Artificial lighting can alter individual behaviour, with often drastic and potentially negative effects on biological rhythms, daily activity and reproduction. Whether this is caused by a disruption of sleep, an important widespread behaviour enabling animals to recover from daily stress, is unclear. We tested the hypothesis that light pollution disrupts sleep by recording individual sleep behaviour of great tits, Parus major, that were roosting in dark nest-boxes and were exposed to light-emitting diode light the following night. Their behaviour was compared to that of control birds sleeping in dark nest-boxes on both nights. Artificial lighting caused experimental birds to wake up earlier, sleep less (–5%) and spent less time in the nest-box as they left their nest-box earlier in the morning. Experimental birds did not enter the nest-box or fall asleep later than controls. Although individuals in lit nest-boxes did not wake up more often nor decreased the length of their sleep bouts, females spent a greater proportion of the night awake. Our study provides the first direct proof that light pollution has a significant impact on sleep in free-living animals, in particular in the morning, and highlights a mechanism for potential effects of light pollution on fitness.

Artificial light at night has shown a remarkable increase over the past decades. Effects are reported for many species groups, and include changes in presence, behaviour, physiology and life-history traits. Among these, bats are strongly affected, and how bat species react to light is likely to vary with light colour. Different spectra may therefore be applied to reduce negative impacts. We used a unique set-up of eight field sites to study the response of bats to three different experimental light spectra in an otherwise dark and undisturbed natural habitat. We measured activity of three bat species groups around transects with light posts emitting white, green and red light with an intensity commonly used to illuminate countryside roads. The results reveal a strong and spectrum-dependent response for the slow-flying and and more agile species, but not for and species. and species avoided white and green light, but were equally abundant in red light and darkness. The agile, opportunistically feeding species were significantly more abundant around white and green light, most likely because of accumulation of insects, but equally abundant in red illuminated transects compared to dark control. Forest-dwelling and species and more synanthropic species are thus least disturbed by red light. Hence, in order to limit the negative impact of light at night on bats, white and green light should be avoided in or close to natural habitat, but red lights may be used if illumination is needed.

Artificial light at night has been linked to a wide variety of physiological and behavioural consequences in humans and animals. Given that little is known about the impact of light pollution on sleep in wild animals, we tested how experimentally elevated light levels affected sleep behaviour of female songbirds rearing 10 day old chicks. Using a within-subject design, individual sleep behaviour was observed over three consecutive nights in great tits (Parus major), with females sleeping in a natural dark situation on the first and third night, whereas on the second night they were exposed to a light-emitting diode (1.6 lux). Artificial light in the nest box dramatically and significantly affected sleep behaviour, causing females to fall asleep later (95 min; while entry time was unaffected), wake up earlier (74 min) and sleep less (56%). Females spent a greater proportion of the night awake and the frequency of their sleep bouts decreased, while the length of their sleep bouts remained equal. Artificial light also increased begging of chicks at night, which may have contributed to the sleep disruption in females or vice versa. The night following the light treatment, females slept 25% more compared to the first night, which was mainly achieved by increasing the frequency of sleep bouts. Although there was a consistent pattern in how artificial light affected sleep, there was also large among-individual variation in how strongly females were affected. When comparing current results with a similar experiment during winter, our results highlight differences in effects between seasons and underscore the importance of studying light pollution during different seasons. Our study shows that light pollution may have a significant impact on sleep behaviour in free-living animals during the reproductive season, which may provide a potential mechanism by which artificial light affects fitness.

Artificial light at night (ALAN), termed light pollution, is an increasingly important anthropogenic environmental pressure on wildlife. Exposure to unnatural lighting environments may have profound effects on animal physiology, particularly during early life. Here, we experimentally investigated for the first time the impact of ALAN on body mass and oxidative status during development, using nestlings of a free-living songbird, the great tit (Parus major), an important model species. Body mass and blood oxidative status were determined at baseline (=13 days after hatching) and again after a two night exposure to ALAN. Because it is very difficult to generalise the oxidative status from one or two measures we relied on a multi-biomarker approach. We determined multiple metrics of both antioxidant defences and oxidative damage: molecular antioxidants GSH, GSSG; antioxidant enzymes GPX, SOD, CAT; total non-enzymatic antioxidant capacity and damage markers protein carbonyls and TBARS. Light exposed nestlings showed no increase in body mass, in contrast to unexposed individuals. None of the metrics of oxidative status were affected. Nonetheless, our study provides experimental field evidence that ALAN may negatively affect free-living nestlings’ development and hence may have adverse consequences lasting throughout adulthood.

Males often express traits that improve competitive ability, such as aggressiveness. Females also express such traits but our understanding about why is limited. Intraspecific aggression between females might be used to gain access to reproductive resources but simultaneously incurs costs in terms of energy and time available for reproductive activities, resulting in a trade-off. Although consistent individual differences in female behaviour (i.e. personality) like aggressiveness are likely to influence these reproductive trade-offs, little is known about the consistency of aggressiveness in females. To quantify aggression we presented a female decoy to free-living female great tits (Parus major) during the egg-laying period, and assessed whether they were consistent in their response towards this decoy. Moreover, we assessed whether female aggression related to consistent individual differences in exploration behaviour in a novel environment. We found that females consistently differed in aggressiveness, although first-year females were on average more aggressive than older females. Moreover, conform life history theory predictions, ‘fast’ exploring females were more aggressive towards the decoy than ‘slow’ exploring females. Given that personality traits are often heritable, and correlations between behaviours can constrain short term adaptive evolution, our findings highlight the importance of studying female aggression within a multivariate behavioural framework.