Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33304523›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2020

Light might suppress both types of sound-evoked antipredator flight in moths.

Theresa Hügel, Holger R Goerlitz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 93% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Theresa HügelAcoustic and Functional Ecology Max Planck Institute for Ornithology Seewiesen Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0500-1988
Holger R GoerlitzAcoustic and Functional Ecology Max Planck Institute for Ornithology Seewiesen Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9677-8073
Max Planck Institute for Ornithology · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Urbanization exposes wild animals to increased levels of light, affecting particularly nocturnal animals. Artificial light at night might shift the balance of predator-prey interactions, for example, of nocturnal echolocating bats and eared moths. Moths exposed to light show less last-ditch maneuvers in response to attacking close-by bats. In contrast, the extent to which negative phonotaxis, moths' first line of defense against distant bats, is affected by light is unclear. Here, we aimed to quantify the overall effect of light on both types of sound-evoked antipredator flight, last-ditch maneuvers and negative phonotaxis. We caught moths at two light traps, which were alternately equipped with loudspeakers that presented ultrasonic playbacks to simulate hunting bats. The light field was omnidirectional to attract moths equally from all directions. In contrast, the sound field was directional and thus, depending on the moth's approach direction, elicited either only negative phonotaxis, or negative phonotaxis and last-ditch maneuvers. We did not observe an effect of sound playback on the number of caught moths, suggesting that light might suppress both types of antipredator flight, as either type would have caused a decline in the number of caught moths. As control, we confirmed that our playback was able to elicit evasive flight in moths in a dark flight room. Showing no effect of a treatment, however, is difficult. We discuss potential alternative explanations for our results, and call for further studies to investigate how light interferes with animal behavior.

Indexed as

ALANChiropteraLepidopteraNoctuidaeplayback experiment

Identifiers

PMID33304523
PMCPMC7713931
OpenAlexW3046188253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.