The preference and costs of sleeping under light at night in forest and urban great tits.

Artificial light at night (ALAN) is an increasing phenomenon associated with worldwide urbanization. In birds, broad-spectrum white ALAN can have disruptive effects on activity patterns, metabolism, stress response and immune function. There has been growing research on whether the use of alternative light spectra can reduce these negative effects, but surprisingly, there has been no study to determine which light spectrum birds prefer. To test such a preference, we gave urban and forest great tits (Parus major) the choice where to roost using pairwise combinations of darkness, white light or green dim light at night (1.5 lux). Birds preferred to sleep under artificial light instead of darkness, and green was preferred over white light. In a subsequent experiment, we investigated the consequence of sleeping under a particular light condition, and measured birds' daily activity levels, daily energy expenditure (DEE), oxalic acid as a biomarker for sleep debt and cognitive abilities. White light affected activity patterns more than green light. Moreover, there was an origin-dependent response to spectral composition: in urban birds, the total daily activity and night activity did not differ between white and green light, while forest birds were more active under white than green light. We also found that individuals who slept under white and green light had higher DEE. However, there were no differences in oxalic acid levels or cognitive abilities between light treatments. Thus, we argue that in naive birds that had never encountered light at night, white light might disrupt circadian rhythms more than green light. However, it is possible that the negative effects of ALAN on sleep and cognition might be observed only under intensities higher than 1.5 lux. These results suggest that reducing the intensity of light pollution as well as tuning the spectrum towards long wavelengths may considerably reduce its impact.

Olfactory cues and the value of information: voles interpret cues based on recent predator encounters.

ABSTRACT: Prey strategically respond to the risk of predation by varying their behavior while balancing the tradeoffs of food and safety. We present here an experiment that tests the way the same indirect cues of predation risk are interpreted by bank voles, Myodes glareolus, as the game changes through exposure to a caged weasel. Using optimal patch use, we asked wild-caught voles to rank the risk they perceived. We measured their response to olfactory cues in the form of weasel bedding, a sham control in the form of rabbit bedding, and an odor-free control. We repeated the interviews in a chronological order to test the change in response, i.e., the changes in the value of the information. We found that the voles did not differentiate strongly between treatments pre-exposure to the weasel. During the exposure, vole foraging activity was reduced in all treatments, but proportionally increased in the vicinity to the rabbit odor. Post-exposure, the voles focused their foraging in the control, while the value of exposure to the predator explained the majority of variation in response. Our data also suggested a sex bias in interpretation of the cues. Given how the foragers changed their interpretation of the same cues based on external information, we suggest that applying predator olfactory cues as a simulation of predation risk needs further testing. For instance, what are the possible effective compounds and how they change "fear" response over time. The major conclusion is that however effective olfactory cues may be, the presence of live predators overwhelmingly affects the information voles gained from these cues. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: In ecology, "fear" is the strategic response to cues of risk an animal senses in its environment. The cues suggesting the existence of a predator in the vicinity are weighed by an individual against the probability of encounter with the predator and the perceived lethality of an encounter with the predator. The best documented such response is variation in foraging tenacity as measured by a giving-up density. In this paper, we show that an olfactory predator cue and the smell of an interspecific competitor result in different responses based on experience with a live-caged predator. This work provides a cautionary example of the risk in making assumptions regarding olfactory cues devoid of environmental context.