Ever played a game of telephone? Indubitably, the more complex the starting message, the greater it is warped in the end. However, what if, at every point, the next person was able to review the original message? To add another condition, what if there were only two people playing: the beginning and the end? Scientific papers are often too complex and dense for a general audience, so it is up to another middleman, journalists, to convey the messages of the papers, often resulting in distortion of the researchers’ findings. Let us examine an article by Mark Kinver that summarizes a study conducted by Daniel Lewanzik and Christian C. Voigt about bats, light pollution, and seed dispersal.
The original study begins by highlighting that the impact of artificial light at night on animals is worth examining because many nocturnal animals are sensitive to the natural lighting of the night already, and the presence of artificial light could be an all-night experience for these animals. Dr. Lewanzik and Dr. Voigt chose to study one of the most famous nocturnal animals: the bat (famous enough to warrant its own superhero). An aside explains that fruit-eating bats are highly critical to seed dispersal in tropical rainforests, which, as many know, are experiencing a decline. In particular, Sowell’s short-tailed bats (Carollia sowelli) were studied due to their important role as the main disperser of pepper seeds, making them key players in the regeneration of forests.
Carollia brevicauda, a relative of Sowell's short-tailed bats. Photograph by Diego Lizcano (CC BY 2.0).
Two different experiments were conducted to study the behavior of these bats. In the first experiment, bats were captured and kept in captivity for up to five days before being used as experimental units. The bats were released into an area adjacent to two “choice” areas that contained food, one being lit and the other being unlit. In the other experiment, 14 Piper plants were monitored, some lit and some unlit. Both the percentage fruits eaten by bats and the time it took for them to be initially eaten were measured. In the end, both experiments determined that bats displayed a preference for fruits kept in the dark. This finding indeed implies that artificial light may have a negative impact on the recovery of tropical rainforests because if these bats spend less time in lit areas, which tend to be the more developed areas, the only places being seeded are places that already have plenty of trees.
The news article differed only slightly from the original study. It emphasized most the implications of the study, but as a news article that is understandable. Materials, methods, detailed discussions are unnecessary for laypeople who do not participate in research and conduct the experiments. The news article is meant to reach out to a general audience, and the most relevant information for them is the real-world implication of the study. One of the largest differences lay in the fact that the news article contained quotes and information from Daniel Lewanzik that were not present in the original study. For example, the news article states that the researchers “called for light-free refuges to be established,” (Kinver, 2014) which was not explicitly stated in the original study. Moreover, the article quickly summarized each bit and lacked supplementary figures, yet again characteristics that are expected to be observed in articles. Overall, despite the difference in its use of quotations, the news article managed to stay true to the study through its very use of quotations, which I believe is both necessary and effective. The quotations take the very words of the researchers, which are now framed for a general audience, and they prove that the implications discussed in the news article are not fabricated or outlandish.
The original study chosen by Mark Kinver seems to be a fine choice for providing environmentalists with definitive evidence that development is negatively impacting our world. The experimental design was simple but effective, and the study did not make any far-reaching conclusions. My only qualm lies with the original paper’s discussion of experimental independence, meaning that each plant tested in the experiment is different enough from the others. More effort could have been put into ensuring experimental independence instead of assuming that the number of bats was sufficient to make them independent, as there may be a population-wide behavior being observed. What if another population of bats did not behave the same way? Regardless, I doubt that their conclusions are incorrect, and environment reporter Mark Kinver was smart to use a study that focuses on an issue that many people have at least some knowledge about. The average person would probably name rainforests and coral reefs as being the two ecosystems most in danger due to humans, so the news article fulfills the final sentence of the original study – that “it is essential to raise awareness of the ecological impacts of artificial light by informing people and policy about the deleterious effects light pollution can have on a wide range of taxa” (Lewanzik and Voigt, 2014).
References
Lewanzik, D., and C.C. Voigt. (2014) Artificial light puts ecosystem services of frugivorous bats at risk. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51: 388–394. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12206
Lizcano, D. Carollia brevicauda with wings held extended. Taken in Colombia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carollia_brevicauda.jpg
Kinver, M. Light pollution ‘affects bats’ tropical seed dispersal,’ Science and Environment, 11 March 2014, BBC News, Web, Accessed 11 March 2014. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26529564
Tags: bats, conservation, foraging, seed dispersal