Letter | Published:

Artificial light at night as a new threat to pollination

Nature volume 548, pages 206209 (10 August 2017) | Download Citation


Pollinators are declining worldwide1 and this has raised concerns for a parallel decline in the essential pollination service they provide to both crops and wild plants2,3. Anthropogenic drivers linked to this decline include habitat changes, intensive agriculture, pesticides, invasive alien species, spread of pathogens and climate change1. Recently, the rapid global increase in artificial light at night4 has been proposed to be a new threat to terrestrial ecosystems; the consequences of this increase for ecosystem function are mostly unknown5,6. Here we show that artificial light at night disrupts nocturnal pollination networks and has negative consequences for plant reproductive success. In artificially illuminated plant–pollinator communities, nocturnal visits to plants were reduced by 62% compared to dark areas. Notably, this resulted in an overall 13% reduction in fruit set of a focal plant even though the plant also received numerous visits by diurnal pollinators. Furthermore, by merging diurnal and nocturnal pollination sub-networks, we show that the structure of these combined networks tends to facilitate the spread of the negative consequences of disrupted nocturnal pollination to daytime pollinator communities. Our findings demonstrate that artificial light at night is a threat to pollination and that the negative effects of artificial light at night on nocturnal pollination are predicted to propagate to the diurnal community, thereby aggravating the decline of the diurnal community. We provide perspectives on the functioning of plant–pollinator communities, showing that nocturnal pollinators are not redundant to diurnal communities and increasing our understanding of the human-induced decline in pollinators and their ecosystem service.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    et al. Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature 540, 220–229 (2016)

  2. 2.

    et al. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313, 351–354 (2006)

  3. 3.

    et al. Density of insect-pollinated grassland plants decreases with increasing surrounding land-use intensity. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1168–1177 (2014)

  4. 4.

    et al. The new world atlas of artificial night sky brightness. Sci. Adv. 2, e1600377 (2016)

  5. 5.

    , , & Benefits and costs of artificial nighttime lighting of the environment. Environ. Rev. 23, 14–23 (2015)

  6. 6.

    , , & Light pollution as a biodiversity threat. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 681–682 (2010)

  7. 7.

    , & How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos 120, 321–326 (2011)

  8. 8.

    . et al. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 303–313 (2007)

  9. 9.

    , , & Spatial and temporal trends of global pollination benefit. Plos ONE 7, e35954 (2012)

  10. 10.

    , , & Pollination by nocturnal Lepidoptera, and the effects of light pollution: a review. Ecol. Entomol. 40, 187–198 (2015)

  11. 11.

    , , & The dark side of street lighting: impacts on moths and evidence for the disruption of nocturnal pollen transport. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 697–707 (2017)

  12. 12.

    et al. The dark side of light: a transdisciplinary research agenda for light pollution policy. Ecol. Soc. 15, 13 (2010)

  13. 13.

    , , & The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 88, 912–927 (2013)

  14. 14.

    et al. Microbial diversity and community respiration in freshwater sediments influenced by artificial light at night. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370, 20140130 (2015)

  15. 15.

    , & Street lighting changes the composition of invertebrate communities. Biol. Lett. 8, 764–767 (2012)

  16. 16.

    et al. Experimental illumination of natural habitat—an experimental set-up to assess the direct and indirect ecological consequences of artificial light of different spectral composition. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 370, 20140129 (2015)

  17. 17.

    & Demographic effects of artificial nighttime lighting on animal populations. Environ. Rev. 22, 323–330 (2014)

  18. 18.

    , , & The nested assembly of plant–animal mutualistic networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 9383–9387 (2003)

  19. 19.

    & Stability of ecological communities and the architecture of mutualistic and trophic networks. Science 329, 853–856 (2010)

  20. 20.

    et al. Grazing alters insect visitation networks and plant mating systems. Funct. Ecol. 28, 178–189 (2014)

  21. 21.

    , & The ‘night shift’: nocturnal pollen-transport networks in a boreal pine forest. Ecol. Entomol. 36, 25–35 (2011)

  22. 22.

    , , , & Generalization in pollination systems, and why it matters. Ecology 77, 1043–1060 (1996)

  23. 23.

    in Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting (eds & ) 305–344 (Island Press, 2006)

  24. 24.

    , , , & Artificial light at night causes diapause inhibition and sex-specific life history changes in a moth. Ecol. Evol. 4, 2082–2089 (2014)

  25. 25.

    , , & Ecological effects of artificial light at night on wild plants. J. Ecol. 104, 611–620 (2016)

  26. 26.

    , & Quantitative descriptors of food-web matrices. Ecology 83, 2394–2407 (2002)

  27. 27.

    , , & Functional diversity of plant–pollinator interaction webs enhances the persistence of plant communities. PLoS Biol. 4, e1 (2006)

  28. 28.

    , & The ecological and evolutionary consequences of clonality for plant mating. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 41, 193–213 (2010)

  29. 29.

    et al. The ecological and evolutionary implications of merging different types of networks. Ecol. Lett. 14, 1170–1181 (2011)

  30. 30.

    , , & Sampling method influences the structure of plant–pollinator networks. Oikos 120, 822–831 (2011)

  31. 31.

    ., & The forgotten flies: the importance of non-syrphid Diptera as pollinators. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20142934 (2015)

  32. 32.

    et al. Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 146–151 (2016)

  33. 33.

    , , & The structure of an aphid–parasitoid community. J. Anim. Ecol. 68, 346–370 (1999)

  34. 34.

    , , & How plants connect pollination and herbivory networks and their contribution to community stability. Ecology 97, 908–917 (2016)

  35. 35.

    , & Evaluating multiple determinants of the structure of plant–animal mutualistic networks. Ecology 90, 2039–2046 (2009)

Download references


We thank all those who assisted with fieldwork, E. Thébault for discussions, M. Visser and M. Menz for comments that helped to improve this manuscript and D. Sanders for contributing to early ideas on the project. Furthermore, we are grateful to all experts who helped with identification of species: H.-P. Wymann (Lepidoptera), E. Obrecht (Diptera), S. Oertli (Hymenoptera) and C. Germann (Coleoptera). This study was supported by the Swiss National Sciences Foundation.

Author information


  1. University of Bern, Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Baltzerstrasse 6, 3012 Bern, Switzerland

    • Eva Knop
    • , Leana Zoller
    • , Remo Ryser
    • , Christopher Gerpe
    •  & Maurin Hörler
  2. Centre d’Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, UMR 7204 CNRS-MNHN, 61 Rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France

    • Colin Fontaine


  1. Search for Eva Knop in:

  2. Search for Leana Zoller in:

  3. Search for Remo Ryser in:

  4. Search for Christopher Gerpe in:

  5. Search for Maurin Hörler in:

  6. Search for Colin Fontaine in:


E.K. and C.F. conceived the study and analysed the data. E.K., R.R., C.G. and L.Z. developed the set-up of the field sites and protocols. E.K., C.G., R.R., M.H. and L.Z. obtained the samples. E.K. wrote the first manuscript draft and all authors reviewed the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Knop.

Reviewer Information Nature thanks M. Devoto, J. Memmott and A. J. Vanbergen for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Tables

    This file contains Supplementary Tables 1-3.

About this article

Publication history






Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.