Comments on the paper "correlation does not imply causation: decline of House Sparrow overshadowed by electromagnetic radiation" by Nath et al.

A. Balmori,A. Balmori-de la Puente
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-024-01512-6
IF: 2.686
2024-01-25
Urban Ecosystems
Abstract:The paper published by Nath et al. (Urban Ecosystems 25:1279–1295, 2022) analyzes the influence of different ecological factors and covariates on House Sparrow ( Passer domesticus ) abundance but criticizes previous research without explaining in depth the scientific reasons for it and reaches conclusions not supported by the authors' own data nor by existing knowledge and scientific evidence. They state that studies on the impacts of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) on birds outside laboratory conditions carried out in the past did not consider other ecological factors that could also influence the life history needs of the species. However, precisely the opposite is true; the studies carried out so far, taking into account most of the possible factors to consider, including urbanization, have not been able to solve the enigma of the House Sparrow decline in many of the world's cities. Thus, it is necessary to propose new possible causes not considered so far. Among the few that remain to be tested is the electromagnetic radiation hypothesis, which was proposed by two independent research teams in two different countries. This paper is a reply of the work developed by Nath et al. (Urban Ecosystems 25:1279–1295, 2022) that highlight their inconclusive results and methodological flaws due to the correlation observed between radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and urbanization, complement their results showing negative correlations when testing House Sparrow abundance with electromagnetic radiation levels correcting for the percentage of builtup, and clarify some statements and misconceptions (importance of non-thermal effects).
biodiversity conservation,ecology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?