Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Moth Species Caught by Ultraviolet and Visible Light Sources in Connection with Their Wingspan

Written By

László Nowinszky, Lionel Hill, János Puskás, Károly Tar and Levente Hufnagel

Submitted: September 22nd, 2021Reviewed: January 17th, 2022Published: February 26th, 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.102718

Chapter metrics overview

47 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


For a long time, researchers have compared light traps operating with different light sources. According to the results, ultraviolet lights often performed better than visible light sources. In the present study, we examine the wingspan of macrolepidoptera species in relation to the catch result of visible (visible) and BL traps in choice and no-choice situations using data from the Hungarian light-trap network. We used the catch data of 19 light-trap stations from 1962 to 1963. Up to 18 stations belonged to the national network and the last one was in Nagytétény. We processed data of 381 species of the 18 light-traps data of the national network and data of 222 species from the light traps of Nagytétény. The data of the wingspan of the different macrolepidoptera species we collected from the websites of UKmoths (, and Guide to the Butterflies and Moths of Hungary (macrolepidoptera) ( We summarised for each light-trap station and each trap type the number of the macrolepidopteran species and individuals caught from different generations. Then, using the Mann–Whitney test, we checked for species the number of individuals captured by visible and BL traps, and the difference of the level of significance. We summarised the wingspan data of all the 381 species, the more efficient light source for each species in a no-choice situation at multiple sites and for the single site of Nagytétény the more efficient light source for species detected there. The BL trap seems most efficient for operation for plant protecting purposes, despite the fact that their use is far more problematic. Insect species are not only endangered by light trapping but also by the light pollution of urban areas. Our results confirm that the different light sources should incur mortality on different species to differing levels. Such differential mortality from artificial light sources could disturb the balance of life in biological communities.


  • moths
  • wingspan
  • light-trap
  • visible and BL light sources

1. Introduction

For a long time, researchers worldwide have compared light traps operating with different light sources. The results have been diverse although ultraviolet lights often performed better than white light sources. Catching results seem to vary with taxa and with the size of insects; so, it is not easy to assert that one type of light source is best for all occasions. Knowledge of the responses of various insect taxa to artificial light not only has implications for trapping techniques in entomology but also for assessing the impact of artificial light pollution on biological ecosystems.

Researchers have also examined the spectral sensitivity of the insect’s eye. Electroretinogram measurements are used to determine the spectral sensitivity of the insect eye. In international literature, several studies are devoted to the results of laboratory measurements carried out on various species. No reports of such experiments are known in Hungary, and data on the most important Hungarian pestilent species are also missing from the international literature on the subject.

Few researchers have examined the relationship of the body or eye size with the selection of light sources.

Different light sources are used in the various types of light traps. The light source determines the running temperature, the colour temperature, and the spectral distribution of the light energy that it emits. Some sources such as black light (BL) emit mainly in the ultraviolet wavelength range (320–400 nm), some such as normal or white light (V) emit in the visible range (400–700 nm), and some such as mercury vapour (Hg) emit across ultraviolet and visible wavelengths (200–600 nm). Some sources emit or are filtered to a narrow range of wavelengths such as particular colours visible to the human eye.

Mikkola [1] established that moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera) and caddis fly species (Trichoptera) have an eye sensitivity that remains practically unchanged in the 350–600 nm spectrum. Its maximum is around 550 nm (green, same as the value of the human eye during daytime). The sensitivity is greatly reduced at about 620 nm (orange-red). McFarlane and Eaton [2] have reported that the responses of Cabbage Looper (Trichoplusia niHbn.) to monochromatic light stimuli have been investigated by electroretinogram (ERG) and electromyogram (EMG) techniques. The spectral sensitivity curves for male and female Cabbage Loppers show a major peak at 540–550 nm and a minor peak in the ultraviolet range at 360 nm. Agee [3] showed by electroretinogram tests that the sensitivity of eyes of the Bollworm Moth (Heliothis zeaBoddie) and Tobacco Bollworm (Heliothis virescensF.) to 365 nm and 480–575 nm wavelengths light is the highest.

Pappas and Eaton [4] found that the ocelli of the Tobacco Hornworm (Manduca sextaL.) are more sensitive to 520 nm light than to 360 nm light stimuli. Similar results are reported by Eguchi et al. [5] about the Sphingid moths. These moths possess the highest peak sensitivity at 540 nm.

Gui et al. [6] reported that the colours on which comparable data are available to arrange themselves in order of least to most attractiveness to insects as red, yellow, white, and blue. From tests of Taylor and Deay [7], it appears that the maximum attractiveness for the European Corn Borer (Ostrinia nubilalisHbn.) is in the near-ultraviolet region between 320 and 380 nm.

Many researchers found that ultraviolet or black light was most effective in catching insects but for some taxa, a combination of ultraviolet and visible light was more effective while a few taxa were best trapped by using visible light alone.

In a comparative experiment, Frost [8] found that black light attracted almost all taxa of insects more than white light. The exceptions were the Miridae and Chrysopidae, which preferred white light. Belton and Kempster [9] (1963) caught more Noctuidae and Geometridae with a BL fluorescent tube than with the normal or cold white light (N). Sifter [10] examined the swarming of the Chestnut Weevil (Curculio elephasGyllenhal, Coleoptera: Curculionidae) by using visible and BL light traps. The body length of this beetle is only 6–9 mm. The normal light trap did not catch a single specimen but the BL one was suitable for investigation of swarming. According to Bürgés et al. [11], those families (Geometridae, Sphingidae, Notodontidae, Arctiidae, and Noctuidae) that are rich in species fly to both normal and BL light traps, but the BL traps catch significantly more species and more specimens of many species [12] studied the efficiency of catching useful or beneficial insects by using different light sources. The Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) species preferred BL, the Ophionsp. (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) preferred blue BL while Chrysopaspp. (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) was trapped equally well with white and BL light, while every source of light had the same impact on some broad damsel bugs (Hemiptera: Nabidae) and the lacewings, Hemerobiusspp. (Neuroptera: Hemerobiidae). Comparative studies [13] found each of several Microlepidoptera species was more effectively collected in BL traps than normal ones. In our earlier study [14], we compared in two light-trap stations, the composition of species of five macrolepidopteran families from the material of normal and BL light traps by applying the Sorensen index. The results are the follows: Geometridae: 0.607 and 0.518; Sphingidae: 0.750 and 0.500; Notodontidae: 0.444 and 0.429; Arctiidae: 0.714 and 0.609; Noctuidae: 0.608 and 0.527.

Some authors found ultraviolet light more effective than particular wavelengths of visible light in trapping insects. In the test of Day and Reid [15], the 15 W fluorescent BL lamps were more efficient for capturing Conoderus falliLane (Coleoptera: Elateridae) than similar yellow sources. Teel et al. [16] perceived the maximum sensitivity of the eye of Hickory Shuckworm (Laspeyresia caryanaFitch.) at 365 nm and 515 nm. At these two values, six times as many individuals responded to the near-ultraviolet light than to the green light. Skuhravý et al. [17] found a BL trap much more effective than either yellow, green, or red light in collecting the Saddle Gall Midge (Haplodiplosis marginatavon Roser) (Diptera: Cecidomydae).

Some authors found a combination of ultraviolet and visible wavelengths to be most effective. Cleve [18] found an ultraviolet fluorescent lamp (BL) that was very attractive to insects if it illuminated a white sheet. Similarly, Belton and Kempster [19] verified the results of their laboratory measurements of eye sensitivity by the test of light-trap collecting. They caught the highest number of insects with lamps emitting both BL and visible light. The catch dwindled when they used BL alone while visible light alone produced an even poorer result. A striking contradiction was found, however, for the six most important insect groups (Coleoptera, Trichoptera, Lepidoptera, Brachycera, and Nematocera Ichneumonoidea) in terms of sensitivity and attractive lighting effect. These insects’ eyes were more sensitive to the yellow light but the attractive effect was the opposite.

Some authors found visible light to be more effective than ultraviolet light in trapping certain insects. Jászainé [20] analysed the catching results of Common Meadow Bug (Exolygus pratensisWagner) (Heteroptera: Miridae) in normal (V) and ultraviolet light traps (BL) to find the former caught more individuals. Other taxa showing a greater attraction to regular light include some fruit flies [21] virus vector cicadae (Laodelphax striatella(Fallén) and Javesella pellucida(Fabr., Homoptera, Areopidae) [22] European Grapevine Moth (Lobesia botranaDen. et Schiff.) and Vine Moth (Eupoecilia ambiguellaHbn. [23].

Some authors included light sources, such as mercury and sodium in their experiments. For [24] the standard light trap caught only a few specimens of the Eurasian Hemp Moths (Grapholita delineanaWalker) while a HgLS light source caught many of these moths. The wingspan of the Eurasian Hemp Moths is 10–14 mm.

Blomberg et al. [25] compared two types of light trap catch results. One of them was the so-called blended light trap containing a 160 W Tungsram mercury fluorescent lamp emitting ultraviolet and visible light. The BL was provided with a 125 W Philips HPW lamp. The mercury fluorescent lamp caught twice as many moths of the macrolepidoptera (families Geometridae and Noctuidae), and the microlepidopteran species as the BL trap.

According to Gál et al. and Bürgés [26, 27, 28] for light trapping of Chestnut Weevil (Curculio elephasGyllenhal) and Acorn Moth (Cydia splendanaHbn.) the most effective light source is the mercury vapour lamp (HgW). Traps with visible or BL lamps achieved comparable catches to each other but less than the mercury source, which produces both ultraviolet and visible light.

Extremely valuable conclusions follow from a series of experiments by Járfás et al., Járfás and Tóth [29, 30] in which catch results yielded by 125 W (HgVE 27) ultraviolet, 125 W (HgLSE27) mercury vapour, 100 W (OHP 220–230 VAO) krypton, 100 W (F3) 50 cm neon, 250 W (E 279043 IMP) infraruby, and 50 cm germicidal lamps were compared. Silver Y moths (Autographa gammaL.), Pine Chafers (Polyphylla fulloL.), Vine Chafers (Anomala vitisFabr.), and Scarab Beetles (Anoxia orientalisKryniczky) flew to the mercury vapour lamps in the highest numbers, while infraruby light proved to be practically unsuitable for trapping. Járfás published further results of his experiments on different moth species. Most suitable for catching was the mercury lamp (HgW) ahead of BL which was better than visible or visible light for the Silver Y (A. gammaL.) [29], the Codling Moth (Cydia pomonellaL.) [31], the Pea Podborer (Etiella zinckenellaTr.) [32] and the Beet Webworm (Loxostege sticticalisL.) [33]. Also, Járfás [34] reported that the Apple Peel Tortrix (Adoxophyes reticulanaHbn.), the Pear Moth (Laspeyresia pyrivoraPan.), and the Plum Fruit Moth (Grapholita funebranaTr.) can be best caught with the mercury vapour lamp (HgW) but for the Strawberry Tortricid (Pandemis dumetanaTr.) and the Dark Fruit-tree Tortrix (Pandemis heparanaDen. et Schiff.) the visible light bulb was most effective. Similarly, the European Corn Borer (O. nubilalisHbn.) was collected in the HgW traps more successfully than in the visible and the BL traps [35].

Wallner et al. [36] carried out experiments with three lymantriid species in the Russian Far East. They caught significantly more moths of all three species using fluorescent black light than either phosphor mercury or high-pressure sodium lamps. The species were Gipsy Moth (Lymantria disparL.), Nun Moth (Lymantria monacaL.), and the Pink Gipsy Moth (Lymantria maturaMoore).

Fayle et al. [37] compared three types of Robinson light traps equipped with 125 W mercury bulb, which emits visible and ultraviolet light. One of these light sources included materials that absorb visible light; so, this lamp was an ultraviolet or BL type trap. The fewest moths were caught by the BL trap. Barghini [38] tested four light sources. Most insects were caught using the high-pressure mercury lamp (Hg). A further order was as follows—high-pressure sodium (Na) without a BL filter and the same type with BL filter.

In the last decade, most researchers found a connection between the body size of the insects, expressed as body weight, eye size or wingspan, and their light sensitivity. Taxa with larger eyes and wingspan have higher light sensitivity than those with smaller eyes. Over the last decade, published studies supported the finding that the vision of insects with greater body weight is more sensitive than the smaller species. Such a statement was published concerning desert ants (Cataglyphis) [39]; pollen foraging bees, (Apoidea) [40] the bumblebees (Bombus terrestrisL.) [41, 42]; the nymphalid butterflies (Nymphalidae) [43]. Moser et al. [44] found a connection between the size of the eyes of 10 Attaspecies (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and the time of nuptial flight using the digital photograph method. The diameter of compound eyes of the night flying species was significantly larger. Yack et al. [45] reported similar results in the Macrosoma eliconiariaWalker (Lepidoptera: Hedyloidea) species.

Experiments of Kino and Oshima [46] suggest that moth and butterfly emanations could cause allergy-induced bronchial asthma in certain patients. Since moths are attracted readily to artificial lights and often fly into houses, these insects are especially suspect as important factors in extrinsic asthma. Barghini and Medeiros [47] (2010) assumed that in developing countries, the growing light pollution will affect the spread of vector-borne human diseases as well.

van Langevelde et al. [48] established that artificial light with smaller wavelengths attracted more individuals and greater specific diversity of insects than light with larger wavelengths. The attraction was correlated with the body mass, wingspan, and eye size of moths. The size-dependent response to artificial light sources is likely to distort the ecosystems if it generates selective mortality.

In the above-mentioned studies, the catch coming from parallel operated regular and BL light traps offered a unique possibility to answer the following questions.

  • Is there a significant difference by species and families between the catch yielded by the two types of traps?

  • Which of the two light sources is more suitable for trapping what species?

  • Are there any species that can only be collected by one of the two types of light sources?

  • Does either of the two types indicate the presence of more species than the other?

  • To what extent do the materials yielded by the two types of traps at the same observation site differ in their composition by species?

In the present study, we examined the wingspan of macrolepidopteran species in relation to the catch result of visible and BL traps in choice and no-choice situations using data from the Hungarian light-trap network.


2. Material

To compare the differences in the practical use of visible and BL light traps, from 1962, the Hungarian Plant Protection Research Institute at Keszthely experimented with the parallel operation of two light traps, one running on a visible bulb producing mainly visible light and the other outfitted with BL light-emitting mainly ultraviolet light. Also in 1962, the Plant Protection Service, in its turn, added a BL light trap in Nagytétény to the ones running on visible light, and equipped all its county plant protection stations also with BL traps in 1963. The national network of parallel operated visible and BL light traps opened up the possibility to a wide-scale examination of the results and usefulness of collecting with the two types. Most valuable information was provided by the light traps at Nagytétény where regular and BL traps were placed at a mere 10 metres distance from one another. The proximity of the two traps meant an identity of the microclimate, vegetation, and the distance from the habitats of the various species and so the insects were practically offered the choice of the two different light sources. At other sites, the visible and BL traps were separated by a distance greater than their likely radius of effect and so did not offer a choice situation to insects.

The visible and BL light traps operated in the following cities and villages:

Baj (47°38′N, 18°21′E)Mikepércs (47°26′N, 21°37′E)
Csopak (45°58′N, 17°55′E)Miskolc (48°51′N, 20°46′E)
Fácánkert (46°26′N, 18°44′E)Nagytétény (47°38′N, 18°97′E)
Gyöngyös (47°46′N, 19°55′E)Pacsa (46°43′N, 17°09′E)
Győr-Kismegyer (47°39′N, 17°39′E)Szederkény (45°59′N, 18°27′E)
Hódmezővásárhely (46°25′N, 20°19′E)Tanakajd (47°11′N, 16°44′E)
Kaposvár (46°22′N, 17°46′E)Tarhos (46°48′N, 21°12′E)
Kállósemjén (47°51′N, 21°55′E)Tass (47°12′N, 19°20′E)
Kenderes (47°13′N, 20°45′E)Velence (47°14′N, 18°38′E)
Keszthely (46°46′N, 17°15′E)

The complete macrolepidopteran material of above-listed light traps was processed in our work. We processed data of 381 species of the 18 light-traps data of the national network and data of 222 species from the light traps of Nagytétény.

The data of the wingspan of the different Macrolepidoptera species we collected from the websites of UKmoths (, and Guide to the Butterflies and Moths of Hungary (macrolepidoptera) (


3. Methods

We summarise for each light-trap station and each trap type the number of the macrolepidopteran species and individuals caught from different generations but did not separate the individuals into generations. Then, using the Mann–Whitney test, we checked for species the number of individuals captured by visible and BL traps, and the difference of the level of significance. The theoretical bases of the test and its application were shown by Hajtman et al. [49, 50] in detail. We created a common sample in the course of the procedure, which included all of the observation sites. The element number of the sample is twice the number of observation sites (because two traps were in operation at every station), at which one of the traps revealed the presence of a species. We sum it up by segregating the numbers of individuals in the unified sample. We compared these values with the table value to determine the difference and its level of significance.

Particular attention was paid to the comparison of catches at Nagytétény in the visible and BL traps which were in close proximity, with identical micro-climate, vegetation, and habitat, so that the moths could choose between different light sources at one place.

In the taxonomic sequence, we tabulate all species for wingspan and preferred type of light trap. We separate in this table the light traps of the nationwide network (no-choice situations) from the light traps at Nagytétény (choice situation).

For graphical analysis, we arranged in ascending order, regardless of their taxonomic place, all the species collected both by the national light-trap network, as well as the Nagytétény traps according to the wingspan of insects. We calculated the percentages of species caught by BL and visible traps in relation to the sum of data of the network and also Nagytétény. We calculated the approaching functions of the curves.

The approximate curve is the so-called logistic curve:


where “k” is the saturation value [51]. In our case, k = 100, because the elements of samples are in percentage. So, we must not estimate the value of kfrom the samples. In this way, the values of b0 and b1 can be determined by linear regression of transformed data. The estimated values of these constants are: b0 = 3.19, b1 = −0.151.

The value of the correlation index can be determined from the relationship:


where sr2is the residual variance, sy2is the variance of the independent variable? In our case: ixy = 0.956.

We depicted their number as the species in the function of the wingspan, that BL and the visible light traps collected it in an equal proportion. We made use of the middle values of the extreme values in all cases. We examined in Ref. to the families Sphingidae, Geometridae, Notodontidae, Erebidae, and Noctuidae whether the number of species collected effectively by the visible or BL traps differed? We also looked for species that cannot be detected in the two results (visible versus BL) in significant differences despite the number of traps being sufficient to determine significant differences.


4. Results and discussion

We summarise in Table 1 that the wingspan data of all the 378 species, the more efficient light source for each species in a no-choice situation at multiple sites and for the single site of Nagytétény the more efficient light source for species detected there.

No.Scientific names of speciesABCD
Drepanidae (Average of wingspan is 31.6 mm)
1Watsonalla binariaHfn.2410E
2Drepana falcatariaL.316E
3Sabra harpagulaEsp.305E
4Cilix glaucataScop.2020EE
5Asphalia ruficollisDen. et Schiff.364E
6Habrosyne pyrithoidesHfn.375E
7Tethea ocularisHbn.354BL
8Tethea orDen. et Schiff.407E
Lasiocampidae (Average of wingspan is 42.2 mm)
9Poecilocampa populiL.376E
10Trichiura crataegiL.275E
11Malacosoma neustriaL.3012E
12Lasiocampa trifoliiDen. et Schiff.476EBL
13Odonestis pruniL.4017BL
14Macrothylacia rubiL.5211E
15Phyllodesma ilicifoliaL.3511BL
16Gastropacha quercifoliaL.7017BLE
Saturniidae (Average of wingspan is 82.5 mm
17Saturnia pyriDen. et Schiff.1157BL
18Saturnia pavoniaL.505BL
Sphingidae (Average of wingspan is 82.5 mm
19Mimas tiliaeL.6712BLBL
20Smerinthus ocellataL.7521BLBL
21Laothoe populiL.7717BLV
22Marumba quercusDen. et Schif.1005E
23Agrius convolvuliL.10014BL
24Sphinx ligustriL.10519BLE
25Sphinx pinastriL.7711BL
26Macroglossum stellatarum L.455E
27Deilephila elpenorL.5314BL
28Deilephila porcellusL.4314BLBL
29Hyles euphorbiaeL.6521BLBL
Geometridae (Average of wingspan is 26.1 mm)
30Rhodostrophia vibicariaClerck2716EBL
31Idaea rufariaHbn.136EV
32Idaea serpentataHfn.225E
33Idaea aureolariaDen. et Schiff.114BL
34Idaea muricataHfn.198E
35Idaea rusticataDen & Schiff.2017EBL
36Idaea obsoletariaRambur224V
37Idaea fuscovenosaGoeze.2012EBL
38Idaea humiliataHfn.2012VV
39Idaea politariaHbn.165V
40Idaea seriataSchrk.205EBL
41Idaea dimidiataHfn.1617VV
42Idaea nitidataH.-Sch.204EBL
43Idaea aversataL.2616EBL
44Idaea degenerariaHbn.287EBL
45Idaea straminataBrkh.3010EBL
46Scopula immorataL.2317EBL
47Scopula nigropunctataHfn.314E
48Scopula virgulataDen. et Schiff.2020VE
49Scopula ornataScop.2211VV
50Scopula rubiginataHfn.1819EE
51Scopula marginepunctataGoeze2618EE
52Scopula immutataL.2517VE
53Scopula rubiginataHfn.1819EE
54Scopula marginepunctataGoeze2618EE
55Scopula flaccidariaZeller2114E
56Scopula corrivalariaKretschm.205E
57Scopula incanataL.267E
58Timandra comaeSchmidt2522VE
59Cyclophora annulariaFabr.2015EBL
60Cyclophora ruficiliariaH.-Sch.274E
61Cyclophora punctariaL.2214E
62Cyclophora lineariaHbn.298BL
63Philbalapteryx virgataHfn.237EBL
64Lythria purpurariaL.2415EBL
65Orthonama vittataBkh.247E
66Nycterosea obstipataFabr.1916EBL
67Xanthorrhoe fluctuataL.2120EBL
68Xanthorrhoe spadiceariaDen. et Schiff.254E
69Xanthorrhoe ferrugataClerck2016VV
70Catarhoe cuculataHfn.244E
71Catarhoe rubidataDen. et Schiff.286VV
72Costaconvexa polygrammataBkh.267E
73Epirrhoe alternataMüller2215EBL
74Epirrhoe galiataDen. et Schiff.305E
75Pelurga comitataL.2713EV
76Gandaritis pyraliataDen. et Schiff.304E
77Operophthera brumataL.2511V
78Philereme vetulataDen. et Schiff.279EBL
79Perizoma alchemillataL.1610BLV
80Gymnoscelis rufifasciataHaw.175EBL
81Pasiphila rectangulataL.175E
82Eupithecia linariataDen. et Schiff.1314EV
83Eupithecia simpliciataHaw.2212EBL
84Eupithecia innotataHfn.214EBL
85Eupithecia centaureataDen. et Schiff.1822EBL
86Eupithecia vulgataHaw.167E
87Eupithecia millefoliataRossler218V
88Aplocera plagiataL.4012EBL
89Lithostege griseataDen. et Schiff.2911EBL
90Lithostege farinataHfn.3119EE
91Abraxas grossulariataL.375E
92Lomaspilis marginataL.3411E
93Ligdia adustataDen. et Schiff.2215EBL
94Stegania dilectariaHbn.219E
95Macaria alternataDen. et Schiff.2417EE
96Macaria artesiariaDen. et Schiff.266E
97Narraga tessulariaMetzner156E
98Chiasmia clathrataL.2322EBL
99Epione repandariaHfn.277E
100Angerona prunariaL.409E
101Ennomos autumnariaWerneburg4516EBL
102Ennomos fuscantariaHaw.3711BL
103Ennomos erosariaDen. et Schiff.3212BL
104Selenia lunariaDen. et Schiff.3916EV
105Artiora evonymariaDen. et Schiff.294VV
106Crocallis elinguariaL.365EBL
107Colotois pennariaL.408E
108Alsophila aesculariaDen. et Schiff.304E
109Ascotis selenariaDen. et Schiff.4321EBL
110Lycia hirtariaClerck409EBL
111Biston betulariaL.4711BLBL
112Agriopsis bajariaDen. et Schiff.297E
113Therapis flavicariaDen. et Schiff.295V
114Erannis defoliariaClerck.357EBL
115Peribatodes rhomboidariaDen. et Schiff.3413EBL
116Cleora cinctariaDen. et Schiff.316E
117Agriopis aurantiariaHbn.3120EBL
118Ectropis crepusculariaL.3520VBL
119Elicrinia trinotataMetzner136E
120Heliomata glareariaDen. et Schiff.1814EBL
121Synopsia sociariaHbn.365E
122Aethalura punctulataDen. et Schiff.325E
123Ematurga atomariaL.2617EBL
124Bupalus piniariaL.324BL
125Cabera pusariaL.2610E
126Cabera exanthemataScop.3215EBL
127C. exanthemataScop.3215EBL
128Lomographa temerataDen. et Schiff.244E
129Tephrina arenaceariaDen. et Schiff.2522EBL
130Tephrina murinariaDen. et Schiff.2811EBL
131Thetidia smaragdariaProut3515E
132Phaiogramma etruscariaZeller199VV
133Hemistola chrysoprasariaEsp.3010E
134Thalera fimbrialisScop.2716E
135Chlorissa clorariaHbn.156E
136Chlorissa viridataL.2520VV
Notodontidae (Average of wingspan is 39.7 mm)
137Thaumetopoea processioneaL.308EBL
138Cerura vinulaL.577BL
139Furcula furculaClerk3112BLBL
140Furcula bifidaBrahm4016BLBL
141Drymonia dodoneaDen. et Schiff.356E
142Drymonia quernaFabr.417E
143Drymonia ruficornisHfn.374E
144Notodonta dromedariusL.375E
145Notodonta ziczacL.4717BLBL
146Notodonta tritophusDen. et Schiff.506BL
147Pheosia tremulaClerk5014BLBL
148Pterostoma palpinaClerck4520VN
149Ptilodon capucinaL.375E
150Ptilophora plumigeraDen. et Schiff.386EBL
151Spatalia argentinaDen. et Schiff.3711BL
152Phalera bucephalaL.4817BLBL
153Gluphisia crenataBray3513E
154Clostera curtulaL.3114VBL
155Clostera pigraHfn.249EN
156Clostera anastomosisL.3514EBL
Erebidae (Average of wingspan is 37,7 mm)
157Scoliopteryx libatrixL.4211EV
158Rivula sericealisScop.2021EE
159Hypena proboscidalisL.314E
160Hypena rostralisL.3012EE
161Leucoma salicisL.437E
162Lymantria disparL.4318BLBL
163Ocneria rubeaDen. et Schiff.396EE
164Euproctis chrysorrhoeaL.3915E
165Euproctis similisFuessly315E
166Calliteara pudibundaL.507E
167Orgya antiquaL.277BLBL
168Hyphantria cuneaDrury3821EBL
169Spilosoma luteaHfn.3418EBL
170Spilosoma lubricipedaL.4120EE
171Spilosoma urticaeEsp.4218EE
172Diaphora mendicaClerck338EBL
173Diacrisia sannioL.4214E
174Phragmatobia fuliginosaL.3222BLBL
175Phragmatobia lucuferDen. et Schiff..377EBL
176Arctia cajaL.5521BLBL
177Arctia villicaL.5214BLV
178Ocnogyna parasitaHbn.325E
179Chelis maculosaGerning3311EBL
180Miltochrista miniataForster254E
181Pelosia muscerdaHfn.267E
182Thumatha senexHbn.1712E
183Pelosia obtusaH-Sch.258EBL
184Lithosia quadraL.4512EBL
185Eilema lurideolaZincken314E
186Eilema complanaL.3115BLBL
187Eilema palliatellaScop.347BLBL
188Dysauxes ancillaL.2312E
189Eilema pygmaeolaDoubleday2614EBL
190Eilema sororculaHfn.285BL
191Paracolax tristalisFabr.3111E
192Herminia tarsicrinalisKnoch.308EV
193Polypogon tentaculariaL.254E
194Zanclognatha lunalisScop.347V
195Simplicia rectalisEv.296EBL
196Schrankia costaestrigalisSteph.195V
197Lygephila craccaeDen. et Schiff.437BLBL
198Phytometra viridariaCl.199EBL
199Colobochyla salicalisDen. et Schiff.287E
200Catocala elocataEsp.7510BLBL
201Euclidia glyphica L.2714EE
Noctuidae (Average of wingspan is 34,73 mm)
202Eublemma purpurinaDen. et Schiff.2518BLBL
203Abrostola triplasiaL.3010E
204Abrostola trigeminaWerneburg3710EBL
205Autographa gammaL.4021BLBL
206Macdunnoughia confusaSteph.3521EBL
207Diachrysia chrysitisL.3121BLE
208Plusia festucaeL.3812BL
209Deltote pygargaHfn.219E
210Deltote deceptoriaScop.244E
211Deltote unculaClerck2113E
212Deltote bankianaFabr.2611E
213Acontia lucidaHfn.2822BLBL
214Acontia trabealisScop.1922EBL
215Odice arcuinnaHbn.274EBL
216Aedia funestaEsp.3220BLE
217Tyta luctuosaDen. et Schiff.2322EBL
218Colocasia coryliL.3410E
219Diloba caeruleocephalaL.3515E
220Symira albovenosaGoeze.3810EV
221Symira nervosaDen. et Schiff.327E
222Acronicta tridensDen. et Schiff.4016BLBL
223Acronicta psiL.407EBL
224Acronicta acerisL.454BLBL
225Acronicta rumicisL.3421BLBL
226Acronicta megacephalaDen. et Schiff.4220BLBL
227Oxycesta geographicaFabr.254VV
228Craniophora ligustriDen. et Schiff.3810BL
229Cucullia umbraticaL.4722BLBL
230Cucullia chamomillaeDen. et Schiff.414EBL
231Cucullia lactucaeDen. et Schiff.485BL
232Cucullia fraudatrixEv.386E
233Lamprosticta cultaDen. et Schiff.424BLBL
234Ammoconia caecimaculaDen. et Schiff.4210BLBL
235Calophasia lunulaHfn.2918EBL
236Amphipyra pyramideaL.465BLBL
237Amphipyra lividaDen. et Schiff.428EBL
238Amphipyra tragopoginisClerck3517BLBL
239Asteroscopus sphinxHfn.4411E
240Allophyes oxyacanthaeL.427EBL
241Pyrrhia umbraHfn.3115EBL
242Protoschinia scutosaDen. et Schiff.335E
243Heliothis viriplacaHfn.3321BLBL
244Heliothis maritimaGraslin3322BLBL
245Periphanes delphiniiL.3619BLBL
246Acosmetia caliginosaHbn.2710VE
247Eucarta virgoTr.3513E
248Cryphia algaeFabr.274BL
249Cryphia raptriculaDen. et Schiff.3210BL
250Pseudeustrotia candidula Den. et Schiff.2221EBL
251Spodoptera exiguaHbn.2912BLBL
252Elaphria venustulaHbn.217E
253Episema glaucinaEsp.369EE
254Episema tersaDen. et Schiff.3611BLBL
255Caradrina morpheusHfn.3517EBL
256Platyperigea kadeniiFreyer308BLBL
257Paradrina clavipalpisScop.3021BLBL
258Hoplodrina respersaHbn.308BLV
259Hoplodrina alsinesBrahm.3117BLBL
260Hoplodrina respersaDen. et Schiff.314E
261Hoplodrina blandaDen. et Schiff.3314BLBL
262Hoplodrina ambiguaDen. et Schiff.3319BLBL
263Chilodes maritimusTauscher337EBL
264Charanyca trigrammicaHfn.3716EBL
265Athetis gluteosaTr.2519EBL
266Athetis furvulaHbn.2011E
267Dypterygia scabriusculaL.3413EBL
268Trachea atriplicisL.4012E
269Actinotia polyodonClerck335E
270Phlogophora meticulosaL.4712BLBL
271Euplexia luciparaL.297E
272Gortyna flavagoDen. et Schiff.379E
273Hydraecia micaceaEsp.365EBL
274Luperina testaceaDen. et Schiff.3222EBL
275Rhizedra lutosaHbn.4618BLBL
276Nonagria typhaeThnbg.476EBL
277Archanara geminipunctaHaw.295EBL
278Archanara dissolutaTr.304E
279Denticucullus pygminaHaw.2610EBL
280Photedes fluxaHbn.289EBL
281Globia sparganiiEsp.368E
282Globia algaeEsp.387E
283Apamea ancepsDen. et Schiff.3715BL
284Apamea sordensHfn.3816EE
285Apamea monoglyphaHfn.5013BLBL
286Apamea sublustrisEsp.425EV
287Mesapamea secalisL.287BL
288Mesoligia furunculaDen. et Schiff.259EBL
289Oligia latrunculaDen. et Schiff.2519EE
290Oligia strigilisL.2317BLE
291Xanthia gilvagoDen. et Schiff.364BL
292Xanthia ocellarisBkh.378EBL
293Aegle kaekeritzianaHbn.269EV
294Mesogona acetosellaeDen. et Schiff.425BLBL
295Agrochola lychnidisDen. et Schiff.3919BLBL
296Agrochola lituraL.3215BLBL
297Agrochola helvolaL.414E
298Agrochola lotaClerck369EBL
299Agrochola circellarisHfn.375E
300Agrochola humilisDen. et Schiff.386BL
301Ammoconia caecimaculaDen. et Schiff.4210BLBL
302Conistra vacciniiL.3216EBL
303Conistra rubiginosaScop.356E
304Conistra erythrocephalaDen. et Schiff.387E
305Eupsilia transversaHfn.3713E
306Cosmia affinisL.317BL
307Cosmia trapezinaL.2913EBL
308Cosmia pyralinaDen. et Schiff.314E
309Atethmia centragoHaw.344EBL
310Drybotodes tenebrosaEsp.359E
311Aporophyla lutulentaDen. et Schiff.407E
312Orthosia incertaHfn.3711BLBL
313Orthosia miniosaDen. et Schiff.338BL
314Orthosia cerasiFabr.379BL
315Orthosia crudaDen. et Schiff.2710BL
316Orthosia populetiFabr.374E
317Orthosia gracilisDen. et Schiff.3710EBL
318Orthosia opimaHbn.375E
319Orthosia gothicaL.3211E
320Anorthoa mundaDen. et Schiff.419BL
321Egira conspicillarisL.3913BLBL
322Tholera cespitisDen. et Schiff.3715EBL
323Tholera decimalisPoda3821EBL
324Anarta trifoliiHfn.325BLBL
325Polia nebulosaHfn.504E
326Proxellus lepigoneMschl.2820EBL
327Pachetra sagittigeraHfn.447EBL
328Lacanobia w-latinumHfn.3917BLBL
329Lacanobia thalassinaHfn.3611BLBL
330Lacanobia suasaDen. et Schiff.3422EBL
331Lacanobia oleraceaL.3422BLBL
332Sideritis albicolonHbn.4214BLE
333Sideritis reticulataGoeze349EE
334Melanchra persicariaeL.384BL
335Melanchra pisiL.3410EBL
336Hada plebejaL.3312E
337Mamestra brassicaeL.4121BLBL
338Hecatera dysodeaDen. et Schiff.339BLBL
339Harmodia bicrurisHfn.3518BLBL
340Conisania luteagoDen. et Schiff.3820EE
341Hadena rivularisFabr.2811BLBL
342Hadula dianthiWagner358EBL
343Harmodia perplexaDen. et Schiff.3113E
344Hyssia cavernosaEv.3110E
345Mythimna turcaL.418BL
346Mythimna pudorinaDen. et Schiff.364E
347Mythimna pallensL.3222BLBL
348Mythimna vitellinaHbn.3910BLBL
349Mythimna ferragoFabr.377BLBL
350Mythimna l-albumL.3221BLBL
351Leucania obsoletaHbn.3812BLBL
352Peridroma sauciaHbn.5011BLBL
353Euxoa obeliscaTutt3711BLBL
354Euxoa temeraHbn.3210BLBL
355Euxoa aquilinaDen. et Schiff.3510E
356Agrotis cinereaDen. et Schiff.367EE
357Agrotis exclamationisL.3522BLBL
358Agrotis segetumDen. et Schiff.3322BLBL
359Agrotis vestigialisHfn.324E
360Agrotis ipsilonHfn.4222BLBL
361Agrotis crassaHbn.4418BLBL
362Axylia putrisL.2921BLBL
363Ochropleura plectaL.2721BLBL
364Parexarnis fugaxTr.355E
365Diarsia rubiVieweg306EBL
366Cerastis rubricosaDen. et Schiff.359E
367Noctua pronubaL.5022BLBL
368Noctua fimbriataSchreber4714BLBL
369Noctua comesHbn.414E
370Noctua janthinaDen. et Schiff.356BLBL
371Spaelothis ravidaDen. et Schiff.458EBL
372Xestia xanthographaDen. et Schiff.3311BLBL
373Xestia c-nigrumL.3822BLBL
374Xestia triangulumHfn.4115BL
375Eugnorisma depunctaL.4010BL
Nolidae (Average of wingspan is 23.2 mm)
376Meganola albulaDen. et Schiff.215E
377Nola aerugulaHbn.177E
378Pseudoips prasinanaL.3615BLBL
379Nycteola asiaticaKruilkovsky2315BLBL
380Earias cloranaL.2114EBL
381Earias vernanaFabr.2111EBL

Table 1.

Macrolepidoptera species collected successfully by Visible or BL light-traps.

NotesMacrolepidoptera species collected successfully by VVisible or BLblack light traps, Eequal N serial number, AWingspan (mm), BNetwork: Number of trap pairs, CNetwork: More efficient light source, DNagytétény: More efficient light source.

We established from the material of the national light-trap network that the BL traps are unquestionably more efficient in collecting several species of the Sphingidae, Notodontidae, and Noctuidae. Several species of the Geometridae and Erebidae families fly to BL and visible traps in equal numbers. However, at Nagytétény, the species of the latter two families clearly flew much more frequently into the BL trap. None of the five families include species that could be captured only by one or the other type of trap.

Figure 1 shows that at no-choice sites, such as the national network traps, 30 mm wingspan is approximately the limit below which some species can be trapped more effectively by using the visible trap rather than the BL type. Above 35 mm wingspan, the catch of the BL approaches 100%. At Nagytétény, however, where the visible and the BL traps were placed so close together that the moths could see both at the same time, even the moths having the smallest wingspan were caught more than 60% by BL trap (Figure 2). These results agree broadly with the previous literature although they do not address mercury light sources, which emit light in both BL and V ranges.

Figure 1.

Percentage of BL traps catch of macrolepidoptera species compared to the visible light ones in connection with the wingspan of moths (solid line = BL, dashed line = visible light).

Figure 2.

Percentage of BL traps catch of macrolepidoptera species compared to the visible light ones in connection with the wingspan of moths (Nagytétény).

Figure 3 shows that the number of the species collected in nearly equal proportions by visible and BL traps significantly declines with increasing wingspan.

Figure 3.

Percentage of macrolepidoptera species caught by BL traps and visible light ones in connection with the wingspan of moths, if they select in equal proportion the two type light-traps.

It is most remarkable, however, that the number of species for which the results of the national light-trap network could not detect a significant difference between BL and N traps was much smaller at Nagytétény where the BL trap was most frequently chosen by insects (Figures 48). So provided the moths are free to choose between traps placed extremely close to each other, they will fly to the BL trap. If the visible and BL traps are very close to each other, even the small moths choose the BL traps en masse. However, such cases would be expected to be a random choice of the moths.

Figure 4.

Percentage of light-trap catch of Geometridae species by BL and visible light sources from data of the Hungarian light-trap network and Nagytétény.

Figure 5.

Percentage of light-trap catch of Geometridae species by BL and visible light sources from data of the Hungarian light-trap network and Nagytétény.

Figure 6.

Percentage of light-trap catch of Notodontidae species by BL and visible light sources from data of Hungarian light-trap network and Nagytétény.

Figure 7.

Percentage of light-trap catch of Erebidae species by BL and visible light sources from the data of the Hungarian light-trap network and Nagytétény.

Figure 8.

Percentage of light-trap catch of Noctuidae species by BL and visible light sources from the data of the Hungarian light-trap network and Nagytétény.

The fact that the highest number of moths with a wingspan greater than 35 mm, is in the BL traps, does not mean that these species cannot be collected with a visible bulb. However, it is clear that the visible or visible light source has low efficiency in collecting moths with wingspans greater than 35 mm. This result is noteworthy and can be used in plant protection and for another entomological research.

The light source of the trap should be chosen to suit our target species while bearing in mind their wingspan size.

The BL trap seems most efficient for operation for plant protecting purposes, despite the fact that their use is far more problematic.

Insect species are not only endangered by light trapping but also by the light pollution of urban areas. Our results confirm that the different light sources should incur mortality on different species to differing levels. Such differential mortality from artificial light sources could disturb the balance of life in biological communities. Kollings [52] established that there was a definite difference in the composition of the catch from two neighbouring street lamps. According to Frank [53], if some moth species are more attracted to light than others, the traits related to this attraction could help us to predict the effects of artificial light on communities of nocturnal species.

Light pollution might, in the future, expand to cover new areas. Some species may have populations more influenced by light pollution than others and some individuals might be more prone to it than others. This may generate a selective pressure to change behaviour. On the other hand, densely lit urban environments may be advantageous for other species that fly by day or are not attracted to light. And there are also possibilities to solve the problem of light pollution. The use of low-pressure sodium lamps, for instance, may reduce the disturbing effects of illumination. These provoke a reaction of flying to light to a lesser extent than other lamps do. At the same time, they are also less likely to disturb the circadian rhythm of moths and other insects. These lamps also emit less energy than other lamps providing the same illumination. In an experiment by Eisenbeis and Hassel [54], the use of sodium vapour street lamps reduced the number of insects caught by 50%, including a 75% reduction in the number of moths.


  1. 1.Mikkola K. Behavioural and electrophysiological responses of night-flying insects, especially Lepidoptera, to near-ultraviolet and visible light. Annales Zoologici Fennici. 1972;9:225-254
  2. 2.McFarlane JH, Eaton JL. Comparison of electroretinogram and electromyogram responses to radiant energy stimulation in the mothTrichoplusia ni. Journal of Insect Physiology. 1973;19(4):811-822
  3. 3.Agee HR. Spectral sensitivity of the compound eyes of field-collected adult bollworms and tobacco budworms. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 1973;66:613-615
  4. 4.Pappas LG, Eaton JL. The internal ocellus ofManduca sextaand spectral sensitivity. Journal of Insect Physiology. 1977;23(1-2):1355-1358
  5. 5.Eguchi E, Watanabe K, Hariyama T, Yamamoto K. A comparison of electrophysiologically determined spectral responses in 35 species of Lepidoptera. Journal of Insect Physiology. 1982;28(8):675-682
  6. 6.Gui HL, Porter LC, Prideaux GF. Response of insects to color, intensity, and distribution of light. Agricultural Engineering. 1942;23:51-58
  7. 7.Taylor JG, Deay HO. Electric lamps and traps in Corn Borer control. Agricultural Engineering. 1950;31(10):513-505
  8. 8.Frost SW. Response of insects to black and white light. Journal of Economic Entomology. 1954;47(2):275-279
  9. 9.Belton P, Kempster RH. Some factors affecting the catches of Lepidoptera in light traps. The Canadian Entomologist. 1963;95(2):832-837
  10. 10.Sifter F. The use of the UV light trap for studying the flight ofCurculio(Balaninus)elephas(in Hungarian). Növényvédelem. 1871;7(3):108-110
  11. 11.Bürgés Gy, Nowinszky L, Puskás J, Herczig B. Comparative study of Macrolepidoptera caught in light-trap operating with normal and UV light. In: 55th International Symposium on Crop Protection. Ghent. 2003. p. 140
  12. 12.Nabli H, Baily WC, Necibi S. Beneficial insect attraction to light traps with different wavelengths. Biological Control. 1999;16(2):185-188
  13. 13.Mészáros Z. A comparison of the Microlepidoptera materials collected by normal and UV light-traps (in Hungarian). Folia Entomologica Hungarica. 1966;19(3):109-131
  14. 14.Puskás J, Nowinszky L. Comparison of Macrolepidoptera data collected by normal and UV light-traps at Bakony-highlands (in Hungarian). Folia Musei Historico-Naturalis Bakonyiensis Zirc. 1994, 1994;13:89-105
  15. 15.Day A, Reid WJ. Response of adult Southern Potato Wireworms to light traps. Journal of Economic Entomology. 1969;62(2):314-318
  16. 16.Teel PD, VanCleave HW, Hollingsworth JP, Harstack AW. Spectral sensitivity of the Hickory Shuckworm to electromagnetic radiation. Journal of Economic Entomology. 1976;69(1):57-58
  17. 17.Skuhravý V, Skuhravá M, Brewer W. The saddle gall midgeHaplodiposis marginata(Diptera: Cecidomyidae) in Czech Republic and Slovak Republic from 1971-1989. Acta Societatis Zoologicae Bohemicae. 1993;57:117-137
  18. 18.Cleve K. Einfluß der Wellenlänge des Lichtes auf den Lichtfang der Schmetterlinge. In: Titschak E, editor. Deutscher Entomologentag in Hamburg. 1954;30(3):107–113
  19. 19.Belton P, Kempster RH. Some factors affecting the catches of Lepidoptera in light traps. The Canadian Entomologist. 1963;95(2):832-883
  20. 20.Jászainé VE. Miridae species (Heteroptera) in the material of normal and blacklight traps of Hungarian light-trap network in 1963 (in Hungarian). Folia Entomologica Hungarica. 1964;17:471-524
  21. 21.Theowald BR. Faunistische en fenologische waarnemingen met betrekking tot langpootmuggen (Diptera, Tipulidae). Fenologisch en faunistisch ondezoek over boom-gardinsekten. Wageningen. Versl. Landbounk. Onderz. 1963;139:185-202
  22. 22.Jászainé VE. The swarming and distribution in Hungary of the cicadas spreading virusesLaodelphax striatella(Fallén) andJavesella pellucida(Fabricius, Homoptera, Areopidae) on the basis of the data of the national-wide light-trap network (in Hungarian). Növényvédelem. 1969;5(1):7-15
  23. 23.Voigt E, Vojnits A. Observation of the speciesEupoecilia ambiguellaHbn. andLobesia botranaDen. et Schiff. by means of light-traps (in Hungarian). Növényvédelem. 1970;6(8):352-357
  24. 24.Komlódi J. Biology of the Eurasian Hemp Moth (Grapholita delineataWalker) and results of control experiments (in Hungarian). Növényvédelem. 1970;6(8):343-348
  25. 25.Blomberg O, Itämies J, Kuusela K. Insect catch in a blended and a black light-trap in northern Finland. Oikos. 1976;27:57-63
  26. 26.Gál T, GY B, Eke I. Observation on the seasonal flight period of chestnut pests: a comparison of methods (in Hungarian). In: 23. Növényvédelmi Tudományos Napok. Budapest. 1976;1976:203-211
  27. 27.Bürgés GY, Gál T. Zur Verbreitung und Lebensweise des Kastanienrüßlers (Curculio elephasGyll., Col.: Curculionidae) in Ungarn. Zeitschrift für angewandte Entomologie. 1981;91(4): 375–382
  28. 28.Bürgés GY. Light-trap catch depending on the power, colour and height of the light sources (in Hungarian). In: 4th Hungarian Ecological Congress, Pécs, 1997. p. 43
  29. 29.Járfás J, Szabó E, Sohajda I. Evaluation of meteorological factors influencing the signalization of Silver Y (Autorgapha gamma L.) based on light-trap (in Hungarian) Kertészeti Egyetem Közleményei. 1975;29:167–174
  30. 30.Járfás J, Tóth J. Forecast and protection of the damaging Melolontha species in vineyard (in Hungarian). Szőlőtermesztési Agrokémiai Tájékoztató, Kecskemét. 1977;3(1):2-7
  31. 31.Járfás J., Szabó E., Ladics L. Prediction of Codling Moth (Cydia pomonella L.) and the investigation of climatic factors modifying its swarming (in Hungary). In: Scientific Session of the Performances of “János Lippay”. 1977 p. 2396–2419
  32. 32.Járfás J, Viola M. Experience gained in the light-trap observation of the Pea Podborer (Etiella zinckenella Treitschke) (in Hungarian). A Kertészeti Egyetem Közleményei. 1984; 221–227
  33. 33.Járfás J, Viola M. The results of the observations of special light-traps for Beet Webworm (Loxostege sticticalis L.) (in Hungarian). Kertgazdaság. 1991;4:65-70
  34. 34.Járfás J. Results of light trapping of harmful tortricid moths (in Hungarian). Kertészeti Egyetem Közleményei. 1977;41:123-126
  35. 35.Jarfas J. The effectivity of different light trapping methods in studying the flight activity of European Corn Borer (in Hungarian). Növényvédelem. 1978;494–498
  36. 36.Wallner WE, Humble LM, Levin RE, Baranchikov YN, Cardé RT. Response of adult lymantriid moths to illumination devices in the Russian Far East. The Journal of Economic Entomology. 1995;88(2):337-342
  37. 37.Fayle TM, Sharp RE, MEN M. The effect of moth trap type on catch size and composition in British Lepidoptera. The British Journal of Entomology and Natural History. 2007;20:221-232
  38. 38.Barghini, A. Influência da Illuminãçao Artificial sobre a Vida Silvestre: técnicas para minimizar os impactos, com especial enfoque sobre os insectos. Universidade de São Paolo, Instituto de Biosciências, Programa de Pós-Graduãçao em Ecologia. 2008. p. 229
  39. 39.Zollikofer CPE, Wehner R, Fukushi T. Optical scaling in conspecificCataglyphisants. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 1995;198:1637-1646
  40. 40.Jander U, Jander R. Allometry and resolution of bee eyes (Apoidea). Arthropod Structure & Development. 2002;30(3):179-193
  41. 41.Spaethe J, Chittka L. Interindividual variation of eye optics and single object resolution in bumblebees. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 2003;206:3447-3453
  42. 42.Kapustjanskij A, Streinzer M, Paulus HF, Spaethe J. Bigger is better: implications of body size for flight ability under different light conditions and the evolution of alloethism in bumblebees. Functional Ecology. 2007;21:1130-1136
  43. 43.Rutowski RL., Gislén L., Warrant E.J. Visual acuity and sensitivity increase allometrically with body size in butterflies. Arthropod Structure & Development 2009;38:91-100
  44. 44.Moser JC, Reeve JD, Bento JMS, Della Lucia TMC, Cameron RS, Heck NM. Eye size and behaviour of day- and night-flying leaf cutting and ablates. Journal of Zoology (London). 2004;264:69-75
  45. 45.Yack JE, Johnson SE, Brown SG, Warrant EJ. The eyes of Macrosoma sp. (Lepidoptera: Hedyloidea): A nocturnal butterfly with superposition optics. Arthropod Structure & Development. 2007;36:11-22
  46. 46.Kino T, Oshima S. Allergy to insects in Japan I. The reaginic sensitivity to moth and butterfly in patients with bronchial asthma. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 1978;61(1):10-16
  47. 47.Barghini A, Medeiros BAS. Artificial Lighting as a vector attractant and cause of disease diffusion. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2010;118:1503-1506
  48. 48.van Langevelde F, Ettema JA, Donners M, MF WDV, Groenendijk D. Effect of spectral composition of artificial light on the attraction of moths. Biological Conservation. 2011;144(9):2274-2281. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.004
  49. 49.Hajtman B. Introduction to mathematical statistics for psychologists (in Hungarian). Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. 1968. p. 183
  50. 50.Odor P, Iglói L. An introduction to the sport's biometry (in Hungarian). ÁISH Tudományos Tanácsának Kiadása. Budapest. 1987. p. 267
  51. 51.Manczel J. Statistical methods in agriculture. Mezőgazdasági Kiadó. Budapest. 1983. p. 496
  52. 52.Kollings D. Ecological effects of artificial light sources on nocturnally active insects, in particular on butterflies (Lepidoptera). Faunistisch-Oekologische Mitteilungen Supplement. 2000;28:1-136
  53. 53.Frank KD. Impact of outdoor lighting on moths. An assessment. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society. 1988;42(2):63-93
  54. 54.Eisenbeis G, Hassel F. Attraction of nocturnal insects to street lights - a study of municipal lighting systems in a rural area of Rheinhessen (Germany). Natur und Landschaft. 2000;75(4):145-156

Written By

László Nowinszky, Lionel Hill, János Puskás, Károly Tar and Levente Hufnagel

Submitted: September 22nd, 2021Reviewed: January 17th, 2022Published: February 26th, 2022