↓ Skip to main content

Human alteration of natural light cycles: causes and ecological consequences

Overview of attention for article published in Oecologia, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#46 of 5,046)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
251 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
416 Mendeley
Title
Human alteration of natural light cycles: causes and ecological consequences
Published in
Oecologia, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00442-014-3088-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin J. Gaston, James P. Duffy, Sian Gaston, Jonathan Bennie, Thomas W. Davies

Abstract

Artificial light at night is profoundly altering natural light cycles, particularly as perceived by many organisms, over extensive areas of the globe. This alteration comprises the introduction of light at night at places and times at which it has not previously occurred, and with different spectral signatures. Given the long geological periods for which light cycles have previously been consistent, this constitutes a novel environmental pressure, and one for which there is evidence for biological effects that span from molecular to community level. Here we provide a synthesis of understanding of the form and extent of this alteration, some of the key consequences for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, interactions and synergies with other anthropogenic pressures on the environment, major uncertainties, and future prospects and management options. This constitutes a compelling example of the need for a thoroughly interdisciplinary approach to understanding and managing the impact of one particular anthropogenic pressure. The former requires insights that span molecular biology to ecosystem ecology, and the latter contributions of biologists, policy makers and engineers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 416 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 398 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 71 17%
Student > Bachelor 70 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 14%
Researcher 57 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 4%
Other 58 14%
Unknown 82 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 162 39%
Environmental Science 88 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 3%
Psychology 6 1%
Design 6 1%
Other 40 10%
Unknown 101 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 76. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 November 2020.
All research outputs
#572,222
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#46
of 5,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,620
of 265,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#2
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,046 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,607 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.