating birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthropogenic modifications to the natural environment have profound effects on wild animals, through structural changes to natural ecosystems as well as anthropogenic disturbances such as light and noise. For animals that migrate nocturnally, anthropogenic light can interfere with migration routes, flight altitudes, and social activities that accompany migration, such as acoustic communication. We investigated the effect of anthropogenic light on nocturnal migration of birds through the Great Lakes ecosystem. Specifically, we recorded the vocal activity of migrating birds and compared the number of nocturnal flight calls produced above rural areas with ground-level artificial lights compared to nearby areas without lights. We show that more nocturnal flight calls are detected over artificially lit areas. The median number of nocturnal flight calls recorded at sites with artificial lights (31 per night, interquartile range: 15–135) was 3 times higher than at nearby sites without artificial lights (11 per night, interquartile range: 4–39). By contrast, the number of species detected at lit and unlit sites did not differ significantly (artificially lit sites: 6.5 per night, interquartile range: 5.0–8.8; unlit sites: 4.5 per night, interquartile range: 2.0–7.0). We conclude that artificial lighting changes the behavior of nocturnally migrating birds. The increased detections could be a result of ground-level light sources altering bird behavior during migration. For example, birds might have changed their migratory route to pass over lit areas, flown at lower altitudes over lit areas, increased their calling rate over lit areas, or remained longer over lit areas. Our results for ground-level lights correspond to previous findings demonstrating that migratory birds are influenced by lights on tall structures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".