The use of artificial lighting to illuminate the night has provided substantial benefits to humankind. It has also disrupted natural daily, seasonal, and lunar light cycles as experienced by a diversity of organisms, and hence it has also altered cues for the timings of many biological activities. Here we review the evidence for impacts of artificial nighttime lighting on these timings. Although the examples are scattered, concerning a wide variety of species and environments, the breadth of such impacts is compelling. Indeed, it seems reasonable to conclude that the vast majority of impacts of artificial nighttime lighting stem from effects on biological timings. This adds support to arguments that artificial nighttime lighting has a quite pervasive and marked impact on ecological systems, that the rapid expansion in the global extent of both direct illuminance and skyglow is thus of significant concern, and that a widespread implementation of mitigation measures is required.

No abstract

Horizon scanning is intended to identify the opportunities and threats associated with technological, regulatory and social change. In 2017 some of the present authors conducted a horizon scan for bioengineering (Wintle et al., 2017). Here we report the results of a new horizon scan that is based on inputs from a larger and more international group of 38 participants. The final list of 20 issues includes topics spanning from the political (the regulation of genomic data, increased philanthropic funding and malicious uses of neurochemicals) to the environmental (crops for changing climates and agricultural gene drives). The early identification of such issues is relevant to researchers, policy-makers and the wider public.

The erosion of night‐time by the introduction of artificial lighting constitutes a profound pressure on the natural environment. It has altered what had for millennia been reliable signals from natural light cycles used for regulating a host of biological processes, with impacts ranging from changes in gene expression to ecosystem processes.Studies of these impacts have focused almost exclusively on those resulting from stationary sources of light emissions, and particularly streetlights. However, mobile sources, especially road vehicle headlights, contribute substantial additional emissions.The ecological impacts of light emissions from vehicle headlights are likely to be especially high because these are (1) focused so as to light roadsides at higher intensities than commonly experienced from other sources, and well above activation thresholds for many biological processes; (2) projected largely in a horizontal plane and thus can carry over long distances; (3) introduced into much larger areas of the landscape than experience street lighting; (4) typically broad “white” spectrum, which substantially overlaps the action spectra of many biological processes and (5) often experienced at roadsides as series of pulses of light (produced by passage of vehicles), a dynamic known to have major biological impacts.The ecological impacts of road vehicle headlights will markedly increase with projected global growth in numbers of vehicles and the road network, increasing the local severity of emissions (because vehicle numbers are increasing faster than growth in the road network) and introducing emissions into areas from which they were previously absent. The effects will be further exacerbated by technological developments that are increasing the intensity of headlight emissions and the amounts of blue light in emission spectra. Synthesis and applications. Emissions from vehicle headlights need to be considered as a major, and growing, source of ecological impacts of artificial night‐time lighting. It will be a significant challenge to minimise these impacts whilst balancing drivers' needs at night and avoiding risk and discomfort for other road users. Nonetheless, there is potential to identify solutions to these conflicts, both through the design of headlights and that of roads.

No abstract

Multiple national and international trends and drivers are radically changing what biological security means for the United Kingdom (UK). New technologies present novel opportunities and challenges, and globalisation has created new pathways and increased the speed, volume and routes by which organisms can spread. The UK Biological Security Strategy (2018) acknowledges the importance of research on biological security in the UK. Given the breadth of potential research, a targeted agenda identifying the questions most critical to effective and coordinated progress in different disciplines of biological security is required. We used expert elicitation to generate 80 policy-relevant research questions considered by participants to have the greatest impact on UK biological security. Drawing on a collaboratively-developed set of 450 questions, proposed by 41 experts from academia, industry and the UK government (consulting 168 additional experts) we subdivided the final 80 questions into six categories: bioengineering; communication and behaviour; disease threats (including pandemics); governance and policy; invasive alien species; and securing biological materials and securing against misuse. Initially, the questions were ranked through a voting process and then reduced and refined to 80 during a one-day workshop with 35 participants from a variety of disciplines. Consistently emerging themes included: the nature of current and potential biological security threats, the efficacy of existing management actions, and the most appropriate future options. The resulting questions offer a research agenda for biological security in the UK that can assist the targeting of research resources and inform the implementation of the UK Biological Security Strategy. These questions include research that could aid with the mitigation of Covid-19, and preparation for the next pandemic. We hope that our structured and rigorous approach to creating a biological security research agenda will be replicated in other countries and regions. The world, not just the UK, is in need of a thoughtful approach to directing biological security research to tackle the emerging issues.

The cost of reproduction plays a central role in evolutionary theory, but the identity of the underlying mechanisms remains a puzzle. Oxidative stress has been hypothesized to be a proximate mechanism that may explain the cost of reproduction. We examine three pathways by which oxidative stress could shape reproduction. The “oxidative cost” hypothesis proposes that reproductive effort generates oxidative stress, while the “oxidative constraint” and “oxidative shielding” hypotheses suggest that mothers mitigate such costs through reducing reproductive effort or by pre‐emptively decreasing damage levels, respectively. We tested these three mechanisms using data from a long‐term food provisioning experiment on wild female banded mongooses (Mungos mungo). Our results show that maternal supplementation did not influence oxidative stress levels, or the production and survival of offspring. However, we found that two of the oxidative mechanisms co‐occur during reproduction. There was evidence of an oxidative challenge associated with reproduction that mothers attempted to mitigate by reducing damage levels during breeding. This mitigation is likely to be of crucial importance, as long‐term offspring survival was negatively impacted by maternal oxidative stress. This study demonstrates the value of longitudinal studies of wild animals in order to highlight the interconnected oxidative mechanisms that shape the cost of reproduction.

No abstract