↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

The dark side of street lighting: impacts on moths and evidence for the disruption of nocturnal pollen transport

Overview of attention for article published in Global Change Biology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#37 of 3,766)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
133 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
Title
The dark side of street lighting: impacts on moths and evidence for the disruption of nocturnal pollen transport
Published in
Global Change Biology, July 2016
DOI 10.1111/gcb.13371
Pubmed ID
Authors

Callum J. Macgregor, Darren M. Evans, Richard Fox, Michael J. O. Pocock

Abstract

Among drivers of environmental change, artificial light at night is relatively poorly understood, yet is increasing on a global scale. The community-level effects of existing street lights on moths and their biotic interactions have not previously been studied. Using a combination of sampling methods at matched-pairs of lit and unlit sites, we found significant effects of street lighting: moth abundance at ground level was halved at lit sites, species richness was >25% lower, and flight activity at the level of the light was 70% greater. Furthermore, we found that 23% of moths carried pollen of at least 28 plant species, and that there was a consequent overall reduction in pollen transport at lit sites. These findings support the disruptive impact of lights on moth activity, which is one proposed mechanism driving moth declines, and suggest that street lighting potentially impacts upon pollination by nocturnal invertebrates. We highlight the importance of considering both direct and cascading impacts of artificial light. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 133 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Serbia 1 <1%
Unknown 148 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 17%
Student > Master 24 15%
Student > Bachelor 23 15%
Other 8 5%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 16 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 91 58%
Environmental Science 28 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Physics and Astronomy 2 1%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 22 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 205. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 December 2018.
All research outputs
#66,877
of 13,847,329 outputs
Outputs from Global Change Biology
#37
of 3,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,661
of 265,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Change Biology
#1
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,847,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,766 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,587 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.