Title |
Pollination by nocturnal Lepidoptera, and the effects of light pollution: a review
|
---|---|
Published in |
Ecological Entomology, December 2014
|
DOI | 10.1111/een.12174 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
CALLUM J. MACGREGOR, MICHAEL J. O. POCOCK, RICHARD FOX, DARREN M. EVANS |
Abstract |
1. Moths (Lepidoptera) are the major nocturnal pollinators of flowers. However, their importance and contribution to the provision of pollination ecosystem services may have been under-appreciated. Evidence was identified that moths are important pollinators of a diverse range of plant species in diverse ecosystems across the world. 2. Moth populations are known to be undergoing significant declines in several European countries. Among the potential drivers of this decline is increasing light pollution. The known and possible effects of artificial night lighting upon moths were reviewed, and suggest how artificial night lighting might in turn affect the provision of pollination by moths. The need for studies of the effects of artificial night lighting upon whole communities of moths was highlighted. 3. An ecological network approach is one valuable method to consider the effects of artificial night lighting upon the provision of pollination by moths, as it provides useful insights into ecosystem functioning and stability, and may help elucidate the indirect effects of artificial light upon communities of moths and the plants they pollinate. 4. It was concluded that nocturnal pollination is an ecosystem process that may potentially be disrupted by increasing light pollution, although the nature of this disruption remains to be tested. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 55 | 36% |
United States | 9 | 6% |
Canada | 4 | 3% |
Ireland | 3 | 2% |
Australia | 3 | 2% |
Spain | 3 | 2% |
Netherlands | 3 | 2% |
New Zealand | 3 | 2% |
Sweden | 2 | 1% |
Other | 10 | 7% |
Unknown | 58 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 117 | 76% |
Scientists | 26 | 17% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 8 | 5% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 5 | <1% |
United States | 2 | <1% |
Brazil | 2 | <1% |
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
Australia | 1 | <1% |
Hungary | 1 | <1% |
India | 1 | <1% |
South Africa | 1 | <1% |
Portugal | 1 | <1% |
Other | 4 | <1% |
Unknown | 600 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 101 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 100 | 16% |
Student > Master | 98 | 16% |
Researcher | 82 | 13% |
Other | 25 | 4% |
Other | 79 | 13% |
Unknown | 134 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 280 | 45% |
Environmental Science | 106 | 17% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 4% |
Physics and Astronomy | 7 | 1% |
Earth and Planetary Sciences | 7 | 1% |
Other | 38 | 6% |
Unknown | 157 | 25% |