Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35650413›Full record

ArticleOecologia2022

Costs and benefits of "insect friendly" artificial lights are taxon specific.

Avalon C S Owens, Caroline T Dressler, Sara M Lewis

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oecologia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Mitigating light pollution impacts on arthropods based on light-emitting diode properties.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Avalon C S OwensDepartment of Biology, Tufts University, 200 College Avenue, Medford, MA, 02155, USA. avalon.owens@tufts.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7212-2275
Caroline T DresslerDepartment of Biology, Tufts University, 200 College Avenue, Medford, MA, 02155, USA.
Sara M LewisDepartment of Biology, Tufts University, 200 College Avenue, Medford, MA, 02155, USA.

Funding

Robert and Patricia Switzer Foundation 2019 Switzer Environmental Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The expansion of human activity into natural habitats often results in the introduction of artificial light at night, which can disrupt local ecosystems. Recent advances in LED technology have enabled spectral tuning of artificial light sources, which could in theory limit their impact on vulnerable taxa. To date, however, experimental comparisons of ecologically friendly candidate colors have often considered only one type of behavioral impact, sometimes on only single species. Resulting recommendations cannot be broadly implemented if their consequences for other local taxa are unknown. Working at a popular firefly ecotourism site, we exposed the insect community to artificial illumination of three colors (blue, broad-spectrum amber, red) and measured flight-to-light behavior as well as the courtship flash behavior of male Photinus carolinus fireflies. Firefly courtship activity was greatest under blue and red lights, while the most flying insects were attracted to blue and broad-spectrum amber lights. Thus, while impacts of spectrally tuned artificial light varied across taxa, our results suggest that red light, rather than amber light, is least disruptive to insects overall, and therefore more generally insect friendly.

Indexed as

AmberEcosystemAnimalsCost-Benefit AnalysisFirefliesHumansInsectaLightMaleAmberEcotourismFlight-to-lightLampyridaeLight pollutionSpectral tuning

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.