Abstract
We re-analyzed field data concerning potential effects of ionizing radiation on the abundance of mammals collected in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ) to interpret these findings from current knowledge of radiological dose–response relationships, here mammal response in terms of abundance. In line with recent work at Fukushima, and exploiting a census conducted in February 2009 in the CEZ, we reconstructed the radiological dose for 12 species of mammals observed at 161 sites. We used this new information rather than the measured ambient dose rate (from 0.0146 to 225 µGy h−1) to statistically analyze the variation in abundance for all observed species as established from tracks in the snow in previous field studies. All available knowledge related to relevant confounding factors was considered in this re-analysis. This more realistic approach led us to establish a correlation between changes in mammal abundance with both the time elapsed since the last snowfall and the dose rate to which they were exposed. This relationship was also observed when distinguishing prey from predators. The dose rates resulting from our re-analysis are in agreement with exposure levels reported in the literature as likely to induce physiological disorders in mammals that could explain the decrease in their abundance in the CEZ. Our results contribute to informing the Weight of Evidence approach to demonstrate effects on wildlife resulting from its field exposure to ionizing radiation.
Highlights
We re-analyzed field data concerning potential effects of ionizing radiation on the abundance of mammals collected in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ) to interpret these findings from current knowledge of radiological dose–response relationships, here mammal response in terms of abundance
Thirty years after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (Ch-NPP), the subject of its consequences for wildlife living in the Exclusion Zone is still hotly debated between scientists arguing it had a negative ecological impact[1] and proponents of no-effects, or even some collateral consequences such as human evacuation being beneficial for the fauna[2,3]
Applying concepts inspired from those previously defined for studying the abundance of breeding birds at Fukushima in relation to their chronic radiation exposure[5], we revisited the results of a field census of mammals in the CEZ1, where tracks in the snow were counted along line transects in 2009
Summary
We re-analyzed field data concerning potential effects of ionizing radiation on the abundance of mammals collected in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ) to interpret these findings from current knowledge of radiological dose–response relationships, here mammal response in terms of abundance. Thirty years after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (Ch-NPP), the subject of its consequences for wildlife living in the Exclusion Zone (the so-called CEZ, that is an approximately 30 km diameter evacuated area surrounding the NPP) is still hotly debated between scientists arguing it had a negative ecological impact[1] and proponents of no-effects, or even some collateral consequences such as human evacuation being beneficial for the fauna[2,3] Whatever their conclusions, these studies do not sufficiently often analyze the underlying data with respect to the most relevant indicator of total exposure when attempting to quantify the dose–response relationship that characterizes the effects of animal exposure to ionizing radiation. The added value of our work consisted first of assessing a realistic value of the dose absorbed by exposed mammals, applying recognized and Scientific Reports | (2020) 10:14083 |
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
