ArticleScientific reports2021
Pelagic organisms avoid white, blue, and red artificial light from scientific instruments.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Behavioural rhythms of two amphipod species Marinogammarus marinus and Gammarus pulex under increasing levels of light at night.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- The impacts of artificial light at night on the ecology of temperate and tropical reefs.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Plasticity and seasonality of the vertical migration behaviour of Antarctic krill using acoustic data from fishing vessels.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Impacts of artificial light at night in marine ecosystems-A review.Global change biology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In situ observations of pelagic fish and zooplankton with optical instruments usually rely on external light sources. However, artificial light may attract or repulse marine organisms, which results in biased measurements. It is often assumed that most pelagic organisms do not perceive the red part of the visible spectrum and that red light can be used for underwater optical measurements of biological processes. Using hull-mounted echosounders above an acoustic probe or a baited video camera, each equipped with light sources of different colours (white, blue and red), we demonstrate that pelagic organisms in Arctic and temperate regions strongly avoid artificial light, including visible red light (575-700 nm), from instruments lowered in the water column. The density of organisms decreased by up to 99% when exposed to artificial light and the distance of avoidance varied from 23 to 94 m from the light source, depending on colours, irradiance levels and, possibly, species communities. We conclude that observations from optical and acoustic instruments, including baited cameras, using light sources with broad spectral composition in the 400-700 nm wavelengths do not capture the real state of the ecosystem and that they cannot be used alone for reliable abundance estimates or behavioural studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.