Pelagic organisms avoid white, blue, and red artificial light from scientific instruments
1.Berge, J. et al. Artificial light during the polar night disrupts Arctic fish and zooplankton behaviour down to 200 m depth. Commun. Biol. 3, 102. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-0807-6 (2020).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
2.Davies, T. W., McKee, D., Fishwick, J., Tidau, S. & Smyth, T. Biologically important artificial light at night on the seafloor. Sci. Rep. 10, 12545. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69461-6 (2020).ADS
CAS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
3.Ludvigsen, M. et al. Use of an autonomous surface vehicle reveals small-scale diel vertical migrations of zooplankton and susceptibility to light pollution under low solar irradiance. Sci. Adv. 4, eaap9887. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aap9887 (2018).ADS
Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
4.Utne-Palm, A. C., Breen, M., Løkkeborg, S. & Humborstad, O. B. Behavioural responses of krill and cod to artificial light in laboratory experiments. PLoS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190918 (2018).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
5.Marchesan, M., Spoto, M., Verginella, L. & Ferrero, E. A. Behavioural effects of artificial light on fish species of commercial interest. Fish. Res. 73, 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2004.12.009 (2005).Article
Google Scholar
6.Stickney, A. P. Factors influencing the attraction of Atlantic Herring. Fish. Bull. 68, 73–85 (1969).
Google Scholar
7.Nguyen, K. Q. et al. Application of luminescent netting in traps to improve the catchability of the snow crab Chionoecetes opilio. Mar. Coast. Fish. 11, 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcf2.10084 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
8.Wiebe, P. H. et al. Using a high-powered strobe light to increase the catch of Antarctic krill. Mar. Biol. 144, 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-003-1228-z (2004).Article
Google Scholar
9.Nguyen, T. T. et al. Artificial light pollution increases the sensitivity of tropical zooplankton to extreme warming. Environ. Technol. Innov. 20, 101179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2020.101179 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
10.Kaartvedt, S., Røstad, A., Opdal, A. F. & Aksnes, D. L. Herding mesopelagic fish by light. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 625, 225–231 (2019).ADS
Article
Google Scholar
11.Underwood, M. J., Utne Palm, A. C., Øvredal, J. T. & Bjordal, Å. The response of mesopelagic organisms to artificial lights. Aquac. Fish. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2020.05.002 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
12.Peña, M., Cabrera-Gámez, J. & Domínguez-Brito, A. C. Multi-frequency and light-avoiding characteristics of deep acoustic layers in the North Atlantic. Mar. Environ. Res. 154, 104842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2019.104842 (2020).CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.Ryer, C. H., Stoner, A. W., Iseri, P. J. & Spencer, M. L. Effects of simulated underwater vehicle lighting on fish behavior. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 391, 97–106 (2009).ADS
Article
Google Scholar
14.Bicknell, A. W. J., Godley, B. J., Sheehan, E. V., Votier, S. C. & Witt, M. J. Camera technology for monitoring marine biodiversity and human impact. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 424–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1322 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
15.Picheral, M. et al. The Underwater Vision Profiler 5: An advanced instrument for high spatial resolution studies of particle size spectra and zooplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr. Meth. 8, 462–547. https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2010.8.462 (2010).Article
Google Scholar
16.Herman, A. W. & Harvey, M. Application of normalized biomass size spectra to laser optical plankton counter net intercomparisons of zooplankton distributions. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JC002948 (2006).Article
Google Scholar
17.Basedow, S. L., Tande, K. S., Norrbin, M. F. & Kristiansen, S. A. Capturing quantitative zooplankton information in the sea: Performance test of laser optical plankton counter and video plankton recorder in a Calanus finmarchicus dominated summer situation. Prog. Oceanogr. 108, 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2012.10.005 (2013).ADS
Article
Google Scholar
18.Sainmont, J. et al. Inter- and intra-specific diurnal habitat selection of zooplankton during the spring bloom observed by Video Plankton Recorder. Mar. Biol. 161, 1931–1941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-014-2475-x (2014).Article
Google Scholar
19.Schulz, J. et al. Imaging of plankton specimens with the lightframe on-sight key species investigation (LOKI) system. J. Eur. Opt. Soc. 5, 10017s (2010).Article
Google Scholar
20.Schmid, M. S., Aubry, C., Grigor, J. & Fortier, L. The LOKI underwater imaging system and an automatic identification model for the detection of zooplankton taxa in the Arctic Ocean. Meth. Oceanogr. 15–16, 129–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mio.2016.03.003 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
21.Williams, K., Rooper, C. N. & Towler, R. Use of stereo camera systems for assessment of rockfish abundance in untrawlable areas and for recording pollock behavior during midwater trawls. Fish. Bull. 108, 352–362 (2010).
Google Scholar
22.Boldt, J. L., Williams, K., Rooper, C. N., Towler, R. H. & Gauthier, S. Development of stereo camera methodologies to improve pelagic fish biomass estimates and inform ecosystem management in marine waters. Fish. Res. 198, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2017.10.013 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
23.Mallet, D. & Pelletier, D. Underwater video techniques for observing coastal marine biodiversity: A review of sixty years of publications (1952–2012). Fish. Res. 154, 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2014.01.019 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
24.Easton, R. R., Heppell, S. S. & Hannah, R. W. Quantification of habitat and community relationships among nearshore temperate fishes through analysis of drop camera video. Mar. Coast. Fish. 7, 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/19425120.2015.1007184 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
25.McLean, D. L. et al. Using industry ROV videos to assess fish associations with subsea pipelines. Cont. Shelf Res. 141, 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2017.05.006 (2017).ADS
Article
Google Scholar
26.Devine, B. M., Wheeland, L. J., de Moura Neves, B. & Fisher, J. A. D. Baited remote underwater video estimates of benthic fish and invertebrate diversity within the eastern Canadian Arctic. Polar Biol. 42, 1323–1341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-019-02520-5 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
27.Trenkel, V. M., Lorance, P. & Mahévas, S. Do visual transects provide true population density estimates for deepwater fish?. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 61, 1050–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2004.06.002 (2004).Article
Google Scholar
28.Widder, E. A., Robison, B. H., Reisenbichler, K. R. & Haddock, S. H. D. Using red light for in situ observations of deep-sea fishes. Deep-Sea Res. Part I(52), 2077–2085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2005.06.007 (2005).ADS
Article
Google Scholar
29.Benoit-Bird, K. J., Moline, M. A., Schofield, O. M., Robbins, I. C. & Waluk, C. M. Zooplankton avoidance of a profiled open-path fluorometer. J. Plankton Res. 32, 1413–1419. https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbq053 (2010).Article
Google Scholar
30.Doya, C. et al. Diel behavioral rhythms in sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) and other benthic species, as recorded by the Deep-sea cabled observatories in Barkley canyon (NEPTUNE-Canada). J. Mar. Syst. 130, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.04.003 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
31.Stoner, A. W., Ryer, C. H., Parker, S. J., Auster, P. J. & Wakefield, W. W. Evaluating the role of fish behavior in surveys conducted with underwater vehicles. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 65, 1230–1243. https://doi.org/10.1139/f08-032 (2008).Article
Google Scholar
32.Rooper, C. N., Williams, K., De Robertis, A. & Tuttle, V. Effect of underwater lighting on observations of density and behavior of rockfish during camera surveys. Fish. Res. 172, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.07.012 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
33.Hop, H. et al. The marine ecosystem of Kongsfjorden, Svalbard. Polar Res. 21, 167–208 (2002).Article
Google Scholar
34.Bandara, K. et al. Seasonal vertical strategies in a high-Arctic coastal zooplankton community. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 555, 49–64 (2016).ADS
Article
Google Scholar
35.Hop, H. et al. In The Ecosystem of Kongsfjorden, Svalbard (eds Hop, H. & Wiencke, C.) 229–300 (Springer International Publishing, 2019).Chapter
Google Scholar
36.Cusa, M., Berge, J. & Varpe, Ø. Seasonal shifts in feeding patterns: Individual and population realized specialization in a high Arctic fish. Ecol. Evol. 9, 11112–11121. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5615 (2019).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
37.Sakshaug, E., Johnsen, G. & Volent, Z. In Ecosystem Barents Sea (eds Sakshaug, E. et al.) 117–138 (Tapir Academic Press, 2009).
Google Scholar
38.Gordon, H. R. Can the Lambert–Beer law be applied to the diffuse attenuation coefficient of ocean water?. Limnol. Oceanogr. 34, 1389–1409. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1989.34.8.1389 (1989).ADS
Article
Google Scholar
39.McKee, D., Cunningham, A. & Craig, S. Estimation of absorption and backscattering coefficients from in situ radiometric measurements: Theory and validation in case II waters. App. Opt. 42, 2804–2810. https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.42.002804 (2003).ADS
Article
Google Scholar
40.Demer, D. A. et al. Calibration of acoustic instruments. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 326. 133 (2015).41.Mackenzie, K. V. Nine-term equation for sound speed in the oceans. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 70, 807 (1981).ADS
Article
Google Scholar
42.François, R. E. & Garrison, G. R. Sound absorption based on ocean measurements. Part II: Boric acid contribution and equation for total absorption. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 72, 1879–1890 (1982).ADS
Article
Google Scholar
43.De Robertis, A. & Higginbottom, I. A post-processing technique to estimate the signal-to-noise ratio and remove echosounder background noise. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64, 1282–1291. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsm112 (2007).Article
Google Scholar
44.Ryan, T. E., Downie, R. A., Kloser, R. J. & Keith, G. Reducing bias due to noise and attenuation in open-ocean echo integration data. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 72, 2482–2493. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv121 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
45.Bates, D., Machler, M., Bolker, B. M. & Walker, S. C. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Soft. 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
46.Bolker, B. M. et al. Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for ecology and evolution. TREE 24, 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008 (2009).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
47.Berge, J. et al. Unexpected levels of biological activity during the polar night offer new perspectives on a warming Arctic. Curr. Biol. 25, 2555–2561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.024 (2015).CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
48.Dalpadado, P. et al. Distribution and abundance of euphausiids and pelagic amphipods in Kongsfjorden, Isfjorden and Rijpfjorden (Svalbard) and changes in their relative importance as key prey in a warming marine ecosystem. Polar Biol. 39, 1765–1784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-015-1874-x (2016).Article
Google Scholar
49.Geoffroy, M. et al. Increased occurrence of the jellyfish Periphylla periphylla in the European high Arctic. Polar Biol. 41, 2615–2619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-018-2368-4 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
50.Jarms, G., Tiemann, H. & Båmstedt, U. Development and biology of Periphylla periphylla (Scyphozoa: Coronatae) in a Norwegian fjord. Mar. Biol. 141, 647–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-002-0858-x (2002).Article
Google Scholar
51.Pepin, P., Colbourne, E. & Maillet, G. Seasonal patterns in zooplankton community structure on the Newfoundland and Labrador Shelf. Prog. Oceanogr. 91, 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2011.01.003 (2011).ADS
Article
Google Scholar
52.Cohen, J. H. & Epifanio, C. E. In Developmental Biology and Larval Ecology, Ch. 12 (eds Anger, K. et al.) 332–359 (Oxford University Press, 2020).
Google Scholar
53.Orr, M. H. Remote acoustic detection of zooplankton response to field processes, oceanographic instrumentation, and predators. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38, 1096–1105. https://doi.org/10.1139/f81-149 (1981).Article
Google Scholar
54.Farmer, D. D., Crawford, G. B. & Osborn, T. R. Temperature and velocity microstructure caused by swimming fish1. Limnol. Oceanogr. 32, 978–983. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1987.32.4.0978 (1987).ADS
Article
Google Scholar
55.Koslow, J. A., Kloser, R. & Stanley, C. A. Avoidance of a camera system by a deepwater fish, the orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus). Deep-Sea Res Part I 42, 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/0967-0637(95)93714-P (1995).Article
Google Scholar
56.Raymond, E. H. & Widder, E. A. Behavioral responses of two deep-sea fish species to red, far-red, and white light. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 350, 291–298 (2007).ADS
Article
Google Scholar
57.Bassett, D. K. & Montgomery, J. C. Investigating nocturnal fish populations in situ using baited underwater video: With special reference to their olfactory capabilities. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 409, 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2011.08.019 (2011).Article
Google Scholar
58.Brill, R., Magel, C., Davis, M., Hannah, R. & Rankin, P. Effects of rapid decompression and exposure to bright light on visual function in black rockfish (Sebastes melanops) and Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis). Fish. Bull. 106, 427–437 (2008).
Google Scholar
59.Turner, J. R., White, E. M., Collins, M. A., Partridge, J. C. & Douglas, R. H. Vision in lanternfish (Myctophidae): Adaptations for viewing bioluminescence in the deep-sea. Deep-Sea Res. Part I 56, 1003–1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2009.01.007 (2009).CAS
Article
Google Scholar
60.de Busserolles, F. & Marshall, N. J. Seeing in the deep-sea: Visual adaptations in lanternfishes. Philos. Trans. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 372, 20160070. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0070 (2017).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
61.Valen, R., Edvardsen, R. B., Søviknes, A. M., Drivenes, Ø. & Helvik, J. V. Molecular evidence that only two opsin subfamilies, the blue light- (SWS2) and green light-sensitive (RH2), drive colour vision in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). PLoS One 9, e115436. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115436 (2015).ADS
CAS
Article
Google Scholar
62.Anthony, P. D. & Hawkins, A. D. Spectral sensitivity of the cod, Gadus morhua L. Mar. Behav. Physiol. 10, 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10236248309378614 (1983).Article
Google Scholar
63.Govardovskii, V. I., Fyhrquist, N., Reuter, T., Kuzmin, D. G. & Donner, K. In search of the visual pigment template. Vis. Neurosci. 17, 509–528. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952523800174036 (2000).CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
64.Frank, T. M. & Widder, E. A. Comparative study of the spectral sensitivities of mesopelagic crustaceans. J. Comp. Physiol. A 185, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003590050385 (1999).Article
Google Scholar
65.Båtnes, A. S., Miljeteig, C., Berge, J., Greenacre, M. & Johnsen, G. Quantifying the light sensitivity of Calanus spp. during the polar night: Potential for orchestrated migrations conducted by ambient light from the sun, moon, or aurora borealis?. Polar Biol. 38, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-013-1415-4 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
66.Cohen, J. H. et al. Is ambient light during the high Arctic polar night sufficient to act as a visual cue for zooplankton?. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126247 (2015).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
67.Jinks, R. N. et al. Adaptive visual metamorphosis in a deep-sea hydrothermal vent crab. Nature 420, 68–70. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01144 (2002).ADS
CAS
Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
68.Aguzzi, J. et al. The potential of video imagery from worldwide cabled observatory networks to provide information supporting fish-stock and biodiversity assessment. ICES J. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa169 (2020).Article
Google Scholar More