4.5 Article

Ecological mechanisms can modify radiation effects in a key forest mammal of Chernobyl

期刊

ECOSPHERE
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ecs2.2667

关键词

Chernobyl; chronic radiation; food supplementation; forest ecosystem; ionizing radiation; key species; Myodes vole; nuclear accident; population increase; population sensitivity; reproductive success

类别

资金

  1. Academy of Finland [268670, 287153]
  2. Emil Aaltonen Foundation
  3. Oskar Oflund Foundation
  4. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [RH/BPD/84822/2012]
  5. Graduate School of the University of Oulu
  6. CNRS (France)
  7. Samuel Freeman Charitable Trust
  8. Fulbright Program
  9. American Council of Learned Societies
  10. College of Arts and Sciences at the University of South Carolina

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nuclear accidents underpin the need to quantify the ecological mechanisms which determine injury to ecosystems from chronic low-dose radiation. Mere, we tested the hypothesis that ecological mechanisms interact with ionizing radiation to affect natural populations in unexpected ways. We used large-scale replicated experiments and food manipulations in wild populations of the rodent, Myodes glareolus, inhabiting the region near the site of the Chernobyl disaster of 1986. We show linear decreases in breeding success with increasing ambient radiation levels with no evidence of any threshold below which effects are not seen. Food supplementation of experimental populations resulted in increased abundances but only in locations where radioactive contamination was low (i.e., below approximate to mu Sv/h). In areas with higher contamination, food supplementation showed no detectable effects. These findings suggest that chronic lowdose-rate irradiation can decrease the stability of populations of key forest species, and these effects could potentially scale to broader community changes with concomitant consequences for the ecosystem functioning of forests impacted by nuclear accidents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据