Does a flashing artificial light have more or conversely less impacts on animals than a continuous one? A systematic review
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,...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Pensoft Publishers
2023-12-01
|
| Series: | Nature Conservation |
| Online Access: | https://natureconservation.pensoft.net/article/102614/download/pdf/ |
| _version_ | 1827591435766988800 |
|---|---|
| author | Alix Lafitte Romain Sordello Marc Legrand Virginie Nicolas Gaël Obein Yorick Reyjol |
| author_facet | Alix Lafitte Romain Sordello Marc Legrand Virginie Nicolas Gaël Obein Yorick Reyjol |
| author_sort | Alix Lafitte |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T01:32:41Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-dcb9c53cf0fb4153b0217efbff902585 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1314-3301 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T01:32:41Z |
| publishDate | 2023-12-01 |
| publisher | Pensoft Publishers |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Nature Conservation |
| spelling | doaj.art-dcb9c53cf0fb4153b0217efbff9025852023-12-09T11:00:06ZengPensoft PublishersNature Conservation1314-33012023-12-015414917710.3897/natureconservation.54.102614102614Does a flashing artificial light have more or conversely less impacts on animals than a continuous one? A systematic reviewAlix Lafitte0Romain Sordello1Marc Legrand2Virginie Nicolas3Gaël Obein4Yorick Reyjol5PatriNat (Office Français de la Biodiversité (OFB)–Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN))PatriNat (Office Français de la Biodiversité (OFB)–Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN))Université Jean MonnetAssociation des Concepteurs lumière et Eclairagistes (ACE)Association Française de l’Eclairage (AFE)PatriNat (Office Français de la Biodiversité (OFB)–Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN))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.https://natureconservation.pensoft.net/article/102614/download/pdf/ |
| spellingShingle | Alix Lafitte Romain Sordello Marc Legrand Virginie Nicolas Gaël Obein Yorick Reyjol Does a flashing artificial light have more or conversely less impacts on animals than a continuous one? A systematic review Nature Conservation |
| title | Does a flashing artificial light have more or conversely less impacts on animals than a continuous one? A systematic review |
| title_full | Does a flashing artificial light have more or conversely less impacts on animals than a continuous one? A systematic review |
| title_fullStr | Does a flashing artificial light have more or conversely less impacts on animals than a continuous one? A systematic review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Does a flashing artificial light have more or conversely less impacts on animals than a continuous one? A systematic review |
| title_short | Does a flashing artificial light have more or conversely less impacts on animals than a continuous one? A systematic review |
| title_sort | does a flashing artificial light have more or conversely less impacts on animals than a continuous one a systematic review |
| url | https://natureconservation.pensoft.net/article/102614/download/pdf/ |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT alixlafitte doesaflashingartificiallighthavemoreorconverselylessimpactsonanimalsthanacontinuousoneasystematicreview AT romainsordello doesaflashingartificiallighthavemoreorconverselylessimpactsonanimalsthanacontinuousoneasystematicreview AT marclegrand doesaflashingartificiallighthavemoreorconverselylessimpactsonanimalsthanacontinuousoneasystematicreview AT virginienicolas doesaflashingartificiallighthavemoreorconverselylessimpactsonanimalsthanacontinuousoneasystematicreview AT gaelobein doesaflashingartificiallighthavemoreorconverselylessimpactsonanimalsthanacontinuousoneasystematicreview AT yorickreyjol doesaflashingartificiallighthavemoreorconverselylessimpactsonanimalsthanacontinuousoneasystematicreview |