The Influence of Different Light Wavelengths of Anthropogenic Light at Night on Nestling Development and the Timing of Post-fledge Movements in a Migratory Songbird
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many different aspects of an animal’s lifecycle such as its behavior, patterns of hormone activity, and internal clock time, can be affected by anthropogenic light at night (ALAN). Exposing an organism to ALAN during its early life could also have an impact on its development. Since photoperiod can trigger or schedule the migration timing of long-distance migratory birds, there is great potential for anthropogenic light to interact with photoperiod to affect timing. However, very little has been investigated regarding the impacts of ALAN on post-hatching development and migration timing. We investigated the impact of ALAN during nestling development in a long-distance migratory songbird to determine the potential impact on the timing of post-breeding movements in the wild. We experimentally manipulated the light by using programmable lighting, in the nest boxes of free-living nestlings of purple martin ( Progne subis ) in Manitoba, Canada. We exposed two groups of developing nestlings, from hatch to fledge date, to green or white LED lights (5 lux) during the night. We also included a control group that experienced natural, ambient light at night. We found that some adults abandoned their nests shortly after starting the experiment (4 of 15 nests in the white light treatment). For the nests that remained active, nestlings exposed to the white light treatment had higher weights (at day 20 or 22), later fledge dates (1.54 ± 0.37, 95% CI 0.80–2.28), and later colony departure date (2.84 ± 1.00, 95% CI 0.88–4.81), than young of the control group. Moreover, nestlings of both white and green light groups had longer nesting duration than nestlings of the control group. This study demonstrates the impact of ALAN on the development of post-breeding movement timing in nestlings of wild migratory birds. However, our results also indicate that green light may have less of an impact as compared to white light.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".