↓ 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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
23 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
127 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
127 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
285 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 127 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 285 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Serbia 1 <1%
Unknown 277 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 15%
Student > Bachelor 41 14%
Researcher 40 14%
Student > Master 36 13%
Other 15 5%
Other 33 12%
Unknown 76 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 119 42%
Environmental Science 42 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 7 2%
Engineering 7 2%
Other 15 5%
Unknown 86 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 280. 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 22 October 2023.
All research outputs
#125,174
of 25,202,494 outputs
Outputs from Global Change Biology
#93
of 6,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,593
of 363,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Change Biology
#4
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,202,494 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 6,290 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 363,584 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 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 97% of its contemporaries.