ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Light pollution due to exterior lighting is a rising concern. While glare, light trespass and general light pollution have been well described, there are few reported studies on the impact of light pollution on insects. By studying insect behavior in relation to artificial lighting, we suggest that control of the UV component of artificial lighting can significantly reduce its attractiveness, offering a strong ability to control the impact on insects. Traditionally, the attractiveness of a lamp to insects is calculated using the luminous efficiency spectrum of insect rhodopsin. This has enabled the development of lamps that emit radiation with wavelengths that are less visible to insects (that is, yellow lamps). We tested the assumption that the degree of visibility of a lamp to insects can predict its attractiveness by means of experimental collections. We found that the expected lamp's visibility is indeed related to the extent to which it attracts insects. However, the number of insects attracted to a lamp is disproportionally affected by the emission of ultraviolet radiation. UV triggers the behavior of approaching lights more or less independently of the amount of UV radiation emitted. Thus, even small amounts of UV should be controlled in order to develop bug-free lamps.
Content may be subject to copyright.
UV Radiation as an Attractor for Insects
Alessandro Barghini PhD
1
* and Bruno Augusto Souza de Medeiros
2
Abstract—Light pollution due to exterior lighting is a rising concern.
While glare, light trespass and general light pollution have been well
described, there are few reported studies on the impact of light
pollution on insects. By studying insect behavior in relation to artificial
lighting, we suggest that control of the UV component of artificial
lighting can significantly reduce its attractiveness, offering a strong
ability to control the impact on insects. Traditionally, the attractiveness
of a lamp to insects is calculated using the luminous efficiency
spectrum of insect rhodopsin. This has enabled the development of
lamps that emit radiation with wavelengths that are less visible to
insects (that is, yellow lamps). We tested the assumption that the
degree of visibility of a lamp to insects can predict its attractiveness by
means of experimental collections. We found that the expected lamp’s
visibility is indeed related to the extent to which it attracts insects.
However, the number of insects attracted to a lamp is disproportionally
affected by the emission of ultraviolet radiation. UV triggers the
behavior of approaching lights more or less independently of the
amount of UV radiation emitted. Thus, even small amounts of UV
should be controlled in order to develop bug-free lamps.
Keywords—UV radiation, insects, light pollution, light trespass,
environment.
1 INTRODUCTION
T
oday, light pollution is a relevant issue in the subject of exterior lighting. The
issue was first raised by astronomers; light pollution impairs astronomical
observations and deprives people of the pleasure of contemplating the dark sky
(the International Dark-Sky Association can be consulted for information on
astronomical light pollution: www.darksky.org). A more recent concern is the
impact of light pollution on ecosystems [Longcore and Rich 2004]. It has been
1
Laborato´rio de Estudos Evolutivos Humanos, Instituto de Biocieˆncia, Universidade de Sa˜o
Paul and Instituto de Eletrote´cnica e Energia, Universidade de Sa˜o Paulo;
2
Departamento de
Zoologia, Universidade de Sa˜o Paulo and Department of Organismic & Evolutionary Biology,
Harvard University
*Corresponding author: Alessandro Barghini, E-mail: barghini@iee.usp.br
LEUKOS VOL 9 NO 1 JULY 2012 PAGES 47–56
© 2012 The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
doi: 10.1582/LEUKOS.2012.09.01.003
47
shown that light pollution alters oviposition behavior in turtles, the trajectory of
migratory birds, and the behavior of small mammals; additionally, light pollution
has a strong impact on insects, as is stressed in the ample collective work edited by
Rich and Longcore [2006]. These concerns have been addressed in a number of
official reports and recommendations [Health Council of the Netherlands 2000; The
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 2009; Huseynov 2010; IDA and IES
2011] and by some power companies with respect to the design of exterior lighting
projects. For example, the Florida Power Company developed a manual for ecolog-
ical lighting of the seacoast to protect sea turtles [Ernest and Martin 1998].
Although concerns about the effects of lighting on insect populations are quite
recent, it has long been known that light attracts insects. Entomologists have
spent years developing and perfecting light traps for epidemiological and agri-
cultural surveys [see, for example: Hienton 1974; Szentkira´lyi 2002], but only in
the last decade have studies begun to focus on the attraction potential of regular
streetlights and its consequences [see, for example: Scheibe 1999; Kolligs 2000;
Eisenbeis and Ha¨nel 2009]. There are reasons to believe that night lighting has
a significant effect on insect populations. Einsenbeis [2006], for example,
estimated that the streetlights of a 240,000-inhabitant town in Germany may
kill approximately 360 million insects per season. Considering that insects serve
as pollinators for plants and food for a variety of other animals, this increased
mortality could have broader effects. The attraction of insects to lights could also
have effects on human health because it could provide a novel means of contact
between human populations and disease vectors [Barghini and de Medeiros 2010].
To improve regulations and develop minimum-impact lamps, it is important to
understand the causes of insect attraction to lights. Although the precise
mechanisms are still controversial [see, for example: D’Arcy Thompson 1917;
Verheijen 1958; Baker and Sadovy 1978; Janzen 1983; Nowinszky 2003], it has
long been known that a key component that determines the attractiveness of a
light source to insects is an emission spectrum ranging between ultraviolet and
blue [Dethier 1963; Hollingswort and others 1968; Mazokhin-Porshnyakof 1969;
Mikkola 1972; Hienton 1974; Blomberg and others 1976; Walker and Galbreath
1979; Worth 1979; Rea 1993; Service 1993; van Langevelde and others 2011].
Variability in attraction behavior, however, exists because attraction also de-
pends on a number of other factors, one of which is the insects’ main activity
phase during the day [Rea 1993]. Diurnal insects are the least affected by light,
but they may fly towards illuminated areas or UV lamps when disturbed
[Lewontin 1959]. This is likely because such areas are presumed by the insect to
be open areas into which it is suitable to fly. For nocturnal insects, attraction to
light seems to result from navigational errors [Darcy Thompson 1917; Verheijen
1958; Mazokhin-Porshnyakov 1969; Nowinszky 2003]. During the night, insects
navigate using celestial references. By keeping a constant angle to such a
reference, the insect can fly in a straight path. If the reference happens to be a
terrestrial light source, keeping a constant angle would result in an equiangular
spiral path towards the light source. Because UV-green or UV-blue contrasts
can be used to distinguish between celestial and terrestrial objects [Mo¨ller
2002], ultraviolet radiation is probably essential for a light source to be consid-
ered as a celestial reference or open space.
Based on this model, strategies to minimize insect attraction to lights are usually
based on the spectral responses of insect photoreceptors. The 8
th
edition of the IES
Handbook [Rea 1993], for example, follows the recommendation of Barrett and
others, [1973, 1974] in suggesting the “maximum use of yellow-red light and the
reduction of ultraviolet and blue” (p. 156), avoiding metal fixtures that may reflect
LEUKOS VOL 9 NO 1 JULY 2012 PAGES 47–56
48
polarized light, the use of directional fixture, and the suggestion that “an attracting
lamp can be shaded so that its radiant output is directed downward and confined
to [the] immediate area (p. 157)”. Although the IES Handbook did not address this
issue in later editions, this model is still generally followed in the design of “bug-free”
lamps. Such lamps are usually designed to emit yellowish light because this is the
region of the light spectrum that is least visible to insects. Similarly, electric fly
killers can be enhanced with a UV-emitting lamp. In both cases, it is implicitly
assumed that insects are attracted to lamps that are more visible to them. A recent
report in which this assumption is also made is that of van Langevelde and others,
[2011]; these authors correlated the mean lamp wavelength with the abundance
and diversity of moths attracted as well as with their eye size.
More accurate quantification of the visibility of a lamp to an insect should take
insect spectral sensitivity into account, but yellow bug-free lamps are indeed
both less visible to insects and have a higher mean wavelength than UV-
radiating insect attraction lamps. However, the attraction of a particular lamp
for insects is not necessarily related to its visibility or to the mean wavelength it
emits. Insects possess a variety of photoreceptors that are not used exclusively
for color vision. Some stereotyped behavioral sequences, called wavelength-
selective behaviors, are activated by a particular wavelength of light [Goldsmith
1990, 1994]. As reported by Goldsmith [1994:302], “The butterfly Pieris exhibits
several different behavioral responses to colored lights, each with a distinct
action spectrum exhibiting maximum sensitivity at different wavelengths: es-
cape (A
max
370 nm), feeding (A
max
450 nm with a secondary maximum at 600
nm), drumming (A
max
560 nm), and egg laying (A
max
540 nm) [Scherer and Kolb,
1987]. Most of the spectral sensitivity curves are narrower than the absorption
spectra of visual pigments, and with mixtures of 600 and 558 nm light, both
feeding and drumming are inhibited by the presence of inappropriate wave-
lengths. The neural wiring thus appears to be more complicated than if each
behavior were driven by a single spectral type of receptor.” When perceived by an
insect, UVA radiation could trigger a wavelength-dependent response to light
attraction similar to what has been measured in frogs: “If the tendency of most
species of frogs to jump towards a light is measured as in a forced choice
experiment, short wavelengths (A
max
480 nm) stimulate positive phototaxis and
longer wavelengths inhibit [phototaxis].” [Goldsmith 1994:303]. There is evi-
dence that this does in fact occur. Insects become disoriented and less active
inside greenhouses covered by UV-blocking polyethylene [Antignus 2000]. More-
over, when mulch (a protective cover placed over the soil to retain moisture,
reduce erosion, provide nutrients, and suppress weed growth and seed germi-
nation) reflects UV radiation, there is a reduction in the population of insect
pests [Kring and Schuster 1992]. In the former situation, the absence of UV
radiation may disorient insects by creating a “skyless” environment so that an
insect would not know where it is able to fly. In the latter case, UV reflection from
below would result in an environment with “too much sky,” that is, the insect’s
perception of too much space in which it is able to fly. Both of these examples
indicate that UV radiation is used by insects to navigate while flying.
Based on the data presented above, it is generally accepted that UV radiation
attracts insects. However, this apparent attraction could result from two distinct
mechanisms. First, UV radiation might not have any special meaning to the
animals and might be attractive only because most insects have a high sensi-
tivity to light in this wavelength range (that is, UV radiation makes lamps more
visible to insects). Alternatively, UV radiation may trigger wavelength-selective
behavior that results in attraction to the light. It is important to distinguish
LEUKOS VOL 9 NO 1 JULY 2012 PAGES 47–56
49
between the two mechanisms. If the former holds, a reduction in light attraction
would be achieved by reducing lamp radiation on all wavelengths to which
insects are most sensitive. If the latter is more important, however, one should
eliminate even the smallest amount of UV radiation in order to reduce attraction,
and other wavelengths would be less important.
There have been no experimental studies that clearly distinguish the visibility
to insects and the UV emission of a lamp while evaluating its attractiveness to
insects. Our study aims to test whether UV radiation has a greater attractive
power to insects than would be expected from its visibility alone.
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
The test was conducted in a street surrounded by trees and isolated from urban
lighting on the “Cidade Universita´ria” campus of the University of Sa˜o Paulo.
Static insect collecting traps similar to those used by Eisenbeis & Hassel [2000]
were set up below lamps installed on seven-meter-tall lampposts.
Each treatment utilized a full cutoff lighting fixture as follows: Hg: 125 w mercury
vapor bulb protected with tempered glass; Na: 70 w high-pressure sodium vapor
bulb with tempered glass; Hg_F: 125 w mercury vapor bulb with tempered glass and
a UV filter (Polycarbonate Lexan© 2 mm); Na_F: 70 w sodium vapor bulb with
tempered glass and a UV filter (Polycarbonate Lexan© 2 mm); and T: trap without
lamp, as a control setup. The radiance spectra of the bulbs were measured with a
Monochromator Optronic 740A, an automatic wavelength drive (Optronic 740 –1C)
and a spectroradiometer (Photo Research OLISA-670). The transmittance of the UV
filter was measured with a Hitachi U-3000 spectrophotometer.
The radiance spectrum of each treatment was calculated by multiplying the
lamp irradiance by the filter transmittance. The visibility of each treatment to
humans and insects was calculated by integrating the treatment radiance after
multiplying it by the luminous efficiency spectra of the human eye (photopic
vision) and of the rhodopsins of three-rhodopsin insects (represented by the
sensitivity curve of Apis mellifera).
The collections were performed in two separate campaigns. The first used the
Hg, Na, Na_F and T treatments and totaled 24 collections between March and
June 2005; the second used all treatments and totaled 14 collections between
March and April 2006. On each collection date, traps were set up before twilight
and taken down the following morning. The collected insects were counted and
identified to the order level. Ant and termite alates were discarded because a
single nest in the surrounding area could significantly bias the results.
The mean insect counts were compared among treatments for both cam-
paigns. The role of UV radiation in the treatments’ attractiveness was further
tested by fitting the data to a generalized linear model using the visibility to
insects, the date of collection and the presence of a UV filter as predictors of
insect counts. Specifically, we tested whether accounting for the UV filter
significantly improved the fit of the model or whether the treatment visibility was
sufficient to explain its attractiveness. This model was adjusted only in the
second collecting campaign, in which all treatments were used.
3 RESULTS
The number of insects collected varied greatly between collection dates, probably
due to meteorological conditions and the lunar phase. Nevertheless, the number
of collected insects was clearly higher in the Hg treatment than in the T
LEUKOS VOL 9 NO 1 JULY 2012 PAGES 47–56
50
treatment (Fig. 1). The same pattern was found for most insect orders when
analyzed separately (Table 1).
Hg lamps have a strong UV component, a shorter mean wavelength and a
higher visibility to insects than the other lamps tested. In contrast, only a tiny
fraction of the emission of a Na lamp is in the UV range, and Na lamps are more
visible to humans than Hg lamps but less visible to insects. The use of a UV filter
only slightly affects the average wavelength of Na and Hg lamps or their visibility
to humans but has a strong effect on the lamps’ visibility to insects. The only
lamp that has a UV/Green contrast similar to celestial objects is a Hg lamp; all
others fall within the range of terrestrial objects as measured by Mo¨ller [2002]
(Fig. 2, Table 2).
When the mean number of collected insects was considered with respect to the
visibility of each treatment to insects, it became clear that these quantities are
not entirely correlated. Specifically, treatments with UV filters collected fewer
insects than would be expected from their visibility alone (Fig. 3). Indeed, a
model that accounts for UV radiation fits the data significantly better than a
model that ignores this variable (Table 3).
4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Overall, our results confirm the general expectation from models currently in
use by the illumination industry and suggest that “yellow” lamps are less
attractive to insects than “white” lamps. This pattern was observed for most
insect orders, with Coleoptera (beetles) and Diptera (flies and mosquitoes) being
the most attracted to all treatments. Although our collections were performed in
Fig. 1.
Mean values and 95 percent
confidence intervals of the
number of insects collected in
each treatment.
TABLE 1.
Mean 95% Confidence
Interval of the Insect Counts
in Each Treatment,
Separated by Order.
Hymenoptera does not
include ants. “Other”
includes the following orders:
Blattodea, Dermaptera,
Neuroptera, Orthoptera,
Trichoptera and Strepsiptera
Order Hg Na Hg_F Na_F T
Diptera 25 5.5 16.2 4.4 9.6 2.9 7.2 2.7 1.9 1.0
Coleoptera 18.4 4.9 8.4 2.7 5.3 1.9 4.2 2.0 1.9 0.7
Hymenoptera 10.3 3.2 6.2 3.8 2.7 1.4 3.1 2.1 0.1 0.1
Hemiptera 6.6 2.1 4.3 1.3 1.4 0.7 2.9 0.6 0.2 0.1
Thysanoptera 5.6 4.2 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.4 1.6 0.7
Lepidoptera 4.9 1.7 1.1 0.4 1.3 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.03 0.05
Psocoptera 1.3 0.5 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1
Other 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0
LEUKOS VOL 9 NO 1 JULY 2012 PAGES 47–56
51
Fig. 2.
Irradiance spectra of the two
kinds of lamp used in the test,
the transmittance spectrum
of the UV filter and the visual
sensitivity curves used in the
calculations. The horizontal
axis is the wavelength (nm) for
all curves.
LEUKOS VOL 9 NO 1 JULY 2012 PAGES 47–56
52
a tropical environment, a similar faunal composition was obtained in Germany
[Enseibeis and Hassell 2000], thereby confirming the general applicability of the
results. Additionally, we collected a very low number of moths (Lepidoptera),
which are probably the most studied organisms in terms of attraction to light
[see, for example: Mikkola 1972; Baker and Sadovy 1978; Worth and Muller
1979]. This could be a result of a bias in our traps toward smaller insects or of
an already depleted moth fauna in the highly illuminated city of Sa˜o Paulo.
However, the taxonomic composition of our collections suggests that beetles and
flies deserve more attention in studies of attraction to lights. Detailed data on
insects of the different taxa that were collected available in the appendix of the
doctoral thesis of the senior author of this article [Barghini 2008].
Numerous previous studies have found that light sources with higher wave-
lengths attract fewer insects, but none of these studies have compared the
visibility of different lights to insects. Even if insect spectral sensitivity is taken
into account, visibility alone is insufficient to explain the attractiveness of a
lamp. As an example, the Hg F lamp is a white lamp that is more visible to
insects than a Na lamp, yet it exhibited less attractiveness.
For both lamps tested, the use of a UV filter significantly reduced the number
of insects despite the variation in UV content of the light emitted by the lamps.
UV radiance is approximately 2 percent of the visible light radiance in sodium
vapor lamps and 10 percent in mercury vapor lamps. Therefore, the striking
effect found in both cases when a UV filter was used indicates that insect
attraction does not depend only on the UV amount and lamp visibility. Even
small amounts of UV radiation seem to be sufficient for an object to be identified
as celestial, resulting in attraction. UV radiation, therefore, acts as a releaser for
Fig. 3.
Number of insects collected
and the calculated visibility to
insects (relative to Hg) for
each treatment.
TABLE 2.
Metrics Calculated from
Radiance Spectra. Visibility
is calculated relative to Hg.
The average wavelength
follows the calculation by
Van Langevelde et al. (2011).
The UV/Green contrast
follows Mo¨ller (2002, Fig. 3).
Negative values are usually
found in terrestrial objects,
while positive values are
found in celestial objects
Treatment
Visibility
to Humans
Visibility
to Insects
Average
Wavelength (nm)
UV/Green
Contrast
Hg 1 1 531 49.2
Na 1.33 0.44 607 21.3
Hg_F 0.88 0.59 564 37
Na_F 1.17 0.38 609 19.7
LEUKOS VOL 9 NO 1 JULY 2012 PAGES 47–56
53
insects, generating an attraction to artificial lights that is greater than would be
expected based on the lamp’s visibility alone. Our results fail to support the
hypothesis that the presence of UV/Green contrast is fundamental for the
recognition of a celestial object by an insect. Using the threshold in UV-green
contrast found by Mo¨ller [2002], Hg lamps would indeed be considered celestial
objects, but Na lamps would be classified as terrestrial. At least for nocturnal
insects, the absolute emission of UV above a threshold may be more important
than its contrast to other colors in triggering attraction behavior.
Our findings provide an important tool for the design of minimum impact
lighting systems. As such, our findings support those of Eisenbeins [2006], who
advocated the use of UV filters for streetlights. It is highly advisable that studies
on lamp attractiveness to insects take into account not only the lamp’s visibility
and average wavelength but also the lamps’ radiance of even minimal amounts
of UV radiation. The wavelength threshold that activates insect attraction
behavior remains to be identified. While we have found that reducing UV
emission to below 400 nm is effective, it is possible that reducing the emission to
below a higher wavelength [for example, 480 nm] may have an even greater effect
with minimal consequences for human vision. Studies that take this information
into account will enable the lighting industry to develop both environmentally
friendly and highly effective lighting systems.
REFERENCES
Antignus Y. 2000. Manipulation of wavelength-dependent behaviour of insects: an IPM tool
to impede insects and restrict epidemics of insect-borne viruses. Virus Res. 71:213–220.
Baker R, Sadovy Y. 1978. The distance and nature of the light-trap response of moths.
Nature. 276:818 821.
Barghini A, de Medeiros BAS. 2010. Artificial Lighting as a Vector Attractant and Cause of
Disease Diffusion. Environ Health Persp. 118:1503–1506.
Barghini A. 2008 Influeˆncia da iluminac¸a˜o artificial sobre a vida silvestre: te´cnicas para
minimizar os impactos, com especial enfoque sobre os insetos [Influence of artificial lighting
over the wildlife: techniques for minimizing impacts, with special attention to insects].
Doctoral Thesis. Instituto de Biocieˆncias, Universidade de Sa˜o Paulo, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil.
Available at: http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/41/41134/tde-13062008 –100639/.
[Accessed: April 1, 2012].
Barrett JR Jr., Huber RT, Harwood FW. 1973. Selection of lamps for minimal insect
attraction. Trans Am Soc Ag Eng. 17:710 –711.
Barrett JR Jr., Killough RA, Hartsok JG. 1974. Reducing insect problems in lighted areas.
Trans Am Soc Ag Eng. 18:329 –30.
Blomberg O, Itamies J, Kuusela K. 1976. Insect catches in a blended and a black light-trap
in northern Finland. Oikos 27:57– 63.
D’Arcy Thompson. 1917. On growth and form. Reprint, 1992. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge
University Press. 345 p.
TABLE 3.
Model Comparison by Analysis
of Deviance. The full model
contains the date, visibility to
insects and the presence or
absence of a UV filter as
predictors of insect counts.
The reduced model includes
only the date and visibility.
The P value was determined by
a chi-square test
Resid. Df Resid. Dev. Df. Deviance P value
Full model 54 299.63
Reduced model 55 398.54 98.91 0.001
LEUKOS VOL 9 NO 1 JULY 2012 PAGES 47–56
54
Dethier VG. 1963. The physiology of insect senses. New York (NY): John Wiley & Sons Inc.
266 p.
Eisenbeis G, Ha¨nel A. 2009. Light pollution and the impact of artificial night lighting on
insects. In McDonnell MJ, Hahs AK, Breuste J, editors. Ecology of cities and towns: A
comparative approach. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. pp. 243–263.
Eisenbeis G, Hassel F. 2000. Zur Anziehung nachaktiver Insekten durch Strassenlanternen -
eine Studie kommunaler Beleuchtungseinrichtungen in der Agrarlandschaft Rheinhessens
[Attraction of nocturnal insects to street lights a study of municipal lighting systems in a
rural area of Rheinhessin]. Nat Landsch 75:145–156.
Eisenbeis G. 2006. Artificial night lighting and insects: Attraction of insects to streetlamps in
a rural setting in Germany. In Rich C, Longcore T, editors. 2006. Ecological consequences of
artificial night lighting. Washington (DC): Island Press. pp. 281–304.
Ernest RG, Martin RE. 1998. Coastal roadway lighting manual: A handbook of practical
guidelines for managing street lighting to minimize impacts to sea turtles. Jensen Beach
(FL): Ecological Associates, Inc. 71 p.
Goldsmith TH. 1994. Ultraviolet receptors and color vision: Evolutionary implications and
the dissonance paradigm. Vision Res. 30:1479 87.
Goldsmith TH. 1990. Optimization, constraint and history in the evolution of eyes. Q Rev
Biol. 65:281–322.
Health Council of the Netherlands. 2000. Publication no. 2000/25E: Impact of outdoor
lighting on man and nature. The Hague (Netherlands): Health Council of the Netherlands.
46 p.
Hienton TE. 1974. Summary of investigations of electric insect traps. Technical Bulletin No.
1498. Washington (DC): Agricultural Research Service. US Department of Agriculture. 136 p.
Hollingsworth JPA, Hartstack Jr. W, Lindquist DA. 1968. Influence of near-ultraviolet output
of attractant lamps on catches of insects by light traps. J Econ Entomol. 61:515–521.
Huseynov, R. 2010. Noise and light pollution. Doc. 12179. Report of the Committee on the
Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs. Council of Europe. Available at
http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc10/EDOC12179.htm.
[Accessed: April 1, 2012].
[IDA and IES] International Dark-sky Association and Illuminating Engineering Society.
2011. Model Lighting Ordinance, with User’s Guide. Available at http://www.darksky.org/
index.php?optioncom content&viewarticle&id622. [Accessed: April 1, 2012].
Janzen DH. 1983. Insects. In: Janzen DH, editor. Costa Rican Natural History. Chicago (IL):
University of Chicago Press. pp. 619 –780.
Kolligs D. 2000. O
¨
kologische Auswirkungen ku¨ nstlicher Lichtquellen auf nachtaktive
Insekten, insbesondere Schmetterlinge (Lepidoptera) [Ecological effects of artificial light
sources on nocturnally active insects, in particular on moths (Lepidoptera)]. Faun-Oekol Mitt
Suppl. 28:1–136.
Kring J, Schuster DJ. 1992. Management of insects on pepper and tomato with UV-reflective
mulches. Fla Entomol. 75:119 –129.
Lewontin R. 1959. On the anomalous response of Drosophila pseudoobscura to light. Am
Nat. 93:321–328.
Longcore T, Rich C. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Front Ecol Environ. 2:191–198.
Mazokhin-Purshnyakof G. 1969. Insect vision. New York (NY): Plenum Press. 306 p.
Mikkola K. 1972. Behavioural and electrophysiological responses of night-flying insects,
especially Lepidoptera, to near-ultraviolet and visible light. Ann Zool Fenn. 9:225–254.
Mo¨ller R. 2002. Insects could exploit UV-green contrast for landmark navigation. J Theor
Biol. 214:619–31.
Nowinszky L. 2003. The orientation of insects by light—major theories. In: The handbook of
light trapping. Szombathely (Hungary): Savaria University Press. pp. 15–18.
LEUKOS VOL 9 NO 1 JULY 2012 PAGES 47–56
55
Rea, MS, editor. 1993. Lighting handbook: Reference & application. 8th ed. New York (NY):
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. 989 p.
Rich C, Longcore T, editors 2006. Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting.
Washington (DC): Island Press. 458 p.
Scheibe MA. 1999. U
¨
ber die Attraktivita¨t von Straßenbeleuchtungen auf Insekten aus
nahegelegenen Gewa¨ssern unter Beru¨ cksichtigung unterschiedlicher UV-Emission der
Lampen [On the attractiveness of roadway lighting to insects from nearby waters with
consideration of the different UV-emission of the lamps]. Natur und Landschaft.
74:144–146.
Service MW. 1993. Mosquito ecology: Field sampling methods. 2nd ed. London (UK):
Elsevier. 988 p.
Szentkira´lyi F 2002. Fifty years-long insect survey in hungary: T. Jeremys contribution to
light-trapping. Acta Zool Acad Sci Hung. 48 (supl. 1): 85–105.
The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. 2009. Artificial light in the environment.
London (UK): The Stationery Office Limited. 44 p.
van Langevelde F, Ettema JA, Donners M, WallisDeVries MF, Groenendijk D. 2011. Effect of
spectral composition of artificial light on the attraction of moths. Biol Conserv. 144:2274
2281.
Verheijen FJ. 1958. The mechanisms of the trapping effect of artificial light sources upon
animals. Arch Neerl Zool. 13.
Walker AK, Galbreath RA. 1979. Collecting insects at lights: a test of four types of lamp. New
Zeal Entomol. 7:83– 85.
Worth CB, Muller J. 1979. Captures of large moths by an ultraviolet light trap. J Lepid Soc
33:261–264.
LEUKOS VOL 9 NO 1 JULY 2012 PAGES 47–56
56
... For example, UV-A wavelengths of 350 nm to 400 nm are known to be effective for luring large moths (White et al., 2016;Infusino et al., 2017;da Costa, 2018). Lamps emitting light with wavelengths longer than 500 nm (e.g., yellow color) more effectively inhibit flight-to-light behavior of nocturnal moths than do lamps emitting light with shorter wavelengths (Iwaizumi et al., 2010;Barghini and de Medeiros, 2012;Pawson and Bader, 2014). Blue light is often effective for attracting some coleopteran pests (Duehl et al., 2011;Komatsu et al., 2020). ...
... Our experimental results and field observations support the prevailing view that moths do not exhibit straightforward positive phototaxis but are attracted to light by navigational errors (Barghini and de Medeiros, 2012;Gaydecki, 2019). Given the fact that the attraction radius of light is short, even 10 m for a weak light source (Truxa and Fiedler, 2012;Merckx and Slade, 2014), it is more reasonable to assume that the normal flight activity of moths is disturbed by sudden exposure to light irradiation (Frank et al., 2006;Gaydecki, 2019) rather than migratory moths misinterpreting the nearby artificial light as the moon. ...
... Möller (2002) provided a theoretical basis underlying positive orientation of moths toward a visually high-contrast object. In nature, the sun, sky, and moon are characterized by a relatively high content of short wavelengths < 450 nm, whereas light reflected from natural objects such as leaves and soil lacks UV light and is dominated by green and yellow light (> 450 nm) (Menzel, 1979;Barghini and de Medeiros, 2012). Therefore, a contrast mechanism involving the UV and green light receptors of insect eyes could guarantee a robust separation between natural objects (e.g., trees) as foreground and sky as background, independent of changes in the position of the sun or the state of the sky (Möller, 2002). ...
Article
Aggregation of flying insects such as gypsy moths at commercial light sources in summer not only has an aesthetically negative impact on public facilities but also permits the establishment of new insect populations there from the next year. Although energy-efficient light traps equipped with light-emitting diodes (LEDs) have recently been used for controlling pest insects in agriculture, there are very few maintenance-free light traps that are available on the market. Based on the results of field surveys, we fabricated a prototype light trap in which the preferences of insects for light irradiation angle and wavelength are implemented. Field experiments revealed that flying moths were attracted more to light with a narrow irradiation angle than to light with a wide irradiation angle. Moreover, there was a tendency for fewer moths to be collected when fluorescent paint was applied to the surface of the flight-interception board, indicating that a high contrast made by illumination and the background is preferred by flying moths. Taken together with our previous results, we found that the moth catch was influenced more by modification of the light design than by change in visible light wavelengths. A semi-portable light trap, named the "Kurihara trap" after the primary contributor to its development, is made of light-weight plastic and is driven by solar power. This light trap is omnidirectional and maintenance-free and is therefore suitable for deployment in the backyards of rest areas as well as at houses for long-term macromoth sampling.
... There are quite a lot of data on the effects of weather (temperature, wind strength, humidity, air pressure, etc.), moon phases and other environmental factors on the efficiency of light traps (Kiss 2002;Nowinszky 2003;Nowinszky et al. 2014), while spectral distribution is one of the most important parameters affecting the attractivity and selectivity of light sources (Nowinszky 2003). Light sources emitting relatively large amount of UV light generally perform better in catching of night-active insects than others (Blomberg et al. 1976;Ashfaq et al. 2005;Cowan and Gries 2009), since beyond the visibility and the spectral distribution of the lamp, at least a minimal amounts of UV radiation are a crucial factor of the attractiveness (Barghini 2008, Barghini andMedeiros 2012). ...
... (Járfás 1977;Nowinszky 2013). Laboratory measurements showed two number of species and higher abundance (van Langevelde et al. 2011;Barghini and Medeiros 2012;Kadlec et al. 2016;Brehm 2017). The tested alternative light sources emitted in this shorter wavelength spectra which can explain their higher efficiency and lower selectivity for different caddisfly species. ...
Full-text available
Article
The artificial light sources are useful tools for sampling night active insects, however, they also possess potential environmental risks in their habitats. To test their applicability and evaluate environmental risk for caddisflies (Trichoptera), the attractivity of different portable light traps working with LED, UV and mixed-white light sources was studied and compared with attractivity of traditionally used mercury-vapour lamp (in Jermy-type light trap), which is tool of sampling and street-light. Analysing 1135 caught individuals of 19 species light sources emitting different wavelength spectra showed different attractivity and selectivity on caddisflies both on species and family levels. Attractivity of mercury-vapour lamp was generally lower than the other tested light sources. We found that the most attractive wavelength range for caddisflies is between 360 and 407 nm. One of the tested LED and mixed-white lamps together could cover this spectrum and a high and wide spectral peak of mixed-white light source between 375 and 391 nm resulted additional catches considering both species and number of individuals. Lamps emitting between 360 and 407 nm may be both a useful tool for sampling caddisflies and dangerous source of light pollution along lowland water courses where the sampled species are common and widespread.
... In contrast, ALAN research provides a broad understanding of light as a potential artificial pollutant in need of careful management [7,10,48]. The presented detailed results of studies address physical parameters of light (e.g., ultraviolet and infrared radiation) that are typically considered as parameters hardly detected by humans [49] and have been shown to be used as a source of information by many other organisms [50][51][52]. ...
... Irradiance is the radiometric quantity for light incident on a surface per unit time and has illuminance as the photometric counterpart. Biologists sometimes report radiometric quantities [50][51][52][53][54] in a spectral band relevant for photosynthesis called photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) [20,54]. Radiance is the light emitted from or incident on a surface per unit time within a specific solid angle and has luminance as the photometric counterpart, sometimes casually called "brightness". ...
Full-text available
Article
The application of lighting technologies developed in the 20th century has increased the brightness and changed the spectral composition of nocturnal night-time habitats and night skies across urban, peri-urban, rural, and pristine landscapes, and subsequently, researchers have observed the disturbance of biological rhythms of flora and fauna. To reduce these impacts, it is essential to translate relevant knowledge about the potential adverse effects of artificial light at night (ALAN) from research into applicable urban lighting practice. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to identify and report, via a systematic review, the effects of exposure to different physical properties of artificial light sources on various organism groups, including plants, arthropods, insects, spiders, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and non-human mammals (including bats, rodents, and primates). PRISMA 2020 guidelines were used to identify a total of 1417 studies from Web of Science and PubMed. In 216 studies, diverse behavioral and physiological responses were observed across taxa when organisms were exposed to ALAN. The studies showed that the responses were dependent on high illuminance levels, duration of light exposure, and unnatural color spectra at night and also highlighted where research gaps remain in the domains of ALAN research and urban lighting practice.To avoid misinterpretation, and to define a common language, key terminologies and definitions connected to natural and artificial light have been provided. Furthermore, the adverse impacts of ALAN urgently need to be better researched, understood, and managed for the development of future lighting guidelines and standards to optimize sustainable design applications that preserve night-time environment(s) and their inhabiting flora and fauna.
... This is because of the diversity of visual pigments in the different insect species (Wakakuwa et al., 2004). Some insects are sensitive to colours with a certain range of wavelengths (Barghini & Souza, 2012), which is controlled by the wavelength receptors found in the eyes of insects. Colour preference is an important aspect of integrated pest management besides the other insect control application. ...
... Many forms of nocturnal lamplight have important UV components (e.g. metal-halide, mercury-vapour, various types of light-emitting diode, LED; Barghini & Souza de Medeiros, 2012;Solano-Lamphar & Kocifaj, 2013;Appendix, Fig. A1) and polarization of that UV component via reflection with artificial objects may represent a quantitatively new category of polarized light pollution. It, too, remains unclear whether aquatic insects use UVPL in habitat selection and whether they are susceptible to UV polarized light pollution (UVPLP) as an evolutionary trap. ...
Article
When animals are misguided by evolved behavioural cues to preferentially make mistakes, they are caught in an evolutionary trap. Aquatic insects rely heavily on polarized light cues to locate bodies of water necessary for oviposition and mating. However, where artificial objects (e.g. asphalt, buildings) are at least as effective at polarizing light as natural water bodies, aquatic insects may instead prefer to oviposit on those surfaces where there eggs fail to hatch. These objects are known to create evolutionary traps by polarizing light in the visible range (390–700 nm), yet their potential for creating evolutionary traps via the reflection of ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths (<380 nm) remains largely unknown. We surveyed the natural and artificial environment to understand the properties of objects that can polarize natural and artificial sources of UV light and conducted a multiple-choice field experiment to test the importance of UV polarized light in guiding habitat selection behaviour in six families of aquatic insects. We found that UV polarized light was associated with natural water bodies, was a common component of the man-made environment created by sunlight reflecting off vehicles, buildings and solar panels during the day, and originating from lamplight with a UV component at night. One of the six families of aquatic insects we examined was preferentially attracted only to UV polarized light sources, indicating that UV polarized light is a cue used in habitat selection. These results highlight a quantitatively new type of ecological light pollution capable of creating evolutionary traps for polarotactic insects at night, or even during the day.
Article
Background: Confined by the volatile property, pesticides are overused and lost significantly during and after spraying, weakening the ecological microbalance among different species of lives. Acid-responsive pesticide is a type of smartly engineered pesticides that contribute to the improvement of utilization efficiency of pesticidal active ingredients in acid-controlled manner, whilst the implementation of acidic solutions may disturb the balance of microenvironment surrounding targeted plants or cause secondary pollution, underscoring the input of acid in a more precise strategy. Results: Chitosan was chemically modified with a photoacid generator (2-nitrobenzaldehyde) serving as a light-maneuvered acid self-supplier, based on which a smart pesticide was formulated by the integration of attapulgite and organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos. Under the irradiation of UV light (365 nm), the modified chitosan would undergo a photolytic reaction to generate an acid and pristine chitosan, which seized the labile protons and facilitated the release of chlorpyrifos based on its inherent pH-responsive flexibility. According to the pesticide release performance, the release rate of chlorpyrifos under UV light (27.2 mW/cm² ) reached 78%, significantly higher than those under sunlight (22%, 4.2 mW/cm² ) and in the dark (20%) within the same time, consistent with the pH reduction to 5.3 under UV light and no obvious pH change for the two other situations, exhibiting an attractive UV light-controlled, acid-propelled release behavior. Conclusion: Compared to direct acid spray approach, the proposed in situ photo-induced generation of acid locally on the spots of applied pesticide circumvents the problem of acid contamination to nontargets, demonstrating higher efficiency and biocompatibility for the controlled delivery of acid-responsive pesticides and pest management. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Conference Paper
Scotinophara Coarctata (Rice black bugs) pose risk to Philippine agriculture by decreasing rice production. Reducing rice black bugs through pesticides have risks to farmers, therefore, light traps are being used as an alternative to catch the said pest. Different kinds of light are currently being used in traps including vapor, incandescent, UV, and Light emitting diode -based lamps, which pose varying catch index given different attributes. In this study, a LED (Light-emitting diode)-based light trap prototype was used. Rice black bugs had been caught in selected nights between December 2018 to January 2019 in a specific rice field area in the Philippines. Results had been analyzed using the different LED attributes and external factors affecting the catch index. The catch size was treated dependent on attributes including: the onset and offset of the full moon, the different LED colors or wavelengths (white, blue, UV, yellow and green) and the LED illuminance. The relationship between different attributes and factors had been examined and a structural equation model had been defined using different statistical measures to map the relationships. Results of the analyses had shown higher catch index occurs with a higher light intensity regardless of attributes and factors. Results had also shown higher catch with the use of UV type wavelength LEDs, and a strong positive correlation between the wavelength and the offset of full moon. These indicate that an alternative light trap can be further developed using LEDs for attracting rice black bugs with a higher intensity and UV wavelength. Index Terms—Structural Equation Model, Light Trap, Light Emitting Diode, Rice Black Bug
Full-text available
Article
Acanthamoeba is free living amoeba and can cause Acanthamoeba keratitis, a serious disease which affects the cornea. It is widely existing in fresh water and soil. Acanthamoeba has three phases during the life cycle; trophozoite and a resistant double walled cyst and protocysts. The pathogenesis starts when the trophozoites bind to the surface of cornea by expressing mannose-binding protein which can bind to mannose glycoproteins on the corneal surface. The contaminated contact lenses can increase the infection by increasing the binding ability of the trophozoites. This project aimed to study the cytopathic effect of different stages Acanthamoeba keratitis. Study strains of Acanthamoeba castellani (ATCC 50370) was cultured and seeded in Hep2 cell lines. E. coli (strain M12) was used to isolate the trophozoites. The third stage, protocysts was made using Neff’s medium. The cytopathic effect was checked trophozoites invasion to monolayer cells cultured in a small flask and in 24 well tissue culture plate. The time of destroying Hep2 cells by the trophozoites is less than that of other Acanthamoeba stages. The double ring-shaped cell wall of the cysts may increase the time-kill of Hep2 due to their resistant which was very slow to hatch. Reactivating the trophozoites from cysts then seeding in Hep2 destroyed the cells at less time compared fresh trophozoites as the virulence of the reactivated trophozoites being higher. The result could suggest that the infection of corneas with reactivated trophozoites may be more complex. Finally, the study found that the number of the trophozoites can limit the cytopathic effect of Acanthamoeba.
Full-text available
Technical Report
Illumination is undoubtedly a vital aspect in mining operations. Properly designed and implemented lighting systems would provide the mineworkers with improved visibility and contribute to improved safety, productivity, and a high level of morale. In this thesis, a detailed survey has been carried out for a large-scale opencast coal mine. Survey data revealed that illumination levels at major parts of mine are below recommended levels. Detailed calculation showed that illumination cost is an insignificant component of overall production cost. A little increase in production cost would bring the light level of mine up to desired standards. As per DGMS of India the mine lighting should be designed and installed with proper lamps and fixtures regarding height, orientation, spacing, and reflectors or other accessories, to secure a uniform distribution of light on the work area for visual comfort and avoiding objectionable shadows, sharp contrasts of intensity, glare, light clutter (excessive groupings of light) and light pollution to prevent strain on the eyes of the workmen, work fatigue and medically defined stress. The following recommendations were proposed for consideration to improve the visual level in the workplaces. • Installation of 250-Watt lamps for the roadways so that the number of poles can be reduced resulting in less cost for pole installation and more free areas for movement of vehicles. • Truck-mounted illumination system can be used instead of a fixed lighting system at places which are vulnerable to damage caused by blasting. • The cabin lighting of HEMMs can be improved by installing proper luminaries..
Article
The objectives of the discussion are to point out the major factors which influence the number of insects in lighted areas and to show how these factors are related to design consideration and concepts. Insect-free lighting concepts, decoy lamps and insect traps, air curtains and ventilation, and methods of chemical control are discussed.
Chapter
Introduction: The creation of urban environments has significant impacts on animals and insects throughout the world (Niemelä et al., Chapter 2; Catterall, Chapter 8; Nilon, Chapter 10; van der Ree, Chapter 11; Natuhara and Hashimoto, Chapter 12; Hochuli et al., Chapter 13; McIntyre and Rango, Chapter 14). During recent decades both landscape and urban ecologists have been confronted with a new phenomenon associated with cities and towns: ‘light pollution’. Fast-growing outdoor lighting as a threat to astronomy was first described by Riegel (1973). Astronomers need dark sky conditions to discriminate the faint light of astronomical sources from the sky background, which is due to a natural glow (airglow, scattered star light, etc.) and artificial light scattered in the Earth's atmosphere. Since the invention of electric light and especially since World War II the outdoor lighting level has increased steeply and the natural darkness around human settlements has disappeared almost totally. Unwanted skylight produced by artificial night lighting is spreading from urban areas to less populated landscapes, generating a modern sky glow. The primary cause of this new phenomenon is the excessive growth of artificial lighting in the environment. It is related primarily to general population growth, industrial development and increasing economic prosperity, but there has also been a technical shift to lamps with higher and higher luminous efficiency. For example, the light output efficacy of an old-fashioned incandescent lamp is 10–20 lumens/watt and for a modern low-pressure sodium vapour lamp it is nearly 200 lumens/watt.