PS 21-36 - The effects of nocturnal light pollution and herbivory on plant physiology and function

Tuesday, August 13, 2019
Exhibit Hall, Kentucky International Convention Center
Cassandra C. Brown1, Morgan C. Crump1, Lisa Angeloni2, Robert J. Griffin-Nolan3, Nathan P. Lemoine4 and Brett M. Seymoure2, (1)Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, (2)Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, (3)Graduate Degree Program in Ecology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, (4)Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
Background/Question/Methods

Light is one of the most important abiotic factors that plants rely on throughout their life cycles. Plants have evolved under a regime of light and dark cycles that cue phenological and diel changes in plant physiology and behavior. These light and dark cycles have been altered in recent years due to the increasing use of artificial light at night. Separately, plants and animals are well studied under artificial light. However, little is known about the interaction between the two under artificial lighting regimes. It is important to better grasp how these interactions and artificial light at night alter plant physiology and function. This research focuses on the effects of light pollution on community interaction, using the house cricket (Acheta domesticus) and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). We developed two lighting environments: artificial light at night and natural light at night. Plants were grown in these light treatments for three weeks, at which point a cricket was placed on designated plants for one week. This allowed us to determine how light environment and cricket presence altered plant physiology and function. The following measurements were taken on plants: net photosynthesis, blade growth, water content, and stomatal conductance.

Results/Conclusions

We found that plants grown in artificial light environments reached a maximum height faster than those held in natural light environments. In addition, plants with crickets presence increased in height, indicating the crickets did eat the plants. There were also suggestive trends that indicated net photosynthesis, however, this trend was not significant. We noticed no significant changes in water content. Further, there was less stomatal conductance in the artificial light environment group, however this was a suggestive trend and nonsignificant. These results are all suggestive of how light pollution may alter physiology and function of plants. With the rising popularity of outdoor lighting at night, it is crucial to understand the ecological consequences that artificial lighting has on plant physiology and community interactions.