Remix.run Logo
▲ Insects don't swarm at LED lights(birdsoutsidemywindow.org)
127 points by speckx 3 hours ago | 70 comments
▲tw04 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I have LED headlights and an LED light bar on my tractor and I can say with 100% confidence that bugs swarm both. To the point I have to wear glasses to keep them out of my eyes if I’m on it for more than about 30 seconds at night.

I’m guessing he’s confusing the dramatic drop in insect life overall with a change in behavior due to different lights.

▲mitkebes an hour ago | parent [-]

Insects are attracted to low wavelength light, which includes both UV and blue light. Cool color LEDs are usually blue LEDs, and are often used for headlights/etc because they get higher lumen ratings for the power used. Headlights/lightbars are also really bright compared to porch lights.

If you compare an incandescent soft white porch light to a similar brightness soft white led light, you will probably see dramatically more insects at the incandescent bulb. .

▲motionlessveloc 12 minutes ago | parent [-]

From TFA:

> We found that LEDs attracted significantly fewer insects than other light sources, but found no significant difference in attraction between the “cool” and “warm white” LEDs.

▲mahboi 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Welp, they do for mine. I've had to stop turning on outdoor LEDs because angry bees kept showing up, and there'd be 3-10 dead ones on my doorstep every morning. These are white bulbs. Might be "zombees."

Also, not sure about white bulbs, but those color-configurable spotlights definitely emit UV at least when set to anything near blue/purple. They cause certain things to glow. Probably white is doing it too but it's harder to see.

▲legitronics an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The color configurable bulbs or the high CRI bulbs typically use a 400nm led source and some do use a 380nm but those are much rarer and expensive. Also almost any amount of plastic or glass will significantly absorb that wavelength of UV.

I have a 405nm laser pointer and it makes certain things (any% titanium dioxide) absurdly bright from fluorescence. So you probably aren’t getting UV from those bulbs, but certainly some IR.

▲hk1337 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, we have solar powered LED lights in the walking path where I live and the lights are covered with them. They look nasty.

▲legitronics an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I really don’t think UV is playing much of a role here. You could also sort their chart by power usage, or IR produced. The paper conclusion paragraph even states UV and IR as candidates but the article just says UV.

▲gopalv 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My pet theory is that the dimmable LEDs repel insects (when used as a grow light).

The thing that insects can see and we don't is the rapid flashing of a PWM power controller.

I wonder if these streetlights have power saving fade-ins as the nightfall approaches instead of clicking on at sunset.

Like - https://doi.org/10.1109/CSNT51715.2021.9509652

▲winrid an hour ago | parent | next [-]

This. It likely depends on the driving technology. Some repell me too :P

Note you can make LEDs dim without PWM via constant current drivers, just less efficient as the duty cycle is 100%, they look much nicer though

▲dlcarrier 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The streetlights in my neighborhood still have the round photo sensors on top, that have something like a watt of standby current for the sensor itself. I don't think they're trying hard to save powwer.

▲quickthrowman 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

A low-voltage photocell uses like 5mA @ 24VAC these days, it’s nowhere near a watt. You can buy a wireless battery powered photocell or occupancy sensor that will last a decade.

▲raverbashing an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The ones that have a watt of standby are the really old models (probably not sold for the last 30yrs) where you'd have an LDR controlled relay with no electronics

Anything more modern than that, even if it has a similar case, will use less power

▲Velocifyer 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Don't forget about flicker free dimmable LEDs. I install them in my house.

▲adolph 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The article bluntly states: "Moonlight contains ultraviolet (UV) and infrared wavelengths because it is merely reflected sunlight. Insects cue on UV, believing it to be the moon. . . . Incandescent lights transmit UV but LEDs do not. Insects are far less attracted to LED."

However, my mind developed a similar conjecture to your's: what if the common frequencies of PWM occur within a kinetic visual blindspot of insect vision, like human saccades [0] in the novel Blindsight [1], so that insects are not aware of the LED at all?

0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10991/

1. https://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm#:~:text=%22There...

▲bdamm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Are we giving too little credit to the insects?

They've had many generations to evolve alongside all human false light sources. Insect generations are usually pretty short. Perhaps they just find it evolutionary useful to cluster around human sources of light. Presence of human food, liklihood of bumping into other insects of the same species, warmth, etc.

If human sources of light were interfering somehow, they've had hundreds or thousands of generations to breed out that proclivity.

▲throwaway198846 an hour ago | parent [-]

You assume it is possible to breed out without harming other advantageous behaviors which might not be case.

▲piskov 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The entire premise (moon uv, ir etc) is wrong so the conclusion is wrong.

Sky is always brighter than the land, moon is not required.

Lamp movement is the confusion of where is “up”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-44785-3

▲pasquinelli 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

a conclusion can be right even if an argument for it is wrong.

▲jmpeax a minute ago | parent [-]

If P then Q, P therefore Q. Q is not the conclusion, it's just the consequent. If P is false, then Q could be true, but claiming Q is true because P is true when P is actually false is a wrong conclusion.

▲Animats 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, you need some ultraviolet to attract insects. That's why bug-zappers have near UV lamps. They're usually compact fluorescent bulbs. Some ads say 365nm is the right color.

▲somat 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I get quite a few insects that fly around a camera, and that is near-ir. So many that a spider finds it worth it's while to build a web in front.

▲pcdoodle1 17 minutes ago | parent [-]

The cozy heat from the IR LED array could be another factor

▲okanat 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Weird. My home has only LED bulbs. There are still moths and bees who get attracted to the light when I leave the window open.

▲recursive 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Do they cluster around the bulbs? If not, they might not be attracted to the lights.

▲Brian_K_White 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Install a single incandescent somewhere and be less mystified by the claim.

They didn't say no bug ever goes to any led light.

▲ninalanyon 2 hours ago | parent [-]

But it is what the title on HN says. Is it too much to expect something like "Insects swarm less at LED lights" if that is more truthful?

▲hnlmorg 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think it’s to do with the LED flicker. You can sometimes see it in your peripheral vision (ie your light/dark receptors) but your RGB cones aren’t as good at spotting it.

Insects eyes are biologically very different.

With LED lighting, if you have lots of spot lights in the ceiling and and open door, you’ll likely find that the light leaving the house is a bath of reflection from different sources inside the house and that likely cancels out the worst of the flicker.

▲quirkot 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wonder how much of it is also the LED flicker. If I was a small bug and moving quickly with a high visual refresh rate, I would probably hate the experience of the LED flicker

▲worldsavior 3 hours ago | parent [-]

There is no such thing as refresh rate for any kind of eye.

▲stevenwoo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I highly recommend the pop science book An Immense World by Ed Yong to disabuse you of this notion. There is a sort of refresh rate (not exactly the same but good metaphor) for everything at every level of living being we study. It gives enough information for you to read the actual studied should you have more questions after reading it.

▲throwaway219450 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are odd visual illusions though, like humans perceive the Wagon-Wheel Effect even though there's no obvious reason it should happen. This is the effect where the speed of a rotating object varies depending on its sync with a discrete exposure period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon-wheel_effect

https://research.tue.nl/en/publications/subjective-strobosco...

▲qqewqe123 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You mention it yourself, these illusions only occur with "discrete exposure periods". This is moreso related to video recordings and less about how the eye sees actual physical objects. Such illusions do NOT occur with natural light.

Edit; to be clear there is a version of the wagon wheel effect under natural light, I'm just saying that the main one with discrete exposure periods does not occur irl

▲1718627440 2 hours ago | parent [-]

What? Have you never looked at another car's wheel on the highway? Or is that something that only occurs to some people (doubt it).

▲autoexec an hour ago | parent [-]

Eye vibrations can cause the effect to be visible to the naked eye. If even humming can do it, the road vibrations might too.

▲1718627440 an hour ago | parent [-]

I'm confused. I thought seeing/measuring lower frequencies due to a low sampling frequency, where the lower perceived frequency is basically the modulus of the real frequency and the sampling rate, is a well-known phenomenon independent of the actual sensor implementation.

▲autoexec 7 minutes ago | parent [-]

I guess it is, but it's unclear why it happens outside of recordings. https://www.livescience.com/32406-what-makes-wheels-appear-t...

▲quirkot 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, i know that's how the physics works, but effectively my computer monitor doesn't flicker for me but a strobe light does. Whatever the proper term for that is what I'm talking aobut

▲jschveibinz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But there is a neurological component in "optical processing" that can be modeled as a discrete rate of update although the underlying physiology is still being investigated.

▲nine_k 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is for the visual cortex though.

Try walking outside in a clear night. Look up, notice some stars, or aircraft lights. Now rotate in place, and see how low your vision's FPS is in the dark: the rotation will be visibility jumpy.

An insect, with its much simpler visual processing, and facing a bright light, will likely achieve a much higher FPS, sufficient for the sub-kilohertz flicker to be very visible.

▲inexcf 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For a game i tried to model the behavior of our eyes in the dark and read up on a lot of that stuff. Not once was there a suggestion of jumpy vision. And that is also not my experience. In low light things begin to smudge, lots of ghosting the further in the periphery of your view they move in.

▲IanCal 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you thinking about saccades? I don’t think I’ve ever seen what you’re talking about with non-flickering sources.

▲smallmancontrov 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nyquist had something to say about that.

▲nxpnsv an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wow. I put spotlight on a sheet in the garden to figure out what moths we have. Got nothing, and maybe this is why.

▲nemo1618 an hour ago | parent [-]

The gold standard for mothing is a mercury vapor bulb. They are pricey and power-hungry, but they'll have your sheet covered in bugs in no time!

▲lakeviewterrace 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What lies.

I bought LED "bug lights" — those yellow bulbs that are supposed to be invisible to bugs.

Every bulb in the pack electrically failed within 10 minutes.

I gave up and went back to an incandescent. Still works perfectly.

So sick of the zero-quality LED bulbs that have entirely flooded the market. Of course they had their hand forced by government mandates, people needed mass quantities of cheap bulbs that could match a 75¢ incandescent. They didn't have this problem when LED bulbs were $20 each (and weighed about as much, due to the heat sink).

▲oakwhiz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The study didn't cover high pressure sodium bulbs, the previously popular type in street lamps.

▲actionfromafar an hour ago | parent [-]

The best light.

▲theandrewbailey 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe this helps answer the question of 'where did the bugs go', because windshields aren't as full of them today compared to 20-30 years ago.

▲cbg0 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The answer to that is pesticides. There's still plenty of insects ready to smash into your windshield in many parts of the world.

▲silisili 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I wonder what percentage is pesticides vs development? I currently live in an area(US) where a drive to the nearest city of size absolutely coats my car in bugs. US, mostly farmland(soybeans/corn). I wasn't here 30 years ago so can't say there's as many as then, likely not. But if it were only pesticides I'd expect the rural areas to have less bugs than the more developed areas...

▲aeonfox an hour ago | parent [-]

As someone who has made many interstate trips through Australia's farmland, I can say that over the decades there's definitely been a drop in windshield splatter. It's unsurprising that pesticide deployed at scale reduces bug populations. Even herbicides which aren't intended as insecticides have limited product advantage to being bug-safe (apart from pollinated crops... and even then). Some aren't even human-safe. An extreme example is paraquat, that while being a herbicide, is irreversibly deadly to humans^ when consumed even in tiny amounts.

^ Obligatory Chubbyemu: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VtUGoGZtI8

▲arcfour 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Pesticides weren't in use 20-30 years ago? Wouldn't more dangerous pesticides have been in use then, too, compared to now?

▲roromainmain 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They have been used much more massively since the 80s, price decreased significantly.

▲mcmcmc 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, and advancements have made them both safer and more effective

▲baoooooooooooo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

wow this would be a neat twist if true - we all defaulted to the negative explanation of having killed them all where a much more positive explanation might be that we're no longer luring them to their deaths at the leading edge of automobiles?

I guess it is most likely some combination of the above, but if there's any evidence it would be a neat reframing

▲HelloMcFly 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The mass insect-death on windshield issue was as much a daytime issue and nighttime one.

▲amelius 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Are you sure about that?

▲Angostura an hour ago | parent [-]

Yes. The daytime crop was always greater than at night

▲mahboi 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The McFlies don't think very much

▲calt 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

My hypothesis is better wind tunnel testing for modern cars so that the bugs go over instead of splatting.

▲Xcelerate 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wonder if it’s only the UV that makes a difference. I have some Yuji SunWave bulbs (and the NIR versions). Would be interesting to test those at night against normal LED bulbs and incandescent.

▲HeyLaughingBoy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Um, no. I live on a farm and often have to do chores in the dark with an LED headlight. Sometimes I have to turn it off because I'm dive bombed by so many insects.

▲ChrisMarshallNY 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have noticed that. We have LED porch lights, and never see the usual moths and whatnot.

▲skeezyboi an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

because they dont emit UV.... a lot of waffle to tell me that

▲unpleasurable 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do flames emit UV?

▲officeplant 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, but how much UV depends on what's burnin / how hot its burning. Otherwise they mostly put out IR.

We use UV/IR combo Flame detectors at work for this purpose.

▲bell-cot an hour ago | parent [-]

IIR, hydrogen flames can emit enough of their energy in the UV for that to be a serious issue - both direct human exposure, and degradation of exposed surfaces and equipment.

▲metalman 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

lived with candles and kerocene lanterns, etc for years and the odd bug will go nuts and spiral in, but not very many but all in all, there are way less bugs everywhere now

▲devindotcom 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

a little but not much, from my quick look online.

▲aaomidi 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No but they emit smoke