Full text
1,972 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.
You must log in to post a comment.
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.
Add a Comment
You must log in to post a comment.
Comments
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.
Light pollution poses a significant threat to nocturnal insects, yet our understanding of how insects are affected by lighting across ecosystems is limited. The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in light-induced attraction in abundance and diversity of moths in forest and grassland ecosystems. This study presents a novel comparison of moth attraction between these ecosystems using identical light traps with known lighting properties across 32 sites. We found significantly higher moth abundance and diversity (species richness) in forests compared to open grasslands, where environmental factors such as temperature and cloudiness had stronger effects on moth attraction in grasslands. Notably, moth families showed varying responses across ecosystems, suggesting potential sampling biases in light attraction studies. Our findings point to the need for ecosystem-specific approaches in light pollution mitigation strategies and provide a methodological approach for future research on the impacts of anthropogenic light on biodiversity. The results have important implications for conservation planning and the management of anthropogenic lighting in diverse landscapes.
https://doi.org/10.32942/X2ZK7T
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
light pollution; nocturnal; insects; Crambidae; Geometridae; Noctuidae; artificial lighting
Published: 2024-09-30 16:42
CC-By Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Conflict of interest statement:
None
Data and Code Availability Statement:
Not applicable
Language:
English
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.