Scholarlink

<p>Artificial lighting, particularly blue-rich light emitted by white light-emitting diodes (LEDs), can have a greater impact on bat foraging and commuting behaviours than light with reduced blue wavelengths. We investigated whether blue-filtered, amber LEDs are less aversive to New Zealand long-tailed bats (<i>Chalinolobus tuberculatus</i>). The effects of a nominal 2700&#xa0;K LED fitted with a blue-cut filter (emitted CCT c. 2344&#xa0;K; hereafter amber light) and a 4000&#xa0;K white LED (emitted CCT c. 3924&#xa0;K) were tested on a light-naïve population in the central North Island, Aotearoa New Zealand. Lighting treatments (dark control, amber, and white light) were alternated in four-night blocks over six weeks, with lights operating from 19:00–07:00. This schedule ensured that lights were already on an hour before sunset and remained on for an hour after sunrise, creating a gradual rather than abrupt change in lighting conditions. Each site experienced all three treatments at different times to control for temporal and spatial effects. We monitored nightly bat activity, measured as the number of call sequences recorded under each lighting condition. Bat activity was highest on dark control nights, intermediate on amber-lit nights, and lowest on white-lit nights. Bat activity under amber lighting (estimated marginal mean ± SE: 3.83 ± 1.08 passes/night) was higher than under white lighting (2.67 ± 0.52 passes/night), but this difference was not statistically significant. Activity under dark conditions (6.12 ± 0.65 passes/night) was significantly greater than under white light, but did not differ significantly from amber light. This indicates that white light is locally aversive to light-naïve <i>C. tuberculatus</i>, while amber light may be somewhat less disruptive but still not equivalent to darkness. Further investigation of lighting spectra is needed to better balance human lighting needs with the conservation of light-sensitive wildlife such as <i>C. tuberculatus</i>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Effects of nominal 2700 K amber LED with a blue cut filter and 4000 K white LED on nightly activity of light-naïve New Zealand long-tailed bats (Chalinolobus tuberculatus)

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月7日

查看全文
  • Titia Schamhart,
  • Kerry M. Borkin,
  • Clare M. Browne,
  • Nicholas Ling,
  • David E. Pattemore,
  • Grant W. Tempero

摘要

Artificial lighting, particularly blue-rich light emitted by white light-emitting diodes (LEDs), can have a greater impact on bat foraging and commuting behaviours than light with reduced blue wavelengths. We investigated whether blue-filtered, amber LEDs are less aversive to New Zealand long-tailed bats (Chalinolobus tuberculatus). The effects of a nominal 2700 K LED fitted with a blue-cut filter (emitted CCT c. 2344 K; hereafter amber light) and a 4000 K white LED (emitted CCT c. 3924 K) were tested on a light-naïve population in the central North Island, Aotearoa New Zealand. Lighting treatments (dark control, amber, and white light) were alternated in four-night blocks over six weeks, with lights operating from 19:00–07:00. This schedule ensured that lights were already on an hour before sunset and remained on for an hour after sunrise, creating a gradual rather than abrupt change in lighting conditions. Each site experienced all three treatments at different times to control for temporal and spatial effects. We monitored nightly bat activity, measured as the number of call sequences recorded under each lighting condition. Bat activity was highest on dark control nights, intermediate on amber-lit nights, and lowest on white-lit nights. Bat activity under amber lighting (estimated marginal mean ± SE: 3.83 ± 1.08 passes/night) was higher than under white lighting (2.67 ± 0.52 passes/night), but this difference was not statistically significant. Activity under dark conditions (6.12 ± 0.65 passes/night) was significantly greater than under white light, but did not differ significantly from amber light. This indicates that white light is locally aversive to light-naïve C. tuberculatus, while amber light may be somewhat less disruptive but still not equivalent to darkness. Further investigation of lighting spectra is needed to better balance human lighting needs with the conservation of light-sensitive wildlife such as C. tuberculatus.