1

Tanyut Huidrom

15 May 2021

Biofluorescence In Nocturnal Crepuscular Mammals

After the recent discovery of biofluorescence in captive and museum specimens of

Glaucomys spp.1, the zoological community has seen a rise in interest towards this potentially

widespread “invisible” trait, its ecological function, and its presence in phylogenetically far

removed species fulfilling similar ecological niches. Researchers have discovered that quite a

few nocturnal crepuscular mammals showcase what appears to be innate biofluorescence. Recent

examples include the monotreme duck-billed platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus)2, marsupial

opossums (Didelphidae)3, New World placental flying squirrels (Glaucomys spp.), and most

recently, springhares (Pedetidae)4, being the first documented case of biofluorescence in an Old

World placental mammal. We will be reviewing the data available with regards to these four

species in an attempt to discern the role played by biofluorescence in sexual selection, predator

avoidance and foraging. We will also look at other intra and interspecific interactions occurring

in the wild which may affect an organism's fitness.

Biofluorescence is the process by which short wavelengths of light are absorbed and

reemitted as longer wavelengths of light. It has been observed previously in a wide range of

invertebrates, fish, reptiles, and amphibians. In 1985, biofluorescence was discovered within

Didelphidae as the first documented case of biofluorescence in a mammal3. It was thought of as

an abnormality and regarded as such until similar cases of biofluorescence were discovered in
 2

Glaucomys spp., O. anatinus, and Pedetidae. These four animals inhabit 4 different continents,

live in environments which vary quite a bit, and are phylogenetically diverse. The common trait

between all four species is that they are nocturnal-crepuscular mammals. Being active in low

light environments, it is possible that the biofluorescence showcased plays an ecologically

significant role for these species.

In the case of O. anatinus, three museum specimens were examined, captured from Tasmania,

New South Wales and Australia. All three specimens biofluoresced in response to UV light. The

male and female specimens biofluoresced in the same patterns and intensity. As the specimens

varied in age, and the fact that the specimens would have undergone washing in preparation for

being displayed, it is safe to assume that the biofluorescence was an intrinsic trait of the

specimens. The dorsal and ventral pelage of the specimens were green to cyan under UV light, in

contrast to brown under normal conditions. Using fluorescence spectroscopy it was determined

that the fur was absorbing short wavelengths around 200 to 400 nm and re-emitting visible light

around 500 to 600 nm.

A formal investigation was conducted following a chance encounter in the wild during which

researchers flashed a wild Glaucomys volans with a UV flashlight during a forest survey and

subsequently noted that the individual was fluorescing pink. Following the investigation it was

discovered that pink UV fluorescence was detected in 108 out of 109 museum specimens

studied. The ventral body surface of the animal, which appears white under normal lighting,

appeared pink under UV light. The specimens studied showcased substantial variation in terms
 3

of the intensity and pattern, however, no meaningful relationships between species, month, sex,

year of capture, or latitude of capture were observed.

The only study involving live specimens was conducted for springhares (Pedetidae). 14 museum

specimens ranging from Angola, Botswana, Kenya and Tanzania were studied, along with five

captive-bred specimens. Following the methods of Anich et al, they studied the intensity and

pattern of biofluorescence in the springhare specimens. The trait was determined not to be an

environmental one as the specimens came from across a 58 year period, and hailed from seven

separate locations. Museum specimens were also subject to heavy washing. Male and female

specimens fluoresced within the same regions with the same intensity. Intensity of fluorescence

tended to be reduced with older specimens, indicating a potential for degradation with time.

The methods used to determine biofluorescence were similar, photographs were taken of the

animals by applying a filter to the lens that blocked wavelengths below a certain limit so the

higher wavelengths (those emitted by the biofluorescent tissues) could be seen better. While the

ecological function of biofluorescence still remains uncertain, it has been hypothesized that the

trait may affect interspecific interactions5, along with mate-selection6 and intraspecific

communication7. As these animals are active in low light conditions, it is possible that it may

affect prey detection as well.

From the specimens studied, we can determine that biofluorescence as a trait is not sexually

dimorphic. The pattern and intensity of the fluorescent region does not appear to vary with sex.
 4

Thus, it is unlikely that the trait plays a role in mate selection. While the trait may still be used

for intraspecific communication in other species, we know that this most likely isn’t the case for

the platypus. As the species navigates primarily by using mechanoreception and electroreception,

without much use of their eyes, it is unlikely that biofluorescence is significant in intraspecific

interactions.2 As biofluorescence has evolved in this particular group of nocturnal crepuscular

mammals, it is likely that its primary function is related to this behaviour and environment.8

Springhares are rather distant relatives to all known biofluorescent rodents within Sciuridae, and

also live in an environment that varies greatly from previously known examples of

biofluorescent nocturnal crepuscular mammals. They are mainly solitary individuals which

shelter in individual burrows and forage short-grass environments nocturnally. They also aren’t

dependent upon cover for predator avoidance, and benefit from the clear line-of-sight their

foraging environment provides, as they rely on early predator detection in order to escape using

their strong hind legs.4 Thus, it is likely that biofluorescence in springhares plays an interspecific

role.

It is possible that the absorbance of UV light and subsequent fluorescence of longer wavelengths

may reduce the visibility of the organism to UV-sensitive predators. During the hours

immediately after sunset and before sunrise, light environments tend to be dominated by UV

wavelengths.9 These wavelengths are present during daytime, but most likely don’t factor in

much as they are dominated by visible wavelengths. Glaucomys spp and O. anatinus are known

to be active during twilight. In the case of Glaucomys, it is possible that the biofluorescent

plumage on their ventral side allows them to blend into the backdrop of the sky better in order to
 5

avoid predator detection. Sunlight present during these hours has a uniform intensity and colour,

which generally would allow for predators to be able to spot silhouettes of these organisms

relatively easily. However, by adapting to fluoresce similar wavelengths, they may be able to

obscure their silhouette. This would act as a rudimentary form of counter-illumination

camouflage, which has been observed in deep sea fish. By luminescing at a similar intensity and

wavelength to the light coming in from the top, they are able to blur their silhouettes from

predators lurking below.10 This would also explain the variation in wavelength emission

witnessed amongst the group. Further research in the wild habitats of these animals would be

required to confirm this.

Works Cited

1. Allison M Kohler, Erik R Olson, Jonathan G Martin, Paula Spaeth Anich, Ultraviolet fluorescence

discovered in New World flying squirrels (Glaucomys), Journal of Mammalogy, Volume 100, Issue 1, 28
 6

February 2019, Pages 21–30, https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyy177

2. Anich, Paula Spaeth, Anthony, Sharon, Carlson, Michaela, Gunnelson, Adam, Kohler, Allison M., Martin,

Jonathan G. and Olson, Erik R.. "Biofluorescence in the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus)" Mammalia,

vol. 85, no. 2, 2021, pp. 179-181. https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2020-0027

3. Pine, Ronald, Rice. J, Butcher. J, Tank. D, Greenhall. A (1985). Labile pigments and fluorescent pelage in

didelphid marsupials. Mammalia. 49. 249-256. 10.1515/mamm.1985.49.2.249

4. Olson, E.R., Carlson, M.R., Ramanujam, V.M.S. et al. Vivid biofluorescence discovered in the nocturnal

Springhare (Pedetidae). Sci Rep 11, 4125 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83588-0

5. Olofsson, M., Vallin, A., Jakobsson, S. & Wiklund, C. Marginal eyespots on butterfly wings deflect bird

attacks under low light intensities with UV wavelengths. PLoS ONE 5, e10798.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010798 (2010).

6. Pearn, S. M., Bennett, A. T. & Cuthill, I. C. Ultraviolet vision, fluorescence and mate choice in a parrot, the

budgerigar Melopsittacus undulates. Proc. R. Soc. B. 268, 2273–2279.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1813 (2001).

7. Honkavaara, J., Koivula, M., Korpimaki, E., Siitari, H. & Viitala, J. Ultraviolet vision and foraging in

terrestrial vertebrates. Oikos 98, 505–511. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.980315.x (2008).

8. Cronin T. W., and M. J.Bok. 2016. Photoreception and vision in the ultraviolet. Journal of Experimental

Biology 291:2790–2801.

9. Johnsen S., et al. 2006. Crepuscular and nocturnal illumination and its effects on color perception by the

nocturnal hawk moth Deilephila elpenor. Journal of Experimental Biology 209:789–800.

10. Young, R.E,.; Roper, C.F.E. (1977). "Intensity Regulation of Bioluminescence during Countershading in

Living Midwater Animals". Science. 191 (4231): 1046–1048. doi:10.1126/science.1251214. PMID

1251214.