Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A role for artificial night-time lighting in long-term changes in populations of 100 widespread macro-moths in UK and Ireland: a citizen-science study

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Journal of Insect Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The abundance of 100 of the most widespread species of macro-moth in the UK and Ireland was estimated from light-trap records reported to the UK and Ireland Garden Moth Scheme between 2005 and 2015. Recording sites were classified into low, medium and high night-time illumination categories by satellite imagery, into land-use types from the dominant use in the 1–2 km surrounding area, and by latitude. Most urban sites were in the group classified as having high night-time illumination. Comparison between medium and low night-time illuminated sites allowed differences between levels of illumination free from the effect of urbanization on moth abundance to be assessed. The medium and low night-time illuminated sites differed significantly in the frequency of grassland and arable land-use types and in geographic location with more grassland and north-western sites in the low-light category. After adjustment for these differences and for variations between taxonomic family groups, the medium to low night-time lighting abundance ratios explained a significant (P < 0.001) 20% of the variance in long-term changes in moth abundance reported by the Rothamsted Insect Survey for the years 1968–2002. This is the first demonstration that artificial night-time lighting has had, in combination with other factors, a significant influence on levels of abundance of moth populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alison J, Duffield SJ, van Noordwijk CGE, Morecroft MD, Marrs RH, Saccheri IJ, Hodgson JA (2016) Spatial targeting of habitat creation has the potential to improve agri-environment scheme outcomes for macro-moths. J Appl Ecol 53:1814–1822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alison J, Duffield SJ, Morecroft MD, Marrs RH, Hodgson JA (2017) Successful restoration of moth abundance and species-richness in grassland created under agri-environment schemes. Biol Conserv 213:51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates AJ, Sadler JP, Everett G, Grundy D, Lowe N, Davis G, Baker D, Bridge M, Clifton J, Freestone R, Gardner D, Gibson C, Hemming R, Howarth S, Orridge S, Shaw M, Tams T, Young H (2013) Assessing the value of the Garden Moth Scheme citizen science dataset: how does light trap type affect catch? Entomol Exp Appl 146:386–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates AJ, Sadler JP, Grundy D, Lowe N, Davis G, Baker D, Bridge M, Freestone R, Gardner D, Gibson C, Hemming R, Howarth S, Orridge S, Shaw M, Tams T, Young H (2014) Garden and landscape-scale correlates of moths of differing conservation status: significant effects of urbanization and habitat diversity. PLoS ONE 9(1):e86925. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086925

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bowden J (1982) An analysis of factors affecting catches of insects in light-traps. Bull Entomol Res 72:535–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce-White C, Shardlow M (2011) A review of the impact of artificial light on invertebrates. Buglife, Peterborough

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad KF, Woiwod IP, Parsons M, Fox R, Warren MS (2004) Long-term population trends in widespread British moths. J Insect Conserv 8:119–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad KF, Warren MS, Fox R, Parsons MS, Woiwod IP (2006) Rapid declines of common, widespread British moths provide evidence of an insect biodiversity crisis. Biol Conserv 132:279–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies TW, Bennie J, Gaston KJ (2012) Street lighting changes the composition of invertebrate communities. Biol Lett 8:764–767

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (2011) Biodiversity 2020: a strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services. Policy paper PB13583, Defra, London

  • Dulieu R, Merckx T, Paling N, Holloway G (2007) Using mark-release-recapture to investigate habitat use in a range of common macro-moth species. Cent Wildl Assess Conserv E-J 1:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenbeis G (2006) Artificial night lighting and insects: attraction of insects to streetlamps in a rural setting in Germany. In: Rich C, Longcore T (eds) Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 281–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenbeis G, Hänel A (2009) Light pollution and the impact of artificial night lighting on insects. In: McDonnell MJ, Hahs AH, Breuste JH (eds) Ecology of cities and towns. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 243–263

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Emmet AM, Heath J (eds) (1991) The moths and butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland, vol 7. Part 2. Harley Books, Colchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox R (2013) The decline of moths in Great Britain: a review of possible causes. Insect Conserv Divers 6:5–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox R, Conrad KF, Parsons MS, Warren MS, Woiwod IP (2006) The state of Britain’s larger moths. Butterfly Conservation and Rothamsted Research, Wareham, Dorset

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox R, Parsons MS, Chapman JW, Woiwod IP, Warren MS, Brooks DR (2013) The State of Britain’s Larger Moths 2013. Butterfly Conservation and Rothamsted Research, Wareham, Dorset

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox R, Oliver TH, Harrower C, Parsons MS, Thomas CD, Roy DB (2014) Long-term changes to the frequency of occurrence of British moths are consistent with opposing and synergistic effects of climate and land-use changes. J Appl Ecol 51:949–957

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fox R, Brereton TM, Asher J, August TA, Botham MS, Bourn NAD, Cruickshanks KL, Bulman CR, Ellis S, Harrower CA, Middlebrook I, Noble DG, Powney GD, Randle Z, Warren MS, Roy DB (2015) The State of the UK’s Butterflies 2015. Butterfly Conservation and the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wareham

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank KD (1988) Impact of outdoor lighting on moths: an assessment. J Lepid Soc 42:63–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank KD (2006) Effects of artificial night lighting on moths. In: Rich C, Longcore T (eds) Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 305–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston KJ, Davies TW, Bennie J, Hopkins J (2012) Reducing the ecological consequences of night-time light pollution: options and developments. J Appl Ecol 49:1256–1266

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk D, Ellis WN (2011) The state of the Dutch larger moth fauna. J Insect Conserv 15:95–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gu H, Danthanarayana W (1992) Quantitative genetic analysis of dispersal in Epiphyas postvittana. 1. Genetic variation in flight capacity. Heredity 68:53–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayhow DB, Burns F, Eaton MA, Al Fulaij N, August TA, Babey L, Bacon L, Bingham C, Boswell J, Boughey KL, Brereton T, Brookman E, Brooks DR, Bullock DJ, Burke O, Collis M, Corbet L, Cornish N, De Massimi S, Densham J, Dunn E, Elliott S, Gent T, Godber J, Hamilton S, Havery S, Hawkins S, Henney J, Holmes K, Hutchinson N, Isaac NJB, Johns D, Macadam CR, Mathews F, Nicolet P, Noble DG, Outhwaite CL, Powney GD, Richardson P, Roy DB, Sims D, Smart S, Stevenson K, Stroud RA, Walker KJ, Webb JR, Webb TJ, Wynde R, Gregory RD (2016) State of nature 2016. The State of Nature partnership, c/o RSPB, Sandy

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones HBC, Lim KS, Bell JR, Hill JK, Chapman JW (2016) Quantifying interspecific variation in dispersal ability of noctuid moths using an advanced tethered flight technique. Ecol Evol 4:181–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keil S, Gu H, Dorn S (2001) Response of Cydia pomonella to selection on mobility: laboratory evaluation and field verification. Ecol Entomol 26:495–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuussaari M, Saarinen M, Korpela E-L, Pöyry J, Hyvönen T (2014) Higher mobility of butterflies than moths connected to habitat suitability and body size in a release experiment. Ecol Evol 4:3800–3811

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lawton JH, Brotherton PNM, Brown VK, Elphick C, Fitter AH, Forshaw J, Haddow RW, Hilborne S, Leafe RN, Mace GM, Southgate MP, Sutherland WJ, Tew TE, Varley J, Wynne GR (2010) Making space for nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. Report to Defra

  • Macgregor CJ, Evans DM, Fox R, Pocock MJO (2017) The dark side of street lighting: impacts on moths and evidence for the disruption of nocturnal pollen transport. Glob Chang Biol 23:697–707

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mani E, Wildbolz Th (1977) The dispersal of male codling moths (Laspeyressia pomonella L.) in the Upper Rhine Valley. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie 83:161–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattila N, Kotiaho JS, Kaitala V, Komonen A (2008) The use of ecological traits in extinction risk assessments: a case study on geometrid moths. Biol Conserv 141:2322–2328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattila N, Kotiaho JS, Kaitala V, Komonen A, Päivinen J (2009) Interactions between ecological traits and host plant type explain distribution change in noctuid moths. Conserv Biol 23:703–709

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Menéndez R, Gutiérrez D, Thomas CD (2002) Migration and Allee effects in the six spot burnet moth Zygaena filipendulae. Ecol Entomol 27:317–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merckx T, Feber RE, Dulieu RL, Townsend MC, Parsons MS, Bourn NAD, Riordan P, Macdonald DW (2009) Effect of field margins on moths depends on species mobility: field-based evidence for landscape-scale conservation. Agric Ecosyst Environ 129:302–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton D, Rowland C, Wood C, Meek L, Marston C, Smith G, Wadsworth R, Simpson IC (2011) Final Report for LCM2007—the new UK land cover map. Countryside Survey Technical Report No 11/07 NERC/Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK

  • Pescott OL, Simkin JM, August TA, Randle Z, Dore AJ, Botham MS (2015) Air pollution and its effects on lichens, bryophytes, and lichen-feeding Lepidoptera: review and evidence from biological records. Biol J Linn Soc Lond 115:611–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plummer KE, Hale JD, O’Callaghan MJ, Sadler JP, Gavin M, Siriwardena GM (2016) Investigating the impact of street lighting changes on garden moth communities. J Urban Ecol 2:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E (1984) Fluctuations in the abundance of butterflies 1976–1982. Ecol Entomol 9:179–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saastamoinen M (2008) Heritability of dispersal rate and other life history traits in the Glanville fritillary butterfly. Heredity 100:39–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher P, Weber DC, Hagger C, Dorn S (1997) Heritability of flight distance for Cydia pomonella. Entomol Exp Appl 85:169–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slade EM, Merckx T, Riutta T, Bebber DP, Redhead D, Riordan P, Macdonald DW (2013) Life-history traits and landscape characteristics predict macro-moth responses to forest fragmentation. Ecology 94:1519–1530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor LR, French RA (1974) Effects of light-trap design and illumination on samples of moths in an English woodland. Bull Entomol Res 63:583–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas CD (2000) Dispersal and extinction in fragmented landscapes. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:139–145

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • van Langevelde F, Ettema JA, Donners M, WallisDeVries MF, Groenendijk D (2011) Effect of spectral composition of artificial light on the attraction of moths. Biol Conserv 144:2274–2281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Geffen KG, van Grunsven RHA, van Ruijven J, Berendse F, Veenendaal EM (2014) Artificial light at night causes diapause inhibition and sex-specific life history changes in a moth. Ecol Evol 4:2082–2089

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • van Geffen KG, Groot AT, van Grunsven RHA, Donners M, Berendse F, Veenendaal EM (2015a) Artificial night lighting disrupts sex pheromone in a noctuid moth. Ecol Entomol 40:401–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Geffen KG, van Eck E, de Boer RA, van Grunsven RHA, Salis L, Berendse F, Veenendaal EM (2015b) Artificial light at night inhibits mating in a Geometrid moth. Insect Conserv Divers 8:282–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JF, Baker D, Cook M, Davis G, Freestone R, Gardner D, Grundy D, Lowe N, Orridge S, Young H (2015) Climate association with fluctuation in annual abundance of fifty widely distributed moths in England and Wales: a citizen-science study. J Insect Conserv 19:935–946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woiwod IP, Harrington R (1994) Flying in the face of change: The Rothamsted Insect Survey. In: Leigh R, Johnston A (eds) Long-term experiments in agricultural and ecological sciences. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 321–342

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to the reviewer who identified the taxonomic trend in our data.

Funding

No financial support was received in respect of the work described in the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UK and Ireland Garden Moth Scheme (GMS) http://www.gardenmoths.org.uk

    John Fawcett Wilson, David Baker, Janet Cheney, Mike Cook, Martin Ellis, Roger Freestone, David Gardner, Graham Geen, Robin Hemming, Don Hodgers, Stephen Howarth, Ade Jupp, Norman Lowe, Steve Orridge, Mark Shaw, Bob Smith, Audrey Turner & Heather Young

  2. Min y Nant, Trallong, Brecon, Powys, LD3 8HF, UK

    John Fawcett Wilson

Authors
  1. John Fawcett Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Baker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Janet Cheney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mike Cook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Martin Ellis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Roger Freestone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David Gardner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Graham Geen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Robin Hemming
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Don Hodgers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Stephen Howarth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Ade Jupp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Norman Lowe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Steve Orridge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Mark Shaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Bob Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Audrey Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Heather Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All co-authors made a significant contribution to the work described in the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Fawcett Wilson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no known conflicts of interest either financial or non-financial in respect of the work described in the manuscript.

Informed consent

Consent to submit has been received from all the co-authors.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

The work did not involve human participants, The moths caught and monitored during the study were subsequently released.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 32 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilson, J.F., Baker, D., Cheney, J. et al. A role for artificial night-time lighting in long-term changes in populations of 100 widespread macro-moths in UK and Ireland: a citizen-science study. J Insect Conserv 22, 189–196 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-018-0052-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-018-0052-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation