Species richness and abundance of forest birds in relation to radiation at Chernobyl

Biology Letters

Volumn 3, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 483-486

  Moller A P ^a   Mousseau, T A ^b  

^a Laboratoire de Parasitologie Evolutive CNRS UMR 7103 UFR 927   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Census; Ecosystem effects; Population density; Radiation at Chernobyl; Species richness

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIRD; CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT; ECOSYSTEM; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DENSITY;

ANIMALS; BIRDS; CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR ACCIDENT; ECOSYSTEM; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; POPULATION DENSITY;

EID: 35548967148     PISSN: 17449561     EISSN: 1744957X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0226     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Bibby C. J., Hill D. A., Burgess N. D. & Mustoe S. 2005 Bird census techniques. London, UK: Academic Press.
2. Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. 2002 Model selection and multimodel inference, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Springer.
3. Chernobyl Forum 2005a Chernobyl's legacy: health, environmental and socio-economic impacts. New York, NY: IAEA, WHO, UNDP.
4. Chernobyl Forum 2005b Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident. 20 years later a UN report provides definitive answers and ways to repair lives. New York, NY: IAEA, WHO, UNDP.
5. Ellegren, H., Lindgren, G., Primmer, C. R. & Møller, A. P. 1997 Fitness loss and germline mutations in barn swallows breeding in Chernobyl. Nature 389, 593-596. (doi:10.1038/39303)
6. European Union 1998 Atlas of caesium deposition on Europe after the Chernobyl accident. EU publication EUR 16733. Bruxelles, Belgium: European Union.
7. Møller, A. P. 1983 Methods for monitoring bird populations in the Nordic countries. Oslo, Norway: Nordic Council of Ministers.
8. Møller, A. P. & Mousseau, T. A. 2006 Biological consequences of Chernobyl: 20 years after the disaster. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 200-207. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.01. 008)
9. Møller, A. P. & Mousseau, T. A. 2007 Birds prefer to breed in sites with low radioactivity in Chernobyl. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 1443-1448. (doi:10.1098/rspb. 2007.0005)
10. Møller, A. P., Mousseau, T. A., Milinevsky, G., Peklo, A., Pysanets, E. & Szép, T. 2005 Condition, reproduction and survival of barn swallows from Chernobyl. J. Anim. Ecol. 74, 1102-1111. (doi:10.1111/j.1365- 2656.2005. 01009.x)
11. Mycio, M. 2005 Wormwood forest: a natural history of Chernobyl. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
12. Rosenthal, E. 2005 Chernobyl's dangers called far exaggerated. International Herald Tribune 6 September 2005.
13. SAS Institute, Inc 2000 JMP. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
14. Shestopalov, V. M. 1996 Atlas of Chernobyl exclusion zone. Kiev, Ukraine: Ukrainian Academy of Science
15. Stephan, V. 2005 Chernobyl: poverty and stress pose 'bigger threat' than radiation. Nature 437, 181. (doi:10. 1038/437181b)
16. UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group "Environment" 2005 Environmental consequences of the Chernobyl accident and their remediation: twenty years of experience. New York, NY: IAEA, WHO, UNDP
17. Zakharov, V. M. & Krysanov, E. Y. (eds) 1996 Consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe: environmental health. Moscow, Russia: Center for Russian Environmental Policy.