MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414671715 · doi:10.1242/jeb.251309

No night lights for baby anemonefish

2025· article· en· W4414671715 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah J. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Invertebrate Physiology and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLight pollutionCoral reefWildlifeArtificial lightPlastic pollutionNatural (archaeology)ShoreReef

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If you have ever looked up at the night sky and thought, ‘that's not very dark at all’, you have experienced the phenomenon known as artificial light at night, also known as light pollution. From streetlights to headlights, this human-made illumination can have profound impacts on living things. Just as scrolling on your smartphone before bed can disrupt your sleep, artificial light can disrupt the biology of the natural world. From metabolism to reproduction, animals’ biology is hardwired to follow cues from the natural light–dark cycle. With light pollution increasing globally by nearly 10% in the last decade, the problems it causes for wildlife and ecosystems are a growing concern. Coastal areas are especially vulnerable as they are often in close proximity to densely populated shoreline cities, and coral reefs may be among the most affected as many reef-dwelling species are highly sensitive to – and reliant on – a daily light–dark cycle. With the consequences of night-light on coral reefs in mind, Thibault Roost from the University of Melbourne, Australia, along with an international team of researchers, set out to understand what light pollution does to one of the reef's more vulnerable residents: baby orange-fin anemonefish (Amphiprion chrysopterus).To find out how artificial light impacts baby orange-fin anemonefish, the researchers SCUBA-dived into a lagoon on the French Polynesian island of Mo'orea every 1–2 days over the course of a month to monitor 19 sets of fish parents and locate their nests. When the team identified the nests, they deployed underwater LED lights near the nests, such that the eggs (and the baby fish inside) would experience artificial light at night at an intensity that mimicked the light pollution that reefs experience from coastal cities. They shone the light on the babies every night for the duration of their time in the egg (from fertilization to hatching). The researchers photographed the eggs and used computer software to measure the size of the egg and the amount of yolk inside from the images. They found that night-light decreased the size of the egg, indicating that light pollution limits how large the babies can grow. Light pollution also decreased the size of the yolk sac, which stores nutrients to feed the fish throughout its time in the egg. A smaller yolk sac suggests that the young fish will burn through its nutrients very quickly, potentially leaving it undernourished before hatching.The team decided to take the study one step further to look behind the scenes at why light pollution makes babies smaller and hungrier. To investigate, the researchers collected 30 eggs from the hundreds of eggs in each nest and brought them back to the lab, where they video recorded the heartbeat of the baby fish within the egg to calculate the heart rate. They found that light pollution sped up the fish's heart rate by nearly 10 times, indicating that light pollution kicks the body into a state of stress. The scientists suggest that this may be the culprit causing the embryos to stay smaller and burn through their nutrient reserves more quickly.Roost and the team made the fascinating discovery that light pollution changes the biology of orange-fin anemonefish babies, ultimately stressing them out and limiting their growth. This study sheds light on how our illumination of the night sky impacts the natural world around us – even underwater animals. So, let's help brighten the future for our wildlife by keeping the nights dark and remembering to turn off the lights.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicMarine Invertebrate Physiology and EcologyFrench-language works237,207