Among the pressures introduced by urbanization, artificial light at night (ALAN) can be problematic, particularly for nocturnal species. Populations of European hamsters (Cricetus cricetus) have dramatically decreased in France since 1972 because of habitat loss due to urbanisation and changes in agricultural methods. The conservation project Life Alister aims to increase the abundance of this species in suburban areas via hamster release. However, the success of this population-restoration project may be compromised due to the possible effects of ALAN on the daily and seasonal cycles and behaviour of this nocturnal species. To understand how hamsters may respond to relocation, we experimentally studied the impact of ALAN on hamster foraging, a decisive behaviour for survival in natural habitats. This study assessed the behavioural responses of 18 animals when choosing between two food sources of different palatability in two different lighting conditions: artificial light (4 or 40 lux) or darkness. Our results show that hamsters avoided lighting that mimics suburban streetlights, particularly when grooming. Moreover, this study reveals that hamsters do not avoid street-lit areas when highly palatable food is present, suggesting they would be more susceptible to predation under these circumstances. Our results suggest that the adverse effects of ALAN on the behaviour of hamsters released on the outskirts of developed suburban areas could be limited by restricting the number of street lights, moderating the intensity of street lighting, or switching lights off during the hours hamsters are most active. We further recommend that wildlife managers avoid planting plants that are highly palatable to hamsters close to lighting in suburban areas to limit the risk of predation for this species.

This preprint has been reviewed and recommended by Peer Community In Ecology (https://dx.doi.org/10.24072/pci.ecology.100001). In a recent article, Bicca-Marques and Calegaro-Marques [Bicca-Marques JC, Calegaro-Marques C (2016) Ranging behavior drives parasite richness: A more parsimonious hypothesis. American Journal of Primatology 78: 923–927.] discussed the putative assumptions related to an interpretation we provided regarding an observed positive relationship between weekly averaged parasite richness of a group of mandrills (Mandrillussphinx) and their daily path lengths (DPL), published earlier in the same journal [Brockmeyer T, Kappeler PM, Willaume E, Benoit L, Mboumba S, Charpentier MJE (2015) Social organization and space use of a wild mandrill (Mandrillussphinx) group. American Journal of Primatology 77: 1036–1048.]. In our article, we proposed, inter alia, that “the daily travels of mandrills could be seen as a way to escape contaminated habitats on a local scale”. In their article, Bicca-Marques and Calegaro-Marques proposed an alternative mechanism that they considered to be more parsimonious. In their view, increased DPL also increases exposure to novel parasites from the environment. In other words, while we proposed that elevated DPL may be a consequence of elevated parasite richness, they viewed it as a cause. We are happy to see that our study attracted so much interest that it evoked a public comment. We are also grateful to Bicca-Marques and Calegaro-Marques for pointing out an obvious alternative scenario that we failed to discuss and for laying out several key factors and assumptions that should be addressed by future studies examining the links between parasite risk and group ranging. We use this opportunity to advance this discourse by responding to some of the criticisms raised in their discussion of our article. In this reply, we briefly contextualize the main object of criticism. We then discuss the putative parsimony of the two competing scenarios.

The way in which research funding is allocated by both governmental and non-governmental research agencies needs to be revamped to avoid bias and encourage innovation. Known biases in allocation of funding include those driven by gender, race, institution size, geographic location and interdisciplinary study. We also contend that the peer-review process itself provides an apparently fair process, but that the flaws within it work against funding innovative science. We propose an unbiased process that combines the use of short proposals, blinded review and a lottery to allocate funding.