3 ms·

Wonder if that explains partially the Windshield Phenomenon. Random lamps attacting flying insects kilometers away just to die surely helps decrease their numbe

by Qem 4y ago

Wonder if that explains partially the Windshield Phenomenon. Random lamps attacting flying insects kilometers away just to die surely helps decrease their numbers. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windshield_phenomenon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windshield_phenomenon

etiam 4y ago
I just had a light-bulb moment and came back to say something similar. I'm not sure how well tracked the decline in insect populations is, but I'd imagine light intensity levels during the spaceflight era is pretty much on record. Would be interesting to know to what extent they correlate (and if the answer is "Lots!", I'm inclined to think it is at least not due to insect demise causing rise in artificial lighting).
MauranKilom 4y ago
The paper in question contradicts your hypothesis. > Only one experiment has tracked moth trajectories to lights over long distances, and found only 2 of 50 individuals released ended their flight at a light source 85m away. This and our results suggest artificial lights may only trap passing insects rather than attract them directly from farther away. (Also: If "death by attraction to artifical light" were a significant factor affecting insect survival, then this evolutionary pressure would certainly cause a rapid change. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution.)
- Qem 4y ago
  That's 4% death rate over a single lamp. Does every lamp they get 85m from have a similar kill probability? The "only one experiment" is also unfortunate. That should be investigated more.
  - mkl 4y ago
    Arrival != death.
    - aziaziazi 4y ago
      It’s still a huge proportion if you understand the “expertement” is reconduction every night and in a lot of places on the globe. Arrival may not be a certain death while it is probably not a good advantage for the insect to round flying around the same stop for a night (at least)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by Qem 4y ago

etiam 4y ago

I just had a light-bulb moment and came back to say something similar. I'm not sure how well tracked the decline in insect populations is, but I'd imagine light intensity levels during the spaceflight era is pretty much on record. Would be interesting to know to what extent they correlate (and if the answer is "Lots!", I'm inclined to think it is at least not due to insect demise causing rise in artificial lighting).

MauranKilom 4y ago

The paper in question contradicts your hypothesis. > Only one experiment has tracked moth trajectories to lights over long distances, and found only 2 of 50 individuals released ended their flight at a light source 85m away. This and our results suggest artificial lights may only trap passing insects rather than attract them directly from farther away. (Also: If "death by attraction to artifical light" were a significant factor affecting insect survival, then this evolutionary pressure would certainly cause a rapid change. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution.)

Qem 4y ago
That's 4% death rate over a single lamp. Does every lamp they get 85m from have a similar kill probability? The "only one experiment" is also unfortunate. That should be investigated more.
- mkl 4y ago
  Arrival != death.
  - aziaziazi 4y ago
    It’s still a huge proportion if you understand the “expertement” is reconduction every night and in a lot of places on the globe. Arrival may not be a certain death while it is probably not a good advantage for the insect to round flying around the same stop for a night (at least)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]