Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
3 result(s) for "Lafitte, Alix"
Sort by:
A flashing light may not be that flashy: A systematic review on critical fusion frequencies
Light pollution could represent one of the main drivers behind the current biodiversity erosion. While the effects of many light components on biodiversity have already been studied, the influence of flicker remains poorly understood. The determination of the threshold frequency at which a flickering light is perceived as continuous by a species, usually called the Critical Fusion Frequency (CFF), could thus help further identify the impacts of artificial lighting on animals. This review aimed at answering the following questions: what is the distribution of CFF between species? Are there differences in how flicker is perceived between taxonomic classes? Which species are more at risk of being impacted by artificial lighting flicker? Citations were extracted from three literature databases and were then screened successively on their titles, abstracts and full-texts. Included studies were critically appraised to assess their validity. All relevant data were extracted and analysed to determine the distribution of CFF in the animal kingdom and the influence of experimental designs and species traits on CFF. At first, 4881 citations were found. Screening and critical appraisal provided 200 CFF values for 156 species. Reported values of CFF varied from a maximum of between 300 Hz and 500 Hz for the beetle Melanophila acuminata D. to a mean of 0.57 (± 0.08) Hz for the snail Lissachatina fulica B. Insects and birds had higher CFF than all other studied taxa. Irrespective of taxon, nocturnal species had lower CFF than diurnal and crepuscular ones. We identified nine crepuscular and nocturnal species that could be impacted by the potential adverse effects of anthropogenic light flicker. We emphasize that there remains a huge gap in our knowledge of flicker perception by animals, which could potentially be hampering our understanding of its impacts on biodiversity, especially in key taxa like bats, nocturnal birds and insects.
Does a flashing artificial light have more or conversely less impacts on animals than a continuous one? A systematic review
Background : Light pollution has been increasingly recognised as a threat to biodiversity, especially with the current expansion of public lighting. Although the impacts of light intensity, spectral composition and temporality are more often studied, another component of light, its flicker frequency, has been largely overlooked. However, flashing light could also have impacts on biodiversity, and especially on animal behaviour and physiology. Objective : This systematic review aimed at identifying the reported physiological and behavioural impacts of flashing light on animals when compared to continuous light. Methods : We followed the standards recommended by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) in order to achieve a comprehensive, transparent and replicable systematic review. Citations were primarily extracted from three literature databases and were then screened for relevance successively on their titles, abstracts and full-texts. Retained studies were finally critically appraised to assess their validity and all relevant data were extracted. Only studies which compared a flashing light to a continuous one were included. Results : At first, we found 19,730 citations. Screening and critical appraisal resulted in 32 accepted articles corresponding to 54 accepted observations—one observation corresponding to one species and one outcome. We collated data on four main taxa: Aves (the most studied one), Actinopterygii, Insecta and Mammalia as well as on plankton. Conclusions : The impacts of flashing light are currently critically understudied and varied between species and many light specificities (e.g. frequency, wavelength, intensity). Therefore, no definitive conclusions could be drawn for now. Thus, research on flashing light should be pressingly carried out in order to better mitigate the impacts of Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) on wildlife. In the meantime, we would recommend precautionary principles to be applied: flashing lighting should be limited when not deemed essential and flicker frequencies managed to prevent animals from experiencing any potential harm from flashing light.
Existing evidence on the potential of soils constructed from mineral wastes to support biodiversity: a systematic map
Background The development of cities and transport infrastructure produces a large volume of mineral waste (e.g. excavated earth material). At the same time, cities are increasingly trying to develop green infrastructures, given the ecosystem services they provide to people, but this comes with considerable economic and environmental costs associated with the transfer of fertile soil from rural areas to cities. In a circular economy approach, the reuse of mineral waste to build fertile soil is a substantial opportunity to reduce the economic and environmental costs of both mineral waste management and green infrastructure development. Soils constructed from these materials (constructed Technosols) must be able to support vegetation growth and become a suitable living environment for soil organisms. This requires ecological engineering to maximise the potential of constructed soils for biodiversity, both from a taxonomic and functional perspective. In this context, we systematically mapped the evidence related to the ability of soils constructed from mineral wastes to support biodiversity. Methods We gathered published and grey literature through searches in two publications databases (Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection), one search engine (Google Scholar), nine organisational websites and through a call for literature. Titles, abstracts, and full-texts were successively screened using eligibility criteria. All included studies were described with coded variables and a database was produced. The extent of evidence was assessed and knowledge clusters and gaps were identified. Review findings The searches yielded 9265 articles, and 153 articles were retained after the screening process. More than half of these articles were from European countries, with France leading the field with 40 articles, followed by Spain (15 articles) and Italy (10 articles). Most of the articles (75%) were produced after 2015. The main reasons for constructing soils from mineral waste were for mine rehabilitation (35%), waste recycling (16%) and experimental purpose (15%). The 153 articles were divided into 1962 studies, a study being a combination of a taxon, an intervention (i.e. soil construction) and a measured outcome. Among these studies, the most studied biological group is plants (69% of studies) and especially herbaceous species (32%), followed by microorganisms (17%) and invertebrates (14%). The most used type of mineral waste is mine waste (31% of studies) followed by excavated soil (16%) and demolition waste (14%). Finally, the most frequently measured outcome is plant growth (42% of studies), followed by organism abundance (16%) and diversity (10%). Conclusions Three main knowledge clusters were identified which could be addressed in the future for full synthesis of the results: (1) How well do plants grow in soils constructed from mineral wastes? (2) What is the potential of soils constructed from mineral wastes to support biodiversity? and (3) How do microbial communities develop in soils constructed from mineral wastes? There is a lack of studies investigating several biological groups at the same time: only 6 articles out of 153 investigated the response of both plants, invertebrates and microorganisms to soil construction. More research is therefore needed on the ability to support a diversity of organisms.