Blind Fish Sleep Less, Forage More

Fish that live in complete darkness and have lost their sight stay awake more than do sighted fish, probably because they need to spend more time feeding. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Creatures that live in the dark may lose their sight over evolutionary time. They may even lose their eyes entirely. Now it appears that they also lose sleep. Because a new study shows that cave-dwelling fish spend more time awake than their counterparts at the sunny surface. The finding is in the journal Current Biology. [Erik Duboué, Alex Keene and Richard Borowsky, "Evolutionary Convergence on Sleep Loss in Cavefish Populations"]

Researchers studied three populations of Mexican tetra in the lab. Fish that live in creeks or rivers have two eyes and see just fine. But those that have adapted to living in caves lack eyes. What they do have is insomnia. The scientists observed that the tetras that normally spend time in the light do sleep soundly at night, resting on the bottom of their tanks. The cave fish, on the other hand, remain on high alert, patrolling their habitats even after hours.

The researchers are working to identify the genes responsible for this fishy restlessness. Not that they’ll reveal how you can get by on minimal shut-eye. Because the cave fish may not need less sleep—they may need to stay awake to forage more in an environment where food can be scarce and appear unpredictably. And even a blind fish can see: you snooze, you lose.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe