# Bats seek refuge in cluttered environment when exposed to white and red lights at night

Kévin Barré, Christian Kerbiriou, Ros-Kiri Ing, Yves Bas, Clémentine Azam, Isabelle Le Viol, Kamiel Spoelstra

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Kévin Barré, Christian Kerbiriou, Ros-Kiri Ing, Yves Bas, Clémentine Azam, et al. Bats seek refuge in cluttered environment when exposed to white and red lights at night. Movement Ecology, 2023, 9, pp.3. 10.1186/s40462-020-00238-2. hal-03105071

HAL Id: hal-03105071

https://hal.science/hal-03105071

Submitted on 10 Jan 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
1

Bats seek refuge in cluttered environment when exposed to white

2

and red lights at night

3

4

Kévin Barré¹, ², Christian Kerbiriou¹, ², Ros-Kiri Ing³, Yves Bas¹, ⁴, Clémentine Azam¹,

5

Isabelle Le Viol¹, ²*, Kamiel Spoelstra⁵*

6

7

¹ Centre d'Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation (CESCO), Muséum national d'Histoire

8

naturelle, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Sorbonne Université, CP 135, 57 rue

9

Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France

10

² Centre d'Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation (CESCO), Muséum national d'Histoire

11

naturelle, Station de Biologie Marine, 1 place de la Croix, 29900 Concarneau, France

12

³ Institut Langevin, UMR 7587 CNRS, Université Paris Diderot (Paris 7), 1 rue Jussieu,

13

75238 Paris, France

14

⁴ Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, UMR 5175, CNRS, 1919 route de Mende,

15

34293 Montpellier, France

16

⁵ Department of Animal Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), PO Box

17

50, 6700 AB Wageningen, The Netherlands

18

* These authors share joint last authorship on this work.

19

20

Corresponding author:

21

Kévin Barré

22

kevin.barre@edu.mnhn.fr

23

+33 2 98 50 99 28

24
25

**Abstract**

26

27

**Background:** Artificial light at night is recognized as an increasing threat to biodiversity.

28

However, information on the way highly mobile taxa such as bats spatially respond to light is
limited. Following the hypothesis of a behavioural adaptation to the perceived risks of

29

30

predation, we hypothesised that bats should avoid lit areas by shifting their flight route to less
exposed conditions.

31

32

**Methods:** Using 3D acoustic localization at four experimentally illuminated sites, we studied
how the distance to streetlights emitting white and red light affected the Probability of bats
Flying Inside the Forest (PFIF) *versus* along the forest edge.

33

34

35

**Results:** We show that open-, edge-, and narrow-space foraging bats strongly change flight
patterns by increasing PFIF when getting closer to white and red streetlights placed in the
forest edge. These behavioural changes occurred mainly on the streetlight side where light
was directed.

36

37

38

39

**Conclusions:** The results show that bats cope with light exposure by actively seeking refuge
in cluttered environment, potentially due to involved predation risks. This is a clear indication
that bats make use of landscape structures when reacting to light, and shows the potential of
vegetation and streetlight orientation in mitigating effects of light. The study nevertheless
calls for preserving darkness as the most efficient way.

40

41

42

43

44

45

Key words: acoustic localization, artificial light, flight behaviour, chiroptera, microphone
array, streetlight

46

47
## 1. Background

Artificial light at night (ALAN) is recognized as a prominent and growing threat to global

biodiversity [1] and hence there is an urgent need to expand scientific knowledge on its

effects on ecosystems, and a demand for efficient solutions to reduce these [2]. ALAN

impacts a wide range of taxa, at different spatiotemporal scales [3,4]. Effects vary from the

individual level to the disruption of ecosystem functioning by altering interactions between

species and regulatory processes [5-7].

ALAN also affects spatial behaviour by disorienting species and forming barriers in the

landscape. For instance, artificial light disorients migrating birds [8] and obstruct toads [9]

and highly mobile taxa such as bats [10]. However, the impact of ALAN on species

movement across nightscapes remains poorly documented, in particular underlying

mechanisms such as changes in spatial behaviour and movement (e.g. flight speed, flight

route) of bats in response to light [11] which potentially affects energetic cost and fitness of

individuals [12].

This topic is all the more important given that bats are mostly nocturnal and well known to be

impacted by ALAN in term of activity [13]. Depending on species, ALAN positively or

negatively impacts bat activity (e.g. *Pipistrellus* spp and *Nyctalus* spp., respectively *Myotis*

spp., *Plecotus* spp. and *Rhinolophus* spp.) at the streetlight scale [14-16], while evidence is

also accumulating that ALAN negatively impacts all bat species at larger scales [17-19].

ALAN also affects bat movement, for example by keeping individuals from crossing of lit

gaps in wooded corridors [10] or lit bridges along waterways [20] in urban environments. It

was also shown that different spectra reduce commuting activity along hedgerows and that

light shy species switch to the unlit side [21].
Among possibilities to reduce these impacts, light spectrum, intensity, directionality, light spill and the duration of lighting are parameters that potentially can be used to reduce negative effects [22]. For instance, light-shy bats such as *Myotis* and *Plecotus* spp. appear to be equally active close to red streetlights and at unlit sites [23]. However, highly light averse species such as *Rhinolophus hipposideros* have shown to avoid all spectra tested for, including red light [21]. Specific part night lighting schemes, with lights turned off from midnight to 5 am, were not found to substantially mitigate effects of light at night as they were still on during the activity peak of bats [14]. Moreover, information on impact distances are also essential to prevent negative effects of lighting setups and allow biodiversity friendly urban planning.

However, how the response of bats relates to the distance to light sources – and hence light intensity – is still relatively unknown. Thus far, the only study available on how the response of bats varies with distance reveals clear species dependent differences between 10 and 50 m from a light source [24]. For *Eptesicus serotinus* no difference in effects were shown between 0 and 10 m from the streetlight, however strong negative effects were present between 25 and 50 m from the streetlight [24]. These findings suggest the response of bats to light is intensity dependent.

All these effects of ALAN and possible measures for reduction of impact on bats remain so far mostly studied using activity metrics (i.e. indicators of abundance). However, the level of activity close to a light source does not provide information on how light level affects the behaviour of bats. Indeed, using a single microphone only allows the assessment of average bat activity within an acoustic detection range of approximately five to over 100 m, depending on species specific call amplitude [25].

Therefore, to assess respective effects of light intensity and spectrum on bats, there is a need for the assessment of species-specific changes in flight behaviour (e.g. changes in flight
paths). Acoustic localization in three dimensions (3D) is an effective tool for the assessment
of flight paths [26]. In a study using this technique, authors found that bats reduce flight
height and increase flight speed in presence of artificial light [11]. The attraction of insects by
light [27] creates foraging opportunities for bats [28] which should cause bats to reduce flight
speed [29]. However, studies found that light increases flight speed, probably due to an
increased fear of predation [11,20]. An alternative solution to reduce predation risk is to avoid
open spaces when exposed to light. Hence, we hypothesize that bats that have the opportunity
to fly closer to vegetation (i.e. when flying close to the forest edge) seek shelter in the
vegetation while getting closer to lights. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that typically
highly light-averse species [14,23,30] such as *Myotis* and *Plecotus* species, that are slow-
flying and hence more vulnerable to predation by hawking birds, mostly fly in cluttered
habitats (hereafter named narrow-space foragers). We also hypothesize this behavioural
response (i.e. flight closer to vegetation) to begin at least 10 metres from the light source as
shown by Azam et al.[24]. Indeed, distances from the light source at which behavioural
responses (avoidance or attraction) are detected vary according to species, and
approximatively lie around 50 m for bat species mostly flying in open space (hereafter named
open-space foragers) such as *Eptesicus serotinus*, 10 m for bat species mostly flying at
wooded edges (hereafter named edge-space foragers) such as *Pipistrellus* species and at up to
25 m for narrow-space foragers such as *Myotis* and *Plecotus* species [24]. Such distance
thresholds correspond to light intensities lower than one lux for narrow-space foragers and
between one and five lux for open-space and edge-space foragers [24].
In this study, we hypothesize the distance dependent behavioural response of open, edge and
narrow-space foraging bat species to streetlights emitting different spectra. Specifically, in
comparison with unlit sites we expect bats to fly closer to the vegetation when getting closer
to the light, and as much for spectral composition close to white. Using 3D acoustic
localization near experimental light posts in forest edges, we first investigated the probability
of bats flying inside the forest *versus* open habitat in relation with the distance to the light. We
studied whether this relationship varies around light posts (e.g. the back- and front side, and
above and under the lights) in order to determine the potential of impact reduction by light
orientation (i.e. shielding by the light armature).

126

## 2. Methods

128

### (a) Experimental sites

The study was done at four experimentally illuminated sites in The Netherlands, each with
four rows (separated by 204±17 m) with five four-meter-tall lampposts (separated by 25 m
and the central one at forest edge) placed perpendicular in forest edge habitat (Fig. 1). Each
row was randomly assigned to emit white, green or red light (Fortimo white, ClearField red,
and ClearSky green light, Philips, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), with one of the rows kept
dark (just poles). In this study, we only used the white, red and dark rows. All lights are
switched on at sunset, and off at sunrise since spring 2012. All experimental lights emit light
in the full spectrum range at low intensity; green lamps have an increased blue and reduced
red light emission, and red lamps have an increased red and reduced blue emission (Fig. 1).
All light colours have negligible UV emission (see Spoelstra et al. [31] for spectral
compositions). The light beam of each light is directed downwards by Philips Residium
FGS224 (1xPL-L36WHFP) armatures to project light in preferential directions. The light
intensity at ground level is on average 8.7 ± 3.0 lux, which is comparable to the illumination
levels of countryside roads (Fig. 1; see Spoelstra et al. [31] for a further description of these
experimental sites). For more detail about light intensity in relation with the distance to the
lamp and the orientation of the lamp, see Additional file 1, Appendix S1.

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145
146

147

(b) *Sampling design and 3D acoustic localization*

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

Bats were acoustically tracked in three dimensions during the first three hours after sunset for 12 nights between the 10th and 22nd of July 2018. As we could deploy only one microphone array at the time, we unable to simultaneously sample different light treatments, so we sampled white light, red light and dark control during separate nights. In order to limit variation in bat behaviour linked with inter-night environmental variations, we always sampled a different light colour between consecutive nights (Additional file 1: Table S1). All nights were sampled under highly favourable and constant temperatures (average=16.2 °C, Standard Deviation=1.7°C) and wind speed conditions (average=1.3 m/s, SD=0.8 m/s) (Additional file 1: Table S1). In total four dark control, four red and four white lights were sampled. White light, red light, and dark control were uniquely sampled in two of the four experimental sites, and combinations of the two spectra (dark control and red, and dark control and white, respectively) were sampled in the two other experimental sites. Within the row of light posts, we always sampled the light post right in the forest edge (i.e. at the border of the forest and the open area; see Fig. 1).

To reconstruct 3D positions of bats, we used a trajectography system (hereafter named microphone array) designed at the Institut Langevin (Paris, France). The system uses echolocation calls recorded in a frequency range from eight to 160 kHz at four microphones (FG 3329, Knowles Acoustics, Itasca, IL USA; see Additional file 1, Appendix S2 for more details about sound recording and triggering of echolocation calls). Microphones were arranged in a horizontal triangle form (i.e. three in the corners and one in the middle; Fig. 1). The microphone array was set up similarly near each row: the four microphones were placed in a horizontal plane above the ground surface, with the central microphone in the open space at four meters horizontal distance to the forest edge and to the streetlight axis perpendicular to
171 the forest edge. The microphone array was always placed on the same side of the light (Fig. 1). Bat positions in the detection range of the microphones were continuously assessed using the time of arrival difference (TOAD) of bat echolocation calls between microphones in the array, using the call waveform [26]. Further details about the recording setup, the conversion of bat call arrival times into 3D positions, assigning positions to trajectories and the precision of these can be found in Ing et al. [32] and Additional file 1, Appendices S2 and S3.

177

### (c) Calculation of the distance from 3D positions to the light and accounting for imprecision

178 To calculate the distance between each bat position and the light, we used the following equation (D, equation 1):

$$D_i = \sqrt{(x_i - 4)^2 + (y_i - 4)^2 + (z_i - 4)^2} \qquad (\text{Eq. 1})$$

182 where x, y and z represent distances to the microphone array for each of the three-dimension axis of a given position i. The microphone height was corrected for by entering the actual height of the microphones as placed in the field (i.e. 0.82 to 1 meter) in the position calculation software. Since lights were located at the forest edges and were at four meters height, and given the microphone array placement, we subtract four meters to x, y and z axis, in order to compute the real distance to the light (Fig. 1).

183 Since the imprecision was expected to increase with the distance to the microphone array, we calculated the cumulated imprecision of 3D positions (I, equation 2) as follows:

$$I_i = \sqrt{(dx_i)^2 + (dy_i)^2 + (dz_i)^2} \qquad (\text{Eq. 2})$$

191 where dx, yx and zx represent the standard deviation of distances to the microphone array estimated for each of the three-dimension axis of a given position i [32]. We choose to discard positions with a cumulated imprecision of more than one meter (Fig. S1) and those not included in any bat individual trajectory (i.e. composed of several positions; for details on
196

trajectory reconstruction see Additional file 1: Appendix S3), which led us to keep 28,646

197

positions on the 35,067 recorded.

198

199

### (d) Assigning species to 3D positions

200

Individual bat calls used to reconstruct 3D positions were saved by continuously recording sound files. In a second step, sound files were segmented into five-second intervals which is sufficient to cover the average duration of a bat pass [33]. Each of 25,195 five-second files were then classified to the closest taxonomic level using the Tadarida software [34]. Because the identification by echolocation to the species level is difficult, we limited identification to following species groups: the *Eptesicus/Nyctalus* group including *Eptesicus* sp. and *Nyctalus* sp., the *Myotis/Plecotus* group including *Myotis* sp. and *Plecotus* sp., and the *Pipistrellus* group including *Pipistrellus* sp. These three groups respond differently to light:

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

*Eptesicus/Nyctalus* group (i.e. open space forager) are usually considered as light opportunistic or light shy (context dependent), species in the *Myotis/Plecotus* group (i.e. narrow space forager) are light shy, and species in the *Pipistrellus* group (i.e. edge space forager) are light opportunistic.

209

210

211

212

In a third step, we linked the 3D positions in each 5 second file to the species group found by Tadarida. In case calls of different species groups were found within the same 5 second file, we were able to assign the correct species group to separate series of calls by making use of sequential 3D positions and the peak frequency.

213

214

215

216

217

### (e) Statistical analysis

218

We assessed whether the probability of bats flying inside the forest (PFIF) differed according to the distance to the light, and whether this relationship differed between spectra (i.e. dark control, red and white lights). The relationship between the PFIF and the distance to the light

219

220
allowed us to define the Flight-Path Switch Distance (FPSD) as the distance at which bats on average flew as much inside as outside the forest. We performed Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM, R package *TMB*), using the PFIF as a binomial response variable where zero corresponded to positions located in the open habitat, and where one corresponded to positions located inside the forest (Fig. 1). We used as explanatory variables the distance to the light, the spectrum type, and the interaction between them to assess the effect of spectra on FPSD. To account for a part of the pseudo-replication (i.e. an average of 15.4 ± 10.1 positions per trajectory; Additional file 1: Fig. S2), we included a random effect on the trajectory identifier. We also included the date as random term in models to control for potential inter-site (i.e. one site sampled each night) and inter-night variations of bat behaviour in relation with lights. Note that weather conditions were highly favourable to bats and stable throughout the sampling period, and that habitat composition was similar between sites (see Sampling design and 3D acoustic localization section and Additional file 1: Table S1).

Given that imprecisions of positions were slightly positively correlated with the distance to the light for *Eptesicus/Nyctalus* group (r = 0.05, t = 2.0, df = 1786, p-value < 0.045; Pearson's correlation test), we adapted the weight of response variables to the associated precision of positions (i.e. inverse of the imprecision squared [35]) by adding a precision weight term in GLMMs.

Lights were oriented toward the ground and the armature parallel to the forest edge, which results in a heterogeneous distribution of light in horizontal and vertical planes (Fig. 1). Thus, in order to assess the dependence of light effects on bats to their spatial position around a streetlight, we built one model per species group for (i) all positions around the light, for (ii) positions under the light (i.e. z < 4 m), for (iii) positions above the light (z > 4 m), for (iv) positions at the backside of the light (i.e. x > 4 m) and for (v) positions in front of the light
246 (i.e. x < 4 m) (Fig.1). All GLMMs exhibited much smaller Akaike Information Criteria (AIC)
247 than null models. We assessed for each model the goodness of fit by computing the
248 percentage of variance explained by models using the r2 function (R package sjstats). We
249 checked residual plots of models using the R package DHARMa. All analyses were performed
250 using a significance threshold of 5% in the R statistical software [36].

251

252 **3. Results**

253

254 **(a) 3D acoustic localization**

255 Bat calls within the 25,195 five-second files recorded allowed the assessment of a total of
256 28,646 (3D) positions, with an imprecision of less than one meter. Of all positions, 91.3 %
257 were assigned to the *Pipistrellus* group, 6.2 % to the *Eptesicus/Nyctalus* group and 2.4 % to
258 the *Myotis/Plecotus* group (Additional file 1: Table S2). The number of locations was higher
259 at the white-light poles, followed by red and then dark control poles for *Eptesicus/Nyctalus*
260 and *Pipistrellus* groups, but higher around red-light poles followed by white and then dark
261 control poles for *Myotis/Plecotus* group (Additional file 1: Table S2). Overall, the cumulative
262 imprecision for each location varied between 0.10 and 0.39 m on average, and was dependent
263 on species group, but similar between the three light treatments although slightly lower for all
264 groups in red sites (Additional file 1: Table S2). More than 70 % of positions had a
265 cumulative imprecision lower than 0.2 meters (Fig. S1).
266

266

267 **(b) Effect of spectrum on the flight behaviour**

268 Overall, the average probability of bats flying inside the forest (PFIF) was significantly higher
269 near red and white light posts compared to dark control poles for *Pipistrellus* group, while
270 only significantly higher near white light posts for *Myotis/Plecotus* and *Eptesicus/Nyctalus*
groups (Table 1). Then, all bat groups were found to have a greater PFIF when getting closer to the light. The increase in PFIF when getting closer to the light was stronger for red and white light posts compared to dark control poles for *Pipistrellus* and *Eptesicus/Nyctalus* groups, and only stronger for white light posts for the *Myotis/Plecotus* group. The increase in PFIF when getting closer to the light was even stronger for red compared to white light posts for the *Pipistrellus* group, and even stronger for white compared to red light posts for *Eptesicus/Nyctalus* (Table 1; Fig. 2). Irrespective of these differences, white lighting increased the Flight Path Switch Distance (FPSD) for *Eptesicus/Nyctalus* group (i.e. 6.1 m), red lighting generated a greater FPSD for *Pipistrellus* group (i.e. 2.0 m), and white light generated a FPSD of 5.5 m for *Myotis/Plecotus* group (Additional file 1: Table S3; Fig. 2).

At three to five metres from the light, the PFIF for *Myotis/Plecotus* and *Eptesicus/Nyctalus* groups even reached 100 % for white lighting treatment, while the usual PFIF at such distance in unlit sites was under 1 % (Fig. 2). Similarly, the PFIF for *Pipistrellus* group reached more than 85 % and 50 % at one meter from red and white lights respectively, while close to 0 % in unlit conditions whatever the distance (Fig. 2).

286

### (c) Variation of responses according to location around lights

All species groups increasingly flew inside the forest when getting closer to the light. For both spectra, this effect was only present at the front side of the light, except for *Eptesicus/Nyctalus* group around red lights (Table 1; Fig. 3). For this group, the response was furthermore limited for bats flying above light posts of both spectra. For the *Pipistrellus* group, this response was unrelated to flight height (Table 1; Fig. 3).

Concerning the distance dependency, Flight Path Switch Distance (FPSD) was greater for *Eptesicus/Nyctalus* flying above and at the front side of white compared to red light poles (5.1 m and 7.0 m versus 4.0 m and 0.2 m, respectively), and was greater for *Myotis/Plecotus* flying
296 at the front side of white light poles (6.7 m *versus* no prediction possibility due to insufficient PFIF, respectively) (Additional file 1: Table S3; Fig. 3). The FPSD was also higher under and 297 at the front side of red-light poles compared to white light poles for *Pipistrellus* group (3.2 m 298 and 2.4 m *versus* no prediction possibility due to insufficient PFIF, respectively) (Additional 299 file 1: Table S3; Fig. 3). 300

301 Finally, fixed effects of models overall almost always explained a large part of the variance 302 (0.11-0.90 r squared; Additional file 1: Table S3). 303

304

305 **4. Discussion**

306

307 We show that artificial light located at forest edges significantly increases the Probability of 308 Flying Inside the Forest (PFIF) for open-, edge- and narrow-space foragers

309 (*Eptesicus/Nyctalus*, *Pipistrellus* and *Myotis/Plecotus* groups, respectively) regardless of light 310 spectrum. 311

312 For open- and edge-space foraging bats that take advantage of around light accumulated 313 insects, the presence of cluttered habitat (i.e. forest in our case) could further facilitate 314 foraging around streetlights by providing shelter against predators. This result is also 315 consistent with the antagonist effects of ALAN at different spatial scales for open- and edge- 316 space foragers. At the streetlight scale these groups can appear light-opportunistic 317 [13,21,23,24,37], however, at a larger scale these species are negatively impacted by ALAN 318 [17–19]. The observation that light-opportunistic open- and edge-space foragers seek refuge 319 in cluttered environment near light sources may explain this negative impact, especially in 320 areas with little vegetation around light. 321
Comparable behavioural changes were expected for *Myotis/Plectus* species as they are adapted to fly in cluttered environments and are known to be light-averse [14,23,30]. Both red and white light increased the PFIF for *Myotis/Plectus* group compared to dark control sites.

Although the effect of red lights was much less important compared to white lights, this finding is important as red light has been reported to have limited to absent effects on the activity of these species [21,23]. Our results thus suggest that red light may actually not be entirely effective in avoiding behavioural changes of narrow-space foragers, and even less for open- and edge-space foragers.

Overall, Flight Path Switch Distances (FPSD) were mostly longer around white lights, which is likely due to the fact that bats may perceive white light as more intense compared to red light due their spectral sensitivity [38,39]. Such differences in FPSD could also be linked with differences in light intensity at equal distance, higher for white than red lamps we studied (4.83 more lux in average in a 5 m radius around red lights; see Additional file 1: Appendix S1 for graphical representation of light intensity in relation to the distance to white and red lights), which is known to be one of light parameters driving impacts on bats [40]. When considering the vertical location of bat positions, we found that compared to white light poles, the FPSD was higher for individuals located under (i.e. for *Pipistrellus* group) and above (i.e. for *Pipistrellus* and *Eptesicus/Nyctalus* groups) red light poles. This is likely directly related to the distribution of the light around the streetlights (supplementary material S1), and aligns with the distance relation – and hence intensity dependence – of activity reported by [24]. However, it should be noted that *Eptesicus/Nyctalus* group mainly flew above lights (Additional file 1: Table S2) which likely explain the absence of response under lights.

We also found changes in bat behaviour in front of light posts for all groups but not at the backside. Thus, the directionality of the light post matters and can be used to reduce the adverse impacts of artificial lighting on bats. In our study, we had a sharper cut-off in light at
the backside of the light posts, and hence the effects there disappeared at shorter distances.

Individuals could forage at the backside of streetlights where the predation risk is low, and hence not seek refuge inside forest when getting closer to the light. Further investigations are needed to understand mechanisms involved. Concerning the overall higher effect of red light compared to white light on *Pipistrellus* group, further studies would be needed to understand why, and if they possibly turn back when getting closer to light instead of seeking refuge inside the forest. However, open-space foragers do not show the same pattern and react similarly to red and white light. We could hypothesise that their higher flight height allows for flying in or above the canopy (i.e. in a potentially more open space than for *Pipistrellus* group) while increasing their flight speed in response to light, which could explain their different response than edge-space foragers. Further investigations are also needed to address these aspects.

Finally, depending on bat location around streetlights, Flight Path Switch Distances (FPSD) in front of streetlights overall started from 7 m and 4 m for white and red lights, respectively. These distances of impact correspond to light intensities around 6 lux for both white and red lights. However, we defined FPSD as the distance at which bats on average flew as much inside as outside the forest, but impacts likely start before this arbitrarily chosen threshold. When we look at the beginning of behavioural perturbation, i.e. when the PFIF previously close to zero increases towards positive PFIFs, corresponding FPSD would be around 15 m and 9 m for white and red lights, respectively. Such distances correspond to light intensities around one lux for both white and red lights. These thresholds seem to be consistent with a study which looked at thresholds in light intensity affecting bat activity [24].

However, it is important to be cautious about the definition of safety thresholds for bats and further studies should confirm these results by testing wider distance and intensity ranges around streetlights, by sampling all spectra simultaneously, and by studying more sites and
nights per spectrum. We were not able to measure forest height, thus further studies could accurately account for bat position in relation to forest canopy as open space foragers such as *Nyctalus* spp. can fly above (average flight height 9±4 m; Additional file 1: Fig.S3). However, considerably lower flight heights recorded for *Pipistrellus* (5.8±2.8 m) and *Myotis/Plecotus* groups (5.2±2.5 m), and light effects generalized to under and above light positions for *Pipistrellus* group support these findings (Additional file 1: Fig.S3).

375

## 5. Conclusion

377

Our study demonstrates that spectrum type, intensity and directionality of streetlights has an effect on the flight behaviour of all bats, including light-opportunistic species, highlighting the need to consider simultaneously all these characteristics when studying ALAN impact on bats. In contrast to the absence of changes in bat activity in response to red light reported earlier, we here show that bats can have a comparable change in flight behaviour in response to red and white light. This finding first shows that bats actively seek refuge in cluttered environment when getting closer to light sources. This is a clear indication that bats make use of landscape structures when dealing with light, and shows the potential of vegetation in mitigating negative impacts of artificial light at night, but calls for preserving darkness as the most efficient way.

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

## Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

391

## Consent for publication

Not applicable.
394

395 **Availability of data and materials**

396 R scripts and data used for analyses are available in the Zenodo repository,

397 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4036279.

398

399 **Competing interests**

400 We declare we have no competing interest.

401

402 **Funding**

403 This work was supported by the Infrastructures de Transports Terrestres, Ecosystèmes et

404 Paysages (ITTECOP) program, including funding sources from the Agence de

405 l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Énergie (ADEME) and the Fondation pour la

406 Recherche sur la Biodiversité (FRB). The setup and maintenance of the experimental facilities

407 of "Licht Op Natuur" is financed by the Dutch Technology Foundation STW, part of the

408 Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).

409

410 **Author's contribution**

411 K.B., I.L., C.K, and K.S. conceived the ideas and designed the methodology; R.K.I. built the

412 microphone array; K.B. and K.S. collected the data, K.S. set up experimentally illuminated

413 sites; K.B. and Y.B. analysed the data and wrote R scripts; K.B, I.L, C.K. and K.S interpreted

414 results; all authors led the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the drafts and

415 gave their final approval for publication.

416

417 **Acknowledgments**
418 We thank Staatsbosbeheer, Natuurmonumenten, the Dutch Ministry of Defence, Het Drentse
419 Landschap and the municipality of Ede for the use of their terrain. We are grateful towards
420 Julie Pauwels and Charlotte Roemer which recently help to improve R script allowing to
421 reconstruct 3D bat positions. We also thank Ray van Dijk for his help with the nightly field
422 work.

423

424 References

425 1. Koen EL, Minnaar C, Roever CL, Boyles JG. 2018 Emerging threat of the 21st century lightscape to global biodiversity. *Glob. Chang. Biol.* **24**, 2315–2324.
426
427 (doi:10.1111/gcb.14146)

428 2. Gaston KJ, Visser ME, Hölker F. 2015 The biological impacts of artificial light at night : The research challenge. *Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.* **370**.
429
430 (doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0133)

431 3. Altermatt F, Ebert D. 2016 Reduced flight-to-light behaviour of moth populations exposed to long-term urban light pollution. *Biol. Lett.* **12**, 3–6.
432
433 (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2016.0111)

434 4. Gaston KJ, Davies TW, Nedelec SL, Holt LA. 2017 Impacts of Artificial Light at Night on Biological Timings. *Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.* **48**, 49–68.
435
436 (doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022745)

437 5. Bennie J, Davies TW, Cruse D, Inger R, Gaston KJ. 2018 Artificial light at night causes top-down and bottom-up trophic effects on invertebrate populations. *J. Appl. Ecol.* **55**, 2698–2706. (doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13240)

440 6. Hölker F, Wolter C, Perkin EK, Tockner K. 2010 Light pollution as a biodiversity threat. *Trends Ecol. Evol.* **25**, 681–682. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.09.007)

442 7. Knop E, Zoller L, Ryser R, Gerpe C, Hörler M, Fontaine C. 2017 Artificial light at
443 night as a new threat to pollination. *Nature* **548**, 206–209. (doi:10.1038/nature23288)

444 8. Doren BM Van, Horton KG, Dokter AM, Klinck H, Elbin SB, Farnsworth A. 2017

445 High-intensity urban light installation dramatically alters nocturnal bird migration.

446 *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.*, 201708574. (doi:10.1073/PNAS.1708574114)

447 9. van Grunsven RHA, Creemers R, Joosten K, Donners M, Veenendaal EM. 2016

448 Behaviour of migrating toads under artificial lights differs from other phases of their

449 life cycle. *Amphibia-Reptilia* **38**, 49–55. (doi:10.1163/15685381-00003081)

450 10. Hale JD, Fairbrass AJ, Matthews TJ, Davies G, Sadler JP. 2015 The ecological impact

451 of city lighting scenarios: Exploring gap crossing thresholds for urban bats. *Glob.*

452 *Chang. Biol.* **21**, 2467–2478. (doi:10.1111/gcb.12884)

453 11. Polak T, Korine C, Yair S, Holderied MW. 2011 Differential effects of artificial

454 lighting on flight and foraging behaviour of two sympatric bat species in a desert. *J.*

455 *Zool.* **285**, 21–27. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00808.x)

456 12. De La Cueva Salcedo H, Fenton MB, Hickey MB, Blake RW. 1995 Energetic

457 consequences of light speeds of foraging red and hoary bats (Lasiurus borealis and

458 Lasiurus cinereus; Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). *J. Exp. Biol.* **198**, 2245–2251.

459 13. Stone EL, Harris S, Jones G. 2015 Impacts of artificial lighting on bats: A review of

460 challenges and solutions. *Mamm. Biol.* **80**, 213–219.

461 (doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2015.02.004)

462 14. Azam C, Kerbiriou C, Vernet A, Julien JF, Bas Y, Plichard L, Maratrat J, Le Viol I.

463 2015 Is part-night lighting an effective measure to limit the impacts of artificial lighting

464 on bats? *Glob. Chang. Biol.* **21**, 4333–4341. (doi:10.1111/gcb.13036)

465 15. Stone EL, Jones G, Harris S. 2009 Street Lighting Disturbs Commuting Bats. *Curr.*

466 *Biol.* **19**, 1123–1127. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.05.058)

467 16. Russo D, Cistrone L, Libralato N, Korine C, Jones G, Ancillotto L. 2017 Adverse
468

effects of artificial illumination on bat drinking activity. *Anim. Conserv.* **20**, 492–501.

469

(doi:10.1111/acv.12340)

470

17. Azam C, Le Viol I, Julien JF, Bas Y, Kerbiriou C. 2016 Disentangling the relative

471

effect of light pollution, impervious surfaces and intensive agriculture on bat activity

472

with a national-scale monitoring program. *Landsc. Ecol.* **31**, 2471–2483.

473

(doi:10.1007/s10980-016-0417-3)

474

18. Laforge A, Pauwels J, Faure B, Bas Y, Kerbiriou C, Fonderflick J, Besnard A. 2019

475

Reducing light pollution improves connectivity for bats in urban landscapes. *Landsc.*

476

*Ecol.* **34**, 793–809. (doi:10.1007/s10980-019-00803-0)

477

19. Pauwels J, Viol I Le, Azam C, Valet N, Julien J -f., Bas Y, Lemarchand C, Miguel AS

478

De, Kerbiriou C. 2019 Accounting for artificial light impact on bat activity for a

479

biodiversity-friendly urban planning. *Landsc. Urban Plan.* **183**, 12–25.

480

(doi:S0169204618311939)

481

20. Barré K *et al*. 2020 Artificial light may change flight patterns of bats near bridges

482

along urban waterways. *Anim. Conserv.*. (doi:10.1111/acv.12635)

483

21. Zeale MRK, Stone EL, Zeale E, Browne WJ, Harris S, Jones G. 2018 Experimentally

484

manipulating light spectra reveals the importance of dark corridors for commuting bats.

485

*Glob. Chang. Biol.* **24**, 5909–5918. (doi:10.1111/gcb.14462)

486

22. Gaston KJ, Davies TW, Bennie J, Hopkins J. 2012 Reducing the ecological

487

consequences of night-time light pollution: Options and developments. *J. Appl. Ecol.*

488

**49**, 1256–1266. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02212.x)

489

23. Spoelstra K, van Grunsven RHA, Ramakers JJC, Ferguson KB, Raap T, Donners M,

490

Veenendaal EM, Visser ME. 2017 Response of bats to light with different spectra:

491

light-shy and agile bat presence is affected by white and green, but not red light. *Proc.*

492

*R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.* **284**, 20170075. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.0075)
24. Azam C, Le Viol I, Bas Y, Zissis G, Vernet A, Julien J-F, Kerbiriou C. 2018 Evidence for distance and illuminance thresholds in the effects of artificial lighting on bat activity. *Landsc. Urban Plan.* **175**, 123–135. (doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.02.011)

25. Barataud M. 2015 *Acoustic ecology of european bats: species identification, study of their habitats and foraging behaviour*. Biotope Ed.

26. Koblitz JC. 2018 *Arrayvolution: using microphone arrays to study bats in the field*. *Can. J. Zool.* **96**, 933–938. (doi:10.1139/cjz-2017-0187)

27. Owens ACS, Lewis SM. 2018 The impact of artificial light at night on nocturnal insects: A review and synthesis. *Ecol. Evol.*, 11337–11358. (doi:10.1002/ece3.4557)

28. Rydell J. 1992 Exploitation of Insects around Streetlamps by Bats in Sweden. *Funct. Ecol.* **6**, 744. (doi:10.2307/2389972)

29. Grodzinski U, Spiegel O, Korine C, Holderied MW. 2009 Context-dependent flight speed: Evidence for energetically optimal flight speed in the bat Pipistrellus kuhlii? *J. Anim. Ecol.* **78**, 540–548. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2009.01526.x)

30. Jones G, Rydell J. 1994 Foraging strategy and predation risk as factors influencing emergence time in echolocating bats. *Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.* **346**, 445–455. (doi:10.1098/rstb.1994.0161)

31. Spoelstra K, van Grunsven RHA, Donners M, Gienapp P, Huigens ME, Slaterus R, Berendse F, Visser ME, Veenendaal E. 2015 Experimental illumination of natural habitat--an experimental set-up to assess the direct and indirect ecological consequences of artificial light of different spectral composition. *Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.* **370**, 20140129–20140129. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0129)

32. Ing RK, Colombo R, Gembu G-C, Bas Y, Julien J-F, Gager Y, Hassanin A. 2016 Echolocation Calls and Flight Behaviour of the Elusive Pied Butterfly Bat ( *Glauconycteris superba* ), and New Data on Its Morphology and Ecology. *Acta
518

*Chiropterologica* **18**, 477–488. (doi:10.3161/15081109ACC2016.18.2.014)

519

33. Kerbiriou C, Bas Y, Le Viol I, Lorrilliere R, Mougnot J, Julien JF. 2018 Potential of

520

bat pass duration measures for studies of bat activity. *Bioacoustics* **4622**, 1–16.

521

(doi:10.1080/09524622.2017.1423517)

522

34. Bas Y, Bas D, Julien J. 2017 Tadarida : A Toolbox for Animal Detection on Acoustic

523

Recordings. *J. open Res. Softw.* **5**, 1–8. (doi:https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.154)

524

35. Penone C, Kerbiriou C, Julien J-F, Julliard R, Machon N, Le Viol I. 2013 Urbanisation

525

effect on Orthoptera: which scale matters? *Insect Conserv. Divers.* **6**, 319–327.

526

(doi:10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00217.x)

527

36. R Core Team. 2018 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R

528

*Found. Stat. Comput. Vienna, Austria*. See https://www.r-project.org/.

529

37. Azam C, Kerbiriou C, Vernet A, Julien J-F, Bas Y, Plichard L, Maratrat J, Le Viol I.

530

2015 Is part-night lighting an effective measure to limit the impacts of artificial lighting

531

on bats? *Glob. Chang. Biol.* **21**. (doi:10.1111/gcb.13036)

532

38. Gorresen MP, Cryan PM, Dalton DC, Wolf S, Bonaccorso FJ. 2015 Ultraviolet Vision

533

May be Widespread in Bats. *Acta Chiropterologica* **17**, 193–198.

534

(doi:10.3161/15081109acc2015.17.1.017)

535

39. Winter Y, López J, Von Helversen O. 2003 Ultraviolet vision in a bat. *Nature* **425**,

536

612–614. (doi:10.1038/nature01971)

537

40. Lacoeuilhe A, Machon N, Julien JF, Le Bocq A, Kerbiriou C. 2014 The influence of

538

low intensities of light pollution on bat communities in a semi-natural context. *PLoS

539

*One* **9**. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0103042)

540

541
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Estimates, standard errors and p-values of the effect of the distance to the light, the spectrum and the mutual interaction on the probability of bats flying inside the forest when unlit control (A) and white spectrum (B) were used as intercept (***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05). Results are presented for all positions, and positions above, under, behind and in front of the light (see Fig. 1 for placement definitions), and derived from generalized linear mixed models.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Eptesicus/Nyctalus</th><th>Myotis/Plecotus</th><th>Pipistrellus</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>All positions</strong></td><td></td><td>N=1,788</td><td>N=692</td><td>N=26,166</td></tr><tr><td>Dist. to light</td><td></td><td>-0.950 ± 0.020 ***</td><td>-1.864 ± 0.736 *</td><td>-0.188 ± 0.036 ***</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Spectrum</td><td>(A) Unlit vs. Red</td><td>-0.679 ± 4.278</td><td>3.056 ± 4.055</td><td>5.185 ± 1.570 ***</td></tr><tr><td>(A) Unlit vs. White</td><td>18.890 ± 4.004 ***</td><td>16.736 ± 7.994 *</td><td>3.522 ± 1.491*</td></tr><tr><td>(B) White vs. Red</td><td>-19.569 ± 3.502 ***</td><td>-13.680 ± 8.379</td><td>1.663 ± 1.509</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Dist. to light :<br>Spectrum</td><td>(A) Unlit vs. Red</td><td>-1.013 ± 0.044 ***</td><td>-0.508 ± 0.376</td><td>-0.802 ± 0.067 ***</td></tr><tr><td>(A) Unlit vs. White</td><td>-1.639 ± 0.435 ***</td><td>-1.537 ± 0.742 *</td><td>-0.385 ± 0.040 ***</td></tr><tr><td>(B) White vs. Red</td><td>0.625 ± 0.055 ***</td><td>1.029 ± 0.790</td><td>-0.417 ± 0.059 ***</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Vertical location: above light</strong></td><td></td><td>N=1,708</td><td>N=465</td><td>N=19,438</td></tr><tr><td>Dist. to light</td><td></td><td>-0.951 ± 0.020 ***</td><td>-1.715 ± 794 *</td><td>-0.207 ± 0.038 ***</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Spectrum</td><td>(A) Unlit vs. Red</td><td>37.339 ± 8.043 ***</td><td>-4.277 ± 6.453</td><td>2.587 ± 1.690</td></tr><tr><td>(A) Unlit vs. White</td><td>20.557 ± 3.787 ***</td><td>7.801 ± 8.163</td><td>2.721 ± 1.596</td></tr><tr><td>(B) White vs. Red</td><td>16.784 ± 8.092 *</td><td>-12.078 ± 8.351</td><td>-0.134 ± 1.623</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Dist. to light :<br>Spectrum</td><td>(A) Unlit vs. Red</td><td>-6.282 ± 0.187 ***</td><td>0.783 ± 0.914</td><td>-0.477 ± 0.074 ***</td></tr><tr><td>(A) Unlit vs. White</td><td>-1.487 ± 0.044 ***</td><td>-0.507 ± 1.059</td><td>-0.369 ± 0.043 ***</td></tr><tr><td>(B) White vs. Red</td><td>-4.795 ± 0.190 ***</td><td>1.290 ± 0.856</td><td>-0.108 ± 0.066</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Vertical location: under light</strong></td><td></td><td>N=80</td><td>N=227</td><td>N=6,728</td></tr><tr><td>Dist. to light</td><td></td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>-0.567 ± 0.043 ***</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Spectrum</td><td>(A) Unlit vs. Red</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>10.751 ± 2.080 ***</td></tr><tr><td>(A) Unlit vs. White</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>5.340 ± 1.944 **</td></tr><tr><td>(B) White vs. Red</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>5.411 ± 1.480 ***</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Dist. to light :<br>Spectrum</td><td>(A) Unlit vs. Red</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>-1.624 ± 0.197 ***</td></tr><tr><td>(A) Unlit vs. White</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>-0.581 ± 0.162 ***</td></tr><tr><td>(B) White vs. Red</td><td>/</td><td>/</td><td>-1.044 ± 0.128 ***</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Horizontal location: backside</strong></td><td></td><td>N=895</td><td>N=326</td><td>N=6,433</td></tr><tr><td>Dist. to light</td><td></td><td>-0.520 ± 0.380</td><td>/</td><td>-0.347 ± 0.548</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Spectrum</td><td>(A) Unlit vs. Red</td><td>-47.725 ± 29.775</td><td>/</td><td>-10.136 ± 7.872</td></tr><tr><td>(A) Unlit vs. White</td><td>-13.521 ± 7.152</td><td>/</td><td>-5.289 ± 7.145</td></tr><tr><td>(B) White vs. Red</td><td>-34.205 ± 28.608</td><td>/</td><td>-4.847 ± 3.978</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Dist. to light :<br>Spectrum</td><td>(A) Unlit vs. Red</td><td>1.977 ± 1.134</td><td>/</td><td>0.715 ± 0.588</td></tr><tr><td>(A) Unlit vs. White</td><td>0.676 ± 0.408</td><td>/</td><td>0.429 ± 0.559</td></tr><tr><td>(B) White vs. Red</td><td>1.302 ± 1.026</td><td>/</td><td>0.286 ± 0.240</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Horizontal location: front side</strong></td><td></td><td>N=893</td><td>N=366</td><td>N=19,733</td></tr><tr><td>Dist. to light</td><td></td><td>-0.748 ± 157 ***</td><td>0.959 ± 0.602</td><td>-0.555 ± 0.021 ***</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Spectrum</td><td>(A) Unlit vs. Red</td><td>1.082 ± 3.269</td><td>18.784 ± 9.528 *</td><td>7.343 ± 1.893***</td></tr><tr><td>(A) Unlit vs. White</td><td>6.229 ± 2.215 **</td><td>45.356 ± 20.498 *</td><td>4.534 ± 1.818 *</td></tr><tr><td>(B) White vs. Red</td><td>-5.147 ± 3.384</td><td>-26.572 ± 19.127</td><td>2.809 ± 1.779</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Dist. to light :<br>Spectrum</td><td>(A) Unlit vs. Red</td><td>-0.538 ± 0.326</td><td>-2.587 ± 1.036 *</td><td>-1.070 ± 0.079 ***</td></tr><tr><td>(A) Unlit vs. White</td><td>-0.558 ± 0.170 **</td><td>-5.466 ± 2.590 *</td><td>-0.468 ± 0.047 ***</td></tr><tr><td>(B) White vs. Red</td><td>0.020 ± 0.338</td><td>2.879 ± 2.555</td><td>-0.602 ± 0.070 ***</td></tr></tbody></table>
**Figure 1.** Location of study sites plotted on a nightly light emission map (A), schematic overview of set-up of a study site (B) and standardized set-up of the microphone array (C), and how 3D positions are calculated (D). Light posts were always 4 m tall, and always oriented toward the microphone array, parallel to the forest edge.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>A. Study sites plotted on a nightly light emission map of the Netherlands (map image courtesy of Avex's files)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>B. Schematic overview of set-up of a study site, and spectral composition of the three spectra studied</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>C. Top view of the standardized microphone array set-up</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>D. Longitudinal view of the set-up and example of a bat position reconstruction</figcaption></figure>

553

554

555
**Figure 2.** Predicted curves of the probability of bats flying inside the forest (left y axis) in relation with the distance to the light for unlit control sites (with dummy light posts), red lit sites and white lit sites. Histograms and boxplots represent the frequency distribution of bat positions (right y axis) for positions located in open area (at the bottom) and inside the forest (at the top) in relation with the distance to the light.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
**Figure 3.** Predicted curves of the probability of bats flying inside the forest (left y axis) in relation with the distance to the light for positions at the backside of streetlight, at the front side of streetlight, above and under streetlight for red and white lit sites. Histograms and boxplots represent the frequency distribution of bat positions (right y axis) for positions located in open area (at the bottom) and inside the forest (at the top) in relation with the distance to the light.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>