Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do you ever have a hard time falling asleep if there is light streaming into your bedroom, which you cannot block out? You could say that your biological sleep cycles are disrupted by uninvited light. The same thing happens to animals and plants, particularly as artificial light pollution at night (e.g. city light glow, streetlamps etc.) has been increasing since the 19th century. Lots of living things use natural light as a cue for biological activity, such as feeding and mating. In addition, some animals that are usually active during the day are now becoming active at night because of artificial light. Elisa Gomes and colleagues at the University of Lyon, France, were particularly interested in figuring out if artificial light impacts the feeding and mating rituals of a parasitic wasp, Venturia canescens. A previous study by Gomes showed that this wasp species, which is usually active during the day, also became active at night when exposed to artificial light. Knowing this, Gomes wondered whether artificial light might lead the wasps to feed and lay eggs at night, instead of during the day, as well as altering their lifespans.To test this, Gomes housed the wasps in plastic boxes at a constant temperature (25°C) with periodic access to food (sugar water) and Mediterranean flour moth larvae, the hosts upon which the parasitic wasps lay their eggs. The team then recreated the natural light patterns of 12 h of light followed by a dark night. While some of the insects experienced low intensity light pollution overnight, comparable to city skyglow, others had their nights disturbed by high intensity light (comparable to a streetlamp). Over a 2-week period, the team monitored the food eaten by the wasps and counted how many eggs they laid in the moth larvae. The researchers also recorded when the wasp offspring emerged from the parasitized moths to determine if artificial light impacted the wasp larvae's development.Gomes found that the wasps fed more and laid more eggs at night when exposed to nocturnal light pollution. The wasps also lived longer when the artificial light that they experienced at night was more intense, which Gomes speculates might be because the wasps had more time to feed. Despite laying more eggs in artificial light at night, the wasps did not produce more eggs over the entire course of their lifetime. This may have been because the wasps that were experiencing nocturnal light pollution laid fewer eggs during the day. Finally, older wasps that had been exposed to artificial light at night laid eggs that developed faster than eggs laid in total darkness. However, this did not seem to impact the offspring's ultimate development – they grew to be the same size as the offspring produced by parents that experienced complete darkness at night, which developed slower.Gomes suspects that the offspring exposed to artificial light may have other physiological differences caused by nocturnal light pollution, which were not tested in this study. She also highlights several factors that need to be investigated further, such as what happens when the wasps experience the temperature falls that occur naturally at night. It is also not known if these wasps are sensitive to different colours or shades of artificial light, which could be an intriguing direction for future research. Ultimately, it is clear that artificial light alters the wasp's behaviour, although it remains a mystery whether this is for better or worse.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".