Skip to main content

Light pollution hindering firefly courtship

Right across the ecosystem, our pollution has a deleterious effect on the reproductive behaviour of many species. This is also true for light pollution. Imagine you are in a crowded noisy room and trying to ask your partner whether they would marry you, but they can't hear you no matter how loudly you shout the words.  Pardon? What? 

New research published in Insect Conservation and Diversity indicates that artificial light at night is most likely now to be interfering with the courtship and mating of bioluminescent fireflies. 

Fireflies, or glowworms, attract mates by flashing light.   The female finds a plant stalk to climb. and then she bends her abdomen upwards showing her glowing organs to attract males. 

For the study, investigators exposed courting pairs of fireflies to five colours of light at two intensities, and they recorded changes in the rate, brightness, and pattern of male advertisement flashes, as well as how often females responded.

All artificial light treatments significantly suppressed courtship activity, but bright amber light had the greatest impact on female receptivity. This suggests that artificial lights that are closest in colour to firefly bioluminescence may be the most disruptive to firefly courtship.

“It’s definitely concerning because many ecologically-minded people are pushing the use of amber lights to safely light up streets and parks. But we’re finding that no colour of light is safe for fireflies—they need the dark,” said co-author Avalon C.S. Owens, a PhD candidate at Tufts University. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba