I never tire of staring at images of light pollution from space. It is amazing how little some parts are lit up too.
Unfortunately, I have noticed the effects of light pollution over the last few years and the number of stars visible in some remote places has definately gone down.
J. C. Samuelson
· 1 year ago
I like those images too. In fact, I have an image similar to the one in this post as my background at work. It's included along with the build our machines have installed.
It is amazing, I agree, that there are significant portions that aren't very lit up. As it happens, slightly less than 19% of the planet's terrestrial surface is subjected to artificial brightness considered "polluted" by astronomical standards. However, this 19% is growing, and is centered on areas of human habitation. While some areas will probably remain darker due to their relatively inhospitable environments (there will always be less population density on top of a mountain than at its base, obviously, and also less in the midst of an arid desert than on the banks of a river), many already have measurable artificial brightness due to the propagation of light away from the source.
As someone interested in biology, how realistic do you think the potential is for light pollution to significantly alter the course of evolution? Have we blindly imposed a seemingly benign but powerful force for artificial selection on a grand scale? I'm just wondering because light seems to affect so many different species - birds, bats, insects, amphibians, etc. - that it seems unlikely that evolution has not been redirected in some way by our actions.
Thoughts?
Billy
· 1 year ago
Light certainly is a strong selection pressure for some species - like moths wasting all their energy on street lights, or turtles comming ashore at the wron spot to lay eggs. The good news is that it is easy to evolve a shift in wavelength detection. It usually only takes a single base. This seems to be a recurent theme in evolution (got a post on the evolution of trichromatic vision here http://basketofpuppies- billy.blogspot.com/2... although that is a bit more complicatrd than simple point mutations)
It will be interesting to see what is found
J. C. Samuelson
· 1 year ago
So I guess what you're saying is that light pollution may not "significantly alter the course of evolution," right? That is a bit of a sweeping statement, I suppose. :)
Like you, I think it would be interesting to learn how much of an influence light pollution might have on the ecosystem as a whole.
Billy
· 1 year ago
I think it will affect it, but the possible mutations required to adapt are fairly simple, so in evolutionary terms likely to occur rapidly.
I wrote a post a while back on the speed of evolutionary change in coat colour. It doesn't take that long. This does not of course mean that it will happen though. Population size and the strength of the selection pressure are also important factors.
All Comments
Unfortunately, I have noticed the effects of light pollution over the last few years and the number of stars visible in some remote places has definately gone down.
It is amazing, I agree, that there are significant portions that aren't very lit up. As it happens, slightly less than 19% of the planet's terrestrial surface is subjected to artificial brightness considered "polluted" by astronomical standards. However, this 19% is growing, and is centered on areas of human habitation. While some areas will probably remain darker due to their relatively inhospitable environments (there will always be less population density on top of a mountain than at its base, obviously, and also less in the midst of an arid desert than on the banks of a river), many already have measurable artificial brightness due to the propagation of light away from the source.
As someone interested in biology, how realistic do you think the potential is for light pollution to significantly alter the course of evolution? Have we blindly imposed a seemingly benign but powerful force for artificial selection on a grand scale? I'm just wondering because light seems to affect so many different species - birds, bats, insects, amphibians, etc. - that it seems unlikely that evolution has not been redirected in some way by our actions.
Thoughts?
billy.blogspot.com/2... although that is a bit more complicatrd than simple point mutations)
It will be interesting to see what is found
Like you, I think it would be interesting to learn how much of an influence light pollution might have on the ecosystem as a whole.
I wrote a post a while back on the speed of evolutionary change in coat colour. It doesn't take that long. This does not of course mean that it will happen though. Population size and the strength of the selection pressure are also important factors.
http://basketofpuppies-
billy.blogspot.com/2008/08/how-
long-does-it-take-to-evolve-new.html
The order is different to all the usual blog sites I go on.
Silly me.
Tonight on my front street I could just (and I mean just) could see the milkyway...
Just got this comment engine, so I'll tweak it a bit. You're right it doesn't make sense.