Attraction of Nocturnal Insects to Varying Wavelengths of Artificial Lights in Ali

Carbon Forest, Bago Gallera, Davao City

GROUP 2
Alforque, Raffy D.
Auza, Genevieve S.
Esmalla, Dianne Marie L.
España, Shiloh Mhe L.
Lumapac, Kimberly O.
Señeres, Pergene Kyle Jasper B.
Toyor, Paul Christian D.

A Learning Evidence Presented to

The Faculty of Natural Science Department
College of Arts and Sciences
University of Southeastern Philippines

In partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirement for the Course Subject
Animal Physiology

May 2022
 ABSTRACT

As the rapid urbanization expansion led to more artificial lighting at night, this

study attempted to amplify the biological information on the nocturnal insects attracted to

different light wavelengths, particularly on red (630-640 nm), orange (580-590 nm), green

(520-530 nm), and blue (430-470 nm) lights. Specifically, it sought to identify the

nocturnal insects attracted to the four targeted light wavelength ranges and determine their

abundance, richness, diversity, and evenness. The study was conducted from 7-8 PM on

April 8-10, 2022, in the reforestation site of ALI Carbon Forest, Bago, Gallera, Davao City.

All specimens were collected through hand-netting, standard light trapping, and leaf-litter

sifting. Recorded in this study were 213 nocturnal insects belonging to 40 families under

nine orders. The blue light exhibited the highest abundance of nocturnal insects, followed

by green, orange, and red. In terms of diversity, red, orange, green, and blue lights

accumulated H’= 2.06, H’= 2.05, H’= 2.95, and H’= 2.9, respectively. The entire sampling

area exhibited moderate biodiversity (H’=2.49). The value for evenness were 0.937, 0.932,

0.916, and 0.921 for red, orange, green, and blue respectively. Overall, the sampling area

exhibited 93% evenness from all targeted light wavelength ranges. With the moderate

diversity and high evenness of nocturnal insects in ALI Carbon Forest, anthropogenic

activities nearby such a forest could amplify artificial lighting at night and attract the

voluminous vital nocturnal insects, causing temporal and spatial desynchronization that

may result in ecological mismatches in the reforestation area.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

TITLE PAGE …………………………………………………………………….............. i

ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………….................. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………….. iii

LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………… iv

LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………………….. iv

LIST OF APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………... iv

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………...... 1

II. MATERIALS AND METHOD ……………………………………………… 5

Location of the study ………………………………….……………….… 5

Sampling Procedures …………………………………………………….. 6

Sampling Period …………………………………………………………. 6

Statistical and data Analysis ……………………………………………... 7

III.. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ………………………………………..….... 8

Identification of nocturnal insects ……………………..……….……....... 8

Species abundance, richness, evenness and diversity index …….……… 14

IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION …....……….. 16

REFERENCES…………………..……………………………………………………... 19

APPENDICES …………………………………..……………………………………... 22

iii
 LIST OT TABLES

Table page

1. List of family and order of insects recorded in Ali Carbon Forest …..…….......... 8

2. Species Abundance, Diversity, Evenness and Richness of Nocturnal Insects … 14

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1. Map showing the location of the study site ..………….…………..…………..… 5

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix

A. Computation of Species Abundance, Diversity, Evenness and Richness …..….. 22

B. Photographs of recorded and identified nocturnal insects …………………....... 25

iv
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

With rapid technological advancement and urbanization expansion, anthropogenic

light sources has ubiquitously produced localized illumination that can disrupt populations

of crepuscular and nocturnal animal species (Davies & Smyth, 2018; Gaston & Holt, 2018).

Artificial nighttime lighting has become a double-edged sword, as it gives tremendous

benefits to humans; however, it also profoundly alters the timing, spectrum, and intensity

of natural light phenomena (Gaston et al., 2013). The increasing intensity of artificial

lighting at night is concealing the monthly and seasonal regimes of lunar sky brightness

(Davies et al., 2013). As such, this affects the nocturnal insects biological processes that

are temporally synchronized with day-and-night lengths.

To date, approximately 30% of vertebrates while over 60% invertebrates

worldwide are nocturnal in nature (Holker et al., 2010). However, this voluminous number

of species are often underrepresented, particularly on scientific literatures that tackles their

vulnerability to artificial illumination (Owens & Lewis, 2018). With unique light-based

communication, fireflies (Coleoptera: Lampyridae), glowworms (Diptera: Keroplatidae),

and click beetles (Coleoptera: Elateridae) are among the most charismatic insects

vulnerable to artificial illumination (Owens & Lewis, 2018).

Most of the terrestrial insects’ circadian, circamensual, and circannual activity

patterns are typically synchronized to daily, monthly, and year light cycles, respectively.

Consequently, ambient lights and temperatures can trigger the nocturnal insects’ internal

clocks, vital in dictating the daily emergence time and duration of courtship and feeding
 2

activities (Saunders, 2009; Tataroglu & Emery, 2014). Meanwhile, day length cues or

moonlight can entrain the monthly and yearly cycles of insects’ mating, oviposition, and

eclosion (Kronfeld-Schor et al., 2013). The presence of intense artificial lighting at night

can potentially desynchronize the internal clocks of nocturnal insects (Saunders et al.,

2012). In a greater extent, internal clock desynchronization due to the artificial lighting

masking lunar cycles may reduce reproductive fitness (Xu et al., 2011; McLay et al., 2018)

and disrupt crucially important biological processes among different nocturnal insects

(Dominoni et al., 2016; Gaston et al., 2013).

The increasing interest in nighttime lighting effects on nocturnal insects has been

carried out to determine the variation of the spectral output of different lamp types

(Seymoure & White, 2019). The problem, however, is that varying wavelengths should be

taken into account when it comes to ecological light pollution. For instance, warm light

that projects the wavelengths of yellow light reduces the negative collision and reduces

several insects attracted by the artificial light (Hakami et al., 2020).

In the United Kingdom, a study orchestrated by Briolat et al., (2021) revealed that

amber light sources have a disruptive effect on hawkmoth in terms of flower color

perception, limiting the organism's ability to remember and correctively handle flowers.

Moreover, Light Protective Systems (LPS) and orange LED inhibit the perception of color

contrasts in moth wings and between flowers and vegetation, which results in poor

camouflage and leaves the organisms vulnerable to diurnal predators.

Another study by Lewis et al., (2020) unveiled that artificial light at night (ALAN)

is considered a severe threat to fireflies, second only to habitat loss from different
 3

anthropogenic parameters. The study analyzed that ALAN disrupts the courtship signals

among fireflies, which relies heavily on the organism's production of bioluminescence.

In the Philippines, Hongayo et al., (2014) utilized light traps to identify the different

insects caught within the traps. The study identified ten (10) insects from different orders:

Lepidoptera, Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, Orthoptera, Hemiptera, Psocoptera, Neuroptera,

Isoptera, Diptera, and Embiidina. The study only focused on the variety of species found

within the light traps and is not focused on the attraction of insects within varying

wavelengths. Ergo, the need to establish that varying wavelengths play a crucial role in

insects' attraction and contribute to the dearth of studies that emphasized artificial lights at

night prompted the researchers to conduct the study.

Objective of the Study

The study aimed to identify the different nocturnal insects attracted to various

artificial light wavelengths in ALI Carbon Forest in Bago, Gallera, Davao City. Such

understanding is essential in applying artificial lights at night that still benefit humans and,

more importantly, preserve the natural ecosystem of nocturnal insects. In particular, it

sought to:

1. identify up to the lowest possible taxonomic level the different nocturnal insects

attracted to artificial light;

2. determine the abundance of identified nocturnal insects attracted to the four

targeted artificial light wavelength ranges; and

3. determine the species diversity index, species richness, and evenness.

 4

Significance of the Study

The rapid expansion of urbanization has resulted in the advancement of artificial

lighting in every nooks and crooks of urban ecosystems, even evident in the settlements

nearby forest patches. Such artificial lighting at night from anthropogenic activities has

surrounded the ALI (Ayala Land Incorporated) Carbon Forest, a 54-hectare reforestation

site situated in Bago, Gallera, Davao City. Identifying the nocturnal insects attracted to

four targeted light wavelength ranges was crucial as these nocturnal species’ foraging

activities coincide with night-blooming flowers and vital to other ecological processes.

Also, these nocturnal animals provided pollination mutualism to the different trees existing

in the forest, which is an essential aspect in bolstering the success rate of the area’s

reforestation. Moreover, the data generated from this study can be a baseline information

on the various nocturnal insects attracted to different wavelengths that can be useful to the

staff of ALI Carbon forest, students, ecologists, researchers, and scientists. Other than that,

this study is not only applicable as an indicator of the nocturnal ecosystems’ condition

within reforestation sites, but most significantly in forested areas where human settlements

are proliferating.

Scope and Limitations

In attracting nocturnal insects, this study only utilized four light wavelength ranges,

particularly red (575-700 nm), blue (440-490 nm), orange (590-635 nm) and green (500-

550 nm) lights. However, aside from the short sampling period, the sampling plots were

limited due to the scarce source of electricity in the area. However, collected insects were

identified up to the order and family levels only.

 5

CHAPTER II

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Location of the Study

The study was located in Ali Carbon Forest in Bago Gallera, Davao City (7.04109

N, 125.51791 E) [Figure 1]. Situated within the highly urbanized metropolis of Davao, the

Ali Carbon Forest is a 54-hectare site with the goal of reforesting 17,500 native and

endemic tree species only in its 6-hectare reforestation site. Additionally, the forest is part

of governmental effort in expanding remnant forest patches, homing numerous beetles,

insects, birds, reptiles, and small mammals.

Figure 1. Map of the Philippines showing the location of Ali Carbon Forest in Davao Gulf
(upper right corner) and the satellite view of its entire map size (lower right corner)
[obtained using Google Earth Application].
 6

Sampling Procedures

Despite the lack of a wildlife Gratuitous Permit (GP), permission was made through

an actual conversation before data collection. The study utilized artificial lights and light

traps within the main camp site. Additionally, artificial lights with specific wavelength

ranges were used during the data gathering: Red (575-700 nm), Blue (440-490 nm), Orange

(590-635 nm) and Green (500-550 nm). The gaps on the light wavelength ranges were far

enough to determine which wavelength attracts more nocturnal insects. The wavelength of

each light is depicted from Johansen et al., (2011) wherein the spectral range of most

standard high pressure sodium lamps (HPSL) are mainly within the range of 400-700 nm.

Further, the study utilized hand-netting, standard light trapping, and leaf-litter

sifting within the artificial light sources to maximize the collection of nocturnal species

(Pepito et al., 2020). Specimens were collected in a 60 ml vial filled with 95% ethanol and

air dried for further identification process. All collected samples were observed under a

portable microscope at 60X objective. All specimens were examined using monographs,

taxonomic keys, and existing recent literatures on nocturnal insects. Photographs were

taken for proper documentation purposes and re-evaluation of the identification process by

the experts, while allowing extensive copying of the study for scholarly purposes.

Sampling Period

The sampling period was conducted on April 8, 9, and 10, 2022 from 7 to 8 at night.

At least four of the researchers set the light traps on-site and the other researchers assisted

in the documentation of the collected samples. Study sampling was done during good

weather condition to ensure a better sampling and collection of nocturnal insect species.
 7

Moreover, damaged nocturnal insect species beyond recognition were automatically

excluded in the data gathering.

Statistical and Data Analysis

All collected and identified nocturnal insect species were organized and tallied

based on the frequency of artificial light they are attracted using Microsoft Excel. Data

were analyzed using the different quantitative measures for ecology. Shannon diversity

index (H) was used in order to get the apportionment or diversity in a community using the

formula: ∑𝑆𝑖=1 −𝑝𝑖 ln𝑝𝑖 ; wherein H is the Shannon diversity index; pi= fraction of the entire

population made up of species i; S = was the species richness or the number of species in

a community or during collection (Molles & Sher, 2019). Evenness or Pielou index (J) was

the Shannon diversity divided by the logarithm of number of taxa J=H/ (ln S). On the other

hand, species richness (S) was obtained by counting the number of nocturnal insects species

found in the sampling site.

 8

CHAPTER III

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Identification of nocturnal insects

The study recorded 213 nocturnal insects belonging to 40 families under 9 orders.

All species were collected using different light traps with varying light colors and

wavelengths. Table 1 below showed the insect families and order recorded in Ali Carbon

Forest, Bago Gallera, Davao City.

Table 1. List of family and order of insects recorded in Ali Carbon Forest
Order Family
Diptera Muscidae
Culicidae
Drosophilidae
Psychodidae
Chironomidae
Rhagionidae
Tipulidae
Sciaridae
Bibionidae
Hemiptera Cicadellidae
Triozidae
Cicadidae
Cercopidae
Aleyrodidae
Orthoptera Acrididae
Thysanoptera Phlaeothripidae
Hymenoptera Torymidae
Apidae
Aleyrodidae
Trichogrammatidae
Vespidae
Pompilidae
Sphecidae
Mymaridae
Blattodae Blattidae
Termitidae
Odonata Aeshnidae
Lepidoptera Sphingidae
Tortricidae
Coleoptera Tenebrionidae
Staphylinidae
Scraptidae
Cantharidae
 9

Harpalinae
Aderidae
Bostrichidae
Curculionidae
Scarabaeidae
Cucujidae

Order Diptera of Family Culicidae:

The family Culicidae is a member of one of the main stocks of Nematocera. It

consists of two superfamilies that include all of the piercing and sucking nematocerans, for

both predators and blood-feeding biters. These insects develop a wide array of biotic

communities. However, the greatest species diversity eventuates in tropical forests, but

high densities of mosquitoes are fairly common even in species-poor biomes such as tundra

(Denlinger & Armbruster, 2014). Diptera is among the most common insect orders

attracted and captured in light traps (Wakefield et al., 2016). Among the families under

Diptera, Culicidae has the most occurrence in terms of numbers in all light colors. Vision

plays an important role in the occurrence of such family since various light colors with

varying wavelengths were utilized in the course of the study, particularly lights with blue,

green, orange, and red colors.

 10

Order Hemiptera: Family Cicadellidae

Under this family are commonly called as sharpshooters or leafhoppers. They have

piercing-sucking mouthparts, which they use to tap into and feed upon phloem (sap) or

xylem of tissue plants. They were found in all light spectrum, in which it was the most

abundant in terms of number under this order in the sampling area. According to Tipping

and Mizell (2004) they possess cryptic coloration for camouflage which is often brown,

green, or yellow which enables them to blend into their surroundings. Furthermore, they

can also detect the reflectance of several colors, more specifically hues of yellow being the

most attractive.

Order Orthoptera: Family Acrididae

 11

The family Acrididae consists of the most commonly found pest in all sorts of

vegetation (Nazir et al., 2014). These are short-horned grasshoppers and locusts which are

widely distributed around the world. They are only found on three (3) out of four (4) light

colors in the sampling area namely; red, blue, and green.

Order Thysanoptera: Family Phlaeothripidae

Family Phlaeothripidae are commonly known as thrips which are small insects that

are mainly pests and are considered invasive species in a natural ecosystem (Boyd & Held

2006). There is only 1 species under this family found during the duration of the sampling.

It was found on the sampling site which has the green-colored light.

Order Hymenoptera: Family Vespidae

Family Vespidae are commonly called as social wasps and are represented by about

900 species worldwide. They are stinging wasps that are also supplemental to the
 12

ecosystem. They are sensitive and protective to their nesting area. Their stinging behavior

is triggered by different cues such as visual, vibrations, movement, chemical and colony

status (e.g., nutrition, reproductive presence) (Schmidt, 2018). Dark moving objects are

often attacked by honeybees and vespid wasps in sought of defending their colonies. They

are prevalent in the sampling area, found mostly in blue and green lights.

Order Blattodae: Family Termitidae

Family Termitidae along with those under Order Lepidoptera are highly

photosensitive (Wei et al., 2002). This is pretty evident since there are a total of eight (8)

species found under this family throughout the course of the sampling. Such species are

found within all light colors used in the sampling, except for the red light.

Order Odonata: Family Aeshnidae

The presence of these insects under this order are significant bioindicator for a good

environmental health. Family Aeshnidae, according to Paisley et al., (2014), are utilized as
 13

biological classification system for river pollution. Such species obtained a total of nineteen

(19) occurrence in all light color except blue.

Order Lepidoptera: Family Sphingidae

Under this Family are moths which are considered as economic pests to row crops,

fruit and shade trees, ornamental shrubs, and other plantings on which their larvae feed

upon. Moths, in particular, are highly attracted to lights. All throughout the sampling, the

presence of family Sphingidae can only be seen in the orange light.

Order Coleoptera: Family Scraptiidae

Order Coleoptera has the most occurrence of recorded insects in terms of family,

with Scraptiidae family exhibited the highest abundance under the order. Species under

this family was mainly seen under blue light. It can be correlated to the study of Hering
 14

(2012) where species under Order Coleoptera are often associated with black and blue

colors.

Species abundance, richness, evenness and diversity index

The table (2) below represents the total number of species attracted to varying light

colors at Ali Carbon Forest. The lights also vary in terms of wavelengths, which also affects

the number of insects attracted to such light color. Moreover, it shows the biodiversity of

nocturnal insects attracted to varying wavelengths in terms of richness, evenness and

Shannon-Wiener diversity.

Table 2. Species Abundance, Diversity, Evenness and Richness of Nocturnal Insects

Artificial Light Variation Abundance Diversity Evenness Richness
Red (630-640 nm) 25 2.060642482 0.937838809 9

Orange (580-590 nm) 32 2.049461237 0.932750006 9

Green (520-530 nm) 69 2.949370105 0.916273341 25

Blue (430-470 nm) 87 2.88753343 0.920918117 23

Total 213 9.94700725 3.70695397

2.486751814 0.926738492

The blue light (430-470 nm) exhibited the highest abundance of 87 nocturnal

insects, followed by green (520-530 nm), orange (580-590 nm), and red (630-640 nm)

lights with abundances of 69, 32, and 25, respectively. In contrast to the varying

abundances, green light attracted the highest number of families at 25 while blue light has

a family richness of 23. However, both orange and red lights exhibited family richness of

9. Madigan (2011) revealed that red has the longest wavelength among the visible light

spectrum, violet has the shortest, and black light emits ultraviolet (UV) light. In the study

of Barghini and De Medeiros (2012), they claimed that nocturnal insects are attracted to
 15

light sources that are rich in UV and short wavelengths lights while lights with the longest

wavelength such as red attract the least abundant species. Such claim conformed with the

this paper’s results wherein the blue light has attracted the most abundant number of

nocturnal insects while followed by green light. On a positive note, the data also obtained

in this paper revealed that light sources with the longest wavelengths such as red and orange

can attract the least number of nocturnal insects in comparison to other short-wavelength

light sources.

In terms of diversity, red, orange, green, and blue lights accumulated H’= 2.06, H’=

2.05, H’= 2.95, and H’= 2.9 respectively which speaks volume that the area where the light

was placed had moderate biodiversity. Although the blue light contained the highest

abundance, it was green light that had attracted the greatest number of nocturnal insects’

families, resulting to higher family richness. Moreover, the entire area of the study site had

moderate biodiversity (H’=2.49). The value for evenness were 0.937, 0.932, 0.916, and

0.921 for red, orange, green, and blue respectively. Overall, the sampling area exhibited

93% evenness from all targeted light wavelength ranges. These results indicated that the

recorded species are highly dispersed along the study site. Samharinto et al., (2012)

revealed that if the value of species richness was higher, it denotes a higher entirety of

species, and the higher value of species evenness also denotes that the abundance of the

same species found was also relatively higher. Additionally, the presence of high evenness

could indicate that there is less competition among the nocturnal insects in the area under

this study.
 16

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary

As the rapid urbanization expansion led to more artificial lighting at night, this

study attempted to determine the nocturnal insects attracted to different light wavelengths,

particularly on red (630-640 nm), orange (580-590 nm), green (520-530 nm), and blue

(430-470 nm) lights. The study was conducted in ALI Carbon Forest, situated in Bago,

Gallera, Davao City from 7-8 PM on April 8-10, 2022. Specifically, it sought to identify

up different nocturnal insects attracted to artificial light; determine the abundance of

identified nocturnal insects attracted to the four targeted artificial light wavelength ranges;

and determine the species diversity index, species richness, and evenness. After being

attracted to different light traps, all nocturnal insects were counted and collected through

hand-netting and leaf-litter sifting, then stored in a 60-ml vial containing 95% ethanol for

later identification process. The study recorded 213 nocturnal insects belonging to 40

families under nine orders. Data generated in this study revealed that blue light attracted

the highest number of nocturnal insects, followed by green light. Meanwhile, longer-

wavelength light sources such as orange and red lights exhibited the lowest family richness.

In terms of diversity, red, orange, green, and blue lights accumulated H’= 2.06, H’= 2.05,

H’= 2.95, and H’= 2.9, respectively. The entire sampling area exhibited moderate

biodiversity (H’=2.49). The value for evenness were 0.937, 0.932, 0.916, and 0.921 for

red, orange, green, and blue respectively. Overall, the sampling area exhibited 93%

evenness from all targeted light wavelength ranges. Both diversity and evenness values
 17

may indicate a highly dispersed yet abundant nocturnal insects in the area, with evidently

less competition.

Conclusion

Light sources with shorter wavelengths can attract more nocturnal insect species

in contrast to longer-wavelength light sources. With the moderate diversity and high

evenness of nocturnal insects in ALI Carbon Forest, anthropogenic activities within and

nearby such a forest may result to amplified artificial lighting at night. Hence, this artificial

lighting could attract the voluminous vital nocturnal insects, causing temporal and spatial

desynchronization. Pollination mutualism with night-blooming flowers and other vital

ecological processes might be affected, considering the adverse effects posed by artificial

lighting at night on the identified nocturnal insects.

Recommendation

In the light of the preceding conclusions, the following recommendations are

presumptuously offered:

Consumers/Citizens. People should be more knowledgeable about the effects of artificial

lighting on nocturnal insects, considering that these insects are vital on many of the

economically important plants and trees, and main role players in other ecological

processes. Also, there must be a smart decision-making on utilizing exterior lighting,

particularly on the careful usage of shorter-wavelength light sources.

Conservationists/Environmentalists/Reforestation Officers. With the unknown long-

term effects of artificial lighting on nocturnal insects, conservationists, environmentalists,

and reforestation officers, among others, should have strategies and plans on how to
 18

mitigate the effects of such artificial illumination on the vital nocturnal insects from

ecosystems with human settlements proliferation.

Scientists. The light technology development must be carefully and thoroughly assessed,

particularly on its short and long-term effects on the flora and fauna. Additionally, a more

in-depth assessment and identification of nocturnal insect species is encouraged and

advised to produce more realistic, quality research and accurate estimations, even in the

circumstances of artificial lighting utilization for pest managements.

Other Researchers. Other future researchers are encouraged to conduct a similar study,

mainly maximizing the availability of light sources with broader wavelength ranges. Also,

further studies under various viable settings within longer durations may be deemed helpful

to determine the ecological effects of artificial illumination at night on nocturnal insect

species.
 19

REFERENCES

Boyd, Jr. B. W., Held, D. W,. (2004). Androthrips ramachandrai (Thysanoptera:

Phlaeothripidae): an introduced thrips in the Unitd States. The Florida
Entomologist, 89(4), 455-458. https://doi.org/10.1653/0015-
4040(2006)89[455:ARTPAI]2.0.CO;2
Davies, T. W. , Bennie, J. , Inger, R. , de Ibarra, N. H. , & Gaston, K. J. (2013). Artificial
light pollution: Are shifting spectral signatures changing the balance of species
interactions? Global Change Biology, 19, 1417–1423.
Davies, T. W. , & Smyth, T. (2018). Why artificial light at night should be a focus for
global change research in the 21st century. Global Change Biology, 24, 872–882.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13927
Denlinger, Dl L., Armbruster, P. A. (2014). Mosquito diapause. Annual Review of
Entemology, 73-93.
Dominoni, D. M. , Borniger, J. C. , & Nelson, R. J. (2016). Light at night, clocks and health:
From humans to wild organisms. Biology Letters, 12, 20160015.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0015
Gaston, K. J., Bennie, J., Davies, T. W., Hopkins, J. (2013). The ecological impacts of
nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biological Reviews, 88(4), 912-
927. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12036
Gaston, K. J. , & Holt, L. A. (2018). Nature, extent and ecological implications of night‐
time light from road vehicles. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 55, 2296–2307.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13157.
Hakami, A. R., Khan, K. A., Ghramh, H., A., Ahmad, Z., Al-zayd, A., A., A. (2020).
Impact of artifical light intensity on nocturnal insect diversity in urban and rural
areas of the Asir province, Saudi Arabia. PLoS One, 15(12).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242315
Hallmann, C., Sorg, M., Jongejans, E., Siepel, H., Hofland, N., Schwan, H., Stenmans, W.,
Müller, A., Sumser, H., Horren, T., Goulson, D., De Kroon, H. (2017). More than
75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas.
PloS one, 12(10), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.prone.0185809
Hering, C. M. (2012). Differential Attration of Insect Orders to Different Wavelengths of
Light. 1-8.
Hölker, F. , Wolter, C. , Perkin, E. K. , & Tockner, K. (2010). Light pollution as a
biodiversity threat. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25, 681–682.
 20

Hongayo, M., C., Navales, C., P., Quieta, J., D., Jr., Signo, A., R., D. (2014). Light attracted
insect taxa in Songculan Lagoon, Songculan, Dauism Bohol Philippines.
International Journal of Fauna and Biological Studies, 1(3), 04-07.
Johansen, N. S., Vanninen, I., Pinto, D. M., Nissinen, A. I., Shipp, L. (2011). In the light
of new greenhouse technologies: 2. Direct effects of artificial lighting on arthropods
and integrated pest management in greenhouse crops. Annals of Applied Biology,
159, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2011.00483.x
Kronfeld‐Schor, N. , Dominoni, D. , de la Iglesia, H. , Levy, O. , Herzog, E. D. , Dayan, T.
, & Helfrich‐Forster, C. (2013). Chronobiology by moonlight. Proceedings of the
Royal Society London B, 280, 20123088. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.3088
Lewis, S., M., Wong, C. H., Owens, A., C., S., Fallon, C., Jepsen, S., Thancharoen, A., Wu
C., De Cock, R., Lopez-Palafox, T., Khoo, V., Reed, M., J. (2020). A global
perspective on Fireflies. BioScience, 70, 157-167.
https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz157/5715071
McLay, L. K. , Nagarajan‐Radha, V. , Green, M. P. , & Jones, T. M. (2018). Dim artificial
light at night affects mating, reproductive output, and reactive oxygen species
in Drosophila melanogaster . Journal of Experimental Zoology A, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.2164
Molles, M. &. (2019). Ecology:Concepts and Applications (8 ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Education.
Nazir, N., Ashfaq, M., Mahmood, K., Rahim, J. (2014). Morphological and molecular
identification of Acridid grasshoppers (Acrididae: Orthoptera) from Poonch
division, Azad Jammu Kashmir, Pakistan. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 6(3), 5544-
5552. http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3507.5544-52
Owens, A. C. S., & Lewis, S. M. (2018). The impact of artificial light at night on nocturnal
insects: A review and synthesis. Ecol Evol., 8, 11337–11358.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4557
Öckinger, E., Smith, H. (2006). Semi-natural grasslands as population sources for
pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44(1),
50-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-5664.2006.01250.x
Paisley, M. F. Trigg, D. J., Walley, W. J. (2014). Revision of the Biological Monitoring
Working Party (BMWP) socre system: Derivation of present-only and abundance-
related scores from field data. River Res. Appl., 30, 887-904.
Pepito, M. J., Torrejos, C., Cabras, A., Medina, M. N., & & Cudera, R. (2020). Preliminary
list of Carabidae and Cicindelidae (Coleoptera) Fauna in Lake Holon, T'boli, South
Cotabato, Philippines. Journal of Tropical Coleopterology, 1(2), 35-46.
 21

Saunders, D. S. (2009). Circadian rhythms and the evolution of photoperiodic timing in

insects. Physiological Entomology, 34, 301–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
3032.2009.00699.x
Schmidt, J. O. (2018). Clinical consequences of toxic envenomations by Hymenoptera.
Toxicon, 150, 96-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxicon.2018.05.013
Seymoure, B., M., White, C., L., J. (2019). Connecting spectral raadiometry of
anthropogenic light sources to the visual ecology of organisms. Journal of Zoology:
The Zoological Society of London, 93-110. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12656
Tataroglu, O., & Emery, P. (2014). Studying circadian rhythms in Drosophila
melanogaster. Methods, 68, 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2014.01.001
Tipping, C., Mizell R. F. III. (2004). Sharpshooters, Leafhoppers, Cicadellidae
(Insecta:Hemiptera: Auchenorrhyncha: Cicadelldae.
Wakefield, A. , Broyles, M. , Stone, E. L. , Jones, G. , & Harris, S. (2016). Experimentally
comparing the attractiveness of domestic lights to insects: Do LEDs attract fewer
insects than conventional light types? Ecology and Evolution, 6(22), 8028–8036.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2527
Wei, G.-S., Q.-W. Zhang, M.-Z. Zhou, W.-G Wu. (2002). Characteristic response of the
compound eyes of Helicoverpa armigera to light. Acra Entomol. Sin, 45(3), 323-
328.
Xu, K. , DiAngelo, J. R. , Hughes, M. E. , Hogenesch, J. B. , & Sehgal, A. (2011). The
circadian clock interacts with metabolic physiology to influence reproductive
fitness. Cell Metabolism, 13, 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2011.05.001
Yang, L. H., Gratton, C. (2014). Insect as drivers of ecosystep processes. Current Opinion
in Insect Science, 2, 26-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2014.06.004
 22

Appendix A

Computation of Species Abundance, Diversity, Evenness,

and Richness of Nocturnal Insects

Abundance, diversity, evenness, and richness obtained from Red Light

Family Number of species Pi ln(Pi) Pi x ln(Pi)
Muscidae 4 0.16 -1.83258146 -0.293213034
Cicadellidae 3 0.12 -2.12026354 -0.254431624
Aeshnidae 6 0.24 -1.42711636 -0.342507925
Acrididae 3 0.12 -2.12026354 -0.254431624
Torymidae 2 0.08 -2.52572864 -0.202058292
Culicidae 2 0.08 -2.52572864 -0.202058292
Blattidae 1 0.04 -3.21887582 -0.128755033
Triozidae 1 0.04 -3.21887582 -0.128755033
Cicadidae 3 0.12 -2.12026354 -0.254431624
Total 25 -2.060642482
Species Diversity 2.060642482
Evenness 0.937838809
Species Richness 9

Abundance, diversity, evenness, and richness obtained from Orange Light

Family Number of species Pi ln(Pi) Pi x ln(Pi)
Termitidae 3 0.09375 -2.36712361 -0.221917839
Aeshnidae 6 0.1875 -1.67397643 -0.313870581
Culicidae 4 0.125 -2.07944154 -0.259930193
Triozidae 1 0.03125 -3.4657359 -0.108304247
Formicidae 5 0.15625 -1.85629799 -0.290046561
Aleyrodidae 4 0.125 -2.07944154 -0.259930193
Muscidae 1 0.03125 -3.4657359 -0.108304247
Sphingidae 2 0.0625 -2.77258872 -0.173286795
Blattidae 6 0.1875 -1.67397643 -0.313870581
Total 32 -2.049461237
Species Diversity 2.049461237
Evenness 0.932750006
Species Richness 9
 23

Appendix A (continued)

Computation of Species Abundance, Diversity, Evenness,

and Richness of Nocturnal Insects

Abundance, diversity, evenness, and richness obtained from obtained from Green Light
Family Number of species Pi ln(Pi) Pi x ln(Pi)
Aeshnidae 7 0.101449275 -2.28819636 -0.232135862
Culicidae 4 0.057971014 -2.84781214 -0.165090559
Tenebrionidae 1 0.014492754 -4.2341065 -0.061363862
Cucuiidae 1 0.014492754 -4.2341065 -0.061363862
Cicadellidae 8 0.115942029 -2.15466496 -0.249816228
Apidae 1 0.014492754 -4.2341065 -0.061363862
Formicidae 8 0.115942029 -2.15466496 -0.249816228
Muscidae 3 0.043478261 -3.13549422 -0.136325835
Blattidae 5 0.072463768 -2.62466859 -0.190193376
Drosophilidae 3 0.043478261 -3.13549422 -0.136325835
Staphylinidae 3 0.043478261 -3.13549422 -0.136325835
Trichogrammatidae 1 0.014492754 -4.2341065 -0.061363862
Aeolothripidae 1 0.014492754 -4.2341065 -0.061363862
Acrididae 5 0.072463768 -2.62466859 -0.190193376
Scraptidae 1 0.014492754 -4.2341065 -0.061363862
Psychodidae 2 0.028985507 -3.54095932 -0.102636502
Chironomidae 1 0.014492754 -4.2341065 -0.061363862
Termitidae 2 0.028985507 -3.54095932 -0.102636502
Vespidae 2 0.028985507 -3.54095932 -0.102636502
Cantharidae 2 0.028985507 -3.54095932 -0.102636502
Harpalinae 2 0.028985507 -3.54095932 -0.102636502
Pompilidae 3 0.043478261 -3.13549422 -0.136325835
Sphecidae 1 0.014492754 -4.2341065 -0.061363862
Tortricidae 1 0.014492754 -4.2341065 -0.061363862
Cercopidae 1 0.014492754 -4.2341065 -0.061363862
69 -2.949370105
Species Diversity 2.949370105
Evenness 0.916273341
Species Richness 25
 24

Appendix A (continued)

Computation of Species Abundance, Diversity, Evenness,

and Richness of Nocturnal Insects

Abundance, diversity, evenness, and richness obtained from obtained from Blue Light
Family Number of species Pi ln(Pi) Pi x ln(Pi)
Formicidae 12 0.137931034 -1.98100147 -0.273241582
Mymaridae 4 0.045977011 -3.07961376 -0.141591437
Cicadellidae 8 0.091954023 -2.38646658 -0.219445202
Scraptiidae 7 0.08045977 -2.51999797 -0.202758457
Culicidae 11 0.126436782 -2.06801285 -0.261472889
Blattidae 5 0.057471264 -2.85647021 -0.164164954
Termitidae 3 0.034482759 -3.36729583 -0.116113649
Aderidae 2 0.022988506 -3.77276094 -0.086730137
Bostrichidae 2 0.022988506 -3.77276094 -0.086730137
Trichogrammatidae 3 0.034482759 -3.36729583 -0.116113649
Vespidae 4 0.045977011 -3.07961376 -0.141591437
Rhagonidae 4 0.045977011 -3.07961376 -0.141591437
Muscidae 2 0.022988506 -3.77276094 -0.086730137
Tipulidae 3 0.034482759 -3.36729583 -0.116113649
Curculionidae 1 0.011494253 -4.46590812 -0.051332277
Acrididae 3 0.034482759 -3.36729583 -0.116113649
Pompilidae 2 0.022988506 -3.77276094 -0.086730137
Sciaridae 2 0.022988506 -3.77276094 -0.086730137
Bibionidae 3 0.034482759 -3.36729583 -0.116113649
Sphecidae 2 0.022988506 -3.77276094 -0.086730137
Aleyrodidae 1 0.011494253 -4.46590812 -0.051332277
Scarabaeidae 2 0.022988506 -3.77276094 -0.086730137
UNKNOWN 1 0.011494253 -4.46590812 -0.051332277
87 -2.88753343
Species Diversity 2.88753343
Evenness 0.920918117
Species Richness 23
 25

Appendix B

Photographs of recorded and identified nocturnal insects

A. Identified species (red light)

Species #1: Muscidae

Species #2: Cicadellidae

 26

Appendix B (continued)

Species #3: Aeshnidae

Species #4: Acrididae Species #5: Torymidae

Species #6: Aeshnidae Species #7: Culicidae

 27

Appendix B (continued)

Species #8: Muscidae

Species #9: Aeshnidae

 28

Appendix B (continued)

Species #10: Blattidae

Species #11: Triozidae

 29

Appendix B (continued)

Species #12: Cicadidae

B. Identified species (orange light)

Species #13: Termitidae

Species #14: Aeshnidae Species #15: Culicidae

 30

Appendix B (continued)

Species #16: Aeshnidae

Species #17: Culicidae

 31

Appendix B (continued)

Species #18: Triozidae

Species #19: Culicidae

 32

Appendix B (continued)

Species #20: Formicidae

Species #21: Aleyrodidae

Species #22: Muscidae

 33

Appendix B (continued)

Species #23: Aeshnidae

Species #24: Culicidae

Species #25: Aleyrodidae

 34

Appendix B (continued)

Species #26: Formicidae

Species #27: Sphingidae

 35

Appendix B (continued)

Species #28: Blattidae

Species #29: Blattidae

 36

Appendix B (continued)

C. Identified species (green light)

Species #30: Aeshnidae

Species #31: Culicidae

Species #32: Tenebrionidae

 37

Appendix B (continued)

Species #33: Cucujidae

Species #34:Aeshnidae Species #35: Cicadellidae

Species #36: Apoidea

 38

Appendix B (continued)

Species #37: Formicidae

Species #38: Muscidae

Species #39: Blattidae

 39

Appendix B (continued)

Species #40: Cicadellidae

Species #41: Formicidae

Species #42: Drosophilidae

 40

Appendix B (continued)

Species #43: Blattidae

Species #44: Cicadellidae

 41

Appendix B (continued)

Species #45: Culcidae Species #46: Formicidae

Species #47: Culcidae

Species #48: Cicadellidae

 42

Appendix B (continued)

Species #49: Staphylinidae

Species #50: Trichogrammatidae

Species #51: Aeolothripidae

 43

Appendix B (continued)

Species #52: Formicidae

Species #53: Acrididae

Species #54: Formicidae

 44

Appendix B (continued)

Species #55: Apidae

Species #56: Scraptiidae

Species #57: Psychodidae

 45

Appendix B (continued)

Species #58: Cicadellidae

Species #59: Culicidae

Species #60: Formicidae

 46

Appendix B (continued)

Species #61: Chironomidae (midge fly)

Species #62: Termitidae

Species #63: Vespidae

 47

Appendix B (continued)

Species #64: Formicidae

Species #65: Termitidae

Species #66: Aeshnidae

 48

Appendix B (continued)

Species #67: Cantharidae

Species #68: Harpalinae

 49

Appendix B (continued)

Species #69: Aeshnidae

Species #70: Cicadellidae

 50

Appendix B (continued)

Species #71: Pompilidae

Species #72: Cicadellidae

Species #73: Pompilidae

 51

Appendix B (continued)

Species #74: Sphecidae

Species #75: Tortricidae

 52

Appendix B (continued)

Species #76: Aeshnidae

Species #77: Formicidae

 53

Appendix B (continued)

Species #78: Cercopidae

D. Identified species under blue light

Species #79: Formicidae Species #80: Mymaridae

Species #81: Cicadellidae

 54

Appendix B (continued)

Species #82: Scraptiidae

Species #83: Cicadellidae

Species #84: Cicadellidae

 55

Appendix B (continued)

Species #85: Culicidae

Species #86: Culicidae

Species #87: Scraptiidae

 56

Appendix B (continued)

Species #88: Formicidae

Species #89: Cicadellidae

Species #90: Culicidae

 57

Appendix B (continued)

Species #91: Formicidae

Species #92: Unknown

Species #93: Blattidae

 58

Appendix B (continued)

Species #94: Culicidae

Species #95: Termitidae

Species #96: Scraptiidae

 59

Appendix B (continued)

Species #97: Aderidae

Species #98: Cicadellidae

Species #99: Scraptiidae

 60

Appendix B (continued)

Species #100: Bostrichidae

Species #101: Cicadellidae Species #102: Trichogrammatidae

Species #103: Scraptiidae

 61

Appendix B (continued)

Species #104: Termitidae

Species #105: Formicidae

Species #106: Formicidae

 62

Appendix B (continued)

Species #107: Vespidae

Species #108: Culicidae

Species #109: Formicidae

 63

Appendix B (continued)

Species #110: Rhagonidae

Species #111: Muscidae

Species #112: Formicidae

 64

Appendix B (continued)

Species #113: Tipulidae

Species #114: Vespidae

Species #115: Curculionidae

 65

Appendix B (continued)

Species #116: Mymaridae

Species #117: Formicidae

Species #118: Vespidae

 66

Appendix B (continued)

Species #119: Formicidae

Species 120: Culicidae Species #121: Acrididae

Species 122: Cicadellidae

 67

Appendix B (continued)

Species #123: Agenioideus

Species #124: Sciaridae

Species #125: Bibionidae

 68

Appendix B (continued)

Species #126: Sphecidae

Species #127: Culicidae

Species #128:
 69

Appendix B (continued)

Species #129: Blattidae

Species 130: Agenioideus

Species #131: Blattidae

 70

Appendix B (continued)

Species #132: Blattidae

Species #133: Formicidae

Species #134: Culicidae

 71

Appendix B (continued)

Species #135: Culicidae Species #136: Aleyrodidae

Species #137: Scarabaeidae

Species #138: Scarabaeidae

 72

Appendix B (continued)

Species 139: Acrididae

73