Deep Research Archives

A Trick of the Light: The Scientific Explanation for Insect Phototaxis and the Disruptive Allure of Artificial Illumination

Introduction: The Moth-to-a-Flame Phenomenon

The image of a moth fluttering erratically around a porch light is a universally recognized spectacle of the natural world. This behavior, so common it has inspired the idiom "like a moth to a flame," represents one of the most familiar yet persistently misunderstood interactions between animals and their environment.1 For centuries, this seemingly self-destructive dance has been interpreted as a simple, irresistible attraction. However, rigorous scientific inquiry, culminating in recent groundbreaking research, reveals a far more complex and tragic reality. The phenomenon is not a magnetic pull towards the light but a catastrophic failure of an ancient and otherwise reliable navigational system, a form of sensory entrapment that has profound ecological consequences. In biological terms, the movement of an organism in response to a light stimulus is known as phototaxis.3 This behavior is fundamental to a vast array of life forms, from photosynthetic microorganisms that move towards light to maximize energy absorption to invertebrates and vertebrates that use light cues for orientation and survival.4 Phototaxis is categorized based on the direction of movement relative to the light source. Positive phototaxis describes movement towards increasing light intensity, the behavior exemplified by moths at a lamp.5 Conversely, negative phototaxis describes movement away from light, a response characteristic of creatures such as cockroaches, which scatter the moment a kitchen light is switched on.5 This brings into focus the central paradox of the moth-to-a-flame phenomenon. From an evolutionary perspective, behaviors that consistently lead to harm or death are typically selected against and eliminated from a population. Yet, countless nocturnal insects continue to engage in this perilous activity, risking exhaustion, incineration, or capture by predators that have learned to hunt near artificial lights.6 This apparent maladaptation raises a critical scientific question: why does a behavior that is so clearly detrimental in the context of artificial illumination persist so widely among nocturnal insects? The answer, as this report will demonstrate, requires a fundamental semantic and conceptual shift away from the idea of "attraction." While several compelling historical theories have attempted to explain this behavior through the lens of attraction—positing that insects mistake lamps for the moon, an escape route, or even a food source—a new scientific consensus has emerged, supported by irrefutable kinematic evidence. This modern understanding posits that artificial lights do not attract insects but rather disorient them by hijacking a crucial flight-control mechanism known as the Dorsal Light Response (DLR). This innate reflex, which evolved to use the diffuse light of the sky as a stable "up" reference, is catastrophically corrupted by the proximity of artificial point-light sources, leading to the erratic flight patterns that have long puzzled observers. This report will first critically deconstruct the outdated historical theories, exposing their evidentiary shortcomings. It will then present a comprehensive explanation of the DLR model, detailing the precise biophysical mechanisms of sensory entrapment and the high-speed 3D flight data that confirms it. Subsequently, the report will explore the underlying sensory biology of the insect visual system, explaining why different wavelengths and colors of light have varying disruptive effects. Finally, it will discuss the profound and far-reaching ecological consequences of this phenomenon, framing artificial light at night (ALAN) as a pervasive form of pollution and outlining science-based strategies for mitigating its devastating impact on nocturnal ecosystems.

Debunking the Myths: An Examination of Historical Theories

For decades, the scientific community and the public alike have relied on a set of intuitive yet ultimately flawed hypotheses to explain positive phototaxis. These theories, while logical on the surface, fail to withstand the scrutiny of modern experimental methods. Their primary, and ultimately fatal, commonality is the assumption that the insect is performing a goal-oriented action towards the light. As precise kinematic analysis has revealed, the observed behaviors are not consistent with a direct flight path to a target, but rather with a systemic failure of flight control. A critical examination of these older theories is essential not only to clear away misconceptions but also to understand why a new explanatory framework was necessary.

The Celestial Compass Theory (Transverse Orientation)

The most prominent and widely accepted historical explanation for insect phototaxis is the celestial compass theory, also known as transverse orientation.5 This hypothesis proposes that many nocturnal insects, particularly migratory species like certain moths, navigate by maintaining a fixed angle relative to a distant celestial light source, such as the moon or a bright star.1 In the same way that ancient mariners used the North Star to hold a steady course, an insect could achieve straight-line flight by keeping the moon at, for example, a constant 45-degree angle to its direction of travel. Because the moon is at optical infinity, its light rays arrive at the Earth as parallel beams. As long as the insect maintains its fixed angle to these parallel rays, it will travel in a straight line over the landscape. The theory posits that this reliable navigational system is fatally deceived by the introduction of a proximal, artificial light source like a lantern or a streetlamp.11 The insect mistakes this nearby, bright object for the moon. However, unlike the moon, an artificial light is a point source from which light radiates outward in all directions. When the insect attempts to apply its transverse orientation rule—maintaining a constant angle to the light source—it is no longer flying along a straight line parallel to the light rays. Instead, it is forced to constantly turn towards the light to keep the angle fixed, resulting in a flight path known as an equiangular spiral, which inevitably leads the insect closer and closer to the source until it collides with it or becomes trapped in its immediate vicinity.11 While elegant and intuitive, the celestial compass theory is undermined by several key pieces of evidence. First and foremost, the predicted flight path does not match what is most commonly observed. While some insects may exhibit spiraling flight, high-speed 3D motion capture reveals that a far more frequent behavior is a stable orbit around the light source, where the insect maintains a relatively constant distance.1 This orbiting is not predicted by the transverse orientation model, which assumes a continuous, inward trajectory. Furthermore, the theory's applicability is questionable. As entomologist Jerry Powell noted, this complex navigational strategy would be most advantageous for long-distance migrants.12 Yet, the "moth-to-a-flame" behavior is observed in an enormous diversity of nocturnal insects, the vast majority of which are not migratory and have no need for such a sophisticated celestial compass. The theory fails to provide a compelling reason for why a small, non-migratory moth would possess such a specific and easily corrupted navigational tool.12 Finally, the behavior is observed on overcast nights when the moon and stars are not visible, and it even affects diurnal insects that are active during the day, further weakening the argument that it is solely a malfunction of a nocturnal, moon-based compass system.

The Escape to Light Hypothesis

A second long-standing theory suggests that positive phototaxis is a manifestation of an escape mechanism.6 According to this hypothesis, when an insect in a dark environment is startled or perceives a threat, its instinct is to fly towards the brightest area in its visual field. Under natural conditions, this would typically be the sky, representing an open space and a clear path away from ground-based predators or entanglement in vegetation.15 An artificial light, piercing the darkness, is thus misinterpreted as an escape route—a "hole in the foliage"—and the insect flies towards it in a desperate attempt to reach safety.14 This hypothesis, like the celestial compass theory, suffers from a direct contradiction with empirical flight data. The foundational assumption of the escape hypothesis is that the insect is actively trying to reach the light source. This would predict a direct, straight-line flight path towards the light. However, the 3D flight reconstructions from the 2024 study published in Nature Communications and other kinematic analyses consistently show that insects rarely, if ever, steer directly towards the light source.2 Instead, their flight paths are predominantly orthogonal (perpendicular) to the light. They fly across the direction of the light, not along it.17 This flight pattern is entirely inconsistent with an animal trying to reach a specific point of escape. Furthermore, the theory does not explain why, upon reaching the light, the insect becomes trapped in an endless loop rather than simply flying past it and continuing on its way.

Secondary Theories: Heat, Food, and Pheromones

Several other hypotheses have been proposed over the years, generally focusing on the misidentification of the light source as a different kind of resource. One of the oldest and most simplistic ideas is that insects are attracted to the heat from a flame.1 This theory is easily falsified by the simple observation that insects are just as, if not more, intensely trapped by cool-running light sources, such as fluorescent lamps and modern LEDs, which emit negligible infrared radiation.1 Another hypothesis suggests that insects mistake artificial lights for a food source. Many night-blooming flowers reflect ultraviolet (UV) light, creating patterns that are visible to nocturnal pollinators like moths.6 The theory posits that the UV radiation emitted by some artificial lamps (particularly older mercury-vapor lamps and modern bug zappers) mimics these floral signals, luring the insects in with the promise of nectar.13 While plausible for certain pollinating species and UV-emitting lights, this theory fails as a general explanation. It does not account for the trapping of non-pollinating insects, nor does it explain why insects are trapped by light sources that emit little to no UV light, such as "warm white" LEDs or yellow incandescent bulbs. Moreover, insects trapped at lights do not typically engage in feeding behaviors upon arrival. A more specific and esoteric version of this idea was proposed by entomologist Philip Callahan in the 1970s. He hypothesized that the infrared radiation spectrum emitted by a candle flame closely matches the frequencies of faintly luminescent pheromones released by female moths to attract mates.11 In this view, a male moth flies into a flame because it tragically misidentifies it as a potential partner. This theory, while imaginative, is beset by problems. It cannot explain why female moths are also trapped by lights, nor why insects from completely different orders (such as beetles, flies, and mayflies) that use different mating cues are also susceptible. Most critically, it is directly contradicted by the fact that UV light, which has a completely different spectral signature from infrared, is a far more potent attractant for most nocturnal insects.11 The consistent failure of all these historical theories points toward a deeper conceptual error. Each one—celestial compass, escape route, food source, mate—is an "attraction-based" model. They all presuppose that the insect has a goal and is attempting to move towards the light to achieve it. The wealth of modern kinematic data demonstrates that this fundamental premise is incorrect. The observed flight patterns are not those of a creature successfully or unsuccessfully navigating towards a target; they are the patterns of a creature whose fundamental ability to control its flight has been compromised. This realization necessitates a paradigm shift, moving away from questions of insect motivation and towards an understanding of the biophysics of flight orientation.

The Modern Consensus: Disorientation via the Dorsal Light Response

Recent advancements in high-speed motion capture and computational analysis have allowed scientists to finally resolve the long-standing mystery of the moth and the flame. The emerging consensus, powerfully supported by a landmark 2024 study in Nature Communications, is that insects are not attracted to light at all. Instead, they are victims of sensory disorientation, trapped by the malfunction of an ancient and deeply ingrained reflex known as the Dorsal Light Response (DLR). This theory elegantly explains the full range of bizarre flight behaviors observed near artificial lights with a single, powerful mechanism.

An Ancient Navigational Tool: Understanding the DLR

The Dorsal Light Response is a fundamental, reflexive behavior exhibited by most flying insects, as well as many aquatic organisms.2 The reflex is simple: the animal attempts to keep its dorsal side—its back—oriented towards the brightest part of its visual environment.20 For millions of years of evolution, this has been an exceptionally reliable way to maintain proper spatial orientation. During the day, the brightest object is the sun, and the brightest hemisphere is the sky. At night, the moon and stars make the sky the brightest region.1 By consistently keeping its back to the sky, an insect can instantly determine which way is "up." This allows it to maintain a stable flight attitude, ensuring that the lift generated by its wings is directed upwards, counteracting gravity.21 The DLR is, in essence, a simple and effective biological inclinometer, a crucial tool for navigating a three-dimensional world, especially for small organisms that may not be able to sense gravity as effectively as larger animals.1

Hijacking an Instinct: How Artificial Light Corrupts the DLR

The reliability of the DLR depends entirely on the light source being distant, diffuse, and located in the upper visual hemisphere. The sky, whether lit by sun or moon, perfectly fits this description. An artificial light, however, is the exact opposite: it is a proximal, concentrated point source that can appear anywhere in the insect's environment—above, below, or to the side. When an insect flies into the vicinity of an artificial light, its DLR is hijacked.19 The bright bulb overwhelms the diffuse light of the night sky and becomes the new "brightest spot" that the insect's reflex locks onto. The insect then instinctively tries to tilt its body to align its dorsal axis with this new, false signal of "up." This is the critical moment of disorientation. The act of tilting corrupts the insect's flight dynamics. In aeronautics, banking (tilting) is the primary mechanism for turning. By forcing the insect into a continuous, reflexive bank towards the light, the DLR traps it in a perpetual turn.1 This modern understanding fundamentally reframes the phenomenon. The insect is not flying to the light because it is attracted to it; it is flying around the light because its flight control system has been broken. It is unable to fly away because any attempt to do so would involve turning its back on the light, an action its hardwired DLR reflex will not permit. The insect becomes a prisoner of its own instinct, trapped in a disorienting loop of sensory feedback from which there is often no escape.20

The Kinematic Proof: Orbiting, Stalling, and Inverting

The strongest evidence for the DLR theory comes from the groundbreaking use of high-speed, stereo-videography to reconstruct the precise 3D flight paths of insects in both laboratory and field settings.16 This technology allowed researchers to move beyond simple 2D observation and analyze the full kinematics—position, velocity, and orientation—of insects as they interacted with lights. These studies revealed three distinct and repeatable flight patterns, all of which are perfectly explained by the DLR model. Orbiting: This is the most commonly observed behavior. When an insect's flight path takes it to the side of a light source, its DLR causes it to tilt or bank towards the light. This bank induces a turn, and as the insect continues to fly forward while maintaining this tilt, it is pulled into a circular or elliptical path around the light. The insect is not spiraling inwards, but is often trapped in a stable, looping trajectory.1 Stalling: This dramatic behavior occurs when an insect happens to fly directly underneath an artificial light. In this position, to keep its back oriented to the light source above, the insect must tilt its body sharply upwards, entering a steep climb. It continues to fly directly up towards the light until its flight speed drops below what is necessary to generate lift. At this point, the insect aerodynamically stalls and plummets out of the air.1 Inverting: Perhaps the most bizarre behavior occurs when an insect flies directly over a light source. To maintain its DLR, the insect must keep its back to the light, which is now below it. This forces the insect to perform an aerial maneuver where it flips completely upside down, orienting its belly to the sky. This inversion immediately leads to a total loss of aerodynamic control, causing the insect to crash directly to the ground.1 The power of the DLR model lies in its ability to unify these three seemingly disparate and erratic behaviors with a single, elegant mechanism. The specific flight path is not random; it is a predictable consequence of the insect's geometric position relative to the light source. This predictive power is a hallmark of a robust scientific theory. Researchers in the 2024 study tested this directly. When they created an experimental setup with a diffuse, illuminated canopy above the insects—mimicking a natural sky—the insects flew normally through the area without being trapped. However, when they illuminated a white sheet on the floor—making the brightest hemisphere "down"—the DLR was inverted, and the insects became disoriented and crashed.17 This confirms that the behavior is not about the light itself, but about the light's position relative to the insect's sense of spatial orientation. The "moth-to-a-flame" problem has thus been solved not by discovering a mysterious source of attraction, but by identifying a fundamental biological control system and demonstrating precisely how artificial stimuli can cause it to catastrophically fail.

The Spectrum of Disruption: Insect Vision and the Role of Wavelength

The disruptive effect of artificial light on insects is not uniform across all types of light. The intensity of the trapping effect is highly dependent on the spectral properties of the light source, a fact that is directly linked to the unique characteristics of the insect visual system. Understanding the interplay between the wavelengths of light emitted by a lamp and the specific wavelengths detected by an insect's eyes is crucial for both explaining the phenomenon more deeply and for developing practical mitigation strategies.

A Different View of the World: The Insect Visual System

Insects perceive the world through a visual system that is fundamentally different from that of humans. While human vision is based on three types of photoreceptor cells (cones) with peak sensitivities in the red, green, and blue portions of the electromagnetic spectrum, most phototactic insects are also trichromats, but their sensitivity is shifted towards shorter wavelengths. A typical insect eye contains photoreceptors that are maximally sensitive to ultraviolet (UV), blue, and green light.23 This sensitivity to the UV part of the spectrum is particularly important. UV radiation, which is invisible to the human eye, is a dominant component of natural daylight and is strongly reflected by the sky.24 For many insects, UV light serves as a powerful navigational cue. It can act as a "super stimulant" because a strong UV signal is an unambiguous indicator of open space and a clear flight path, helping insects distinguish the sky from the terrestrial environment.9 Consequently, artificial light sources that emit significant amounts of UV radiation are disproportionately effective at hijacking the DLR and trapping insects.15 This explains the well-known efficacy of UV "bug zappers" and the high number of insects drawn to older mercury-vapor streetlights, which have strong UV and blue emission peaks.24

The Ecological Risk Spectrum of Artificial Light

Systematic studies that have exposed insects to light of different monochromatic wavelengths have confirmed that the strength of the phototactic response is wavelength-dependent. This research has allowed scientists to develop an "ecological risk spectrum" for artificial lighting, categorizing different colors based on their potential to disrupt insect behavior. The general and consistent finding is that shorter wavelengths of light are more disruptive.23 High Ecological Risk Spectrum: Light in the ultraviolet and short-wave blue range (approximately 350 nm to 480 nm) poses the highest risk. Studies have shown that blue LEDs (with peak emissions around 447 nm and 478 nm) are the most attractive to a wide range of insect orders, including Diptera (flies), Hemiptera (true bugs), Coleoptera (beetles), and Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies).23 Moderate Ecological Risk Spectrum: Light in the medium-wave green and cyan range (approximately 500 nm to 520 nm) is moderately disruptive, attracting fewer insects than blue light but significantly more than longer wavelengths.23 Low Ecological Risk / "Eco-Friendly" Spectrum: Light in the long-wave portion of the spectrum, including yellow, amber, orange, and red light (generally above 580 nm), is the least disruptive and poses the lowest ecological risk. These colors are often referred to as "eco-friendly" or "insect-friendly" because they elicit a much weaker phototactic response.23 This knowledge has critical implications for modern lighting technology, particularly the widespread adoption of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs). The spectral output of an LED is not determined by its apparent color alone. For instance, "white" light is produced by combining different wavelengths. "Cool white" LEDs, which often have a color temperature of 4,000 K or higher, produce white light by using a blue LED to excite a yellow phosphor. This results in a spectral output with a very strong peak in the high-risk blue range.23 In contrast, "warm white" LEDs (typically below 3,000 K) use different phosphors that result in less blue light and more energy in the less-disruptive yellow and red parts of the spectrum. Consequently, studies have shown that cool white LEDs attract significantly more insects than warm white LEDs, making the choice of color temperature a critical factor in designing ecologically sensitive lighting.23 To provide a clear synthesis of the report's central arguments, the following table compares the outdated historical theories with the modern, evidence-based Dorsal Light Response model across several key criteria. This comparison highlights the superior explanatory power of the DLR theory and underscores the fundamental shift in scientific understanding from a paradigm of attraction to one of sensory disorientation.

Feature Celestial Navigation Theory Escape Route Hypothesis Dorsal Light Response (DLR) Theory Core Mechanism Navigational error: mistaking a proximal light for a distant celestial body (e.g., the moon) for transverse orientation. Behavioral choice: perceiving a bright light in a dark environment as a potential escape route from danger. Physiological reflex: an innate and highly conserved drive to keep the dorsal (back) side of the body oriented towards the brightest visual hemisphere to maintain flight stability. Predicted Flight Path An inward equiangular spiral, as the insect constantly adjusts its angle to a nearby point source. A direct, straight-line flight path towards the light source, treating it as a destination or exit. A flight path that is consistently perpendicular (orthogonal) to the light source, resulting in orbits, steep stalls, or inversions depending on the insect's geometric position relative to the light. Observed Flight Path Contradicted. High-speed 3D analysis shows that stable orbits are far more common than inward spirals. The theory does not account for stalling or inverting behaviors.1 Contradicted. Kinematic data shows that insects rarely, if ever, fly directly at the light source. Their paths are not consistent with a direct escape maneuver.2 Supported. High-speed 3D motion capture in both lab and field settings has precisely documented the predicted patterns of orbiting, stalling, and inverting flight.1 Explanatory Power Limited. It primarily applies to migratory species and fails to explain the behavior in the vast majority of non-migratory insects or the full variety of observed flight paths.12 Limited. It fails to explain why insects become trapped in loops instead of flying past the "escape route," and cannot account for the specific stalling and inverting maneuvers. High. It provides a single, unified mechanism that elegantly explains all three primary, seemingly erratic flight patterns as predictable consequences of a corrupted orientation reflex. Key Supporting Evidence Primarily theoretical, based on known insect navigation strategies. It lacks direct kinematic evidence to support its predicted flight paths in the context of artificial lights. Largely anecdotal, based on the general observation that insects move towards light. It is contradicted by rigorous kinematic testing. Strong empirical support from recent studies using high-speed 3D motion capture and stereo-videography (e.g., Fabian et al., 2024), which have validated the model's predictions.16

Conclusion: Ecological Consequences and the Path to Coexistence

The scientific resolution of the age-old "moth-to-a-flame" mystery represents more than the satisfaction of intellectual curiosity. It provides a clear and compelling framework for understanding the profound and damaging impact of human activity on the nocturnal world. The central finding of this report—that insects are not attracted to light but are instead sensorially trapped by the corruption of their Dorsal Light Response—recasts artificial light at night (ALAN) not as a benign presence, but as a pervasive and potent form of ecological pollution. This understanding is critical for developing strategies that allow for human safety and progress while mitigating the devastating consequences for insect populations and the ecosystems they support. The trapping of insects by artificial lights is a direct and significant driver of insect mortality and decline. Disoriented insects can die from sheer exhaustion as they remain trapped in futile flight patterns for hours.11 They may collide with hot lamp surfaces and be incinerated, or they may simply become easy targets for predators. Spiders, bats, geckos, and other nocturnal and crepuscular predators have learned that artificial lights create a "feeding bonanza," and they congregate nearby to prey on the disoriented and defenseless insects.5 This single mechanism can therefore restructure local food webs, artificially inflating predator populations while decimating local insect communities. Beyond direct mortality, the pervasive presence of ALAN disrupts a host of critical ecological processes. The constant trapping of nocturnal pollinators, such as moths, can reduce pollination rates for night-blooming plants, affecting plant reproduction and ecosystem health. Mating behaviors are interrupted, as insects that should be seeking partners are instead drawn into disorienting light traps. Perhaps most significantly on a landscape scale, ALAN acts as a barrier to movement, fragmenting habitats and disrupting the long-distance migration routes of insects like the hawkmoth.26 Recent research has revealed even more subtle and far-reaching effects. Studies have shown that the disruptive influence of streetlights extends beyond the immediate cone of light, altering moth flight behavior hundreds of meters away.26 Furthermore, chronic exposure to ALAN can induce physiological changes in plants, causing their leaves to become tougher and less nutritious, which in turn negatively impacts the herbivorous insects that depend on them.29 These multifaceted impacts all contribute to the well-documented and alarming global decline in insect populations, a crisis with cascading effects on agriculture, biodiversity, and ecosystem stability. However, the same scientific understanding that reveals the depth of the problem also illuminates a clear, evidence-based path forward. Because the trapping phenomenon is a predictable biophysical interaction based on the DLR and the spectral sensitivity of insect vision, it can be mitigated through intelligent lighting design. The following strategies, grounded in the research detailed in this report, can significantly reduce the negative impact of ALAN: Spectral Mitigation: The most effective strategy is to control the color of light. Municipalities, businesses, and individuals should transition away from light sources rich in short-wavelength blue and UV light. Instead, they should opt for lamps that emit primarily in the long-wavelength portion of the spectrum, such as amber, orange, or red LEDs. These "eco-friendly" colors are far less disruptive to the insect DLR and visual system.19 Directional Mitigation: Light should be directed only where it is needed. The use of full cut-off shielding on luminaires is essential to prevent light from spilling upwards into the night sky. Upward-directed light is the most harmful, as it directly mimics the natural sky cue that the DLR is evolved to seek, maximizing the potential for trapping insects.19 Temporal and Intensity Mitigation: Lighting should be used only when and as brightly as necessary. The implementation of motion sensors, timers, and dimmers can drastically reduce the duration and intensity of illumination, minimizing the window of time during which insects are exposed to disruptive stimuli. In conclusion, the familiar sight of an insect circling a lamp is not a story of foolish attraction, but a stark illustration of an evolutionary mismatch between an ancient biological mechanism and a modern technological environment. The light does not beckon; it deceives. By understanding the precise science behind this deception—the hijacking of the Dorsal Light Response—we move beyond myth and gain the critical knowledge required to coexist. The challenge is no longer one of scientific mystery, but of public will and policy implementation: to use our understanding to redesign the night, creating a world that is safe and well-lit for humans without being a death trap for the countless nocturnal creatures essential to the health of our planet. 참고 자료 The surprising reason why insects circle lights at night: They lose ..., 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://news.fiu.edu/2024/the-surprising-reason-why-insects-circle-lights-at-night-they-lose-track-of-thesky Why flying insects gather at artificial light - bioRxiv, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.11.536486v1.full en.wikipedia.org, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phototaxis#:~:text=Phototaxis%20is%20a%20kind%20of,to%20receive%20light%20for%20photosynthesis. Phototaxis - Wikipedia, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phototaxis Insects, Phototaxis and the Dark - The Bug Chicks, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.thebugchicks.com/articles/celestron/star-light-star-flight Why Are Bugs Attracted to Light? | The Natural Patch Co - natpat, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.natpat.com/blogs/news/why-are-bugs-attracted-to-light aptivepestcontrol.com, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://aptivepestcontrol.com/blog/bugs-and-light/#:~:text=Insects%20and%20pests%20that%20are,source%20are%20considered%20negatively%20phototactic. Typical responses of insects to light. a Positive phototaxis, b... | Download Scientific Diagram - ResearchGate, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-responses-of-insects-to-light-a-Positive-phototaxis-b-negative-phototaxis-c_fig2_258168804 Why Moths are Obsessed with Lamps | Nat Geo Wild - YouTube, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-we6j0soAU Why Moths are Obsessed with Lamps | National Geographic - YouTube, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul9HIX9YBbM&pp=0gcJCfwAo7VqN5tD Like a moth to the flame: why moths are attracted to light - ZME Science, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.zmescience.com/feature-post/natural-sciences/animals/invertebrates/like-a-moth-to-the-flame-why-moths-are-attracted-to-light/ Notes from the Lab: Like a Moth to a Flame - Missoula Butterfly House & Insectarium, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.missoulabutterflyhouse.org/notes-from-the-lab-like-a-moth-to-a-flame/ ELI5 Why are insects like moths and other summer bugs attracted to light? And how come we don't see them flying towards the sun during the day? : r/explainlikeimfive - Reddit, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/i5kykq/eli5_why_are_insects_like_moths_and_other_summer/ (PDF) Why flying insects gather at artificial light - ResearchGate, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377811697_Why_flying_insects_gather_at_artificial_light UV Radiation as an Attractor for Insects | Harvard University, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/medeiros/files/barghini_de_medeiros_2012_leukos_uv_radiation_as_an_attractor_for_insects.pdf Why flying insects gather at artificial light - PubMed, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38291028/ Insects flocking to artificial lights may not know which way is up - Science News, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/insects-artificial-light-moth-direction-pollution Which way is up? Insects may lose track near artificial lights - Science News Explores, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.snexplores.org/article/flying-insects-artificial-light-pollution Like a moth to a flame: Science finally explains why insects flock to ..., 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://news.mongabay.com/2024/02/like-a-moth-to-a-flame-science-finally-explains-why-insects-flock-to-artificial-lights/ Artificial Light Disorients, Traps Flying Insects: Study | Mirage News, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.miragenews.com/artificial-light-disorients-traps-flying-1166832/ When insects encounter an artificial light in an otherwise dark : Critical Reasoning Practice Questions - GMAT Club, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://gmatclub.com/forum/when-insects-encounter-an-artificial-light-in-an-otherwise-dark-442267.html Why flying insects gather at artificial light | bioRxiv, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.11.536486v1 Assessing the attraction of narrow-spectrum and broad ... - Frontiers, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2023.1206404/full 3 Insect vision and lighting spectra. The upper graph represents a... - ResearchGate, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/nsect-vision-and-lighting-spectra-The-upper-graph-represents-a-schematic-of-the_fig3_340070440 Are insects attracted to near infrared light? - Biology Stack Exchange, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/19427/are-insects-attracted-to-near-infrared-light Light pollution disturbs moths even in the dark - ScienceDaily, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/10/241009122304.htm Drivers of nocturnal and diurnal pollinating insect declines in urban areas | Royal Society, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://royalsociety.org/blog/2025/08/drivers-of-nocturnal-and-diurnal-pollinating-insect-declines-in-urban-landscapes/ 'Half the tree of life': ecologists' horror as nature reserves are emptied of insects - The Guardian, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/03/climate-species-collapse-ecology-insects-nature-reserves-aoe Streetlights running all night makes leaves so tough that insects can't eat them, threatening the food chain - Frontiers, 8월 7, 2025에 액세스, https://www.frontiersin.org/news/2024/08/05/streetlights-all-night-leaves-tough-insects-cant-eat-frontiers-plant-science