Advertisement

Anthropogenic Polarization and Polarized Light Pollution Inducing Polarized Ecological Traps

  • Gábor Horváth
  • György Kriska
  • Bruce Robertson
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Vision Research book series (SSVR, volume 2)

Abstract

In the last decade it has been recognized that the artificial polarization of light can have uniquely disruptive effects on animals capable of seeing it and has led to the identification of polarized light pollution (PLP) as a new kind of ecological photopollution. In this chapter we review some typical examples for PLP and the resulting polarized ecological traps. All such polarized-light-polluting artificial surfaces are characterized by strongly and horizontally polarized reflected light attracting positively polarotactic aquatic insects, the larvae of which develop in water or mud, such as aquatic beetles (Coleoptera), water bugs (Heteroptera), dragonflies (Odonata), mayflies (Ephemeroptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera) and tabanid flies (Tabanidae), for example. We survey here the PLP of asphalt surfaces, solar panels, agricultural black plastic sheets, glass surfaces, black gravestones and the paintwork of black-, red- and dark-coloured cars. We show how the maladaptive attractiveness (PLP) of certain artificial surfaces to polarotactic insects can be reduced or eliminated. We consider how birds, spiders and bats exploit polarotactic insects trapped by different sources of PLP. We deal with the phenomenon that the vertically polarized mirror image of bridges seen at the river surface can deceive swarming polarotactic mayflies, which is an atypical kind of PLP. We explain why strongly polarizing black burnt-up stubble fields do not attract aquatic insects, which is an example for a horizontal, black polarizing surface that does not induce PLP and thus is an exception proving the rule. Finally, we show that phototaxis and polarotaxis together have a more harmful effect on the dispersal flight of night-active aquatic insects than they would have separately. This provides experimental evidence for the synergistic interaction of phototaxis and polarotaxis in these insects.

Keywords

Aquatic Insect Solar Panel Light Pollution Asphalt Road Glass Pane 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material

71484_2_En_20_MOESM1_ESM.zip (2.1 mb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.1 Two typical examples for polarized light pollution. (a) Mayflies attracted to a shiny black car (photograph: courtesy of Rebecca Allen). (b) Mayflies landed on a vertical glass pane (photograph: courtesy of Will Milne) (CDR 2103 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM2_ESM.zip (4.8 mb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.4 Polarotactic aquatic insects and insects associated with water deceived by and attracted to different sources of polarized light pollution (photographs taken by György Kriska). Row 1: Some typical representatives of insects trapped by a crude oil lake in the desert of Kuwait (a), and a waste oil lake in Budapest, Hungary (bd). (a) Hawker dragonfly (Aeschnidae) (courtesy of Jochen Zeil). (b) An emperor dragonfly (Anax imperator) and scavenger beetles (Hydrophilidae). (c) A mayfly (Cloeon dipterum). (d) A great silver diving beetle (Hydrophilus piceus). Row 2: Water insects landed on horizontal shiny black dry plastic sheets used in agriculture. (e) A female large stonefly (Perla abdominalis). (f) A tabanid fly (Tabanidae). (g) Copulating mayflies (Rhithrogena semicolorata). (h) A female mayfly (Ephemera danica) laying her eggs on the black plastic sheet. Row 3: (i) Mass swarming of Hydropsyche pellucidula caddisflies (white spots) in front of the vertical glass surfaces of a building on the bank of the river Danube in Budapest. (j) A H. pellucidula landed on a pane of glass. (k) A copulating pair of H. pellucidula on a glass pane. (l) A male dragonfly (Sympetrum sp.) perching near a polished black tombstone. Row 4: Insects associated with water on the dry roof of a red car. (m) A mayfly (Heptageniidae). (n) A water bug (Sigara striata). (o) A scavenger beetle (Hydrochara caraboides). (p) A tabanid fly (Tabanidae). Row 5: Aquatic insects landed on dry asphalt roads. (q) A male mayfly (Epeorus silvicola). (r) Copulating mayflies (Rhithrogena semicolorata). (s) Oviposition by a female large stonefly (Perla abdominalis), whose black egg batch at the tip of her abdomen is shown by the tip of a white arrow. (t) A great silver diving beetle (Hydrophilus piceus) (CDR 4893 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM3_ESM.zip (4.8 mb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.5 Predators feeding on the polarotactic insects attracted to two different sources of polarized light pollution (photographs taken by György Kriska and Gábor Horváth). Rows 1–2: Urban birds feeding on the mass-swarming caddisflies, Hydropsyche pellucidula attracted to vertical glass surfaces. ab: A male house sparrow (Passer domesticus) hunting caddisflies at a window. c: A great tit (Parus major) standing on a window frame. d: A P. major following caddisflies with attention. e: A European magpie (Pica pica) on an edge of a building. f: A P. pica on wing capturing caddisflies from a glass pane. g: A white wagtail (Motacilla alba) perching on a protrusion of a building. h: A hovering wagtail gathering caddisflies from a glass pane. Row 3: Spiders on the wall of a building where caddisflies (H. pellucidula) swarmed. i: An Araneus umbraticus feeding on a caddisfly captured by its cobweb. j: A long jawed spider (Tetragnathidae) on a brick. k: A crab spider (Thomisidae) between two bricks. l: A jumping spider (Salticus zebraneus) on a brick. Row 4: Carcasses of insectivorous vertebrates lured by polarotactic insects and trapped by the waste oil lake in Budapest. The insects were attracted to the polarized-light-polluting oil surface. m: A black redstart (Phoenicurus ochruros). n: A European goldfinch (Carduelis carduelis). o: A yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella). p: A flock of European greenfinches (Carduelis chloris). q: A European magpie (Pica pica). r: A bat (Chiroptera). s: A long-eared owl (Asio otus). t: A kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) (CDR 4918 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM4_ESM.zip (6.9 mb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.6 Examples of aquatic insects attracted to and landed on a dry asphalt road in the immediate vicinity of a mountain creek near Budapest, Hungary in June 1997 (ac) and 2008 (di). (a) A male Rhithrogena semicolorata mayfly. (b) A female Epeorus silvicola mayfly. (c) A female and two male Epeorus silvicola attempting to mate. (d) A male Epeorus silvicola. (e) A male Ephemera danica mayfly. (f) A female Perla abdominalis stonefly. (gi) Carcasses of female Perla abdominalis run over by cars [after Fig. 1 on page 2 of Horváth et al. (2010a)] (CDR 7089 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM5_ESM.zip (649 kb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.11 Schematic representation of the directions of polarization (double-headed arrows) of light reflected from a sunlit dry asphalt road for three different solar directions [after Fig. 13 on page 28 of Horváth et al. (2010a)] (CDR 654 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM6_ESM.zip (2.9 mb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.12 Schematic representation of the directions of polarization (double-headed arrows) of skylight/sunlight reflected from shady/sunlit regions of a dry asphalt road [after Fig. 14 on page 29 of Horváth et al. (2010a)] (CDR 3007 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM7_ESM.zip (2.6 mb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.15 Polarotactic aquatic insects attracted to and landed on the shiny black surface of horizontal solar panels. (a) Adult female stonefly (Perla abdominalis). (b) Female mayfly (Rhithrogena semicolorata) with a white egg batch on the end of her abdomen. (c) A dolichopodid fly (Dolichopodidae). (d) Female mayflies (Ephemera danica), the elongated white egg batches of which laid onto the panel are clearly seen. (e, f) Tabanid flies (Tabanidae) landed on a homogeneous black solar panel (e) and a white-gridded solar panel (f) [after Supplementary Fig. S1 of Horváth et al. (2010b)] (CDR 2709 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM8_ESM.zip (1.4 mb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.19 The use of strongly and horizontally polarizing, shiny black plastic sheets on several hectares became widespread in agriculture, especially in the modern raised-bed technology of strawberry production (CDR 1456 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM9_ESM.zip (870 kb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.20 (a, b) Laying a black and a white plastic sheet (600 m2) onto the ground in the field experiment of Bernáth et al. (2008). (c, d) The plastic sheets were pinned down by bricks on their edges and restretched regularly. Their surface imitated the polarized light signature of a dark and bright water body (CDR 876 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM10_ESM.zip (2.3 mb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.21 Behaviour of wagtails (Motacilla alba and M. flava) on the plastic sheets used in the field experiments of Bernáth et al. (2008). (a) Wagtails gathered on the plastic sheets even in the very first evening of their deployment. (b) Birds fed in flocks, aggressive behaviour was rarely observed even if birds approached each other nearer than 1 m. (c) In the first days the birds preferred to sit on the bricks spinning down the edge of the sheets, and they frequently flew over the sheets. Later on they walked on the plastic surface (d) chasing (e) and picking (f) small insects attracted to and flying over the plastic (CDR 2335 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM11_ESM.zip (3.4 mb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.25 (a) Mass swarming of Hydropsyche pellucidula caddisflies (white spots) in front of the vertical glass panes of a building of the Eötvös University in Budapest on 1 May 2007. (b) Numerous individuals of H. pellucidula (black spots) landed on the glass panes [after Fig. 1 on page 462 of Kriska et al. (2008)] (CDR 3525 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM12_ESM.zip (5.1 mb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.26 (a) A Hydropsyche pellucidula landed on the outside surface of a glass window and photographed from inside a room. (b) A copulating pair of H. pellucidula on the outside of a glass pane and photographed from inside. (c) Adult H. pellucidula landed on the inside surface of a window (the picture is rotated by 90°). (d) Numerous carcasses of H. pellucidula trapped by a partly open tiltable window [after Fig. 2 on page 464 of Kriska et al. (2008)]. (e) Light micrograph of some freshly laid eggs of H. pellucidula. (f) Light micrograph of some dried-out eggs of H. pellucidula (CDR 5204 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM13_ESM.zip (3.8 mb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.32 (a) Hovering white wagtail (Motacilla alba) catching caddisflies from a window. (b) House sparrow (Passer domesticus) capturing caddisflies from a vertical glass surface. (c) Great tit (Parus major) standing on a window’s edge and catching caddisflies. (d) European magpie (Pica pica) on wing capturing landed caddisflies from a window [after Fig. 2 on page 287 of Robertson et al. (2010)] (CDR 3910 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM14_ESM.zip (9 mb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.34 (a, b) Male and female Sympetrum dragonflies perching on the tips of sunlit iron railings in a cemetery in the Hungarian town Kiskunhalas. (ce) Male Sympetrum dragonflies perching near polished black tombstones. (f) A female Sympetrum dragonfly displaying touching behaviour at the shiny black plastic sheet used in the double-choice experiments of Horváth et al. (2007). The photo shows the brief moment when the female touches the test surface with her legs and ventral body side [after Fig. 1 on page 1703 of Horváth et al. (2007)] (CDR 9238 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM15_ESM.zip (1.8 mb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.36 Insects associated with water landing on the roof of a red car. (a) A male mayfly (Baetis sp.) (b) Another mayfly (Epeorus silvicola) (c) A scavenger beetle (Hydrochara caraboides). (d) A water bug (Sigara striata). The insects were observed and photographed in April and May of 2005 in Hungary on the roof of the same red car [after Fig. 1 on page 1668 of Kriska et al. (2006a)] (CDR 1822 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM16_ESM.zip (3.8 mb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.42 A territorial male Libellula depressa perching on the tip of the radio antenna of a dark-green car parked by a vineyard. The body axis is held parallel to the steeply incident sun rays, thus minimizing heating of the body. The colour of the car roof is not clearly visible because the sky and the nearby surroundings are mirrored at the shiny surface [after Fig. 1 on page 98 of Wildermuth and Horváth (2005)] (CDR 3847 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM17_ESM.zip (1.4 mb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.43 (a) Aerial photograph of the bridge over river Tisza at the village Tivadar (http://maps.google.com/maps). (b) The bridge photographed from the left bank of Tisza. Arrows show flow direction. (c) Palingenia longicauda mayflies (marked by bright dots for visibility) at the downstream side of the bridge. The curved arrow shows the typical turning-back flight. (d) The asphalt road on the bridge. (e) Mayflies (bright dots) at the upstream side of the bridge. The straight arrow shows the typical horizontal flight. (f, g) Egg-laying Palingenia longicauda on the dry (f) and wet (g) asphalt road of the bridge [after Fig. 1 on page 825 of Málnás et al. (2011)] (CDR 1484 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM18_ESM.zip (4 mb)
Colour Version of Fig. 20.47 A Hungarian stubble field near Balatonszemes (46° 82′ N, 17° 78′ E) prior to burning (a), during burning (b) and after burning (c). (d) Black ash of the burnt-up stubble field [after Fig. 1 on page 4383 of Kriska et al. (2006b)] (CDR 4129 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM19_ESM.zip (1.1 mb)
Supplementary Fig. 20.1 Colour picture and patterns of the intensity I, degree of linear polarization d and angle of polarization α (clockwise from the vertical) of light reflected from a sunlit, partly shady, dry asphalt road measured in the red (650 nm), green (550 nm) and blue (450 nm) parts of the spectrum by imaging polarimetry. The polarimeter viewed towards the solar meridian, and the angle of elevation of its optical axis was −35° from the horizontal. In the bottom row double-headed arrows show the local direction of polarization of reflected light [after Fig. 4 on page 14 of Horváth et al. (2010a)] (CDR 1140 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM20_ESM.zip (1.7 mb)
Supplementary Fig. 20.2 Reflection-polarization patterns of a sunlit dry asphalt surface from four different directions of view relative to the solar meridian measured in the green (550 nm) part of the spectrum. The angle of elevation of the polarimeter’s optical ‘axis was −35° from the horizontal. In the lowermost row double-headed arrows show the local direction’ of polarization of reflected light. (a) Viewing towards the solar meridian (SM). (b) Viewing clockwise perpendicularly to the solar meridian (PSM) with sun at the left hand side with 45° solar elevation. (c) Viewing towards the antisolar meridian (ASM). (d) Viewing anticlockwise perpendicularly to the solar meridian (PSM) with sun at the right hand side at 45° solar elevation [after Fig. 5 on page 17 of Horváth et al. (2010a)] (CDR 1787 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM21_ESM.zip (916 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 20.3 Reflection-polarization patterns of a dry asphalt surface when it was lit by streetlamps (a) and sunlight (b) measured in the green (550 nm) part of the spectrum. The polarimeter viewed towards the source of light (streetlamp, sun) and the angle of elevation of its optical axis was −20° from the horizontal. In the lowermost row doubleheaded arrows show the local direction of polarization of reflected light [after Fig. 7 on page 19 of Horváth et al. (2010a)] (CDR 926 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM22_ESM.zip (489 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 20.4 Reflection-polarization patterns of an asphalt road with patches of smooth and rough surface measured in the green (550 nm) part of the spectrum. The angle of elevation of the polarimeter’s optical axis was −35° from the horizontal, and the asphalt was illuminated by skylight at sunset. In the lowermost row double-headed arrows show the local direction of polarization of reflected light [after Fig. 10 on page 23 of Horváth et al. (2010a)] (CDR 500 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM23_ESM.zip (6.3 mb)
Supplementary Fig. 20.5 Reflection-polarization patterns of four different asphalt surfaces under overcast skies measured in the green (550 nm) part of the spectrum. The angle of elevation of the polarimeter’s optical axis was −35° (a) and −20° (bd) from the horizontal. In the lowermost row white bars show the local direction of polarization of reflected light. (a) A wet asphalt surface with two different white-black chequered patterns. (b) A wet light grey asphalt road with a wet dark grey sidewalk. (c) As b, but here both asphalt surfaces were dry. (d) A dry patchy asphalt road with four different surface characteristics: rr: rough and reddish, rw: rough and white, rg: rough and grey, sb: shiny and black [after Fig. 12 on page 25 of Horváth et al. (2010a)] (CDR 6433 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM24_ESM.zip (1.7 mb)
Supplementary Fig. 20.6 Photographs and reflection-polarization patterns of the shiny black (sb) plastic sheet (2 m × 2 m; other surfaces 80 cm × 60 cm), white-framed photovoltaic solar cells (pv-w), black-framed photovoltaic solar cells (pv-b), shiny black plastic sheet (sb), and dry asphalt (da) measured in the green (550 nm) part of the spectrum after sunset and used in the experiments of Horváth et al. (2010b). In the α-patterns double-headed arrows show the local direction of polarization of reflected light. The polarimeter viewed towards the antisolar meridian and the angle of elevation of its optical axis was −35° from the horizontal [after Fig. 1 on page 1646 of Horváth et al. (2010b)] (CDR 1751 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM25_ESM.zip (997 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 20.7 Photographs and reflection-polarization patterns of photovoltaic solar panels composed of small homogeneous shiny black rectangular solar cells with narrow white margins viewed from front and below (a), and from right (b). In the α-patterns doubleheaded arrows show the local direction of polarization of reflected light [after Supplementary Fig. S3 of Horváth et al. (2010b)] (CDR 1007 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM26_ESM.zip (2.9 mb)
Supplementary Fig. 20.8 Photographs and reflection-polarization patterns of solar collectors in the garden of the Szent István University in Gödöllő, Hungary viewed from three different directions of view: from right (a), from front (b), from left (c). In the d-patterns of columns b and c it can be seen that the wire-grid of the fence reflects practically unpolarized light. In the α-patterns double-headed arrows show the local direction of polarization of reflected light [after Supplementary Fig. S4 of Horváth et al. (2010b)] (CDR 3017 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM27_ESM.zip (1.4 mb)
Supplementary Fig. 20.9 Photographs and reflection-polarization patterns of a shiny black (sb) plastic sheet (a), horizontal matte black (mb) cloth (b), and matte white (mw) cloth (c) used in the experiments of Horváth et al. (2010b). The test surfaces were laid on a dry asphalt road (da), and the scene was illuminated by skylight after sunset. In the α-patterns double-headed arrows show the local direction of polarization of reflected light. The polarimeter viewed towards the antisolar meridian, and the angle of elevation of its optical axis was −35° from the horizontal [after Supplementary Fig. S5 of Horváth et al. (2010b)] (CDR 1482 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM28_ESM.zip (896 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 20.10 Photograph and patterns of the intensity I, degree of linear polarization d and angle of polarization α (clockwise from the vertical) of the northern building of the Eötvös University in Budapest (Hungary) measured by imaging polarimetry in the red, green and blue parts of the spectrum. The double headed arrows in the α-patterns show the local directions of polarization [after Fig. 3 on page 464 of Kriska et al. (2008)] (CDR 902 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM29_ESM.zip (2.7 mb)
Supplementary Fig. 20.11 Colour photograph (a), and patterns of the degree of linear polarization d (b), and the angle of polarization α (c, d) of a shady black vertical glass surface measured by 180° field-of-view imaging polarimetry in the blue (450 nm) part of the spectrum under a cloudless, clear, blue sky. Angle α of reflected light is measured clockwise from the vertical (c), or from the local meridian passing through the point observed (d). (e) Area (black) of the vertical glass surface detected as water by a hypothetical polarotactic aquatic insect flying perpendicularly to the glass. (f) Area (black) of the vertical glass surface detected as water by a hypothetical polarotactic insect landed on the glass. The insect was assumed to consider a surface as water, if the reflected light has the following polarization characteristics: d > 10 % and 85° < α < 95°. It was also assumed that the insect’s entire eye is polarization sensitive. In the circular patterns bf the Brewster angle is shown by circles. The horizontal optical axis of the polarimeter passes through the centre of a given circular pattern, the perimeter of which represents angles of view perpendicular to the optical axis [after Fig. 5 on page 4366 of Malik et al. (2008)] (CDR 2743 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM30_ESM.zip (2.6 mb)
Supplementary Fig. 20.12 As Supplementary Fig. 20.11 for a shady vertical glass pane of a window, behind which there is a white curtain. The sky was clear, blue, cloudless [after Fig. 7 on page 4367 of Malik et al. (2008)] (CDR 2626 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM31_ESM.zip (620 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 20.13 Reflection-polarization characteristics of concrete gravestones with horizontal, polished, black name-plates (two in the middle and one in the top right corner) measured by imaging polarimetry in the green (550 nm) part of the spectrum. The tombstones were in shadow and illuminated by downwelling skylight. The angle of elevation 6 of the optical axis of the polarimeter was −30° with respect to the horizontal [after Fig. 2 on page 1704 of Horváth et al. (2007)] (CDR 627 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM32_ESM.zip (615 kb)
Supplementary Fig. 20.14 As Supplementary Fig. 20.13 for a sunlit black polished gravestone in vertical position with its frontal side in shade and illuminated by the light from the clear sky [after Fig. 4 on page 1705 of Horváth et al. (2007)] (CDR 621 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM33_ESM.zip (1.9 mb)
Supplementary Fig. 20.15 Photographs and patterns of the degree of linear polarization d and the angle of polarization α (clockwise from the vertical) of a Hungarian burnt-up stubblefield measured by imaging polarimetry under a clear sky in sunshine in the green (550 nm) part of the spectrum when the direction of view of the polarimeter was towards the solar meridian (SM), antisolar meridian (ASM) and perpendicular to the solar meridian (PSM). The elevation angle of the optical axis of the polarimeter was −30° from the horizontal. Doubleheaded arrows show the local direction of polarization of ash-reflected light (CDR 1951 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM34_ESM.zip (22 mb)
Video Clip 20.1 Demonstration of polarized light pollution induced by a strongly and horizontally polarizing horizontal shiny black surface. Typical water-touching behaviour of a male Sympetrum dragonfly at the black test surface in a cemetery in Kiskunhalas (Hungary) on 11 July 2006 (copyright holders: Dr. Gábor Horváth and Loránd Horváth) (AVI 22840 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM35_ESM.zip (14.3 mb)
Video Clip 20.2 Demonstration of polarized light pollution induced by a strongly and horizontally polarizing horizontal shiny black surface. Landing of a female Sympetrum dragonfly on the black test surface in a cemetery in Kiskunhalas (Hungary) on 11 July 2006 (copyright holders: Dr. Gábor Horváth and Loránd Horváth) (AVI 14854 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM36_ESM.zip (9.9 mb)
Video Clip 20.3 Demonstration of polarized light pollution induced by a strongly and horizontally polarizing horizontal shiny black surface. Water-touching behaviour of a female Sympetrum dragonfly at the black test surface in a cemetery in Kiskunhalas (Hungary) on 11 July 2006 (copyright holders: Dr. Gábor Horváth and Loránd Horváth) (AVI 10280 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM37_ESM.zip (21.9 mb)
Video Clip 20.4 Demonstration of polarized light pollution induced by a strongly and horizontally polarizing horizontal shiny black surface. Water-touching behaviour of a male Sympetrum dragonfly at the black test surface in a cemetery in Kiskunhalas (Hungary) on 11 July 2006 (copyright holders: Dr. Gábor Horváth and Loránd Horváth) (AVI 22836 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM38_ESM.zip (78.8 mb)
Video Clip 20.5 Demonstration of polarized light pollution induced by a strongly and horizontally polarizing horizontal shiny black surface. Water-touching behaviour of an Anax imperator dragonfly at the black test surface in a cemetery in Kiskunhalas (Hungary) on 11 July 2006 (copyright holders: Dr. Gábor Horváth and Loránd Horváth) (AVI 82188 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM39_ESM.zip (92.6 mb)
Video Clip 20.6 Demonstration of polarized light pollution induced by a strongly and horizontally polarizing horizontal shiny black surface. Egg laying by a female Libellula depressa dragonfly onto the black test surface at a horse farm in Szokolya (Hungary) in July 2013 (copyright holder: Dr. Tamás Herczeg) (AVI 95790 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM40_ESM.zip (34.7 mb)
Video Clip 20.7 Demonstration of polarized light pollution induced by a strongly and horizontally polarizing horizontal matte grey surface. Egg laying by a female Libellula depressa dragonfly onto the matte grey test surface at a horse farm in Szokolya (Hungary) in July 2013 (copyright holder: Dr. Tamás Herczeg) (AVI 35749 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM41_ESM.zip (1.2 mb)
Video Clip 20.8 Patterns of the intensity I (top left), degree of linear polarization p (top right) and angle of polarization α (botton left) of a rotating white (left) and black (right) chessman (knight) on a chessboard measured by imaging polarimetry in the red (650 nm) spectral range. The higher the p-value, the darker the grey shade (white: p = 0 %, black: p = 100 %). Vertical and horizontal polarization of reflected light is coded by red and green colours, respectively. Bottom right: frequency of α (top, 0° ≤ α ≤ 180°) and p (bottom, 0 % ≤ p ≤ 100 %) calculated for the whole picture. The white and black chessman demonstrates the lack and the existence of polarized light pollution of an unpolarizing and a strongly polarizing shiny white and shiny black man-made object, respectively (copyright holders: Dr. István Pomozi and Dr. Gábor Horváth) (AVI 1984 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM42_ESM.zip (4.8 mb)
Video Clip 20.9 Typical turning-back flight of Palingenia longicauda mayflies at the downstream side of a bridge over river Tisza at the village Tivadar prior to sunset on 25 June 2009 observed and described by Málnás et al. (2011). The flying polarotactic mayflies turn back because of the vertically polarized mirror image of the bridge perceived on the river surface. This vertically polarized signal means the interruption of the water surface (imitating the shoreline) for polarotactic mayflies (copyright holders: Dr. György Kriska and Dr. Gábor Horváth) (MPG 4928 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM43_ESM.zip (5.9 mb)
Video Clip 20.10 As Video Clip 20.9 at close range (copyright holders: Dr. György Kriska and Dr. Gábor Horváth) (MPG 6080 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM44_ESM.zip (5.9 mb)
Video Clip 20.11 (MPG 6080 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM45_ESM.zip (4.8 mb)
Video Clip 20.12 (MPG 4928 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM46_ESM.zip (2.2 mb)
Video Clip 20.13 (MPG 2304 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM47_ESM.zip (1.1 mb)
Video Clip 20.14 (MPG 1088 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM48_ESM.zip (4.3 mb)
Video Clip 20.15 (MPG 4416 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM49_ESM.zip (3.1 mb)
Video Clip 20.16 (MPG 3200 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM50_ESM.zip (2.6 mb)
Video Clip 20.17 (MPG 2688 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM51_ESM.zip (2.7 mb)
Video Clip 20.18 (MPG 2816 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM52_ESM.zip (3.6 mb)
Video Clip 20.19 (MPG 3712 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM53_ESM.zip (2.7 mb)
Video Clip 20.20 (MPG 2816 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM54_ESM.zip (3.7 mb)
Video Clip 20.21 (MPG 3840 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM55_ESM.zip (1.3 mb)
Video Clip 20.22 (MPG 1344 kb)
71484_2_En_20_MOESM56_ESM.zip (1.2 mb)
Video Clip 20.23 (MPG 1216 kb)

References

  1. Anderson TR (2006) Biology of the ubiquitous house sparrow: from genes to populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrikovics S, Turcsányi I (2001) The long-tailed mayfly—ecology of an endangered species, vol 10. Tisza Klub, Szolnok (in Hungarian)Google Scholar
  3. Badyaev AV (2003) Family Motacillidae. In: Perrins C (ed) Encyclopedia of birds. Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology and Andromeda Oxford Limited, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldavári L (2001) Effects of the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999 on behaviour of honeybees, recorded in an apiary. Zool Bull 86:137–143 (in Hungarian)Google Scholar
  5. Bernáth B, Horváth G (1999) Visual deception of a great white egret by shiny plastic sheets. Ornis Hung 8–9:57–61Google Scholar
  6. Bernáth B, Pomozi I, Gál J, Horváth G, Wehner R (2001a) Sky polarization during the total solar eclipse on 11 August 1999 and its possible biological implications. Zool Bull 86:81–92 (in Hungarian)Google Scholar
  7. Bernáth B, Szedenics G, Molnár G, Kriska G, Horváth G (2001b) Visual ecological impact of “shiny black anthropogenic products” on aquatic insects: oil reservoirs and plastic sheets as polarized traps for insects associated with water. Arch Nat Conservat Landsc Res 40(2):89–109Google Scholar
  8. Bernáth B, Szedenics G, Molnár G, Kriska G, Horváth G (2001c) Visual ecological impact of a peculiar waste oil lake on the avifauna: dual-choice field experiments with water-seeking birds using huge shiny black and white plastic sheets. Arch Nat Conservat Landsc Res 40(1):1–28Google Scholar
  9. Bernáth B, Szedenics G, Wildermuth H, Horváth G (2002) How can dragonflies discern bright and dark waters from a distance? The degree of polarization of reflected light as a possible cue for dragonfly habitat selection. Freshw Biol 47:1707–1720Google Scholar
  10. Bernáth B, Kriska G, Suhai B, Horváth G (2008) Wagtails (Aves: Motacillidae) as insect indicators on plastic sheets attracting polarotactic aquatic insects. Acta Zool Acad Sci Hung 54:145–155Google Scholar
  11. Blahó M, Egri Á, Barta A, Antoni G, Kriska G, Horváth G (2012) How can horseflies be captured by solar panels? A new concept of tabanid traps using light polarization and electricity produced by photovoltaics. Vet Parasitol 189:353–365PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Boda P, Horváth G, Kriska G, Blahó M, Csabai Z (2014) Phototaxis and polarotaxis hand in hand: night dispersal flight of aquatic insects distracted synergistically by light intensity and reflection polarization. Naturwissenschaften 101:385–395PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brittain JE, Saltveit SJ (1989) A review of the effect of river regulation on mayflies (Ephemeroptera). Regul Rivers Res Manag 3:191–204Google Scholar
  14. Brodskiy AK (1973) The swarming behavior of mayflies (Ephemeroptera). Entomol Rev 52:33–39Google Scholar
  15. Bromley SW (1928) A dragonfly ovipositing on a paved highway. Bull Brooklyn Entomol Soc 23:69Google Scholar
  16. Buchanan BW (2006) Observed and potential effects of artificial night lighting on anuran amphibians. In: Rich C, Longcore T (eds) Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 192–220Google Scholar
  17. Camacho RE, Morgan AR, Flores MC, McLeod TA, Kumsomboone VS, Mordecai BJ, Bhattacharjea R, Tong W, Wagner BK, Flicker JD, Turano SP, Ready WJ (2007) Carbon nanotube arrays for photovoltaic applications. J Miner Mater Soc 59(3):39–42Google Scholar
  18. Choi H, Kim H, Kim JG (2009) Landscape analysis of the effects of artificial lighting around wetland habitats on the giant water bug Lethocerus deyrollei in Jeju Island. J Ecol Field Biol 32:83–86Google Scholar
  19. Cinzano P, Falchi F, Elvidge CD (2001) The first world atlas of the artificial night sky brightness. Mon Not R Astron Soc 328:689–707Google Scholar
  20. Collinge SK (2000) Effects of grassland fragmentation on insect species loss, colonization, and movement patterns. Ecology 81:2211–2226Google Scholar
  21. Corbet PS (1999) Dragonflies. Behaviour and ecology of Odonata. Harley Books, Great HorkesleyGoogle Scholar
  22. Csabai Z, Gidó Z, Móra A, Boda P, Dévai G, Király A, Szilágyi K, Varju T (2003) Migration activity patterns of aquatic beetles and aquatic bugs (Coleoptera, Heteroptera) I. Changing of the number of individuals and species richness. Hidrológiai Közlöny (J Hung Hydrol Soc) 83:29–32 (in Hungarian)Google Scholar
  23. Csabai Z, Gidó Z, Boda P, Móra A (2004) Migration activity patterns of aquatic beetles and aquatic bugs (Coleoptera, Heteroptera) III. Seasonal and daily migration of selected species. Hidrológiai Közlöny (J Hung Hydrol Soc) 84:28–30 (in Hungarian)Google Scholar
  24. Csabai Z, Boda P, Bernáth B, Kriska G, Horváth G (2006) A ‘polarisation sun-dial’ dictates the optimal time of day for dispersal by flying aquatic insects. Freshw Biol 51:1341–1350Google Scholar
  25. Currie MJ, Mapel JK, Heidel TD, Goffri S, Baldo BA (2008) High-efficiency organic solar concentrators for photovoltaics. Science 321:226–228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Davies NB (1977) Prey selection and social behaviour in wagtails (Aves: Motacillidae). J Anim Ecol 46:37–57Google Scholar
  27. Davies NB, Houston AI (1981) Owners and satellites: the economics of territory defence in the pied wagtail, Motacilla alba. J Anim Ecol 50:157–180Google Scholar
  28. Delibes M, Gaona P, Ferreras P (2001) Effects of an attractive sink leading into maladaptive habitat selection. Am Nat 158:277–285PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Dewan R, Fischer S, Meyer-Rochow VB, Özdemir Y, Hamraz S, Knipp D (2012) Studying nanostructured nipple arrays of moth eye facets helps to design better thin film solar cells. Bioinspir Biomim 7:016003. doi: 10.1088/1748-3182/7/1/016003 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Donovan TM, Thompson FR (2001) Modelling the ecological trap hypothesis: a habitat and demographic analysis for migrant songbirds. Ecol Appl 11:871–882Google Scholar
  31. Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata ZI, Knowler DJ, Leveque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard AH, Soto D, Stiassny MLJ, Sullivan CA (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81:163–182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Dynesius M, Nilsson C (1994) Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the Northern third of the world. Science 266:753–762PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Dwernychuk LW, Boag DA (1972) Ducks nesting in association with gulls - an ecological trap? Can J Zool 50(5):559–563Google Scholar
  34. Egri Á, Blahó M, Sándor A, Kriska G, Gyurkovszky M, Farkas R, Horváth G (2012) New kind of polarotaxis governed by degree of polarization: attraction of tabanid flies to differently polarizing host animals and water surfaces. Naturwissenschaften 99:407–416 + electronic supplementGoogle Scholar
  35. Egri Á, Blahó M, Száz D, Kriska G, Majer J, Herczeg T, Gyurkovszky M, Farkas R, Horváth G (2013a) A horizontally polarizing liquid trap enhances the tabanid-capturing efficiency of the classic canopy trap. Bull Entomol Res 103:665–674PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Egri Á, Blahó M, Száz D, Barta A, Kriska G, Antoni G, Horváth G (2013b) A new tabanid trap applying a modified concept of the old flypaper: linearly polarising sticky black surfaces as an effective tool to catch polarotactic horseflies. Int J Parasitol 43:555–563PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Eisenbeis G (2006) Artificial night lighting and insects: attraction of insects to streetlamps in a rural setting in Germany. In: Rich C, Longcore T (eds) Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 281–304Google Scholar
  38. Errington PL (1946) Predation and vertebrate populations. Q Rev Biol 21:144–177Google Scholar
  39. Fletcher RJ Jr, Orrock JL, Robertson BA (2012) How the type of anthropogenic change alters the consequences of ecological traps. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:2546–2552Google Scholar
  40. Frank KD (2006) Effects of artificial night lighting on moths. In: Rich C, Longcore T (eds) Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 305–344Google Scholar
  41. Fraser FC (1936) The Fauna of British India. Odonata, vol 3. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Funk WC, Greene AE, Corn PS, Allendorf FW (2005) High dispersal in a frog species suggests that it is vulnerable to habitat fragmentation. Biol Lett 1:13–16PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Gál J, Horváth G, Meyer-Rochow VB (2001a) Measurement of the reflection-polarization pattern of the flat water surface under a clear sky at sunset. Remote Sens Environ 76:103–111Google Scholar
  44. Gál J, Horváth G, Meyer-Rochow VB, Wehner R (2001b) Polarization patterns of the summer sky and its neutral points measured by full-sky imaging polarimetry in Finnish Lapland north of the Arctic Circle. Proc R Soc A 457:1385–1399Google Scholar
  45. Günther A (2003) Eiablage von Sympetrum vulgatum auf ein parkendes Auto (Odonata: Libellulidae). Libellula 22:19–23Google Scholar
  46. Harrap S, Quinn D (1996) Tits, nuthatches and treecreepers. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  47. Hegedüs R, Åkesson S, Horváth G (2007) Anomalous celestial polarization caused by forest fire smoke: why do some insects become visually disoriented under smoky skies? Appl Opt 46:2717–2726PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Herkert JR (1994) The effects of habitat fragmentation on midwestern grassland bird communities. Ecol Appl 4:461–471Google Scholar
  49. Hoell HV, Doyen JT, Purcell AH (1998) Introduction to insect biology and diversity, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  50. Horváth G (1995) Reflection-polarization patterns at flat water surfaces and their relevance for insect polarization vision. J Theor Biol 175:27–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Horváth G (2012) Chapter 9: Polarized light pollution, pp 82–108. In: Csanád M, Horváth Á, Horváth G, Veres G (2012) Environmental physics methods laboratory practices. electronic text-book (Horváth Á (ed)), p 206, Typotex Kiadó, Budapest, ISBN 978-963-279-551-5Google Scholar
  52. Horváth G, Kriska G (2008) Polarization vision in aquatic insects and ecological traps for polarotactic insects. In: Lancaster J, Briers RA (eds) Aquatic insects: challenges to populations. CAB International Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon, pp 204–229, Chapter 11Google Scholar
  53. Horváth G, Pomozi I (1997) How celestial polarization changes due to reflection from the deflector panels used in deflector loft and mirror experiments studying avian navigation. J Theor Biol 184:291–300Google Scholar
  54. Horváth G, Varjú D (1997) Polarization pattern of freshwater habitats recorded by video polarimetry in red, green and blue spectral ranges and its relevance for water detection by aquatic insects. J Exp Biol 200:1155–1163Google Scholar
  55. Horváth G, Varjú D (2004) Polarized light in animal vision—polarization patterns in nature. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  56. Horváth G, Zeil J (1996) Kuwait oil lakes as insect traps. Nature 379:303–304Google Scholar
  57. Horváth G, Bernáth B, Molnár G (1998) Dragonflies find crude oil visually more attractive than water: multiple-choice experiments on dragonfly polarotaxis. Naturwissenschaften 85:292–297Google Scholar
  58. Horváth G, Barta A, Gál J, Suhai B, Haiman O (2002) Ground-based full-sky imaging polarimetry of rapidly changing skies and its use for polarimetric cloud detection. Appl Opt 41:543–559PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Horváth G, Pomozi I, Gál J (2003) Neutral points of skylight polarization observed during the total eclipse on 11 August 1999. Appl Opt 42:465–475PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Horváth G, Malik P, Kriska G, Wildermuth H (2007) Ecological traps for dragonflies in a cemetery: the attraction of Sympetrum species (Odonata: Libellulidae) by horizontally polarizing black gravestones. Freshw Biol 52:1700–1709Google Scholar
  61. Horváth G, Majer J, Horváth L, Szivák I, Kriska G (2008) Ventral polarization vision in tabanids: horseflies and deerflies (Diptera: Tabanidae) are attracted to horizontally polarized light. Naturwissenschaften 95:1093–1100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Horváth G, Kriska G, Malik P, Robertson B (2009) Polarized light pollution: a new kind of ecological photopollution. Front Ecol Environ 7:317–325Google Scholar
  63. Horváth G, Blahó M, Egri Á, Kriska G, Seres I, Robertson B (2010a) Reducing the maladaptive attractiveness of solar panels to polarotactic insects. Conserv Biol 24:1644–1653 + electronic supplementGoogle Scholar
  64. Horváth G, Kriska G, Malik P, Hegedüs R, Neumann L, Åkesson S, Robertson B (2010b) Asphalt surfaces as ecological traps for water-seeking polarotactic insects: how can the polarized light pollution of asphalt surfaces be reduced? Environmental remediation technologies, regulations and safety. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppauge, NY, p 47Google Scholar
  65. Horváth G, Móra A, Bernáth B, Kriska G (2011) Polarotaxis in non-biting midges: female chironomids are attracted to horizontally polarized light. Physiol Behav 104:1010–1015PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Houston AI, McCleery RH, Davies NB (1985) Territory size, prey renewal and feeding rates: Interferation of observations on the pied wagtail (Motacilla alba) by simulation. J Anim Ecol 54:227–239Google Scholar
  67. Jäch MA (1997) Daytime swarming of rheophilic water beetles in Austria (Coleoptera: Elmidae, Hydraenidae, Haliplidae). Latissimus 9:10–11Google Scholar
  68. Johnson DL, Naylor D, Scudder G (2005) Red sky in day, bugs go astray. Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association of Geographers, Western Division, Lethbridge, AB, 12 March 2005, Abstracts, p 145Google Scholar
  69. Kokko H, Sutherland WJ (2001) Ecological traps in changing environments: ecological and evolutionary consequences of a behaviourally mediated Allee effect. Evol Ecol Res 3:537–551Google Scholar
  70. Können GP (1985) Polarized light in nature. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  71. Kriska G, Horváth G, Andrikovics S (1998) Why do mayflies lay their eggs en masse on dry asphalt roads? Water-imitating polarized light reflected from asphalt attracts Ephemeroptera. J Exp Biol 201:2273–2286PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Kriska G, Csabai Z, Boda P, Malik P, Horváth G (2006a) Why do red and dark-coloured cars lure aquatic insects? The attraction of water insects to car paintwork explained by reflection-polarization signals. Proc R Soc B 273:1667–1671PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Kriska G, Malik P, Csabai Z, Horváth G (2006b) Why do highly polarizing black burnt-up stubble-fields not attract aquatic insects? An exception proving the rule. Vis Res 46:4382–4386 + cover pictureGoogle Scholar
  74. Kriska G, Bernáth B, Horváth G (2007) Positive polaritaxis in a mayfly that never leaves the water surface: polarotactic water detention in Palingenia longicauda (Ephemeroptera). Naturwissenschaften 94:148–154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Kriska G, Malik P, Szivák I, Horváth G (2008) Glass buildings on river banks as “polarized light traps” for mass-swarming polarotactic caddis flies. Naturwissenschaften 95:461–467PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Labhart T, Nilsson DE (1995) The dorsal eye of the dragonfly Sympetrum: specializations for prey detection against the blue sky. J Comp Physiol A 176:437–453Google Scholar
  77. Ladócsy K (1930) The mating flight of the Tisza mayfly (Palingenia longicauda, Oliv) in 1929 in Szeged. Part 2. Fishery 31(7–8):28–30 (in Hungarian)Google Scholar
  78. Lerner A, Meltser N, Sapir N, Erlick C, Shashar N, Broza M (2008) Reflected polarization guides chironomid females to oviposition sites. J Exp Biol 211:3536–3543PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Ligon FK, Dietrich WE, Trush WJ (1995) Downstream ecological effects of dams. Bioscience 45:183–192Google Scholar
  80. Longcore T, Rich C (2004) Ecological light pollution. Front Ecol Environ 2:191–198Google Scholar
  81. Longcore T, Rich C (2006) Synthesis. In: Rich C, Longcore T (eds) Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 413–430, Chapter 17Google Scholar
  82. Madge S, Burn H (1994) Crows and jays: a guide to the crows, jays and magpies of the world. A & C Black, LondonGoogle Scholar
  83. Malik P, Hegedüs R, Kriska G, Horváth G (2008) Imaging polarimetry of glass buildings: why do vertical glass surfaces attract polarotactic insects? Appl Opt 47:4361–4374 + cover pictureGoogle Scholar
  84. Málnás K, Polyák L, Prill É, Hegedüs R, Kriska G, Dévai G, Horváth G, Lengyel S (2011) Bridges as optical barriers and population disruptors for the mayfly Palingenia longicauda: an overlooked threat to freshwater biodiversity? J Insect Conserv 15:823–832 + electronic supplementGoogle Scholar
  85. Marsh WM, Grossa JM Jr (2002) Environmental geography: science, land use, and earth systems, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  86. Mizera F, Bernáth B, Kriska G, Horváth G (2001) Stereo videopolarimetry: measuring and visualizing polarization patterns in three dimensions. J Imaging Sci Technol 45:393–399Google Scholar
  87. Moore NW (1991) Male Sympetrum striolatum “defends” a basking spot rather than a particular locality (Anisoptera: Libellulidae). Notulae Odonatologicae 3:112Google Scholar
  88. Moore RP, Robinson WD, Lovette IJ, Robinson TR (2008) Experimental evidence for extreme dispersal limitation in tropical forest birds. Ecol Lett 11:960–968PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Nilsson AN (1997) On flying Hydroporus and the attraction of H. incognitus to red car roofs. Latissimus 9:12–16Google Scholar
  90. Nowinszky L (2003) The handbook of light trapping. Savaria University Press, SzombathelyGoogle Scholar
  91. Nowinszky L (2004) Nocturnal illumination and night flying insects. Appl Ecol Environ Res 2:17–52Google Scholar
  92. Oehme H (1999) Jagderfolg und Jagdtaktik bei Sympetrum striolatum (Charpentier) (Anisoptera: Libellulidae). Libellula 18:79–87Google Scholar
  93. Perry G, Fisher RN (2006) Night lights and reptiles: observed and potential effects. In: Rich C, Longcore T (eds) Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 169–191Google Scholar
  94. Petts GE (1984) Impounded rivers: perspectives for ecological management. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  95. Pomozi I, Gál J, Horváth G, Wehner R (2001) Fine structure of the celestial polarization pattern and its temporal change during the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999. Remote Sens Environ 76:181–201Google Scholar
  96. Puschnig R (1926) Albanische Libellen. Konowia 5: 33, 113, 208, 313Google Scholar
  97. Reich P, Downes BJ (2003) Experimental evidence for physical cues involved in oviposition site selection of lotic hydrobiosid caddis flies. Oecologia 136:465–475PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Rezanov AG (1981) Feeding behaviour and modes of feeding in the wagtail Motacilla alba (Passeriformes, Motacillidae). Zool Zhurnal 60(4):548–556 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  99. Rich C, Longcore T (eds) (2006) Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  100. Riegel KW (1973) Light pollution: outdoor lighting is a growing threat to astronomy. Science 179:1285–1291PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Robertson BA, Hutto RL (2006) A framework for understanding ecological traps and an evaluation of existing evidence. Ecology 87:1075–1085PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Robertson B, Kriska G, Horváth V, Horváth G (2010) Glass buildings as bird feeders: urban birds exploit insects trapped by polarized light pollution. Acta Zool Acad Sci Hung 56:283–293Google Scholar
  103. Robertson BA, Rehage J, Sih A (2013) Ecological novelty and the emergence of evolutionary traps. Trends Ecol Evol 28:552–560PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Russev B (1959) Vol de compensation pour la ponte de Palingenia longicauda (Oliv.) (Ephem.) contre courant du Danube. C R Acad Bulg Sci 12:165–168Google Scholar
  105. Rydell J (2006) Bats and their insect prey at streetlights. In: Rich C, Longcore T (eds) Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 43–60Google Scholar
  106. Savolainen E (1978) Swarming in Ephemeroptera: the mechanism of swarming and the effects of illumination and weather. Ann Zool Fenn 15:17–52Google Scholar
  107. Scheibe MA (2000) Quantitative aspects of the attraction of roadway lighting to insects emerging from nearby waters (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Diptera: Simuliidae, Chironomidae, Empididae) with consideration of the spectral emission of different sources of light. Ph.D. thesis, Fachbereich Biologie, Johannes Gutenberg Universität, Mainz (in German)Google Scholar
  108. Schlaepfer MA, Runge MC, Sherman PW (2002) Ecological and evolutionary traps. Trends Ecol Evol 17:474–480Google Scholar
  109. Schwind R (1983a) A polarization-sensitive response of the flying water bug Notonecta glauca to UV light. J Comp Physiol 150:87–91Google Scholar
  110. Schwind R (1983b) Zonation of the optical environment and zonation in the rhabdom structure within the eye of the backswimmer, Notonecta glauca. Cell Tissue Res 232:53–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Schwind R (1984a) Evidence for true polarization vision based on a two-channel analyser system in the eye of the water bug, Notonecta glauca. J Comp Physiol A 154:53–57Google Scholar
  112. Schwind R (1984b) The plunge reaction of the backswimmer Notonecta glauca. J Comp Physiol A 155:319–321Google Scholar
  113. Schwind R (1985a) Sehen unter und über Wasser, Sehen von Wasser. Naturwissenschaften 72:343–352Google Scholar
  114. Schwind R (1985b) A further proof of polarization vision of Notonecta glauca and a note on threshold intensity for eliciting the plunge reaction. Experientia 41:466–467Google Scholar
  115. Schwind R (1991) Polarization vision in water insects and insects living on a moist substrate. J Comp Physiol A 169:531–540Google Scholar
  116. Schwind R (1995) Spectral regions in which aquatic insects see reflected polarized light. J Comp Physiol A 177:439–448Google Scholar
  117. Schwind R, Horváth G (1993) Reflection-polarization pattern at water surfaces and correction of a common representation of the polarization pattern of the sky. Naturwissenschaften 80:82–83Google Scholar
  118. Schwind R, Schlecht P, Langer H (1984) Microspectrophotometric characterization and localization of three visual pigments in the compound eye of Notonecta glauca L. (Heteroptera). J Comp Physiol A 154:341–346Google Scholar
  119. Sipőcz B, Hegedüs R, Kriska G, Horváth G (2008) Spatiotemporal change of sky polarization during the total solar eclipse on 29 March 2006 in Turkey: polarization patterns of the eclipsed sky observed by full-sky imaging polarimetry. Appl Opt 47(34):H1–H10Google Scholar
  120. Soldán T, Putz M (2000) Karyotypes of some Central European mayflies (Ephemeroptera) and their contribution to phylogeny of the order. Acta Soc Zool Bohem 64:437–445Google Scholar
  121. Stevani CV, Faria DLA, Porto JS, Trindade DJ, Bechara EJH (2000a) Mechanism of automotive clearcoat damage by dragonfly eggs investigated by surface enhanced Raman scattering. Polym Degrad Stab 68:61–66Google Scholar
  122. Stevani CV, Porto JS, Trindade DJ, Bechara EJH (2000b) Automotive clearcoat damage due to oviposition of dragonflies. J Appl Polym Sci 75:1632–1639Google Scholar
  123. Svihla A (1961) An unusual ovipositing activity of Pantala flavescens Fabricius. Tombo 4:18Google Scholar
  124. Szentkirályi F, Szalay L (2001) The impact of total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999 on behaviour and foraging activities of honeybees. Zool Bull 86:115–136 (in Hungarian)Google Scholar
  125. Torralba-Burrial A, Ocharan FJ (2003) Coches como hábitat para libélulas? Algunos machos de Crocothemis erythraea creen que sí. Boletin de la Sociedad Entomologia Aragonesa 32:214–215Google Scholar
  126. Turcsányi I, Szentkirályi F, Bernáth B, Kádár F (2009) Flight of mayflies towards horizontally polarised and unpolarised light. Aquat Insects 31(Suppl 1):301–310Google Scholar
  127. Umow N (1905) Chromatische Depolarisation durch Lichtzerstreuung. Physikalische Zeitschrift 6:674–676Google Scholar
  128. Upgren AR (1996) Night blindness: light pollution is changing astronomy, the environment, and our experience of nature. Amic J 17(4):22–25Google Scholar
  129. van Vondel BJ (1998) Another case of water beetles landing on a red car roof. Latissimus 10:29Google Scholar
  130. Verheijen FJ (1958) The mechanisms of the trapping effect of artificial light sources upon animals. Arch Néerl Zool 13:1–107Google Scholar
  131. Verheijen FJ (1985) Photopollution: artificial light optic spatial control systems fail to cope with. Incidents, causations, remedies. Exp Biol 44:1–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. Watson JAL (1992) Oviposition by exophytic dragonflies on vehicles. Notulae Odonatologicae 3:137Google Scholar
  133. Whitehouse FC (1941) A guide to the study of dragonflies of Jamaica. Bulletin of the Institute of Jamaica Science Series No. 3:1–69Google Scholar
  134. Wildermuth H (1998) Dragonflies recognize the water of rendezvous and oviposition sites by horizontally polarized light: a behavioural field test. Naturwissenschaften 85:297–302Google Scholar
  135. Wildermuth H (2007) Polarotaktische Reaktionen von Coenagrion puella und Libellula quadrimaculata auf Erdbeerkulturen als ökologische Falle (Odonata: Coenagrionidae, Libellulidae). Libellula 26(3/4):143–150Google Scholar
  136. Wildermuth H, Horváth G (2005) Visual deception of a male Libellula depressa by the shiny surface of a parked car (Odonata: Libellulidae). Int J Odonatol 8:97–105Google Scholar
  137. Wilson A (1998) Light pollution: efforts to bring back the night sky. Environ Build News 7(8):8–14Google Scholar
  138. Wyniger R (1955) Beobachtungen über die Eiablage von Libellula depressa L. (Odonata, Libellulidae). Mitteilungen der Entomologischen Gesellschaft Basel NF 5:62–63Google Scholar
  139. Zahavi A (1971) The social behaviour of the white wagtail (Motacilla alba alba) wintering in Israel. Ibis 113:203–211Google Scholar
  140. Zwick P (1992) Stream habitat fragmentation: a threat to biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 1:80–97Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gábor Horváth
    • 1
  • György Kriska
    • 2
    • 3
  • Bruce Robertson
    • 4
  1. 1.Environmental Optics Laboratory, Department of Biological Physics, Physical InstituteEötvös UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Group for Methodology in Biology Teaching, Biological InstituteEötvös UniversityBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Danube Research Institute, Centre for Ecological ResearchHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary
  4. 4.Division of Science, Mathematics and ComputingBard CollegeAnnandale-on-HudsonUSA

Personalised recommendations