Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Jun 5;19(6):e0295098. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295098

Reduction of coastal lighting decreases seabird strandings

Tori V Burt 1,*, Sydney M Collins 1, Sherry Green 2, Parker B Doiron 1, Sabina I Wilhelm 3, William A Montevecchi 4
Editor: Travis Longcore5
PMCID: PMC11152301  PMID: 38837957

Abstract

Artificial light at night (ALAN) is negatively impacting numerous species of nocturnally active birds. Nocturnal positive phototaxis, the movement towards ALAN, is exhibited by many marine birds and can result in stranding on land. Seabird species facing major population declines may be most at risk. Leach’s Storm-Petrels (Hydrobates leucorhous) are small, threatened seabirds with an extensive breeding range in the North Atlantic and North Pacific Oceans. The Atlantic population, which represents approximately 40–48% of the global population, is declining sharply. Nocturnal positive phototaxis is considered to be a key contributing factor. The Leach’s Storm-Petrel is the seabird species most often found stranded around ALAN in the North Atlantic, though there is little experimental evidence that reduction of ALAN decreases the occurrence of stranded storm-petrels. During a two-year study at a large, brightly illuminated seafood processing plant adjacent to the Leach’s Storm-Petrel’s largest colony, we compared the number of birds that stranded when the lights at the plant were on versus significantly reduced. We recorded survival, counted carcasses of adults and juveniles, and released any rescued individuals. Daily morning surveys revealed that reducing ALAN decreased strandings by 57.11% (95% CI: 39.29% - 83.01%) per night and night surveys revealed that reducing ALAN decreased stranding of adult birds by 11.94% (95% CI: 3.47% - 41.13%) per night. The peak stranding period occurred from 25 September to 28 October, and 94.9% of the birds found during this period were fledglings. These results provide evidence to support the implementation of widespread reduction and modification of coastal artificial light as a conservation strategy, especially during avian fledging and migration periods.

Introduction

Many seabird populations have been negatively impacted by artificial light at night (ALAN) [1, 2]. Light from coastal towns, lighthouses, fishing vessels, and offshore hydrocarbon platforms attract marine birds, often causing them to collide with man-made structures, resulting in injury, oiling, and stranding [1, 2]. Stranded seabirds have difficulty taking off from land due to injury, stress, and disorientation, resulting in some seeking refuge in dark and inaccessible locations [3]. Without intervention from rescue groups, stranded birds are subjected to predation, starvation, and dehydration, and mortality is probable [1, 3, 4].

Little is known about why seabirds cluster around light, but several non-mutually exclusive and potentially interactive hypotheses have been proposed. First, birds may confuse artificial lights with bioluminescence [5, 6]. Some seabirds feed on bioluminescent organisms [5–7], and it is plausible that birds are not able to differentiate between natural and artificial light [5]. Second, ALAN may interfere with the ability of marine birds to navigate using light from the moon and stars or their ability to sense magnetic orientation [5, 8]. Third, ALAN may disorient individuals, causing them to be “caught” in a light catch basin from which they have difficulty escaping [1]. Light effects may be intensified in fledglings, as their retinal development is not completed until after fledging [9].

The extent to which seabird strandings are caused by a phototactic response, and how that response interacts with other environmental factors, is also unclear. For example, seabirds may be pushed onshore by gale-force winds and become stranded [10, 11]. In addition, more birds strand around sources of ALAN when cloud cover is high [5] and moon illumination is low [4, 10, 12]. Studies have shown distinct temporal peaks in stranding that associate with the affected species’ fledging period and migration [4, 10, 13, 14].

Of the seabird orders, Procellariiformes is among the most vulnerable to the effects of ALAN [15]. The Leach’s Storm-Petrel (Hydrobates leucorhous) is one of the most nocturnally active procellariiforms [16] and is particularly vulnerable to the effects of ALAN in the North Atlantic [4, 10, 13]. During the past 40 years, the Northwest Atlantic population of Leach’s Storm-Petrels has declined by more than 50%, and as a result, the species is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and ‘Threatened’ by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador [17–19]. This population decline is likely attributable to numerous factors, including positive phototaxis [18, 20].

It has been widely suggested that turning off the lights at night should be used as a conservation strategy to decrease storm-petrel strandings [10, 21]. Efforts to reduce strandings at common stranding sites by reducing ALAN have been successful with other storm-petrel and procellarid species [5, 22, 23]. To our knowledge, only one study has attempted to experimentally determine the effect of ALAN on the occurrence of stranded Leach’s Storm-Petrels [12]. This study, however, had very small numbers of stranded birds, and light conditions only differed between years [12], so annual differences could have accounted for the perceived effects of ALAN.

Our research investigated intra- and inter-annual variation in the number of strandings at a major light source near the Leach’s Storm-Petrels’ largest colony on Baccalieu Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, throughout the breeding period (May ‐ November) of 2021 and 2022. We hypothesized that: 1) the stranding of storm-petrels at coastal industrial sites is a result of positive phototaxis [10, 13, 20, 24], and predicted that significantly reducing ALAN by turning off 15 out of 27 lights at an industrial site would reduce the number of stranded birds; 2) environmental conditions influence light visibility and subsequently the number of storm-petrels stranding around ALAN [5, 10–12, 25] and predicted that more birds would strand when wind speed and cloud cover are high, the wind is blowing onshore, and moon illumination is low; 3) fledglings are more susceptible to the effects of ALAN than adults [10, 13], and predicted that fledglings would be disproportionately represented in the stranded birds recovered and that the peak stranding period would occur during the Leach’s Storm-Petrel fledging period from early September through October [10, 13].

Methods

Study site

Data were collected at the Quinlan Brothers Ltd. seafood processing plant in Bay de Verde, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada (Fig 1A; 48.09780, -52.89831). Bay de Verde is within 10 km of Baccalieu Island (48.15089, -52.79700), the site of the Leach’s Storm-Petrels’ largest colony, estimated at 2 million pairs [26] (Fig 1B). Depending on weather conditions, skyward lighting from Bay de Verde can be seen from Baccalieu Island, and citizen reports indicated that thousands of storm-petrels were stranding at the plant each year, making it an ideal location to conduct this experiment. The building is 6,919 m2 [27] and has 16 bright overhanging light-emitting diodes (LEDs) along the top of the building in front of the wharf facing north-west into the harbour and Conception Bay (Figs 2 and 3). There are an additional 22 lights on the back and sides of the plant, and nine lights on the storage building and parking lot area (Fig 3). Lights are either overhanging or attached to the wall of the building, those attached to the wall are dimmer relative to the overhanging LEDs, meaning the brightest lighting is on the wharf-side of the plant, where most birds are attracted. There are also LEDs and high-pressure sodium lights along the wharf and around the vicinity of the plant.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Map of Canada (A) with a red point indicating the study site Bay de Verde, Newfoundland and Labrador and (B) the study site relative to the world’s largest Leach’s Storm-Petrel colony on Baccalieu Island, Newfoundland and Labrador indicated with red points.

Fig 2. Top-down diagram of the Quinlan Brothers Ltd. seafood processing plant in 2022 (not to scale).

Fig 2

The yellow and grey circles indicate the approximate locations of the LEDs on the front of the building that were manipulated (turned on and off) during the experiment and the yellow circles indicate the approximate location of the unmanipulated LEDs that remained on during the entire study period. Smaller circles represent wall lights and larger circles represent overhanging lights. The black squares indicate the approximate locations of the bird shelters. The length of the front of the building is approximately 200 metres long and 10 metres high.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Photos taken in 2021 of the Quinlan Brothers Ltd. seafood processing plant with the LEDs on the front of the building on (A) and with nearly all of them off (B) (Photos by S.M. Collins).

Lighting regime

Starting June 25 2021 and ending November 10 2021, 12 of the 16 overhanging LEDs on the front of the building were turned on and off according to a 28-day random schedule which aligned with the lunar cycle, for a total of 14 days of each treatment in each 28-day period (Fig 2). This period was chosen because reduced numbers of stranded storm-petrels have been associated with a fuller moon [10]. This schedule proved difficult for the plant staff to follow, so in 2022, we implemented a schedule with which the lights were turned on during odd days of the month and off during even days. This began on May 1 2022 and ended on November 10 2022. The schedule was followed as closely as possible when the plant was in operation but sometimes deviated (S2 Fig). Lights at the back and sides of the plant were on at all times and lights at the front were turned on briefly, regardless of the lighting schedule, when vessels were unloading catch for safety purposes.

Data collection

Daily morning surveys

Leach’s Storm-Petrels are nocturnally active burrow-nesters that seek refuge in dark confined spaces when stranded [3]. In 2019, we incidentally observed Leach’s Storm-Petrels finding refuge in bait boxes used by pest control companies to control rat populations at two industrial sites where stranding events were being investigated (this site in Bay de Verde and the Holyrood Thermal Generation Station; [7]). As a result, we used these same boxes as bird shelters (29 x 25 x 15 cm Protecta EVO Express Bait Station after removing the inner contents) deployed around the perimeter of the building to safely capture and protect stranded birds from predation or injury. Fourteen boxes were deployed in 2021, and an additional three (17 total) were deployed in 2022 (Fig 2). Bird shelters were checked each morning from April 28 to November 30, 2021 and from May 3 to November 10, 2022. Surrounding areas (e.g. under concrete blocks or stairs) including the back and sides of the plant, and the storage building were also inspected, and all storm-petrels found were collected. Morning checks were sometimes not completed when the plant was closed, or when nightly surveys (see below) were performed. Healthy birds were released the following evening at dusk unless poor weather conditions made it unsafe to release them. In this case, birds were kept for an additional night to ensure safe release. Injured birds were kept overnight and released the following evening if they recovered. Each morning, we recorded the date, lighting condition (on/reduced), fog conditions, and number of live and dead birds. There were 158 surveys conducted in 2021 and 156 surveys conducted in 2022 (see S1 Fig for a breakdown of surveys by month). Due to missing light condition information, (nlightson = 111, nlightsreduced = 174, not available = 29) we removed 29 nights from our analysis. The lights at the plant remained off for much of September and October in 2021 and 2022, despite the lighting schedule, because the plant was not processing fish.

Night surveys

Morning checks do not capture all birds that strand due to the capacity and variable catch of bird shelters, predators, and birds moving to inaccessible locations. To supplement the morning collections, 13 nightly surveys were performed opportunistically from June 25 to October 11, 2021 (nlightson 2021 = 3, nlightsreduced 2021 = 8) and 22 nightly surveys were performed approximately bi-weekly from April 20 to October 21, 2022 (nlightson 2022 = 8, nlightsreduced 2022 = 14; S1 Fig). Due to missing data, two of these had to be removed from our analysis (nlightson = 11, nlightsreduced = 22, not available = 2). Starting around 22:00, we patrolled the plant perimeter every 30–45 minutes until around 04:00 depending on the level of bird activity. We collected live, injured, and dead storm-petrels, and checked the bird shelters and surrounding areas during each survey. Live storm-petrels were assessed for injuries, measured, weighed, aged (darker colour and non-weathered condition of the primary feathers indicates juvenile birds [28]), and checked for the presence of a brood patch indicating breeding status [29]. On nights when 100–1,000 birds were stranded (“mass stranding events”), birds were only aged and counted. Most birds were released immediately from a dark area less than 1 km from the plant. Birds were released the following evening when they were injured, the weather was poor, or researcher availability was low. We recorded the total number of storm-petrels found, the number of live and dead birds, the lighting conditions at the plant (on or reduced), and cloud cover conditions (greater or less than 50%). The plant was closed for approximately two to three weeks during 2022 due to extraneous circumstances, meaning the lights were off and the lighting schedule was not followed. Therefore, the reduced light condition was disproportionately represented in this sample.

Data analysis

Daily morning and night surveys

Statistical analyses and figure construction were completed using R Statistical Software version 4.2.2 [30]. We assessed the period in which storm-petrels are most likely to strand by plotting the total number of stranded birds per day from the daily morning surveys (both alive and dead) in a time-series graph fit with a LOESS line of smoothing. We determined the peak stranding period as the time at which the smoothed line indicated that nightly strandings were double the mean number of stranded storm-petrels per night.

To determine whether reducing ALAN at the fish plant reduced the number of stranded storm-petrels, we used a negative binomial generalized linear model with a log link function. Using the daily morning survey data, we assessed the association of light condition (fixed; categorical; on or reduced), day of year, (fixed; continuous integer), year (fixed; categorical; 2021 or 2022), illuminated percent of the moon (hereafter moon illumination; fixed; continuous), wind speed (fixed; continuous), wind direction (fixed; categorical; onshore or offshore), and fog (fixed; categorical; fog or no fog) on the total number of storm-petrels stranded per night (live and dead). For 37 nights, data were unavailable for one of the variables, or morning surveys were completed following night surveys, influencing the results of the counts. As such, these observations were removed to proceed with model construction (data unavailable = 26, morning survey conducted following a night survey = 11, final sample size = 248 nights). Model construction followed the guidelines recommended by Zuur et al. [31] and Zuur and Ieno [32] and were constructed using the package “glmmTMB” [33], with assumptions tested using the package “DHARMa” [34]. Moon illumination information was obtained with permission from the company Time and Date AS [35]. Wind speed (max gust per day) and direction information from a weather station in Grates Cove, NL (48.1675, -52.9393; 13 km from Bay de Verde, NL) were obtained from the Government of Canada website [36]. Wind direction was classified as onshore or offshore based on the tangent to the eastern Newfoundland coastline from Flowers Point on the Bonavista Bay Peninsula (48.59913, -52.99618) to Sugarloaf Head on the Avalon Peninsula (47.61971, -52.65213) (S3 Fig). Mass stranding events, in which hundreds to thousands of birds strand at one site in a single evening, are relatively uncommon but can have a disproportionate effect on the model. We therefore ran the analysis both with and without the outliers (large mass stranding events of ≥ 100 birds). The inclusion of outliers did not change the inference of the model, so analyses of the whole dataset are reported.

Night survey data were analysed using a similar negative binomial model as the one for the daily morning survey data, but adults and juvenile strandings were modelled separately and cloud cover (categorical, greater or less than 50%) was used in place of fog, as fog data were not available for this sample. Given that the earliest recording fledging date for the nearby colony of Great Island in Witless Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada was September 10 [29], we assumed any birds found before this date were adults. Since the majority of birds found during the night surveys after September 10 were juveniles, we assumed that any unaged birds found after this date were likely juveniles and included them in the juvenile model. The juvenile model also included date modelled as a quadratic term as juvenile strandings are not expected to have a linear relationship with day of year. Fledging occurs at a distinct period that follows a normal distribution with day of year and the number of chicks that fledge per night during this period is varied [37]. For three nights of the night surveys, data for one of the variables listed above were unavailable and had to be removed to proceed with model construction (final sample size for adult and juvenile models = 27 nights). If cloud cover data were not recorded, supplementary data from Custom Weather Inc [38] were used to estimate cloud cover conditions from the closest weather station in St. Johns, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Ethical considerations

Birds were collected under Canadian Wildlife Service scientific permit no. LS2688, and banded under Environment and Climate Change Canada Scientific Permits to Capture and Band Migratory Birds no. 10559 X and 10332 K.

Results

Effects of light and other environmental variables

Daily morning surveys

The number of stranded birds per night was significantly (p < 0.05) greater when the lights were turned on, when moon illumination was low, and when winds were blowing onshore (Table 1). When the lights were reduced, 57.11% fewer birds tended to strand per night (95% CI: 39.29% - 83.01%). The predicted count from the model of stranded birds per night was over 1.5 times higher when the lights were on compared to when the lights were reduced (Fig 4). Significantly more birds stranded per night in 2021 than 2022 (Table 1; Mbirdspernight2021 = 5.56, SD = 27.26; Mbirdspernight2022 = 4.37, SD = 33.91). Day of year, wind speed, and fog were not significantly associated with the number of stranded birds. Variance in the number of Leach’s Storm-Petrels stranded was significantly predicted by wind direction (Table 1).

Table 1. Model coefficients, standard error values, and dispersion model of the negative binomial generalized linear model for the number of Leach’s Storm-Petrels (H. leucorhous) found during daily morning surveys at a seafood processing plant in Bay de Verde, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada in 2021 and 2022.

Estimate Standard error z-value p-value
(Intercept) 1.780 0.585 3.042 0.002
Light condition (reduced) -0.560 0.191 -2.936 0.003
Day of year -0.004 0.002 -1.892 0.058
Year (2022) -0.716 0.205 -3.499 < 0.001
Moon illumination -0.010 0.003 -3.437 < 0.001
Fog (yes) 0.154 0.199 0.776 0.438
Wind speed 0.008 0.006 1.317 0.188
Wind direction (onshore) 2.573 0.452 5.688 < 0.001
Dispersion model:
Estimate Standard error z value p-value
(Intercept) 1.559 0.222 7.016 < 0.001
Wind direction (onshore) 3.550 0.538 6.597 < 0.001

Fig 4. Predicted count of Leach’s Storm-Petrels (H. leucorhous) found during daily morning surveys at a seafood processing plant in Bay de Verde, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada in 2021 and 2022 when the lights were on versus reduced.

Fig 4

The grey outline represents the 95% confidence interval.

Night surveys

Similar to the daily morning surveys, the number of stranded adult birds per night during nocturnal surveys was significantly greater with the lights on and during 2021 (Table 2). When the lights were reduced, 11.94% fewer adult birds tended to strand per night (95% CI: 3.47% - 41.13%). The predicted count from the model of stranded adults per night was over 8 times higher when the lights were on compared to when the lights were reduced (Fig 5). Wind speed, wind direction, moon illumination, day of year, and cloud cover did not associate with the number of stranded adult storm-petrels per night. Variance in the number of stranded adult birds was not significantly predicted by the day of year (Table 2) but the inclusion of this term in the dispersion model improved model fit.

Table 2. Model coefficients, standard error values, and dispersion model of the negative binomial generalized linear model for the number of adult Leach’s Storm-Petrels (H. leucorhous) found during night surveys at a seafood processing plant in Bay de Verde, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada in 2021 and 2022.
Estimate Standard error z-value p-value
(Intercept) 0.269 1.652 0.163 0.871
Light condition (reduced) -2.125 0.631 -3.368 < 0.001
Day of year 0.008 0.005 1.469 0.142
Year (2022) 2.508 1.164 2.154 0.031
Moon illumination -0.004 0.006 -0.690 0.490
Cloud cover (> 50%) -0.306 0.790 -0.387 0.699
Wind speed -0.014 0.026 -0.540 0.589
Wind direction (onshore) -0.160 0.452 -0.353 0.724
Dispersion model:
Estimate Standard error z-value p-value
(Intercept) 3.327 2.354 1.414 0.157
Day of year -0.018 0.048 -0.376 0.707
Fig 5. Predicted count of adult Leach’s Storm-Petrels (H. leucorhous) found during night surveys at a seafood processing plant in Bay de Verde, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada in 2021 and 2022 when the lights were on versus reduced.

Fig 5

The grey outline represents the 95% confidence interval.

The number of stranded juvenile storm-petrels per night during night surveys was significantly greater when winds were blowing onshore and during 2021 (Table 3). As well, day of year had a quadratic relationship with the number of stranded juvenile birds (Table 3). Wind speed, cloud cover, and lighting condition did not associate with the number of stranded juveniles. Though moon illumination was not significant, there was a trend indicating the number of stranded juvenile birds per night increased with less moon illumination (Table 3).

Table 3. Model coefficients and standard error values of the negative binomial generalized linear model for the number of juvenile Leach’s Storm-Petrels (H. leucorhous) found during night surveys at a seafood processing plant in Bay de Verde, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada in 2021 and 2022.
Estimate Standard error z-value p-value
(Intercept) 17.233 9.550 1.804 0.071
Light condition (reduced) -0.486 0.759 -0.640 0.522
Day of year -0.190 0.085 -2.240 0.025
Day of year (quadratic) 0.001 0.000 2.843 0.004
Year (2022) -2.795 1.127 -2.479 0.013
Moon illumination -0.013 0.008 -1.650 0.099
Cloud cover (> 50%) -0.118 0.625 -0.188 0.851
Wind speed 0.005 0.026 0.188 0.851
Wind direction (onshore) 1.871 0.664 2.818 0.005

Peak stranding period

Consistent with findings from the night survey analysis that indicated a quadratic relationship between day of year and the number of juvenile birds stranded per night, the peak stranding period occurred from September 25 to October 28 (Fig 6), when the LOESS line of smoothing indicated that the nightly strandings were consistently greater than double the mean number of birds that stranded per night (M = 4.25, SD = 27.67). This interval encompassed 83% of all birds stranded.

Fig 6. Scatterplot of the number of stranded Leach’s Storm-Petrels (H. leucorhous) per day of year in 2021 and 2022 collected during the daily morning surveys of a seafood processing plant in Bay de Verde, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada (day 250 = 7 September).

Fig 6

The blue line is the loess line of smoothing, the grey surrounding the line is the 95% confidence interval, and the black rectangle represents the peak stranding period (September 25 ‐ October 28). Two outliers (number of stranded birds = 387 and 283) were used to create the graph but are not shown on the above figure to improve data visualization.

Mortality, survival, and age class

In total, including observations that were removed for model construction, 3,925 Leach’s Storm-Petrels were found stranded at the seafood processing plant in 2021 and 2022. Of these birds, 92.7% were alive. In 2021 and 2022, across all surveys, 1,950 birds stranded when the building LEDs were on compared to 1,929 birds when the lights were reduced. In total, across both years, the number of birds found during the night surveys (n = 2,590 birds, mean = 74 birds per night; Table 4) was nearly double the number of birds found during the daily morning surveys (n = 1,335 birds, mean = 4.3 birds per night; S2 Fig). Most adults stranded from June to August (65.6%), and juveniles composed most (94.9%) of the birds found during the peak stranding period (Table 5). Of the birds we were able to collect and assign age to in 2022 (live and dead), 361 were juveniles and 212 were adults.

Table 4. Summary of age, breeding status and individual measurements of stranded Leach’s Storm-Petrels (H. leucorhous) collected during night surveys at the seafood processing plant in Bay de Verde, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, during 2021 and 2022.

Parameter Value
Number of adults 250
Number of juveniles 1,609
Number of unknown-age birdsa 731
Number of breeding individualsb 59
Mean adult weight and standard deviation (n = 133)b 41.82 g +/- 11.11 g
Mean juvenile weight and standard deviation (n = 13)b 45.54 g +/- 6.89 g
Mean adult wing length and standard deviation (n = 135)b 160.21 mm +/- 3.58 mm
Mean juvenile wing length and standard deviation (n = 15)b 159.00 mm +/- 3.27 mm

aBirds of unknown age were either unable to be identified by the handler, escaped capture, or were not aged or measured due to logistical constraints.

bMeasurements of breeding status, wing length, and weight were only available for 2022.

Table 5. Total number of adult, juvenile, and unknown-age Leach’s Storm-Petrels (H. leucorhous) that stranded at the seafood processing plant in Bay de Verde, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, per night during each month of night survey data collection in 2021 and 2022.

Month
Year Age April May June July August September October
2021 Adult -a -a 8 -a -a 16 14
Juvenile -a -a 0 -a -a 24 1,224
Unknown-age -a -a 0 -a -a 0 684
2022 Adult 0 0 46 41 70 9 46
Juvenile 0 0 0 0 0 32 329
Unknown-age 0 0 0 0 0 8 39

aSurveys were not completed during these months.

Mass stranding events

Eight mass stranding events (≥ 100 birds stranding during a single night) occurred during the 2-year data collection period and all occurred within the peak stranding period; September 30 2021, October 1–4 2021, October 16, 2022, and October 19–20, 2022. Of these mass stranding events, five occurred when the lights were reduced. Notably, during six of these events, moon illumination only reached a high of 38%, cloud coverage was greater than 50% or it was foggy, and winds did not fall below 35 km/hr. Six mass stranding events occurred during the night surveys. During these events, juveniles comprised 66% of the birds, adults comprised only 4%, and 30% were unknown-age.

Discussion

We experimentally demonstrated that even a partial reduction in coastal lighting was an effective mitigation strategy for birds stranding around artificially lit areas, reducing strandings by 11 to 57% (Tables 1 and 2). Our results concur with those of Miles et al. [6] who conducted a light experiment with Leach’s Storm-Petrels, and reported a decrease in the number of strandings when the street lights at a common stranding area were turned off, compared to the previous year with which the lights were turned on. We also demonstrated that varying the lighting condition both within and across years yields similar findings, suggesting that Leach’s Storm-Petrels exhibit positive phototaxis. It is well established that other burrow-nesting procellariiforms cluster around ALAN [5, 22, 23, 39], and in some species, reducing ALAN by turning off or shielding lights has been effective [22, 23]. For example, Reed et al. [23] showed that shielding lights at a common stranding hotspot on Kauai Island, Hawaii decreased the number of grounded Newell’s Shearwaters (Puffinus newelli) recovered by almost 40%. On Phillip Island, Australia where more than 8,000 Short-tailed Shearwaters (Ardenna tenuirostris) were grounded from 1999 to 2013, turning off road lights on a brightly illuminated bridge decreased the number of stranded shearwaters [22].

In addition to ALAN, moon illumination was a key environmental factor which influenced strandings in the current study. Morning surveys revealed that fewer storm-petrels stranded when moon illumination was high (Table 1). During night surveys, moon illumination was not significantly associated with storm-petrel strandings in either adult nor juvenile models, however there was a trend in juvenile birds towards a reduction in strandings during periods of high moon illumination (Table 3). Numerous studies show that greater moon illumination is associated with decreased strandings and reduced colony activity by adult Leach’s Storm-Petrels and other procellariiforms [4, 5, 10, 21, 23]https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?1beLPI. This phenomenon has two proposed explanations: 1) lunar illumination appears to reduce the disorienting influence of ALAN [21], and 2) birds are less active on nights with high moon illumination [40], so fewer strandings occur. Though adults tend to be less active on a full moon [40], Collins et al. [37] found that the fledging of juvenile Leach’s Storm-Petrels is not associated with moon phase or incident illumination, suggesting that fledging activity does not adequately predict strandings when moon illumination is high [25, 37]. Given that fewer birds in our study stranded on a full moon and that most collected in our study were fledglings (Table 4), it is likely that moonlight reduces the risk for stranding by reducing the attractive and disorientating properties of ALAN [25, 37].

Wind direction was also associated with the number of stranded juvenile birds per night, suggesting that because juveniles are less experienced flyers, they are susceptible to being pushed toward land by onshore winds [10, 29]. Contradicting previous research [11], fog, cloud cover, and wind speed did not associate with the number of stranded birds, however, five out of eight mass stranding events (63%) during our study occurred when moon illumination was low, cloud cover was high or it was foggy, and winds were blowing onshore. These results suggest that fog and cloud cover, environmental variables which influence available nocturnal illumination, may play a role in mass stranding events. To make better-informed assessments of the effect of cloud cover and fog, more research is needed into these episodic occurrences.

In 2021 and 2022, researchers and volunteers rescued more than 3,500 stranded Leach’s Storm-Petrels at the seafood processing plant in Bay de Verde. Despite daily monitoring, hundreds of birds perished (see body part count analysis S1–S3 Texts). The number of birds found during night surveys was almost double the number found when conducting morning surveys, even though night surveys only accounted for 10% of the total surveying effort (S1 Fig). Daily morning surveys, while often the only feasible option, do not account for birds that were removed by predators or died in inaccessible locations. To maximize the survival of stranded Leach’s Storm-Petrels, consistent researcher or volunteer presence is needed at common stranding areas during the peak stranding period to conduct nightly surveys.

The peak stranding period of birds at Bay de Verde occurred from September 25 to October 28 (Fig 6) and night surveys showed that the number of stranded juvenile birds had a quadratic relationship with day of year (Table 3). These results concur with previous research which found that most storm-petrels stranded during late September through to November in Atlantic Canada [3, 4, 10, 12, 13]. This period corresponds directly with the Leach’s Storm-Petrels’ fledging period [29, 37] and most birds found during this period were fledglings (Table 5), supporting the idea that they are the age class most susceptible to the effects of ALAN [5, 9, 41]. The eight mass stranding events that occurred during this study consisted of mostly fledglings, but did not coincide with the lights on condition, as five out of eight (63%) of the mass stranding events occurred when the lights at the plant were reduced. This proportion is similar to the proportion of nights in our study when the lights were reduced (61%). One explanation for the occurrence of mass stranding events relative to light condition is that fledglings exhibit stronger positive phototaxis and more intense disorientation relative to adults [10, 13], and a partial reduction in lighting is not enough to eliminate strandings.

While the loss of fledglings is concerning, the hundreds of adults, 59 of which were verified breeders based on brood patch presence (Table 4), raises concerns for population-level effects. Most verified breeders stranded from June to August. The number of stranded verified breeders may have been underestimated, as brood patch feathers begin to re-grow four weeks after hatching (approximately 20 to 30 July for the largest nearby colony on Gull Island in Witless Bay, NL [27]), making it difficult to determine breeding status after this period. The mortality of breeding adults is concerning because storm-petrels are serially monogamous, exhibit delayed maturity, breed once a year, and lay a single egg annually [29]. When a breeding adult dies, it disrupts a long-term monogamous pair bond [27] and their egg or chick will likely die [42], as seen in other long-lived monogamous seabird species [43]. Though individuals can form new pair bonds, new pairs may take time to re-establish and often have poor reproductive success for several years [44]. Even though most birds strand from September to October, it is important to reduce nocturnal lighting throughout the breeding season to protect breeding adults as well as juveniles. While the mortality associated with ALAN is not known to impact Leach’s Storm-Petrel populations, the species’ precarious state warrants efforts to curtail all aspects of human-induced mortality.

Knowledge of the timeline and locations of when and where storm-petrels are most likely to strand allows for a fine-tuning of conservation efforts related to positive phototaxis. A recent study examined social media reports of Leach’s Storm-Petrel strandings across the island of Newfoundland and found that the majority of birds stranded in brilliantly illuminated urban areas [13], suggesting that ALAN is likely causing widespread strandings throughout insular Newfoundland and the species’ breeding range (see also [10]). Conservation efforts at the seafood processing plant, including turning off the lights, using bird shelters, and searching daily for stranded birds to reduce mortality have been employed elsewhere and are effective (e.g., Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Thermal Generation Station), though these efforts are not always feasible. For example, vessels arrive throughout the night at the plant in Bay de Verde and the lights must be on to ensure safe visibility when unloading catch. Furthermore, bird shelters must be checked daily to retrieve live birds. Therefore, it is important to seek out other permanent solutions to reduce strandings by exploring the properties of light that influence phototaxis such as peak wavelength, light source, intensity, and the size of the light catch basin [23, 45, 46]. Contention surrounds the attractive properties of different wavelengths of light. Some research suggests that blue and green light attract the most migratory passerines in cloudy conditions, while in clear conditions there was no effect for wavelength [47]. Other results showed that all other wavelengths, except red, deterred adult Manx Shearwaters (Puffinus puffinus [46]). The type of light source can also have an impact; high-pressure sodium lights attract fewer shearwaters than metal halide lights and LEDs [45]. Specific research investigating the wavelengths and light types to which Leach’s Storm-Petrels are the most attracted has not been conducted. Future research should focus on determining the spectral sensitivities of adult Leach’s Storm-Petrels (but see Mitkus et al. [41]) to inform decisions about mitigations to reduce population mortality. Shielding light has been successful for limiting nocturnal positive phototaxis by other procellariiforms, because shielding redirects the light to reduce the light projected skyward [23]. Similarly, motion-activated lights should be considered in areas where constant lighting is unnecessary [46].

Increasing rescue efforts at hot-spot stranding locations where near-zero lighting cannot be achieved is also recommended to maximize recovery of stranded storm-petrels. Performing systematic nightly searches during the peak stranding period (from late September to the end of October) and deploying an array of bird shelters at the start of the breeding season (early May) that are checked daily can reduce mortality of breeding adults and recently fledged juveniles at common stranding locations. This strategy is currently used by the “Puffin and Petrel Patrol” program [48], executed by a non-profit organization, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society–Newfoundland and Labrador, that provides volunteers with training on how to rescue stranded fledgling Atlantic Puffins (Fratercula arctica) and storm-petrels, and subsequently sends volunteers to common stranding locations in southeastern Newfoundland during the night. Storm-petrels strand across a large geographical scale [4, 10, 13] and widespread public education regarding light-induced storm-petrel and other seabird strandings coupled with the development of volunteer rescue groups throughout their breeding range could dramatically reduce seabird mortality associated with attraction to ALAN.

Conclusion

The evidence indicates that turning off extraneous lights can significantly decrease Leach’s Storm-Petrel strandings and that even partial light reductions are effective in this regard. More than 4,000 storm-petrels were found stranded at a seafood processing plant in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2021 and 2022. This stranding estimate is likely highly conservative, as it does not include mortality that occurred throughout the beginning of the breeding season when researchers were not present, nor does it include mortality that occurred throughout the night as a result of predators removing evidence of predation on stranded birds. Increasing research and rescue efforts and promoting public education about Leach’s Storm-Petrels and all seabirds that strand near ALAN is important, but employing a preventative strategy to mitigate seabird strandings is a more efficient and effective solution. Therefore, we recommend shifting conservation efforts to focus on reducing unnecessary extraneous sources of ALAN as much as possible, particularly during the peak stranding period.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The number of daily morning surveys (grey) and night surveys (black) performed each month in 2021 and 2022 at the seafood processing plant in Bay de Verde, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.

(TIF)

pone.0295098.s001.tif (322.4KB, tif)
S2 Fig. The number of Leach’s Storm-Petrels stranded per night during 2021 and 2022 found during the daily morning surveys (square points) and night surveys (triangle points) when the lights at the seafood processing plant in Bay de Verde, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada were on (dark blue) or reduced (light blue).

(TIF)

pone.0295098.s002.tif (330.4KB, tif)
S3 Fig. A section of the eastern Newfoundland coastline with red points indicating Flowers Point, Bay de Verde, and Sugarloaf Head.

The bearing angle between Flowers Point (166°) and Sugarloaf Head (346°) was calculated relative to North (0°) using the black tangent line. This angle was used to classify wind direction as either onshore (less than 166° and greater than 346°) or offshore (greater than 166° and less than 346°).

(TIF)

pone.0295098.s003.tif (455.2KB, tif)
S1 Text. Body part count data collection.

(DOCX)

pone.0295098.s004.docx (13.5KB, docx)
S2 Text. Body part count data analysis.

(DOCX)

pone.0295098.s005.docx (13.6KB, docx)
S3 Text. Body part count results.

(DOCX)

pone.0295098.s006.docx (13.1KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We thank Robin Quinlan, Barry Hatch, Kristinn Skulason, Ed and Cindy Noonan, Jim and Cheryl Broderick, and all of the staff at the Quinlan Brothers Ltd. seafood processing plant for permitting and supporting the project, and for assisting with the light schedule and bird collection. Thank you to Robert Blackmore, Taylor Brown, Juliana Coffey, Kyle D’Entremont, Mohammad Fahmy, Gretchen McPhail, Fiona Le Taro, and Christopher Ward for help collecting and releasing birds. Thank you to Alex Day for assistance with data analysis. We thank Time and Date AS and Custom Weather Inc. for providing weather data. We are grateful to Jake Russell-Mercier of ECCC for continued diligence and efforts to help fund this research. We thank reviewers Airam Rodríguez and Taylor Brown, and editor Travis Longcore for their comments and considerations which greatly improved the manuscript.

Data Availability

All data files pertaining to Leach's Storm-Petrel strandings are available on the repository figshare (Code/Software is now available at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25229471; data files are now available at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25229414; read me file is now available at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25229528), moon illumination data are available at Time and Date AS (https://www.timeanddate.com/), and wind speed and direction data are available at Environment and Climate Change Canada (https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_data/daily_data_e.html?hlyRange=1994-02-01%7C2023-11-01&dlyRange=2002-01-01%7C2023-11-01&mlyRange=2004-12-01%7C2004-12-01&StationID=10818&Prov=NL&urlExtension=_e.html&searchType=stnName&optLimit=yearRange&StartYear=2021&EndYear=2022&selRowPerPage=25&Line=0&searchMethod=contains&Month=11&Day=5&txtStationName=Grates+Cove&timeframe=2&Year=2021). The weather data underlying the results presented in the study are available from CustomWeather, Inc. (https://customweather.com/) (email: sales@customweather.com). These weather data are owned by CustomWeather, Inc and were used with permission from the company.

Funding Statement

Funding was provided by Environment and Climate Change Canada (https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change.html) to W.A.M. (no. GCXE22C307) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada by a Discovery Grant (https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/index_eng.asp) to W.A.M. (no. 006872) and an Undergraduate Student Research Award to T.V.B. These funders did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Montevecchi WA. Influences of artificial light on marine birds. 2006. Jan; 94–113. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rodríguez A, Holmes ND, Ryan PG, Wilson KJ, Faulquier L, Murillo Y, et al. Seabird mortality induced by land-based artificial lights. Conserv Biol. 2017. Oct;31(5): 986–1001. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12900 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Davis RA, Lang AL, Mactavish B. Study of seabird attraction to the Hebron Production Platform: A proposed study approach. 2017. [cited April 26 2023]. Available from: https://www.cnlopb.ca/wp-content/uploads/hebron/studyplan.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gjerdrum C, Ronconi RA, Turner K, Hamer TE. Bird strandings and bright lights at coastal and offshore industrial sites in Atlantic Canada. Avian Conserv Ecol. 2021;16(1): 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Telfer TC, Sincock JL, Byrd GV, Reed JR. Attraction of Hawaiian seabirds to lights: Conservation efforts and effects of moon phase. Wildl Soc Bull 1973–2006. 1987;15(3): 406–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Imber MJ. Lycoteuthid squids as prey of petrels in New Zealand seas. N Z J Mar Freshw Res. 1975. Dec;9(4): 483–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hedd A, Montevecchi WA, Davoren GK, Fifield DA. Diets and distributions of Leach’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa) before and after an ecosystem shift in the Northwest Atlantic. Can J Zool. 2009;87(9): 787–801. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Guilford T, Padget O, Bond S, Syposz M. Light pollution causes object collisions during local nocturnal manoeuvring flight by adult Manx Shearwaters Puffinus puffinus. 2018. Jan 1;31: 48–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Atchoi E, Mitkus M, Rodríguez A. Is seabird light-induced mortality explained by the visual system development? Conserv Sci Pract. 2020. Mar 7. doi: 10.1111/csp2.195 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wilhelm SI, Dooley SM, Corbett EP, Fitzsimmons MG, Ryan PC, Robertson GJ, et al. Effects of land-based light pollution on two species of burrow-nesting seabirds in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Avian Conserv Ecol. 2021. Apr;16(1). doi: 10.5751/ACE-01809-160112 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.d’ Entremont KJN, Blackmore RJ, Collins SM, Brown D, Jones IL, MacTavish B, et al. On-land foraging by Leach’s Storm-Petrels Oceanodroma leucorhoa coincides with anomalous weather conditions. Mar Ornithol. 2021;49: 247–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Miles W, Money S, Luxmoore R, Furness RW. Effects of artificial lights and moonlight on petrels at St Kilda. Bird Study. 2010. May 21;57(2): 244–251. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Burt TV, Collins SM, Montevecchi WA. Social media reports inform the spatio-temporal distribution of Leach’s Storm-Petrel strandings across the island of Newfoundland. Northeast Nat. 2023;30(2): 151–160. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.La Sorte FA, Horton KG, Johnston A, Fink D, Auer T. Seasonal associations with light pollution trends for nocturnally migrating bird populations. Ecosphere. 2022. Mar 28;13(3). doi: 10.1002/ecs2.3994 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gilmour M, Borrelle S, Elliott L, Okawa R, Rodríguez A. Pollution ‐ lights, plastics, oil, and contaminants. In: Young L, VanderWerf E, editors. Conservation of marine birds. Academic Press; 2023. pp. 177–216. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bonnet-Lebrun AS, Dias MP, Phillips RA, Granadeiro JP, Brooke M de L, Chastel O, et al. Seabird migration strategies: Flight budgets, diel activity patterns, and lunar influence. Front Mar Sci. 2021. Oct 29;8. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.683071 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.BirdLife International. Oceanodroma leucorhoa. IUCN Red List Threat Species. 2023 [cited 2023 Apr 26]. Available from: https://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/leachs-storm-petrel-hydrobates-leucorhous.
  • 18.COSEWIC. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Leach’s Storm-Petrel [Oceanodroma leucorhoa] Atlantic population in Canada. 2020 [cited April 26 2023]. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry/cosewic-assessments-status-reports/leachs-storm-petrel-2020.html
  • 19.Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. NLR 57/02 ‐ Endangered species list regulations under the endangered species act. 2022 [cited 2022 November 29]. Available from: https://www.assembly.nl.ca/Legislation/sr/Regulations/rc020057.htm#SchedB_
  • 20.Pollet IL, Lenske AK, Ausems ANMA, Barbraud C, Bedolla-Guzmán Y, Bicknell AWJ, et al. Experts’ opinions on threats to Leach’s Storm-Petrels (Hydrobates leucorhous) across their global range. Avian Conserv Ecol. 2023. Apr 1;18(1). doi: 10.5751/ACE-02370-180111 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Rodríguez A, Arcos JM, Bretagnolle V, Dias MP, Holmes ND, Louzao M, et al. Future directions in conservation research on petrels and shearwaters. Front Mar Sci. 2019. Mar 18;6. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00094 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rodríguez A, Burgan G, Dann P, Jessop R, Negro JJ, Chiaradia A. Fatal attraction of Short-tailed Shearwaters to artificial lights. PLoS ONE. 2014. Oct 15;9(10): e110114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Reed JR, Sincock JL, Hailman JP. Light attraction in endangered procellariiform birds: Reduction by shielding upward radiation. The Auk. 1985. Apr;102(2): 377–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rodríguez A, Rodríguez B. Attraction of petrels to artificial lights in the Canary Islands: effects of the moon phase and age class. Ibis Lond Engl. 2009. Apr 3;151(2): 299–310. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rodríguez A, Atchoi E, Rodríguez B, Pipa T, Le Corre M, Ainley DG. Moonlight diminishes seabird attraction to artificial light. Conserv Sci Pract. 2023. Sep 1. doi: 10.1111/csp2.13014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wilhelm SI, Hedd A, Robertson GJ, Mailhiot J, Regular PM, Ryan PC, et al. The world’s largest breeding colony of Leach’s Storm-petrel Hydrobates leucorhous has declined. Bird Conserv Int. 2020. Mar;30(1): 40–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Marco. Quinlan brothers fish plant. [cited 2022 Dec 2]. In: Marco builders of Atlantic Canada [Internet]. Available from: https://marcogroup.ca/projects/quinlan-brothers-fish-plant/
  • 28.Pyle P. Identification guide to North American birds, Part II: Anatidae to Alcidae. Slate Creek Press; 2008. pp. 280–285. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pollet IL, Bond AL, Hedd A, Huntington CE, Butler RG, Mauck R. Leach’s Storm-Petrel [Hydrobates leucorhous]. 2021. [cited 2023 April 26]. In: Birds of the World [Internet]. Ithaca, NY. Available from https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/lcspet/cur/introduction [Google Scholar]
  • 30.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2022 [cited 2023 April 26]. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/
  • 31.Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Elphick CS. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol Evol. 2010;1(1): 3–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Zuur AF, Ieno EN. A protocol for conducting and presenting results of regression-type analyses. Methods Ecol Evol. 2016;7(6): 636–45. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Brooks ME, Kristensen K, van Benthem KJ, Magnusson A, Berg CW, Nielsen A, et al. {glmmTMB} balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 2017;9(2): 378–400. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hartig F. DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-Level / mixed) regression models. 2020. [cited 2023 April 26]. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=DHARMa [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Time and Date AS. Moonrise, moonset, and moon phase in Newfoundland, may 2021. [cited 2023 April 27]. In: Time and date [Internet]. Available from: https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/@9062329?month=5&year=2021
  • 36.Government of Canada. Historical data–climate. 2011 [cited 2023 March 4]. In: Envrionment and climate change Canada [Internet]. Available from: https://climate.weather.gc.ca/historical_data/search_historic_data_e.html
  • 37.Collins S, Hedd A, Montevecchi W, Burt T, Wilson D, Fifield D. Small tube-nosed seabirds fledge on the full moon and throughout the lunar cycle. Biol Lett. 2023. Dec 6;19. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2023.0290 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Custom Weather Inc. Historical weather data for St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. 2023 [cited 2023 October 1].
  • 39.Chevillon L, Tourmetz J, Dubos J, Soulaimana-Mattoir Y, Hollinger C, Pinet P, et al. 25 years of light-induced petrel groundings in Reunion Island: Retrospective analysis and predicted trends. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2022. Oct 1;38. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02232 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Watanuki Y. Moonlight Avoidance Behavior in Leach’s Storm-Petrels as a Defense against Slaty-Backed Gulls. Auk. 1986. Jan 1;103(1): 14–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mitkus M, Nevitt GA, Kelber A. Development of the visual system in a burrow-nesting seabird: Leach’s Storm Petrel. Brain Behav Evol. 2018;91: 4–16. doi: 10.1159/000484080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Wilbur HM. The breeding biology of Leach’s Petrel, Oceanodroma leucorhoa. The Auk. 1969. Jul 1;86(3): 433–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Darby JT, Dawson SM. Bycatch of yellow-eyed penguins (Megadyptes antipodes) in gillnets in New Zealand waters 1979–1997. Biol Conserv. 2000. May 1;93(3): 327–332. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Bradley JS, Wooller RD, Skira IJ, Serventy DL. The Influence of Mate Retention and Divorce Upon Reproductive Success in Short-Tailed Shearwaters Puffinus tenuirostris. J Anim Ecol. 1990;59(2): 487–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Rodríguez A, Dann P, Chiaradia A. Reducing light-induced mortality of seabirds: High pressure sodium lights decrease the fatal attraction of shearwaters. J Nat Conserv. 2017;39(3): 68–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Syposz M, Padget O, Willis J, Van Doren BM, Gillies N, Fayet AL, et al. Avoidance of different durations, colours and intensities of artificial light by adult seabirds. Sci Rep. 2021. Sep;11(1): 1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Rebke M, Dierschke V, Weiner CN, Aumüller R, Hill K, Hill R. Attraction of nocturnally migrating birds to artificial light: The influence of colour, intensity and blinking mode under different cloud cover conditions. Biol Conserv. 2019;233: 220–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.CPAWS. Puffin and petrel patrol. 2020 [cited 2023 April 26]. Available from: https://cpawsnl.org/puffinpetrelpatrol/

Decision Letter 0

Travis Longcore

27 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-37663Reduction of coastal lighting decreases seabird strandingsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Burt,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please consider carefully the detailed comments from both reviewers.  It is critical that the data depository work be functional.  Please respond specifically to the questions regarding the statistical approach by reviewer 1 (whether to model juveniles separately, using a quadratic term for date).  I believe that you will find the comments to all be useful, productive, and thorough.  The second reviewer already disclosed a potential conflict resulting from collaboration with one author, so there is no need for you to worry about that (the review is signed).

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 10 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Travis Longcore, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [The daily morning survey data were used to create Figure 2 in a pending publication manuscript in Biology Letters titled "Small tube-nosed seabirds fledge on the full moon and throughout the lunar cycle." These data were not used in any analyses and were only included in Figure 2 to show stranding occurrences relative to moon illumination and fledgling in Leach's Storm-Petrels.] Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Insert text from online submission form here]. 

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

5. We note that Figure 3 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. 

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

6. We note that Figure(s) 1 and S2 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) 1 and S2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this paper, the authors assess the impact of lighting management (turning the main lights off) in the fallout numbers of Leach’s storm petrels at a seafood processing plant in Canada. I feel the ms is worthy of publication, but I identify some weak points regarding to the data analyses that might be addressed by the authors (see below).

Major comments

Data analyses

1) You include the number of adults and fledglings as a response variable. However, response to light is different between adults and fledglings, but also depending on the type of bird activity (foraging, visiting the colony at flight, fledging or when they are on land). See different responses for adults, nestlings and fledglings in, for example, Syposz et al. 2021 Scientific Reports, Rodríguez et al 2022 Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution or Atchoi et al. 2023 Journal of Experimental Biology. So, my suggestion is to build separate models for adults and fledglings. Given that you might have some unaged birds during the fledging period, you could run two models: one conservative using just the fledglings, and another including fledglings + unaged birds. I bet the influence of explanatory variables will be the same. Alternatively, you might assume that all grounded birds during the fledging period are fledglings (95%!! According to your data in line 285).

2) You use GLMMs and include day of the year as a predictor, but you are not expecting a linear relationship (showed in figure 6). If you follow my previous suggestion, in the case of fledglings, you should use a quadratic term as done in Rodríguez et al 2014 Plos One. It is reasonable to think that fledging follows a quadratic term along the date. In the case of adults, you might include the simple term ‘day of the year’ as long as you are expecting that the number of grounded adults decline with the date.

3) What is the random term in your GLMM? It is not stated in lines 193-211. Then in results, you have some figures from negative binomial generalized models, but they have not been explained in Methods. Is it a misunderstanding between GLMMs and GLMs?

4) Mortality analyses. I am not sure why authors do not model mortality as a proportional response variable with a binomial model. You have the numbers of dead and alive birds, so authors can identify the variables affecting mortality rates. I would also separate adults from fledglings as variables influencing mortality rates might be different for both groups. See Rodríguez et al 2014 Plos One for a similar statistical procedure.

Widening the scope of the ms

Introduction is focussed on Leach’s storm petrel, which is great, but why do you think that Leach’s storm-petrel is going to be so different to other seabird species? Given that seabird attraction to light is a common phenomenon to underground nesting seabirds (and with multiple similarities among the species involved), I would try to widen the scope to seabirds in general (you already did it in the title!). You might include all the specific information of the Leach’s storm petrel (e.g. lines 51-58 or 61-62), in a section entitled Model species or Study species (or something like that). Then, in lines 59-83, every time you talk about storm-petrels you might interchange by seabirds (at least, in most cases).

Minor comments

Lines 50-51: You cite here Reed et al 1985 and Wilhelm et al 2021, but they don’t provide a list of species affected. In this sense, I feel more appropriate to state in this sentence that Procellariiformes is the most vulnerable with the number of affected species. In this sense, the most updated reference is the Chapter by Gilmour et al 2023 in the book Conservation of Marine Birds.

Lines 71-72: I disagree with this sentence. There are at least another two studies where light reduction has reduced fallout and you have them included in the reference list: One is the pioneer study by Reed et al 1985 running a very similar experiment to yours, another is Rodríguez et al 2014 where fallout was reduced by turning the lights of a bridge off. I think that this information should be showed to readers in the introduction (as authors have very well done with the study by Miles et al. 2010).

Lines 229-230: According to Table 1, fog is significant! Day of year may not be significant because the reasons given above.

Table 1. I do not understand why there are no estimates for all predictors nor why the dispersion model only includes fog. Are these the results of the GLMM?

Line 280. It is the first time you call LEDs. It would be great to have a better description of the type of lights were on/off during the experiment. Critical aspects are intensity of the lamps and spectrum.

Table 3. How do you assess the breeding status to complete the row ‘N of breeding individuals’? Should that information be at Methods?

Lines 306-321: The think that the first paragraph is out of the scope of the ms: 1) I miss a discussion of the Reed et al 1985 study! 2) Lines 314-317, Telfer and co-workers study is not an experiment! 3) Lines 319: “…suggesting that they also exhibit positive phototaxis.” It seems like authors are re-inventing the wheel. I think that there is a great consensus on that seabird fledglings show phototaxis in flight. This has been demonstrated by GPS-tracking flights in Rodríguez et al 2015 Scientific Reports and 2022 Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. In summary, I think that this first paragraph should be focussed on the reductions of fallout numbers by turning the lights off or shielding the lights described by Miles et al., Reed et al. and Rodríguez et al. (not sure if I am missing other critical studies).

Lines 327-330: Although it might be useful for adults, please, note that the explanation about the reduced activity of fledglings (fledging) because high moon illumination is not a valid hypothesis, at least until new evidence arise. A full explanation is available in Rodríguez et al 2023 Conservation Science and Practice. So, please, reword to address the differences between age groups.

Lines 336-339: First, note that fog is significant according to table 1. Second, it seems that the second part of the sentence is contradictory to the first one.

Lines 339-340: I would rewrite this part “ …most mass stranding events (63%)…” to something like “…six out of eight mass stranding events…” Confirm the numbers. Also about these lines and followings, could you give some information on the weather conditions? For example, was it rainy, cloudy or foggy during those six nights of mass stranding events?

Lines 359: “…suggesting that…” What is the doubt? Since long time ago, it has been widely accepted that fledglings are more affected than adults.

Lines 361: Be consistent with previous lines. 63% or 62.5%

Lines 362-365: Sorry, I don’t follow the thread or your reasoning. Why are you proposing these two hypotheses? What is the evidence to propose the second hypothesis?

Lines 372: Great!! “…based on brood patch presence.” This should be stated in Methods.

Lines 379: I would say that no eggs or nestlings would survive if one parent die. There should be plenty of references on petrels.

Lines 399-401: “…while other results suggest that red and white light attract the most seabirds and migratory birds and cause the most disorientation in foggy conditions (43,46).” Please caution here! First, Syposz et al 2021 show that ADULT manx shearwaters are more deterred with white and blue lights (not attracted!). Adult is in capital letters to highlight the differences between adults and fledglings, which support my proposal of two models to each age group. Second, Poot et al. 2008 has been replied by Evans et al 2010 (https://ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/resp1) because of their experimental design and Poot and co-workers never replied. In addition, most evidence published after that paper indicate the opposite. So, I think that paper should not be cited anymore.

Lines 408-409: Consider citing here Syposz et al 2021 as they found a smaller effect with shorter light treatments. To my best knowledge, it is the only paper testing that.

Lines 413-415: Deploying an array of bird shelters deserve a paper explaining their potential use, pros and cons!! If you are not going to do it, I would ask for providing some information in this contribution on what is the proportion of birds found in the shelters vs the birds collected out, alive vs dead, etc. It seems as a potentially useful mitigation of light-induced mortality.

In the next Review Questions, I would like to explain my selected responses:

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

I don’t know because authors are using GLMs or GLMMs. Futhermore, I feel that they should run different models for adults and fledglings (see above).

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

I have selected No because the GitHub link does not work.

I hope authors find useful these comments to improve its paper.

Reviewer #2: Please see attached.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Airam Rodríguez

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: review-of-artificial-light-at-night-and-seabird-strandings.docx

pone.0295098.s007.docx (27.3KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2024 Jun 5;19(6):e0295098. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295098.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


17 Feb 2024

We thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and for their time and efforts in reviewing the manuscript. Our responses to their comments have been provided in a document titled "Response to Reviewers" attached to the submission.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0295098.s008.docx (47.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Travis Longcore

24 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-37663R1Reduction of coastal lighting decreases seabird strandingsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Burt,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. One of the reviewers has some constructive suggestions for a very minor revision that I ask that you consider.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 08 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Travis Longcore, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please consider a very minor revision to address some remaining comments and suggestions.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Review of Burt et al.: Reduction of coastal lighting decreases seabird strandings

Taylor Brown

I appreciate the opportunity to re-evaluate this manuscript; it was a pleasure to read. The authors have done an excellent job of responding to my queries, and I find this draft to be vastly improved from the previous one, thanks also in large part to the suggestions of the other reviewer. The new, separate models for juveniles and adults help to further clarify trends in the drivers of stranding for each age group. I have no major comments, and include only a handful of minor suggestions below.

Please note that line numbers refer to the clean edited version of the manuscript.

L108-13. Here and in Figure 2, it still appears that some of the lights along the northwest side (the “front”) of the building that were un-manipulated are not mentioned or included in the overall count of how many lights are present in the immediate area of the building. Specifically, in the “reduced” lighting photo (Figure 3b) I can see five pairs of LED lights (so ten total) along the wharf, plus a cluster of four bright LED lights on the far right side of the building and two apparent High Pressure Sodium pole lights in the middle of the picture beside the wharf.

L241-42. Fog was also not significantly associated with the number of stranded birds and could be added to this sentence.

L254-62. Thank you for specifying adults in L254. It may help the reader if the rest of the paragraph also refers specifically to “stranded adults” or “stranded adult birds” rather than the more general “stranded birds” or “stranded storm-petrels”. Similarly, in L272 juveniles are specified but the rest of the paragraph could also refer specifically to juveniles for utmost clarity (L272-77).

Table 4. Please clarify in the table caption if means are accompanied by standard deviation.

L346-48. I suggest clarifying that “fewer storm-petrels of [all age classes] stranded when moon illumination was high…” and either remove or change the wording of the second clause which refers to juveniles specifically, because of the non-significance of that result. The morning survey data (indicating a significant effect of moon illumination) have much higher resolution than the night survey data anyway, so greater emphasis / confidence could be placed on that result.

L352-55. The grammatical structure of this sentence could be improved slightly for readability.

L357. Perhaps start a new paragraph here for wind and other weather effects.

L386-90. Is it possible to somehow combine this section with L365-69, or condense it, since both sections cover the potential causes of mass strandings and how they relate to light condition? This could be achieved, in part, by shifting the intervening paragraph (L370-78) down so that it immediately precedes the paragraph that currently starts at L391 (about the importance of adult mortality). This flow of ideas would seem to me to be more logical. Also, L388-89 appears to imply that a potential explanation for the random nature of mass stranding events (with respect to lighting condition) is due to a stronger phototactic response by fledglings; but if it is random, then I would assume there is no light-related explanation.

L442. This is the first time that “puffin” appears in the manuscript, so I suggest including the binomial species name.

Figure S2A. There appear to be two triangular (night survey) points in October that lack colour to indicate lighting condition. Is this a mistake, or is light condition unknown? Overall, I very much appreciate the addition of this figure to the supporting information! It’s nicely done.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Taylor Brown

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Jun 5;19(6):e0295098. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295098.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


24 Apr 2024

Please see the attached "response to reviewers" document for comments.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0295098.s009.docx (23.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Travis Longcore

2 May 2024

Reduction of coastal lighting decreases seabird strandings

PONE-D-23-37663R2

Dear Dr. Burt,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Travis Longcore, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for your patience and diligence with revisions.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Travis Longcore

10 May 2024

PONE-D-23-37663R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Burt,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Travis Longcore

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. The number of daily morning surveys (grey) and night surveys (black) performed each month in 2021 and 2022 at the seafood processing plant in Bay de Verde, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.

    (TIF)

    pone.0295098.s001.tif (322.4KB, tif)
    S2 Fig. The number of Leach’s Storm-Petrels stranded per night during 2021 and 2022 found during the daily morning surveys (square points) and night surveys (triangle points) when the lights at the seafood processing plant in Bay de Verde, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada were on (dark blue) or reduced (light blue).

    (TIF)

    pone.0295098.s002.tif (330.4KB, tif)
    S3 Fig. A section of the eastern Newfoundland coastline with red points indicating Flowers Point, Bay de Verde, and Sugarloaf Head.

    The bearing angle between Flowers Point (166°) and Sugarloaf Head (346°) was calculated relative to North (0°) using the black tangent line. This angle was used to classify wind direction as either onshore (less than 166° and greater than 346°) or offshore (greater than 166° and less than 346°).

    (TIF)

    pone.0295098.s003.tif (455.2KB, tif)
    S1 Text. Body part count data collection.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0295098.s004.docx (13.5KB, docx)
    S2 Text. Body part count data analysis.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0295098.s005.docx (13.6KB, docx)
    S3 Text. Body part count results.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0295098.s006.docx (13.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: review-of-artificial-light-at-night-and-seabird-strandings.docx

    pone.0295098.s007.docx (27.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0295098.s008.docx (47.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0295098.s009.docx (23.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All data files pertaining to Leach's Storm-Petrel strandings are available on the repository figshare (Code/Software is now available at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25229471; data files are now available at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25229414; read me file is now available at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25229528), moon illumination data are available at Time and Date AS (https://www.timeanddate.com/), and wind speed and direction data are available at Environment and Climate Change Canada (https://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_data/daily_data_e.html?hlyRange=1994-02-01%7C2023-11-01&dlyRange=2002-01-01%7C2023-11-01&mlyRange=2004-12-01%7C2004-12-01&StationID=10818&Prov=NL&urlExtension=_e.html&searchType=stnName&optLimit=yearRange&StartYear=2021&EndYear=2022&selRowPerPage=25&Line=0&searchMethod=contains&Month=11&Day=5&txtStationName=Grates+Cove&timeframe=2&Year=2021). The weather data underlying the results presented in the study are available from CustomWeather, Inc. (https://customweather.com/) (email: sales@customweather.com). These weather data are owned by CustomWeather, Inc and were used with permission from the company.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES