ArticleLandscape ecology2024
Behaviour and landscape contexts determine the effects of artificial light on two crepuscular bird species.
Article in Landscape ecology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Moonlight drives the energy balance and annual cycle of a nocturnal forager.Science advances · 2026Article
- The ecological importance of natural dark nights for circadian organization, metabolism and reproduction in birds.BMC ecology and evolution · 2026Review
- Configurational heterogeneity drives songbird diversity at distinct spatial scales in managed boreal forests.Landscape ecology · 2026Article
- Artificial light at night (ALAN) negatively affects nest site occupancy but does not influence breeding success in two sympatric owl species.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Artificial light at night (ALAN) is increasing worldwide, with many ecological effects. Aerial insectivores may benefit from foraging on insects congregating at light sources. However, ALAN could negatively impact them by increasing nest visibility and predation risk, especially for ground-nesting species like nightjars ( Objectives: We tested predictions based on these two alternative hypotheses, potential foraging benefits vs potential predation costs of ALAN, for two nightjar species in British Columbia: Common Nighthawks ( Methods: We modeled the relationship between ALAN and relative abundance using count data from the Canadian Nightjar Survey. We distinguished territorial from extra-territorial Common Nighthawks based on their wingboom behaviour. Results: We found limited support for the foraging benefit hypothesis: there was an increase in relative abundance of extra-territorial Common Nighthawks in areas with higher ALAN but only in areas with little to no urban land cover. Common Nighthawks' association with ALAN became negative in areas with 18% or more urban land cover. We found support for the nest predation hypothesis: the were strong negative associations with ALAN for both Common Poorwills and territorial Common Nighthawks. Conclusions: The positive effects of ALAN on foraging nightjars may be limited to species that can forage outside their nesting territory and to non-urban areas, while the negative effects of ALAN on nesting nightjars may persist across species and landscape contexts. Reducing light pollution in breeding habitat may be important for nightjars and other bird species that nest on the ground. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10980-024-01875-3.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.