Artificial light at night (ALAN) is increasing exponentially worldwide, accelerated by the transition to new efficient lighting technologies. However, ALAN and resulting light pollution can cause unintended physiological consequences. In vertebrates, production of melatonin—the “hormone of darkness” and a key player in circadian regulation—can be suppressed by ALAN. In this paper, we provide an overview of research on melatonin and ALAN in vertebrates. We discuss how ALAN disrupts natural photic environments, its effect on melatonin and circadian rhythms, and different photoreceptor systems across vertebrate taxa. We then present the results of a systematic review in which we identified studies on melatonin under typical light-polluted conditions in fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, including humans. Melatonin is suppressed by extremely low light intensities in many vertebrates, ranging from 0.01–0.03 lx for fishes and rodents to 6 lx for sensitive humans. Even lower, wavelength-dependent intensities are implied by some studies and require rigorous testing in ecological contexts. In many studies, melatonin suppression occurs at the minimum light levels tested, and, in better-studied groups, melatonin suppression is reported to occur at lower light levels. We identify major research gaps and conclude that, for most groups, crucial information is lacking. No studies were identified for amphibians and reptiles and long-term impacts of low-level ALAN exposure are unknown. Given the high sensitivity of vertebrate melatonin production to ALAN and the paucity of available information, it is crucial to research impacts of ALAN further in order to inform effective mitigation strategies for human health and the wellbeing and fitness of vertebrates in natural ecosystems.

Artificial light at night (ALAN) is recognized as a contributor to environmental change and a biodiversity threat on a global scale. Despite its widespread use and numerous potential ecological effects, few studies have investigated the impacts on aquatic ecosystems and primary producers. Light is a source of energy and information for benthic autotrophs that form the basis of food webs in clear, shallow waters. Artificial night‐time illumination may thus affect biomass and community composition of primary producers. We experimentally mimicked the light conditions of a light‐polluted area (approximately 20 lux, white LED) in streamside flumes on a sub‐alpine stream. We compared the biomass and community composition of periphyton grown under ALAN with periphyton grown under a natural light regime in two seasons using communities in early (up to 3 weeks) and later (4–6 weeks) developmental stages. In early periphyton, ALAN decreased the biomass of autotrophs in both spring (57% at 3 weeks) and autumn (43% at 2 weeks), decreased the proportion of cyanobacteria in spring (54%), and altered the proportion of diatoms in autumn (11% decrease at 2 weeks and 5% increase at 3 weeks). No effects of ALAN were observed for later periphyton. Further work is needed to test whether streams with frequent physical disturbances that reset the successional development of periphyton are more affected by ALAN than streams with more stable conditions. As periphyton is a fundamental component of stream ecosystems, the impact of ALAN might propagate to higher trophic levels and/or affect critical ecosystem functions.

Widespread and significant declines of insect population abundances and biomass are currently one of the most pressing issues in entomology, ecology and conservation biology. It has been suggested that artificial light at night is one major driver behind this trend. Recent advances in the gathering and analysis of long‐term data sets of insect population and biomass trends, however, have mostly focused on the effects of climate change and agricultural intensification. We posit here that adequate assessment of artificial night at light that would be required to evaluate its role as a driver of insect declines is far from trivial. Currently its implementation into entomological monitoring programmes and long‐running ecological experiments is hampered by several challenges that arise due to (i) its relatively late appearance as a biodiversity threat on the research agenda and (ii) the interdisciplinary nature of the research field where biologists, physicists and engineers still need to develop a set of standardised assessment methods that are both biologically meaningful and easy to implement. As more studies that address these challenges are urgently needed, this article aims to provide a short overview of the few existing studies that have attempted to investigate longer‐term effects of artificial light at night on insect populations. To improve the quality and relevance of studies addressing artificial light at night and its effect on insects, we present a set of best practise recommendations where this field needs to be heading in the coming years and how to achieve it.

The increasing use of artificial light at night (ALAN) has led to exposure of freshwater ecosystems to light pollution worldwide. Simultaneously, the spectral composition of nocturnal illumination is changing, following the current shift in outdoor lighting technologies from traditional light sources to light emitting diodes (LED). LEDs emit broad-spectrum white light, with a significant amount of photosynthetically active radiation, and typically a high content of blue light that regulates circadian rhythms in many organisms. While effects of the shift to LED have been investigated in nocturnal animals, its impact on primary producers is unknown. We performed three field experiments in a lowland agricultural drainage ditch to assess the impacts of a transition from high-pressure sodium (HPS) to white LED illumination (color temperature 4000 K) on primary producers in periphyton. In all experiments, we compared biomass and pigment composition of periphyton grown under a natural light regime to that of periphyton exposed to nocturnal HPS or, consecutively, LED light of intensities commonly found in urban waters (approximately 20 lux). Periphyton was collected in time series (1-13 weeks). We found no effect of HPS light on periphyton biomass; however, following a shift to LED the biomass decreased up to 62%. Neither light source had a substantial effect on pigment composition. The contrasting effects of the two light sources on biomass may be explained by differences in their spectral composition, and in particular the blue content. Our results suggest that spectral composition of the light source plays a role in determining the impacts of ALAN on periphyton and that the ongoing transition to LED may increase the ecological impacts of artificial lighting on aquatic primary producers. Reduced biomass in the base of the food web can impact ecosystem functions such as productivity and food supply for higher trophic levels in nocturnally-lit ecosystems.