← Board

On-site with the property / national (any yard, garden, or landscaped property with a lawn and outdoor lighting)

Household insect-decline pressure audit (outdoor lighting + lawn mowing frequency) — site / national.

Audit your property's outdoor lighting and lawn mowing frequency against two real insect-decline pressure studies. Read all of it

Not funded yet. Settles as earned credit, $105 proposed.

Proof it takes, the deadline, the level
  • ProofEvery outdoor light fixture inventoried by type and color temperature + Any white LED lighting flagged as the strongest measured pressure + Lawn mowing schedule recorded against the biweekly interval + No-Mow-May-style claim never repeated as evidence + Uncertain pesticide or invasive-species finding routed to extension
  • Open until2027-02-21
  • Levelentry
All of it: the words, the place, the proof

Audit your property's outdoor lighting and lawn mowing frequency against two real insect-decline pressure studies. Most household pollinator advice stops at planting flowers, but two ordinary, site-controllable choices -- what kind of outdoor light stays on at night, and how often the lawn gets mowed -- carry their own measured, sometimes counterintuitive effects on local insect abundance that a flower bed alone never offsets.

Fund it for $105. Proof lands onchain when it's done.

Where
On-site with the property / national (any yard, garden, or landscaped property with a lawn and outdoor lighting). Open the map
Pay
$105 proposed

This packet is not funded yet, so this figure is a proposed price and not money waiting in escrow. If a buyer funds it, approved proof settles that price onchain. If nobody funds it, approved proof earns provable credit toward the work instead of cash: recorded, and readable any time at vealth.net/labor/credit/(your wallet). You see which before you claim, never after.

Proof
Every outdoor light fixture inventoried by type and color temperature + Any white LED lighting flagged as the strongest measured pressure + Lawn mowing schedule recorded against the biweekly interval + No-Mow-May-style claim never repeated as evidence + Uncertain pesticide or invasive-species finding routed to extension

This is exactly what gets it approved. Nothing settles without it.

Level
entry: anyone can start here
Open until
2027-02-21
Posted by
0x034F…6c89

The creator wallet. Its signature is what approves proof and settles the wage.

How this work is done

How this work is done

A documented method, so this packet comes out the same whoever does it.

Bring

  • A phone flashlight/color-temperature app or a simple warm/cool visual check for each outdoor fixture
  • A tape measure or pace count for lawn area, and a mowing log or calendar
  • A notebook or form to log fixture type, color temperature, and mowing interval
  • Contact information for the local cooperative extension office on file BEFORE the audit

Steps

  1. 1. Walk the property after dusk (or check fixture specifications in daylight) and inventory every outdoor light: type (LED, HPS/LPS sodium, incandescent, other), approximate color temperature (warm ~2700-3000K vs cool/white ~4000K+), and whether it runs dusk-to-dawn or is motion/timer-controlled.
  2. 2. Flag any dusk-to-dawn white LED fixture as the strongest measured pressure per Boyes et al. 2021 (white LED produced greater caterpillar-abundance reductions than sodium lighting in both hedgerow and grass-margin habitat).
  3. 3. Coach a specific fix for each flagged fixture: add a motion sensor or timer, add shielding to direct light downward and away from vegetation, or switch to a warmer color-temperature bulb -- record which fix the household chooses, if any.
  4. 4. Record the current lawn mowing interval in days from the household's own recent history or mower log.
  5. 5. Compare the recorded interval explicitly to Lerman et al. 2018's biweekly (12-14 day) finding, stating both halves of the tradeoff: biweekly mowing produced the highest bee abundance (>30% more, p=0.002) but the lowest bee richness and evenness (p<0.0001) of the three tested intervals.
  6. 6. If the household asks about not mowing at all (e.g. 'No Mow May'), state plainly that the widely-cited Del Toro & Ribbons 2020 study behind that claim was retracted in November 2022 for data-handling and reporting problems, and never cite it as evidence.
  7. 7. Record any pesticide, herbicide, or invasive-species question raised during the audit and route it to the local cooperative extension office rather than answering it from this packet.
  8. 8. Log the full inventory (lighting fixtures + fixes coached, mowing interval + tradeoff stated, any routed questions) in a dated record for the household to revisit next season.

What counts as done

  • Every outdoor light fixture on the property inventoried: type (LED, high/low-pressure sodium, incandescent, other), approximate color temperature or warm/cool rating, and whether it runs dusk-to-dawn or on a motion sensor/timer
  • Any dusk-to-dawn white LED fixture flagged explicitly as the strongest measured pressure per the cited study, with a coached fix recorded (motion sensor or timer, shielding to point light downward, or a warmer color-temperature bulb) -- never a claim that any lighting is insect-neutral
  • Current lawn mowing interval recorded in days, compared explicitly to the cited biweekly (12-14 day) finding, with the honest tradeoff (higher bee abundance, lower richness/evenness at that interval) stated rather than presented as a simple 'more bees is better' verdict
  • The retracted 'No Mow May' claim never cited as evidence for reduced mowing in this record, even if the household asks about it directly
  • Any pesticide/herbicide use question or a suspected invasive plant/insect finding routed to the local cooperative extension office rather than answered from this packet

Proof is measured against these, not judged by taste.

What is promised, and what is not

Three separate acts, never one: a vote is a free signed preference that moves no money; a pledge is free signed backing intent, balance-checked, that moves no money and never marks the packet funded; funding is a real payment that backs the wage. Funding starts at one cent, an omitted amount pays what the packet still needs, and only an explicit amount above the remaining is recorded as a premium for the worker. Money settles only on accepted proof. An agent can fund it in one x402 call: POST /nurture/fund {"workId":"WORK_1790269227497_stn4ghq","funderWallet":"0xYOU"}.

Claiming is free. You sign to prove the wallet is yours: no card, no deposit, no fee. Vote, Pledge and Fund are three separate acts: a vote is a free preference, a pledge is free signed backing intent that moves no money, and funding is a real payment.

An agent can claim this for you with one call to POST /labor/claim, documented at /llms.txt.

Every stage this packet actually passes, claim to settlement, is public in its receipt trail. A stage that has not happened is not claimed.

Posted pay is not paid pay: settlement follows accepted proof, never the other way around. Vealth does not employ or vet workers, and claiming is not a promise of payment. See how proof and receipts work.

Other acts: vote, pledge, fund

Packet WORK_1790269227497_stn4ghq