Artificial light at night does not alter heart rate or locomotor behaviour in Caribbean spiny lobster (<i>Panulirus argus</i>): insights into light pollution and physiological disturbance using biologgers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Light pollution is a rapidly growing threat to biodiversity, with many unknown or poorly understood effects on species and ecosystems spanning terrestrial and aquatic environments. Relative to other taxa, the effects of artificial light at night on aquatic invertebrates are poorly understood, despite the abundance and integral significance of invertebrates to marine and freshwater ecosystems. We affixed heart rate and acceleration biologgers to adult Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus), an ecologically, culturally and economically significant species in the western Atlantic ocean, to test the effect of artificial light at night on this species’ physiology and behaviour relative to appropriate controls. The experiment was conducted in a simulated reef mesocosm in The Bahamas with incandescent lighting used to illuminate it at 1 lux, approximating light levels offshore of urban areas. In the conditions tested here, artificial light at night was found to have no effect on heart rate or locomotor activity in P. argus. We observed a dissociation between activity and heart rate at both short-term and long-term temporal scales. Lobsters were more active at night and nocturnal activity was higher in trials closer to new moon; however, heart rate did not vary with diel or lunar cycle. There was less than 8% difference between daytime and night time average heart rate despite the average percentage of time spent active almost tripling in nights versus days, to 19.5% from 7.2%, respectively. Our findings suggest P. argus may have some resilience to low levels of light pollution, which warrants further research on aspects of this species’ life history, performance and fitness in the face of this potential anthropogenic disturbance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".