One major limitation of our approach to interpreting detection as a combination of detectability and space use intensity is that the two are not entirely separable. We have included covariates that we believe address one aspect more than the other, but there could be unaccounted for detectability variables that confound our interpretation of space use intensity. More caution should therefore be taken when interpreting the detection results compared to the occupancy results. Future studies might be able to help disentangle some of these effects by examining temporal activity patterns of wildlife in addition to space use intensity. Finally, these data are all observational, and therefore cannot address specific mechanisms by which cannabis may affect local wildlife. Future studies isolating potential mechanisms of deterrence and attraction would help elucidate some of the species-specific behaviors documented in this study . Understanding the pathways by which wildlife respond to disturbance is critical for mitigating the impacts of anthropogenic change . It is well understood that wildlife respond to human disturbance in complex ways, which can have individual, population, and community effects . To piece apart these complex interactions, it can be useful to isolate particular sources of disturbance and their effects on wildlife. Two sources of disturbance that have been identified as major anthropogenic drivers of wildlife behavioral change are light and noise pollution. Artificial light at night is an increasing global phenomenon, with the coverage of outdoor areas illuminated by artificial light increasing by 2.2% per year . This global increase in light can have far ranging consequences across taxa, including by causing animal disorientation, and by disrupting behavior or interactions . Noise pollution has been less studied than light pollution, however, the effects of noise on wildlife are also global, and may have individual, population,pots for cannabis plants and community level impacts including disrupted reproductive signaling or prey vigilance, and added cumulative stress . Controlled experiments provide a powerful tool for exploring causal relationships between disturbance sources, such as light and sound, and wildlife responses . Experiments on noise and light effects are typically focused on individual species or taxa, but field experiments in particular offer an opportunity to study interactive effects of noise and light pollution.
However, this approach is largely under-utilized, due to the logistical challenges of implementing such studies . Here, I describe an experimental approach to studying the separate and interactive effects of point source noise and light pollution on multi-taxa wildlife communities. Specifically, my approach applies a comprehensive experimental design to understand the effects of noise and light pollution commonly associated with cannabis farming. Recreational cannabis production in the western United States has been increasing rapidly following state-level legalization . Influenced by its illicit history, outdoor cannabis is often grown in remote and bio-diverse regions with minimal other non-timber agriculture . In these legacy systems, the proximity of cannabis to wilderness areas may lead to unusual disturbance patterns associated with cannabis cultivation where relatively small point source disturbances are surrounded by a matrix of more intact vegetation . Outdoor and mixed light cannabis farming presents a particular concern for environmental impacts because of their use of bright lights and loud equipment such as generators and fans .However, current research has not distinguished between sources of disturbance on cannabis farms, which is critical for designing appropriate interventions, including policy, to mitigate the effect of these disturbances. In this study, I designed and implemented an experiment to investigate the individual and combined effects of light and noise from cannabis farms on local wildlife. I was particularly interested in the impact of new developing farms in rural areas. To approach this question, I designed a series of experimental field trials that mimic light and sound disturbance from outdoor, greenhouse, and mixed light cannabis production, and a monitoring array to measure resulting wildlife responses. The preliminary results of this effort to design and trial a comprehensive study of anthropogenic noise and light effects on wildlife are promising. Results to date suggest that this experimental design may be sufficiently rigorous, with enough sampling to quantify relationships and thresholds for different taxonomic groups in their response to experimental light and noise treatments that mimic conditions on cannabis farms.
While more data needs to be collected, sorted, and analyzed, the study design detailed here may be sufficient for this study’s objectives and useful for other researchers interested in community responses to disturbance. Preliminary visualizations indicate that there will likely be species- and taxa- specific responses to each disturbance treatment. These results provide an early indication that I may be able to capture fairly fine-scale responses of at least medium-large mammals and flying insects. Current results mainly provide insights on response to light treatments, since there were fewer sound and combined light/sound trials in the first season of data collection. Considering I have not yet implemented more complex modeling to account for seasonal variations or other covariates, it is surprising that there is already an indication of mammalian avoidance and flying insect attraction to light treatments, providing limited support for hypothesized relationships. Future analysis of these data will involve more complex Generalized Linear Mixed Model approaches, as has been used in other studies on light and noise effects on wildlife . This will allow me to account for seasonal variation or other covariates, examine potential habituation effects over time, and incorporate decibel and light intensity measurements at each site. One of the most widespread consequences of the use of new materials in ever more airtight buildings may be the so-called Sick Building Syndrome . SBS is a rather poorly defined term referring to a set of nonspecific skin, mucous membrane, neurological, respiratory, and generalized symptoms experienced by people working in nonindustrial environments in the absence of a known causative agent; these symptoms diminish or disappear during absences from these work environments . These introductory comments are made with the understanding that the vast majority of so-called SBS outbreaks have been shown secondary to discrimination bias, secondary gain, or both. However, a number of important illnesses can occur in very air-tight buildings. With the recognition that such nonspecific symptoms are reported in almost all office buildings, as well as in schools, libraries, hospitals, homes for the elderly, and apartments,cannabis flood table they are increasingly referred to as building-related symptoms. This can be somewhat misleading because the terms “building related symptoms” and “building-related illness” used to be reserved for symptoms with identified causes . Confusion can be avoided by distinguishing between nonspecific and specific building-related illnesses. For the sake of simplicity, we use the term SBS for the nonspecific symptomatology experienced by occupants of nonindustrial buildings.
SBS symptoms most commonly are general or neurophysiological or affect mucous membranes, the upper and lower respiratory systems, or the skin. General symptoms include headache, dizziness, nausea, mental fatigue, difficulty in concentrating, and lethargy. Upper respiratory and mucosal symptoms consist of dry, itchy, sore, burning, or otherwise irritated eyes, nose, sinuses, or throat, whereas lower respiratory symptoms include cough, wheeze, difficulty breathing, and chest tightness. Red, dry, or itchy skin is the most common dermatological manifestation. The prevalence of SBS symptoms ranges between a few percent and 50 to 60%; additionally, with 70% of US workers employed in nonindustrial indoor settings , SBS constitutes one of the most common environmental health issues . The economic impact of productivity losses and health care costs has been estimated to amount to $50 to $100 billion, of which $5 to $75 billion is potentially preventable by using the appropriate measures . Appropriate measures are currently difficult to identify because the underlying causes of SBS remain largely unknown, although it has been associated with a large variety of factors, including building, work environment, demographic, and personal characteristics . One finding has clearly emerged from the studies analyzing these associations: the etiology of SBS is multi-factorial, arising from complex interactions between chemical, physical, biological, and psychosocial factors . The ventilation rate is one of the work environment features most consistently associated with SBS symptoms. From a review of the literature, a multidisciplinary group of European scientists concluded that ventilation rate was strongly associated with perceived air quality, SBS symptoms, and various other health outcomes such as inflammation, infections, asthma, allergy, and short-term sick leave . The data also showed that increased ventilation was associated with enhanced productivity. Previous reviews had indicated that there was an increased risk of adverse health effects at outdoor airflow rates lower than 10 L/s and that perceived air quality improved and SBS symptoms decreased with higher ventilation rates in most studies . The minimum ventilation rate set by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers is 10 L/s per person. However, European scientists concluded that the risk of SBS symptoms increased at outdoor air-supply rates lower than 25 L/s per person . Note that increasing the outdoor air supply can result in deterioration of indoor air quality if outdoor pollutants are insufficiently filtered by the ventilation system. Indoor carbon dioxide concentrations are often used as a surrogate not only for occupant-generated pollutants but also for ventilation rate per occupant. However, CO2 concentrations in occupied buildings usually do not reach steady state, and for this and various other reasons, CO2 concentrations may not accurately reflect ventilation rates .
Nonetheless, the results of studies investigating the association of CO2 concentrations with SBS symptoms are generally similar to those obtained with ventilation rates. Analysis of data from 41 of 100 US office buildings studied in the Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation undertaken by the US Environmental Protection Agency indicated a dose–response relationship between the average workday indoor minus average outdoor CO2 concentrations and sore throat, nose or sinus symptoms, tight chest, and wheezing . The adjusted odds ratios per 100 ppm dCO2 ranged between 1.2 and 1.5. When the analysis was extended to the whole set of 100 buildings, however, many of the previously reported associations were not evident, and the ORs for sore throat and wheeze were reduced to 1.15 and 1.21, respectively . The rather consistent observation of a significant negative association between ventilation rate or CO2 levels and SBS symptoms suggests that irritating compounds arising from indoor sources play a causative role in these symptoms and that the removal, or at least dilution, of such chemicals should result in a decrease of reported symptoms. It has long been suspected that volatile organic compounds are important contributors to SBS, but conclusive evidence is lacking. The VOCs may not be responsible for the SBS symptoms; rather, the products of their reaction with ozone and other chemicals may trigger the symptoms. Ultrafine particles, which can act as strong airway irritants, are one example of these reaction products. Particulate matter from various sources is another possible causative agent of SBS symptoms, especially because it has been associated with respiratory symptoms in healthy and asthmatic subjects. Two other groups of chemicals known to cause some of the symptoms of SBS, phthalates and pesticides, have received surprisingly little attention in attempts to identify agents involved in SBS. However, they should be an important focus of research, given their large-scale production and use, their known adverse effects in experimental animals, and the growing concern that they, along with other environmental exposures, have contributed to the increasing incidence of certain symptoms and diseases in humans and wildlife. These other exposures include persistent organochlorine compounds that were widely produced and used in the 1960s and 1970s, before researchers realized that they accumulated in the environment and in various biota to the extent that they caused serious adverse effects on wildlife and humans. Their permanence ensures that humans will be exposed to them for generations to come. Therefore, it is important to fully understand their health effects and, above all, their interactions with the myriad of other pollutants we produce and are exposed to in ever-increasing amounts in the air, food, water, dust, soil, and everything we come in contact with.VOCs are compounds that contain at least one carbon and one hydrogen atom, participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions, and have a low boiling point , which means they readily vaporize at room temperature. Formaldehyde is sometimes designated as a VOC, but it is not truly a VOC because it is a gas at room temperature. Because it also requires different analytical techniques, it is not as routinely measured as VOC.