Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30280013›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2018

Assessing bird avoidance of high-contrast lights using a choice test approach: implications for reducing human-induced avian mortality.

Benjamin Goller, Bradley F Blackwell, Travis L DeVault, Patrice E Baumhardt, Esteban Fernández-Juricic

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A model to quantify the probability of collision between birds and aircraft: Applications for onboard lighting.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Comprehensive Bird Preservation at Wind Farms.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Benjamin Goller *Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
Bradley F BlackwellUSDA/APHIS/WS National Wildlife Research Center, Sandusky, OH, USA.
Travis L DeVaultUSDA/APHIS/WS National Wildlife Research Center, Sandusky, OH, USA.
Patrice E BaumhardtDepartment of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
Esteban Fernández-Juricic *Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
Purdue University West Lafayette · USAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service · USNational Wildlife Research Center

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAvian collisions with man-made objects and vehicles (e.g., buildings, cars, airplanes, power lines) have increased recently. Lights have been proposed to alert birds and minimize the chances of collisions, but it is challenging to choose lights that are tuned to the avian eye and can also lead to avoidance given the differences between human and avian vision. We propose a choice test to address this problem by first identifying wavelengths of light that would over-stimulate the retina using species-specific perceptual models and by then assessing the avoidance/attraction responses of brown-headed cowbirds to these lights during daytime using a behavioral assay.

methodsWe used perceptual models to estimate wavelength-specific light emitting diode (LED) lights with high chromatic contrast. The behavioral assay consisted of an arena where the bird moved in a single direction and was forced to make a choice (right/left) using a single-choice design (one side with the light on, the other with the light off) under diurnal light conditions.

resultsFirst, we identified lights with high saliency from the cowbird visual perspective: LED lights with peaks at 380 nm (ultraviolet), 470 nm (blue), 525 nm (green), 630 nm (red), and broad-spectrum (white) LED lights. Second, we found that cowbirds significantly avoided LED lights with peaks at 470 and 630 nm, but did not avoid or prefer LED lights with peaks at 380 and 525 nm or white lights. DISCUSSION: The two lights avoided had the highest chromatic contrast but relatively lower levels of achromatic contrast. Our approach can optimize limited resources to narrow down wavelengths of light with high visual saliency for a target species leading to avoidance. These lights can be used as candidates for visual deterrents to reduce collisions with man-made objects and vehicles.

Indexed as

AvoidanceBehavioral assayBird collisionsBird strikesResponses to lightsVisual modeling

Identifiers

PMID30280013
PMCPMC6163032
OpenAlexW2893526392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.