|
Hough, W. (1901). The development of illumination. American Anthropologist, 3(2), 342–352.
|
|
Lammerts, W. E. (1949). The effect of continuous light, high nutrient level and temperature on flowering of camellia hybrids. American Camellia Yearbook, , 53–56.
|
|
Bissonnette, T. H. (1930). Studies on the sexual cycle in birds. I. Sexual maturity, its modification and possible control in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Am. J. Anat., 45(2), 289–305.
|
|
Adams, J. (1925). Some Further Experiments On The Relation Of Light To Growth. American Journal of Botany, 12(7), 398–412.
|
Behera, S. K., & Mohanta, R. (2018). Total An Investigation into Light Pollution as a Limiting factor for shift of Mass nesting ground at Rushikulya rookery Ganjam Odishas. American Journal of Marine Research and Reviews, 1(6).
Abstract: Illumination due to artificial lights on nesting beaches and from nearby place to nesting beaches is detrimental to sea turtles because it alters critical nocturnal behaviors specifically, their choice of nesting sites and their return path to the sea after nesting. Illuminations perplex the hatchlings to find sea after emerging. Numerous studies conducted in other countries have demonstrated that artificial lights negatively impact on turtles, both female adults as they come to and go from their home beach to lay eggs, and to turtle hatchlings as they seek out the way to the open ocean. In this study we correlated the mass nesting intensity of 5years (2012 to 2018) at Rushikulya mass nesting site to the illumination zone. Illumination due to light conditions on nesting beaches are complex, and measuring light pollution in a way that effectively captures the impacts to sea turtles is difficult. But increase in intensity of illumination on selective mass nesting beaches showed gradual reduction in intensity of preferred nesting site during the mass nesting event. A gradual shift of nesting preference was also observed more toward darker zone.
|
