Photoregulatory behavior of bluegill,Lepomis macrochira, in a virtual light gradient

Ham, Kenneth D.; Neill, William H.

doi:10.1007/bf00000596

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The feeding habits of Bluegill in our experiments were seemingly unaffected by any steady (i.e., constant, nonflashing) light treatment, regardless of intensity. This result is somewhat surprising, given that during daylight hours, Bluegill and other sunfishes preferentially seek shelter in low‐light environments (Harvey 1991; Ham and Neill 1993; Johnson 1993; Goddard and Mathis 1997). It is possible that the hatchery‐raised Bluegill that we used in our experiment were already acclimated to ALAN in the hatchery environment before we purchased them or that the control dark treatment still had enough ambient light to enable feeding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of light pollution on Bluegill foraging behavior

Harrison,

Gray

2024

Trans Am Fish Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artificial light at night (ALAN) is one of the most pervasive and rapidly expanding sources of anthropogenic pollution. Aquatic ecosystems may be especially vulnerable to the effects of ALAN due to their disproportionate exposure to anthropogenic pressures. However, research on mechanisms of response to ALAN by aquatic species remains sparse. Our research investigated the extent to which ALAN influences the nocturnal feeding efficiency of Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus. Using an array of outdoor mesocosm tanks, we assigned juvenile Bluegill to five nighttime lighting treatments (control dark, 1 lux, 4 lux, 12 lux, and intermittent 12 lux). We conducted weekly nighttime feeding trials for six weeks to assess four prey capture variables, including capture efficiency (the effectiveness of prey strikes), capture rate (the number of prey items captured), strike rate (the frequency of prey strikes), and latency (time elapsed before the first prey strike). The steady lighting treatments, which were selected based on nighttime urban light intensities we previously measured in the field, had no apparent effect on any of the prey capture variables. However, flashing high intensity lights (intended to mimic the effect of passing car headlights on a busy highway) had a significant negative effect on capture rate and strike rate, thereby inhibiting the ability of fish to strike at and capture prey. Our results demonstrate the potential for light pollution (especially flashing or intermittent lights) to interfere with the foraging behavior of this ecologically and economically important sportfish.

show abstract