ArticleJournal of fish biology2026
Altered photoperiod affects behaviour in a key fish grazer, the thinlip grey mullet, Chelon ramada.
Article in Journal of fish biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study is to address experimentally the immediate impacts of an alteration of the photoperiod, simulating an extreme artificial light pollution, on the behaviour and stress of a key grazer fish common in temperate coastal ecosystems in Europe, the thinlip grey mullet, Chelon ramada. Fish behaviour, assessed by total distance travelled, swimming speed, distance between individuals in fish groups and angular velocity analysed over 6 periods of 5-min slots during 24 h, was shown to vary depending on the photoperiod conditions and time. During the 5-min sequences analysed during the day, fish in the control photoperiod condition (alternate photoperiod, AP) swam slower, travelled less distance and were closer to their conspecifics than fish in the altered conditions [direct or indirect continuous photoperiod (iCP), dCP and iCP, respectively]. For the 5-min sequences analysed at night, fish exposed to direct continuous lighting (dCP) swam significantly faster, hence travelled a longer distance and further apart than fish exposed to iCP or alternate normal photoperiod (AP). Angular velocity was similar for all conditions. Exploratory cortisol measures conducted in the water revealed lower quantities in the iCP condition than in the AP and dCP conditions. Although based upon an experimental design exaggerating the natural photoperiod alteration as compared with most real-life situations, results obtained highlight the importance of addressing behavioural responses of organisms at the individual level to tackle the global and specific impacts of diurnal cycle alteration by artificial light in urbanised aquatic ecosystems. This study is also the first to report on the behavioural response of a common wild species playing a key role in the functioning of aquatic ecosystems to a widespread stress in coastal environments.
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.