Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:17:42.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Calculating luminous flux and lighting levels for domesticated mammals and birds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2008

J. E. Saunders*
Affiliation:
Applied Vision Research Centre, Department of Optometry and Visual Science, City University, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK
J. R. Jarvis
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, AL9 7TA, UK
C. M. Wathes
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, AL9 7TA, UK
Get access

Abstract

This paper considers whether photometric calculations using standard human spectral sensitivity data are satisfactory for applications with other species or whether it would be worthwhile to use bespoke spectral sensitivity functions for each species or group of species. Applications include the lighting of interior areas and the design of photometers. Published spectral sensitivity data for a number of domesticated animals (human, turkey, duck, chicken, cat, rat and mouse) were used to calculate lighting levels for each species and compared with those derived from standard CIE human photopic and scotopic functions. Calculations were made for spectral power distributions of daylight, incandescent light and 12 fluorescent sources commonly used to light interiors. The calculated lighting levels showed clear differences between species and the standard human. Assuming that the resulting effects on retinal illuminance determine the overall perception of the level of light, there may be applications where these differences are important. However, evidence is also presented that the magnitude of these inter-species effects are similar to, or smaller than, those arising from other optical, physiological and psychological factors, which are also likely to influence the resulting perception. It is also important to recognise that lighting-related parameters such as the good colour rendering of surfaces, the avoidance of glare from lamps and other factors that may be species related are sometimes of greater importance than the lighting levels. Our results suggest that a judicial choice of three spectral sensitivity functions would satisfy most circumstances. Firstly, where the overall sensitivity is maximal in the medium to long wavelengths, the standard CIE photopic function will suffice, chicken, turkey and duck fall in this category. Secondly, in a small number of cases where the sensitivity centres on the short to medium wavelengths, the CIE scotopic function should be used, e.g. for the scotopic cat, photopic rat and photopic mouse. Finally, where an animal is also sensitive to the UV region of the spectrum and there is a significant component of UV radiation, then an additional measure of the UV response should be included, as for the photopic rat and photopic mouse.

Type
Full Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barber, CL, Prescott, NB, Jarvis, JR, Le Sueur, C, Perry, GC, Wathes, CM 2006. Comparative study of the photopic spectral sensitivity of domestic ducks (Anas platyrhynchos domesticus), turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo) and humans. British Poultry Science 47, 365374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbur, JL, Prescott, NB, Douglas, RH, Jarvis, JR, Wathes, CM 2002. A comparative study of stimulus-specific pupil responses in the domestic fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus) and the human. Vision Research 42, 249255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berkley, MA 1976. Cat visual psychophysics: neural correlates and comparisons with man. Progress in Psychobiology and Physiological Psychology 6, 63119.Google Scholar
Boynton, RM 1979. Human colour vision. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Austin.Google Scholar
Brown, JL, Shively, FD, LaMotte, RH, Sechzer, JA 1973. Color discrimination in the cat. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 84, 534544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CIBSE 2006. Code for Lighting. CIBSE, London.Google Scholar
CIE (Commission Internationale De L’Eclairage) 1983. The basis of physical photometry. Publication CIE No 182 (TC-12).Google Scholar
Crawford BH 1949. The scotopic visibility function. Proceedings of the Physical Society B 62, 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirt, RC, Schmitt, RG, Searle, ND, Sullivan, AP 1960. Ultraviolet spectral energy distributions of natural sunlight and accelerated test light sources. Journal of the Optical Society of America 50, 706713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, RWG 1998. Measuring colour, 3rd edition. Fountain Press, England.Google Scholar
Jacobs, GH, Fenwick, JA, Williams, GA 2001. Cone-based vision of rats for ultraviolet and visible lights. Journal of Experimental Biology 204, 24392446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, GH, Williams, GA, Fenwick, JA 2004. Influence of cone pigment coexpression on spectral sensitivity and color vision in the mouse. Vision Research 44, 16151622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarvis, JR, Prescott, NB, Wathes, CM 2003. A mechanistic inter-species comparison of flicker sensitivity. Vision Research 43, 17231734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohlrausch, A 1923. Über den Helligkeitsvergleich verschiedener farben. Pflügers Archiv European Journal of Physiology 200, 210215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Grand, Y 1968. Light, colour and vision. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Lewis, PD, Morris, TR 2000. Poultry and coloured light. World’s Poultry Science Journal 56, 189207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loop MS 1971. An investigation of the scotopic luminosity function in the cat employing a modified conditioned suppression technique. Thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.Google Scholar
Loop, MS, Millican, CL, Thomas, SR 1987. Photopic spectral sensitivity of the cat. The Journal of Physiology 382, 537553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moorhead, IR, Saunders, JE 1982. Discrimination and detection thresholds: the effect of observer criterion on the spatial parameters of chromatic and achromatic mechanisms. Vision Research 22, 10571060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuboer, JFW, Moed, PJ 1983. Increment-threshold spectral sensitivity in the rabbit. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 151, 353358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuboer, JFW, Coemans, MAJM, Vos, JJ 1992. Artificial lighting in poultry houses: appropriate for describing illumination intensities? British Poultry Science 33, 135140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oishi, T, Yamao, M, Kondo, C, Haida, Y, Masuda, A, Tamotsu, S 2001. Multiphotoreceptor and multioscillator system in avian circadian organization. Microscopy Research and Technique 53, 4347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padgham, CA 1971. The direct estimation of the luminosity of coloured light sources. Vision Research 11, 577590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padgham, CA, Saunders, JE 1966. Scales of apparent brightness. Transactions of the Illumination Engineering Society 31, 122142.Google Scholar
Prescott, NB, Wathes, CM 1999. Spectral sensitivity of the domestic fowl (Gallus g. domesticus). British Poultry Science 40, 332339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prescott, NB, Wathes, CM, Jarvis, JR 2003. Light, vision and the welfare of poultry. Animal Welfare 12, 269288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronchi, LR, Schanda, J 2003. Human spectral luminous efficiency, functions, standards and practical changes occurring. Light and Engineering 11, 1423.Google Scholar
Shevell, SK 2003. The science of color, 2nd edition. Elsevier/Optical Society of America, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Sperling, HG, Harwerth, RS 1971. Red-green interactions in the increment-threshold spectral sensitivity of primates. Science 172, 180184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wald, G 1945. Human vision and the spectrum. Science 101, 653658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wyszecki, G, Stiles, WS 1982. Color science: concepts and methods, quantitative data and formulae, 2nd edition. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar