Ecological Consequences of Light and Visual Disturbance from Unmanned Aircraft Systems on Nocturnal Wildlife

TL;DR — Executive Summary

Nighttime UAS operations introduce powerful artificial light sources—navigation lights, high-intensity anti-collision strobes, and thermal/NIR signatures—into ecosystems adapted to darkness. These light emissions disrupt circadian rhythms, alter predator–prey dynamics, and induce strong phototactic responses in insects, creating population sinks that cascade through food webs and diminish pollination. Vertebrates—including bats, owls, and seabirds—show behavioral avoidance, disorientation, grounding, and increased predation risk.

Thermal/infrared emissions also threaten IR-sensitive predators such as pit vipers. Regulatory compliance (FAA Part 107) mandates bright flashing lights (≈400 cd) for safety, directly conflicting with conservation guidance that recommends the dimmest warm spectrum possible. Risk-reduction strategies include spectral shifting (amber/red), intensity minimization, directional shielding, temporal curfews, 100-meter setbacks, and altitude-tiered approaches. Integration of adaptive lighting systems and strengthened NEPA review are critical to balancing safety and ecological protection.

I. Introduction: The Unmanned Aircraft System and Nocturnal Environments

A. The Growing Challenge of Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) in UAS Operations

The widespread adoption of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), particularly for commercial, surveillance, and logistical operations extending into nighttime hours, introduces a significant and mobile source of Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) into environments previously governed by natural nocturnal cycles. ALAN is internationally recognized as a major environmental disturbance that profoundly influences the habitats and fitness of numerous species.¹ This interference is critical because all biological life forms have relied on the predictable, deep-time rhythm of day and night for billions of years, a cycle fundamentally encoded in the DNA of plants and animals.²

This natural light/dark cycle governs life-sustaining behaviors, including reproduction, nourishment, sleep patterns, and essential protective behaviors against predation.² The introduction of mobile, bright artificial light sources from drones, particularly in wildland or ecologically sensitive corridors, represents a radical disruption to this natural rhythm, essentially turning night into an artificial day for local nocturnal ecology.² The resultant light pollution has the potential to amplify existing land-use changes, making the evaluation of this specific sensory stimulant—the drone’s light signature—critical for conservation planning and land management.¹

B. Overview of Drone Light Sources: Navigation, Anti-Collision (AC), and Infrared (IR) Payloads

UAS platforms utilize several distinct types of lighting systems, each presenting a different ecological risk profile based on its operational purpose, intensity, and spectral output.

1. Navigation Lights (Steady): These are typically steady, lower-intensity lights required for a remote pilot to maintain aircraft orientation. Although less intense than anti-collision lights, these continuous sources contribute to ambient light pollution and can still induce behavioral responses, especially if the spectral output falls within biologically sensitive wavelengths.
2. Anti-Collision Lights (Flashing/Strobing): These are mandatory for night operations under federal aviation regulations and serve the primary safety function of making the small UAS (sUAS) visible to manned aircraft.³ They are designed to be high-intensity and often utilize white or aviation red light, frequently configured as a pulsating or strobing sequence.⁴ Historically, aviation safety standards for anti-collision systems required minimum effective intensities, which, for aircraft certificated after 1971, are often cited as 400 effective candela (cd) across critical viewing angles.⁶ This high intensity, optimized for human visual detection across distances, is a central driver of ecological conflict.
3. Infrared (IR) Emitters and Thermal Payloads: Drones are increasingly equipped with infrared (IR) technology for discreet navigation or observational tasks, particularly in wildlife monitoring and fire surveillance.⁸ These systems utilize cameras that detect non-visible infrared energy, which can be Near-Infrared (NIR) or thermal (Mid- to Far-IR).⁸ The operation of the camera itself does not typically emit visible light, but the drone’s inherent operation generates a substantial thermal signature from internal components (motors, batteries) which constitutes a significant source of long-wavelength IR radiation detectable by specialized nocturnal fauna.¹⁰

II. Biological and Physiological Impacts of Drone Lighting on Nocturnal Fauna

A. General Ecological and Chronobiological Disruption

Artificial light exposure acts as a powerful sensory stimulant that alters the behavioral ecology of nocturnal organisms. For nocturnal animals, the sudden introduction of artificial light is arguably the most drastic change human beings can inflict upon their environment.²

At the physiological level, exposure to light, especially shorter wavelengths (blue light, 400–490 nm) at night, carries mounting evidence of adverse effects on wildlife functions.¹¹ This disruption stems from the presence of photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (pRGCs) in the mammalian eye. These cells are distinct from the rods and cones involved in image formation and instead play a crucial role in regulating non-visual physiological functions, including the synchronization of circadian rhythms.¹¹

The behavioral responses to drone light are complex. By simulating consistently bright moonlit nights, ALAN can significantly reduce the effective foraging time for sensitive nocturnal prey insects, thereby increasing their risk of starvation.¹² Conversely, this increased ambient illumination can prolong the foraging activity of certain diurnal and crepuscular insects, such as sweat bees (Lasioglossum texanum) and desert ants (Veromessor pergandei), species that would normally forage nocturnally only during a full moon.¹²

B. Impact of Light Spectrum (Wavelength) on Insects and Pollinators

Insects exhibit strong physiological sensitivity to the light spectrum, making them acutely vulnerable to drone lighting.

Wavelength Sensitivity and Phototaxis

Insects are primarily sensitive to the shorter wavelengths of the visible spectrum and use ultraviolet (UV) light extensively for orientation and navigation.¹³ Consequently, UV fractions strongly enhance the behavior of light attraction (positive phototaxis) in many insect taxa.¹³ Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs), while energy-efficient, often contain significant blue spectrum components that mimic these highly attractive short wavelengths, differing fundamentally from older, warmer light sources.¹³

The consequences of this attraction can be dire. Studies simulating artificial lighting have demonstrated extremely high mortality ratios against certain agricultural pests, such as Spodoptera littoralis (caterpillars) and aphids, particularly when exposed to white and blue LEDs, with mortality sometimes reaching 100% in controlled settings.¹⁴

This phenomenon suggests that when a drone operates with high-intensity, short-wavelength anti-collision or navigation lights in an ecologically sensitive zone, the highly visible light source acts as an acute, mobile attractant. As insects aggregate around the light source, they risk collision, exhaustion, or exposure to predators. This continuous, localized removal of insects from the general environment effectively creates a temporary “population sink” along the drone’s flight corridor. This depletion of insect populations poses a secondary impact, reducing the available prey base for insectivorous predators (like bats and owls) and simultaneously diminishing the capacity of nocturnal insects to perform essential ecological services, notably pollination, over the drone’s operational area.

In addition to mortality, light can create evolutionary traps. For instance, studies on fireflies indicate that males exhibit positive phototaxis toward longer wavelengths (yellow and red), potentially because these colors resemble the female glow. If artificial lights fall within this color range, the males are diverted from natural mating cues, creating an evolutionary trap in human-modified landscapes.¹⁵ This demonstrates that even long wavelengths, typically recommended for mitigation, can influence specific behaviors within a single species, underscoring the complexity of mitigating light pollution.¹⁵

C. Effects on Key Nocturnal Vertebrate Taxa (Bats and Owls)

Bats and Mammals

Bat species exhibit diverse responses to ALAN. Some species, categorized as light-tolerant, may exploit artificial light sources to gain an advantage by aggregating around concentrated insect prey (the light-trap effect).¹⁶ However, sensitive, light-avoiding species often experience significant detrimental effects, including reduced access to foraging areas, habitat avoidance, and elevated physiological stress.¹⁶ The disturbance to bats is further amplified not only by the direct illumination but by the cascading environmental change, such as the disruption of prey abundance caused by the light source.¹⁶

Nocturnal Avian Species

Artificial light has negative and potentially lethal effects on avian populations.² For seabirds, artificial light can fatally disorient them, leading to collision, entrapment, stranding, grounding, and interference with migratory navigation, pulling them off their normal course.¹⁶ All species active at night are vulnerable to light disruption, particularly those requiring darkness to orient toward specific geographic features, such as the sea.¹⁶

D. The Ambiguity of Flashing/Pulsating Lights

For aviation safety, the FAA requires anti-collision lights to be high-intensity and often flashing or pulsating.⁴ While flashing lights are intended to enhance detection by human pilots and may aid avoidance by some birds ⁵, the overall ecological consequences of light flicker frequency—the temporality of light emission—are critically understudied.¹⁷

Research syntheses have identified that the reported physiological and behavioral impacts of flashing light compared to continuous light are highly varied across taxa (Aves, Insecta, Mammalia).¹⁷ No definitive conclusions can currently be drawn regarding the optimal or least disruptive flicker frequency.

There is a significant tension between the requirement for a high-intensity, flashing light for regulatory safety, optimized for maximizing detection by manned aircraft ⁶, and the potential for this exact configuration to maximize disorientation and biological harm to nocturnal fauna.¹⁶ Given the current gaps in understanding the species-specific impacts of flicker, the prevailing recommendation for conservationists is the application of the precautionary principle until further research on flash frequency, wavelength, and intensity clarifies mitigation pathways.¹⁷

III. Evaluating Risk to Predator-Prey Dynamics and Specialized Sensory Systems

A. Trophic Alteration in Visible Light Environments

Artificial illumination fundamentally alters the landscape of risk for nocturnal species. Changes in ambient illumination levels directly affect the behaviors of both predators and prey.¹⁸ Darkness serves as essential cover for many prey species, allowing them to engage in critical activities, while predators often utilize light or edges of light to hunt.² Exposure to ALAN can disrupt nocturnal vigilance, a crucial antipredator mechanism, particularly for prey species that are typically diurnal.¹⁸

The disruption to predator-prey dynamics is pronounced in wildland-urban interface areas. For example, studies tracking large mammals showed that mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) become more active at night in anthropogenic environments to access forage, despite the elevated light levels.¹ Although cougars (Puma concolor) successfully kill deer in these light-polluted interfaces, the exposure modifies the natural predator-prey relationship.¹ The introduction of drone light into remote or previously dark areas creates similar shifts, potentially increasing the vulnerability of prey species by revealing them to visually hunting predators (like some owls) or, conversely, displacing light-averse predators from hunting grounds.

Furthermore, drone light poses a direct risk of confusing nocturnal pollinators, diverting them through phototaxis from their natural floral targets. This disruption to orientation during foraging could interrupt plant reproduction cycles across the drone’s flight path, contributing to a generalized decline in ecosystem function.

B. Near-Infrared (NIR) and Thermal Impact Analysis

Drones introduce not just visible light disturbance, but also specialized forms of non-visible infrared radiation. UAS platforms use Near-Infrared (NIR) for sensor operation and generate significant Mid- to Far-IR energy as a thermal signature from their operation, batteries, and motors.⁸

Biological Impact of NIR Light

Research into photobiomodulation (PBM)—the therapeutic use of red and NIR light—has confirmed that red or NIR light exerts significant, conserved biological effects across numerous kingdoms of life, suggesting that virtually “all life-forms respond to light,” even in the non-visual spectrum.²⁰ In mammals, NIR light has been shown to regulate neural function and stimulate biological tissue.²¹ While the specific behavioral impact of drone-emitted NIR navigation light is poorly characterized, the established physiological effects suggest that NIR is not ecologically benign and warrants caution in sensitive areas.

Targeted Effects on IR-Sensitive Species (Pit Vipers)

The most direct and specialized risk associated with the drone’s thermal signature involves infrared-sensitive predators, specifically pit vipers (rattlesnakes, copperheads, cottonmouths) and certain pythons and boas.¹⁰ These animals possess highly specialized loreal pit organs, sensory structures that detect infrared radiation in the 750 nanometer (nm) to 1 millimeter (mm) wavelength range.¹⁰

This unique system transduces radiant heat into a nerve impulse via highly heat-sensitive TRPA1 channels.¹⁰ This allows the snake to generate an accurate “thermal image” of warm-blooded prey, enabling high-precision tracking and hunting in total darkness, often at distances up to 1 meter.¹⁰

When a drone, generating substantial heat from its operational components, conducts low-altitude surveillance or delivery flights (e.g., thermal mapping at or near ground level), its heat profile is detectable by these specialized sensors. For a pit viper, the warm, motorized UAS could be perceived as a substantial, fast-moving, warm-blooded threat or a high-value prey item. This could induce an unwarranted predatory strike, defensive behavior, or significant energy expenditure against a mechanical object, representing a unique ecological hazard posed by the drone’s operational thermal signature that is completely independent of visible light mandates.

IV. Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Guidelines

A. FAA Requirements for Nighttime UAS Operations (14 CFR Part 107)

The regulatory landscape for nighttime commercial UAS operations in the United States is primarily defined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under 14 CFR Part 107.

The FAA modified Part 107 in January 2021 to allow routine operations of sUAS at night.²⁴ This change eliminated the previous requirement for operators to obtain a Part 107 night operational waiver.²⁴ Under the current regulation, nighttime is defined as the period between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight, which in the continental U.S. generally encompasses the time starting 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.²⁵

The key mandate for night flight under Part 107 requires the sUAS to be equipped with an operating anti-collision light that must be illuminated and visible for at least 3 statute miles.³ The requirement for intensity (candela) is derived from safety standards applied to manned aircraft, necessitating that anti-collision systems typically produce a minimum of 400 effective candela (cd) in Aviation Red or White light across a 360° vertical axis, spanning 30° above and below the horizontal plane.⁶

The reliance on high-intensity lighting for safety creates a fundamental Safety-Ecology Candela Paradox. FAA regulations mandate high intensity (400 cd) white or red flashing lights to ensure the sUAS is detectable by pilots.⁶ Conversely, established ecological best practices unanimously recommend keeping artificial light “as dim as possible” to minimize behavioral and physiological disturbances to nocturnal fauna.²⁶ The required high candela output maximizes the ecological footprint of the drone, directly conflicting with the goal of conservation. Navigating this tension requires the deployment of flexible, adaptive lighting systems capable of dynamic intensity adjustment based on immediate collision risk.

B. Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) and Environmental Review

The push toward normalizing Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) drone operations, critical for package delivery and large-area surveillance, is currently driving new regulatory proposals from the FAA.²⁷ Industry groups, such as Wing, are actively engaged in rulemaking, arguing against overly prescriptive mandates like blanket Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) hardware requirements, citing technical complexity and economic barriers.²⁸

When BVLOS operations cross into large areas of undisturbed habitat or protected lands, environmental compliance becomes paramount. The FAA must adhere to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), requiring thorough environmental assessment. For flights potentially impacting federally protected species, interagency consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is mandatory.³⁰ This consultation involves the FAA requesting USFWS concurrence that the proposed operation “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect,” listed endangered or threatened species, such as the Florida bonneted bat or the Florida panther, especially in areas containing National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) lands.³¹

Direct operational restrictions over protected lands are strict:

1. National Wildlife Refuges: It is illegal to operate unmanned aircraft over NWR lands to protect ecologically sensitive areas and prevent the harassment of wildlife.³²
2. Wilderness Areas: Drone use is prohibited in Congressionally designated Wilderness Areas within National Forests to preserve pristine conditions.³³
3. General Avoidance: Pilots operating near wildlife or sensitive areas are generally advised to avoid disturbing wildlife and maintain a spatial buffer, typically launching and operating the UAS more than 100 meters (328 feet) from observed animals.³² The FAA also advises that flight paths should avoid prolonged low-altitude operation near noise-sensitive areas.³⁴

The following table summarizes the conflict between aviation safety requirements and conservation requirements.

Table 2: FAA Lighting Requirements vs. Ecological Best Practices

Lighting Parameter	FAA Part 107 Requirement (Safety Mandate)	Ecological Best Practice (Mitigation)	Conflict Point and Operational Solution	Source IDs
Purpose	Detect and avoid manned aircraft (Anti-Collision Light, AC) 3	Minimize behavioral and physiological disturbance of fauna 2	Conflict: Safety necessity overrides conservation principle. Solution: Implement dynamic/adaptive intensity control.	[2, 3, 4]
Intensity (Candela)	Minimum 400 effective candela (in $0^{\circ}$–$5^{\circ}$ horizontal angle for certain aircraft) 6	Keep intensity “as dim as possible” 26	Conflict: High candela requirement maximizes disturbance. Solution: Utilize high intensity only when necessary (DAA systems); use directional, shielded light only.35	[6, 7, 26]
Wavelength/Color	Aviation Red or White (required for AC lights) [6]	Amber, Orange, or Red ($>560$ nm, $<3000$K CCT) 26	Conflict: White/blue light is highly disruptive. Solution: Prefer Red for AC lights; use Amber for steady navigation lights; filter blue spectrum.11	[6, 11, 26]
Temporality/Flicker	Flashing/Pulsating lights (required for AC lights) 4	Precautionary principle advised due to critically low research on flicker impacts 17	Conflict: Standard flash rates may disorient birds. Solution: Maintain mandatory safety flash rate; avoid supplemental strobing outside FAA requirement.	[4, 17]

V. Mitigation Strategies and Operational Best Practices

Effective mitigation of drone light disturbance requires a layered strategy that prioritizes light source modification and stringent operational protocols.

A. Light Source Modification Protocols

The most impactful mitigation strategy is the careful selection and control of the UAS light source’s spectral composition, intensity, and directionality.

Wavelength Prioritization and Color Temperature

Cooler, shorter wavelength light (blue or white, high Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) >3000 Kelvin degrees) must be avoided as it is the least favorable for birds, insects, and other wildlife, frequently triggering strong behavioral and physiological responses.²⁶ The necessary mitigation involves shifting the light spectrum toward warmer colors. Operational guidance dictates the use of amber, orange, or red light, characterized by longer wavelengths ($>560$ nm) and lower CCTs ($<3000$ Kelvin degrees), which are substantially less harmful.²⁶ Specialized amber-colored LEDs, for example, are effective because their longer wavelength minimally disturbs sensitive nocturnal animals.³⁶ This principle holds true even for highly specialized species like fireflies, where long wavelengths (amber to red) were found to be the least disruptive.¹²

Intensity and Directionality Control

The second major control point is intensity. Lights must be kept “as dim as possible”.²⁶ Furthermore, maximizing shielding and controlling the directionality of the emitted light is crucial. Light should be aimed strictly downwards and directed away from known sensitive habitats or nesting areas to prevent upward light spill that contributes to sky glow.¹¹ Operators should recognize that luminous intensity is dependent on the solid angle of emission; directing the light beam over a smaller angle significantly increases its effective intensity.³⁵ Therefore, light sources should be narrowly focused only onto the surface area requiring illumination.¹⁶

Thermal/IR Mitigation

To specifically address the unique risk to IR-sensitive predators, particularly pit vipers, operational plans must include measures to minimize the visibility of the drone’s thermal signature. In areas known to harbor these species, low-altitude flight (defined as below 1 meter) should be avoided, especially if the drone is carrying a heavy payload or operating its motors intensely, which increases heat generation.

B. Temporal and Operational Flight Parameters

The impact of drone operations is intrinsically linked to when and how they fly.

Temporal Curfews and Activity Timing

The use of temporal curfews is an effective management tool. For coastal environments, guidelines recommend extinguishing lights around rookeries by 7 pm during critical life stages, such as seabird fledgling periods, as fledglings typically leave their nests early in the evening.¹⁶ Light management should be consistently implemented during specific breeding, nesting, and fledgling seasons.¹¹

Altitude and Spatial Protocols

Drone disturbance is strongly modulated by operational variables, including altitude, speed, and approach distance.³⁷ A tiered descent protocol is highly advised to mitigate startling reactions in wildlife.³⁷ This involves beginning observation or operation at a conservative, higher altitude (e.g., 80 meters) and descending gradually only as the observed animals tolerate the drone’s presence. Operators must maintain conservative standards and continuously monitor animal reactions, even if no immediate signs of stress are visible.³⁷ Regulatory guidance for flight near wildlife mandates maintaining a separation distance of at least 100 meters (328 feet) from wildlife and strictly prohibits approaching animals or birds vertically.³²

Table 3: Required Operational Mitigation Protocols

Mitigation Category	Protocol / Restriction	Ecological Basis	Source IDs
Altitude Management	Tiered descent protocol, starting observation at higher altitude (e.g., 80m) 37	Prevents startling animals and minimizes initial stress responses; allows real-time behavioral monitoring.37	37
Spatial Separation	Maintain 100 meters (328 feet) distance from wildlife; avoid vertical approach.32	Minimizes harassment, disturbance, and stress that can cause significant harm.32	32
Temporal Curfew	Implement curfews, particularly extinguishing lights by 7 pm during sensitive periods (e.g., seabird fledgling/nesting season).11	Prevents collision and grounding risks during critical life history functions.11	11
Habitat Avoidance	Do not fly over or near National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) or designated Wilderness Areas.[32, 33]	Legal prohibition due to disproportionate impact on ecologically sensitive areas and listed species.[32, 33]	[32, 33]

VI. Conclusion and Future Regulatory and Research Directions

The deployment of UAS during nocturnal periods presents a significant and dynamic form of light pollution, impacting the fundamental behaviors of insects, bats, birds, amphibians, and specialized predators. The regulatory requirements established by the FAA for night operations (Part 107) dictate the use of high-intensity, anti-collision lighting (up to 400 effective candela) to ensure aircraft safety. This mandate stands in direct opposition to conservation best practices, which require light sources to be minimized in intensity and shifted toward longer (warmer) wavelengths ($>560$ nm) to reduce ecological disturbance.

Need for Adaptive Technology and Regulatory Nuance

The primary challenge lies in bridging the gap between aviation safety requirements and environmental protection goals. To resolve the Safety-Ecology Candela Paradox, future UAS technology must incorporate adaptive, dynamic lighting controls. These systems should be engineered to default to minimal ecologically disruptive lighting (e.g., dim, amber, shielded output) while possessing the capability to instantly increase intensity (up to the required 400 cd) and change characteristics (e.g., flashing/pulsating white/red) only when required for collision avoidance protocols detected by an onboard Detect-and-Avoid (DAA) system.

Regulatory evolution must acknowledge the varying environmental risk levels across airspace. The FAA, in collaboration with the USFWS, needs to formalize environmental constraints, such as mandatory altitude floors, strict temporal curfews, and spectral requirements (low blue emission), especially when granting BVLOS authorizations over sensitive habitats identified through NEPA reviews. Given the existing prohibition on flying over National Wildlife Refuges and Wilderness Areas, commercial UAS operations should focus mitigation efforts on transit corridors adjacent to protected lands and during critical migratory or breeding seasons.

Research Imperatives

Current scientific understanding is constrained by a lack of long-term data regarding the consequences of repeated drone exposure on wildlife.³⁷ Further research is urgently needed in several key areas:

1. Flicker Frequency Analysis: The impact of mandated pulsing anti-collision light frequencies on specific nocturnal biodiversity, particularly migratory birds and bats, remains critically understudied. The precautionary principle dictates minimizing reliance on flashing lights until definitive ecological tolerance thresholds are established.¹⁷
2. Animal-Centric Photometry: Future research must quantify drone light output not just in human visual metrics (lumens, candela), but translated into equivalent spectral irradiance and metrics relevant to the specific visual systems of affected animals.³⁵
3. Thermal Signature Quantification: Further investigation into the distances at which pit vipers and other IR-sensitive fauna detect and react to the thermal signatures of different drone models at varying altitudes is necessary to establish precise low-altitude operational limits in their habitats.

Works cited

1. Artificial nightlight alters the predator-prey dynamics of an apex carnivore – USGS Publications Warehouse, accessed November 5, 2025, https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70216567
2. Light pollution harms wildlife and ecosystems | DarkSky International, accessed November 5, 2025, https://darksky.org/resources/what-is-light-pollution/effects/wildlife-ecosystems/
3. Part 107 Waivers | Federal Aviation Administration, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/part_107_waivers
4. 1 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 11, 21, 43, and 107 [Docket N, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2021-08/OOP_Final%20Rule.pdf
5. Red Light, Green Light – Flight Safety Foundation, accessed November 5, 2025, https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/red-light-green-light/
6. Aircraft Lighting Regulations | Whelen Aerospace Technologies, accessed November 5, 2025, https://flywat.com/pages/aircraft-lighting-regulations
7. 14 CFR 25.1401 — Anticollision light system. – eCFR, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-25/subpart-F/subject-group-ECFR0cb7970b9d1fd5f/section-25.1401
8. How to Use Drones for Wildlife Conservation? – JOUAV, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.jouav.com/blog/wildlife-drone.html
9. Using Drones with Infrared Capabilities to Monitor Fire Behavior | Oklahoma State University, accessed November 5, 2025, https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/using-drones-with-infrared-capabilities-to-monitor-fire-behavior.html
10. Molecular Basis of Infrared Detection by Snakes – PMC – PubMed Central – NIH, accessed November 5, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2855400/
11. National Light Pollution Guidelines for Wildlife, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/national-light-pollution-guidelines-wildlife.pdf
12. The impact of artificial light at night on nocturnal insects: A review and synthesis – PMC, accessed November 5, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6262936/
13. Light-Emitting Diodes (LED): A Promising Street Light System to Reduce the Attraction to Light of Insects – MDPI, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/13/2/89
14. DRONE WITH EMBEDDED LIGHT EMITTING DIODES (LEDS) AGAINST INSECTS AND MITES IN GREENHOUSES – Current Trends in Natural Sciences, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.natsci.upit.ro/media/1711/paper-32.pdf
15. Mitigating the light pollution problem via spectral adjustment: color-biased phototaxis in male glow-worms – PubMed Central, accessed November 5, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12255557/
16. National Light Pollution Guidelines for Wildlife – DCCEEW, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/national-light-pollution-guidelines-wildlife.pdf
17. Does a flashing artificial light have more or conversely less impacts on animals than a continuous one? A systematic review – Nature Conservation, accessed November 5, 2025, https://natureconservation.pensoft.net/article/102614/
18. Artificial light at night alters behavior in laboratory and wild animals – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed November 5, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6205897/
19. Artificial nightlight alters the predator–prey dynamics of an apex carnivore – Digital Scholarship@UNLV, accessed November 5, 2025, https://oasis.library.unlv.edu/context/sls_fac_articles/article/1843/viewcontent/DitmerMA_ArtificialNightlightAltersthePredatorPrey_20201018.pdf
20. Non-mammalian Hosts and Photobiomodulation: Do All Life-forms Respond to Light?, accessed November 5, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6286699/
21. Evaluation of the Impact of Near-Infrared Multiwavelength Locked System Laser Therapy on Skin Microbiome in Atopic Dogs – MDPI, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/14/6/906
22. Advances in the Regulation of Neural Function by Infrared Light – MDPI, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/25/2/928
23. Pit Vipers Can Detect Prey Via Heat | AMNH, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.amnh.org/explore/news-blogs/pit-viper-thermal-detection
24. Part 107 Waivers Issued | Federal Aviation Administration, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/part_107_waivers/waivers_issued
25. AC 107-2 – Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) – Federal Aviation Administration, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac_107-2.pdf
26. Threats to Birds: Collisions (Nighttime Lighting) | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.fws.gov/story/threats-birds-collisions-nighttime-lighting
27. Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) – Federal Aviation Administration, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/beyond-visual-line-sight-bvlos
28. A Rule for the Future: Ensuring the FAA’s Framework Enables, Not Halts, Progress, accessed November 5, 2025, https://wing.com/news/drone-rule-ensuring-faa-enables-progress
29. October 6, 2025 Submitted electronically via Regulations.gov United States Department of Transportation Docket Operations 1200 N – Commercial Drone Alliance, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.commercialdronealliance.org/file/secure/cda-comments-in-response-to-normalizing-unmanned-aircraft-systems-beyond-visual-line-of-sight-operations-docket-faa-2025-1908.pdf
30. Memorandum of Agreement Between the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Environmental P, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/resources/Multi_Agency_Wildlife_MOA.pdf
31. Draft Environmental Assessment for Wing Aviation, LLC Proposed …, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.faa.gov/uas/advanced_operations/nepa_and_drones/20241218-Draft-EA-Wing-Central-Florida.pdf
32. Tips for Responsible Drone Use | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.fws.gov/refuge/oregon-islands/tips-responsible-drone-use
33. Flying Drones in National Parks and National Forests: Updated Guidelines – Drone U, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.thedroneu.com/blog/flying-your-drone-in-national-parks-and-national-forests/
34. Section 8. Other Information and Best Practices – Federal Aviation Administration, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap11_section_8.html
35. Minimizing Ecological Impacts of Marine Energy Lighting – MDPI, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/10/3/354
36. Amber LEDs – Lumecon, accessed November 5, 2025, https://lumecon.com/amber/

Impact of Drone Disturbances on Wildlife: A Review – MDPI, accessed November 5, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2504-446X/9/4/311