Does a flashing artificial light have more or conversely less impacts on animals than a continuous one? A systematic review

Alix Lafitte, Romain Sordello, Marc Legrand, Virginie Nicolas, Gaël Obein, Yorick Reyjol
{"title":"Does a flashing artificial light have more or conversely less impacts on animals than a continuous one? A systematic review","authors":"Alix Lafitte, Romain Sordello, Marc Legrand, Virginie Nicolas, Gaël Obein, Yorick Reyjol","doi":"10.3897/natureconservation.54.102614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nBackground: Light pollution has been increasingly recognised as a threat to biodiversity, especially with the current expansion of public lighting. Although the impacts of light intensity, spectral composition and temporality are more often studied, another component of light, its flicker frequency, has been largely overlooked. However, flashing light could also have impacts on biodiversity, and especially on animal behaviour and physiology.\nObjective: This systematic review aimed at identifying the reported physiological and behavioural impacts of flashing light on animals when compared to continuous light.\nMethods: We followed the standards recommended by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) in order to achieve a comprehensive, transparent and replicable systematic review. Citations were primarily extracted from three literature databases and were then screened for relevance successively on their titles, abstracts and full-texts. Retained studies were finally critically appraised to assess their validity and all relevant data were extracted. Only studies which compared a flashing light to a continuous one were included.\nResults: At first, we found 19,730 citations. Screening and critical appraisal resulted in 32 accepted articles corresponding to 54 accepted observations—one observation corresponding to one species and one outcome. We collated data on four main taxa: Aves (the most studied one), Actinopterygii, Insecta and Mammalia as well as on plankton.\nConclusions: The impacts of flashing light are currently critically understudied and varied between species and many light specificities (e.g. frequency, wavelength, intensity). Therefore, no definitive conclusions could be drawn for now. Thus, research on flashing light should be pressingly carried out in order to better mitigate the impacts of Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) on wildlife. In the meantime, we would recommend precautionary principles to be applied: flashing lighting should be limited when not deemed essential and flicker frequencies managed to prevent animals from experiencing any potential harm from flashing light.","PeriodicalId":501054,"journal":{"name":"Nature Conservation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Conservation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.54.102614","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

 Background: Light pollution has been increasingly recognised as a threat to biodiversity, especially with the current expansion of public lighting. Although the impacts of light intensity, spectral composition and temporality are more often studied, another component of light, its flicker frequency, has been largely overlooked. However, flashing light could also have impacts on biodiversity, and especially on animal behaviour and physiology. Objective: This systematic review aimed at identifying the reported physiological and behavioural impacts of flashing light on animals when compared to continuous light. Methods: We followed the standards recommended by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) in order to achieve a comprehensive, transparent and replicable systematic review. Citations were primarily extracted from three literature databases and were then screened for relevance successively on their titles, abstracts and full-texts. Retained studies were finally critically appraised to assess their validity and all relevant data were extracted. Only studies which compared a flashing light to a continuous one were included. Results: At first, we found 19,730 citations. Screening and critical appraisal resulted in 32 accepted articles corresponding to 54 accepted observations—one observation corresponding to one species and one outcome. We collated data on four main taxa: Aves (the most studied one), Actinopterygii, Insecta and Mammalia as well as on plankton. Conclusions: The impacts of flashing light are currently critically understudied and varied between species and many light specificities (e.g. frequency, wavelength, intensity). Therefore, no definitive conclusions could be drawn for now. Thus, research on flashing light should be pressingly carried out in order to better mitigate the impacts of Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) on wildlife. In the meantime, we would recommend precautionary principles to be applied: flashing lighting should be limited when not deemed essential and flicker frequencies managed to prevent animals from experiencing any potential harm from flashing light.
闪烁的人造光比连续的人造光对动物的影响更大还是更小?系统回顾
背景:人们越来越认识到光污染对生物多样性的威胁,特别是随着目前公共照明的扩大。尽管对光照强度、光谱组成和时间性的影响研究较多,但光照的另一个组成部分--闪烁频率却在很大程度上被忽视了。然而,闪烁光也可能对生物多样性产生影响,尤其是对动物的行为和生理产生影响:本系统综述旨在确定与连续光相比,闪烁光对动物生理和行为的影响:我们遵循环境证据合作组织(CEE)推荐的标准,以实现全面、透明和可复制的系统性综述。我们主要从三个文献数据库中提取引文,然后依次对其标题、摘要和全文进行相关性筛选。最后对保留下来的研究进行严格评估,以评估其有效性,并提取所有相关数据。只有将闪烁灯和连续灯进行比较的研究才被纳入:最初,我们发现了 19,730 条引文。通过筛选和严格评估,我们找到了 32 篇被接受的文章,这些文章对应 54 个被接受的观察结果--其中一个观察结果对应一个物种和一个结果。我们整理了四个主要类群的数据:我们整理了四个主要类群的数据:有脊椎动物(研究最多的类群)、翼手目、昆虫纲和哺乳纲以及浮游生物:结论:闪烁光的影响目前研究严重不足,而且因物种和许多光的特异性(如频率、波长、强度)而异。因此,目前还无法得出明确的结论。因此,为了更好地减轻夜间人工照明(ALAN)对野生动物的影响,应抓紧开展有关闪光的研究。与此同时,我们建议采用预防性原则:在非必要的情况下,应限制闪烁照明,并控制闪烁频率,以防止动物受到闪烁光的潜在伤害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信