Advertisement

Journal of Insect Conservation

, Volume 8, Issue 2–3, pp 119–136 | Cite as

Long-term population trends in widespread British moths

  • Kelvin F. Conrad
  • Ian P. Woiwod
  • Mark Parsons
  • Richard Fox
  • Martin S. Warren
Article

Abstract

The Rothamsted Insect Survey has operated a Great Britain-wide network of light-traps since 1968. From these data we estimated the first ever national abundance indices and 35-year population trends for 338 species of common macro-moths. Although the number of trap sites which run each year is not constant, there is a representative, well-distributed core of traps that have run for ≥ 15 years. The proportion of operating sites catching a species and the annual geometric mean catch of successful traps were used to provide estimates of species range and absolute abundance. T, an index of long-term population trends, was used to compare trends among species. T was not biased by trap site turnover. The percentage of species displaying significant decreases (54%) was more than double that displaying increases (22%). Species found throughout Great Britain are decreasing most rapidly in the south and especially the southeast but species with a southerly distribution are increasing. Results of a preliminary overview suggest habitat and climate change may both play a role in changing species dynamics. The existence of estimates of abundances and trends for such a large species pool opens the way for much further research, linking trends with land-use changes, climate change and inter-specific dynamics.

Abundance Lepidoptera Occupancy Population dynamics Population trends 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrewartha H. G. and Birch L. C. 1954. The Distribution and Abundance of Animals. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. Asher J., Warren M., Fox R., Harding P., Jeffcoate G. and Jeffcoate S. 2001. The Millennium Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Blasius B., Huppert A. and Stone L. 1999. Complex dynamics and phase synchronization in spatially extended ecological systems. Nature 399: 354–359.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Conrad K. F., Perry J. N. and Woiwod I. P. 2001. An abundance-occupancy time-lag during the decline of an Arctiid tiger moth. Ecol. Lett. 4: 300–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conrad K. F., Woiwod I. P. and Perry J. N. 2002. Long-term decline in abundance and distribution of the garden tiger moth (Arctia caja) in Great Britain. Biol. Conserv.106: 329–337.Google Scholar
  6. Conrad K. F., Woiwod I. P. and Perry J. N. 2003. East Atlantic teleconnection pattern and the decline of a common Arctiid moth. Glob. Change Biol. 9: 125–130.Google Scholar
  7. Cowley M. J. R., Thomas C. D., Thomas J. A. and Warren M. S 1999. Flight areas of British butterflies: assessing species status and decline. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. (B)266: 1587–1592.Google Scholar
  8. Dennis R. L. H. 1993. Butterflies and Climate Change, 1st ed Manchester University Press, Manchester.Google Scholar
  9. Donald P. F., Green R. E. and Heath M. M. 2001. Agricultural intensi cation and collapse of Europe's farmland bird populations. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. (B)268: 25–29.Google Scholar
  10. Earn D. J. D., Rohani P. and Grenfell B. 1998. Persistence, chaos and synchrony in ecology and epidemiology. Proc Roy. Soc. Lond. (B)265: 7–10.Google Scholar
  11. Emmet A. M. 1991. Life history and habits of the British Lepidoptera. In: Emmet A. M. and Heath J.(eds), The Moths and Butterflies of Great Britain and Ireland. Harley Books, Colchester, pp. 61–203.Google Scholar
  12. Gaston K. J. 1999. Implications of interspeci c and intraspeci c abundance-occupancy relationships. Oikos 86: 195–207.Google Scholar
  13. Gaston K. J., Blackburn T. M., Greenwood J. J. D., Gregory R. D., Quinn R. M. and Lawton J. H. 2000. Abundance-occupancy relationships. J. Appl. Ecol.37: 39–59.Google Scholar
  14. Gaston K. J., Blackburn T. M. and Gregory R. D. 1998. Interspecific differences in intraspeci c abundance-range size relationships of British breeding birds. Ecography 21: 149–158.Google Scholar
  15. Gaston K. J. and Curnutt J. L. 1998. The dynamics of abundance-range size relationships. Oikos 81: 38–44.Google Scholar
  16. Gilbert O. L. 1992. Lichen reinvasion with declining air pollution. In: Bates J. W. and Farmer A. M.(eds), Bryophytes and Lichens in a Changing Environment. Oxford Science Publications, London, pp. 159–177.Google Scholar
  17. Haines-Young R. 2000. Countryside Survey 2000 – Accounting for Nature: Assessing Habitats in the UK Countryside. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.Google Scholar
  18. Hanski I. 1999. Metapopulation Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  19. Hill J. K., Collingham Y. C., Thomas C. D., Blakeley D. S., Fox R., Moss D. and Huntley B. 2001a. Impacts of landscape structure on butterfly range expansion. Ecol. Lett. 4: 313–321.Google Scholar
  20. Hill J. K., Thomas C. D., Fox R., Moss D. and Huntley B 2001b. Analysing and modelling range changes in UK butterflies. In: Woiwod I. P., Reynolds D. R. and Thomas C. D. (eds), Insect Movement: Mechanisms and Consequences CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp. 415–441.Google Scholar
  21. Hill J. K., Thomas C. D. and Huntley B. 1999. Climate and habitat availability determine 20th century changes in a butterfly's range margin. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. (B). 266: 1197–1206.Google Scholar
  22. Leinonen R., Soderman G., Itamies J., Rytkonen S. and Rutanen I. 1998. Intercalibration of different light-traps and bulbs used in moth monitoring in Northern Europe. Entomol. Fenn. 9: 37–51.Google Scholar
  23. Leon-Cortes J. L., Cowley M. J. R. and Thomas C. D. 1999 Detecting decline in a formerly widespread species: how common is the common blue butterfly Polyommatus icarus? Ecography 22: 643–650.Google Scholar
  24. Leon-Cortes J. L., Cowley M. J. R. and Thomas C. D. 2000. The distribution and decline of a widespread butterfly Lycaena phlaeas in a pastoral landscape. Ecol. Entomol.25: 285–294.Google Scholar
  25. Luff M. L. and Woiwod I. P. 1995. Insects as indicators of land use change: a European perspective, focusing on moths and ground beetles. In: Harrington R. and Stork N. E.(eds), Insects in a Changing Environment. Academic Press, London, pp. 399–422.Google Scholar
  26. McCullagh P. and Nelder J. A. 1989. Generalized Linear Modelling, 2nd ed. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  27. Moran P. A. P. 1953. The statistical analysis of the Canadian lynx cycle. Aust. J. Zool.1: 291–298.Google Scholar
  28. Nicholson A. J. 1933. The balance of animal populations. J Anim. Ecol. 2: 132–178.Google Scholar
  29. Ormerod S. J. and Watkinson A. R. 2000. Birds and agriculture – editor's introduction. J. Appl. Ecol.37: 699–705.Google Scholar
  30. Pannekoek J. and Van Strien A. J. 2001. Trim 3 Manual (TRends & Indices for Monitoring data). Statistics Netherlands, Voorburg.Google Scholar
  31. Parmesan C. 2001. Coping with modern times?Insect movement and climate change. In: Woiwod I. P., Reynolds D. R and Thomas C. D.(eds), Insect Movement: Mechanisms and Consequences. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp. 387–413.Google Scholar
  32. Parmesan C., Ryrholm N., Stefanescu C., Hill J. K., Thomas C. D., Descimon H., Huntley B., Kaila L., Kullberg J., Tammaru T., Tennent W. J., Thomas J. A. and Warren M 1999. Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming. Nature 399: 579–583.Google Scholar
  33. Perry J. N., Woiwod I. P. and Hanski I. 1993. Using response-surface methodology to detect chaos in ecological time series Oikos 68: 329–339.Google Scholar
  34. Pollard E., Moss D. and Yates T. J. 1995. Population trends of common British butterflies at monitored sites. J. Appl. Ecol. 32: 9–16.Google Scholar
  35. Pollard E. and Yates T. 1993. Monitoring Butterflies for Ecology and Conservation, 1st ed. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  36. Pullin A. S. ed. 1995. Ecology and Conservation of Butterflies, 1st ed. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  37. Ranta E., Kaitala V. and Lundberg P. 1997. The spatial dimension in population fluctuations. Science 278: 1621–1623.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Roy D. B., Rothery P., Moss D., Pollard E. and Thomas J. A 2001. Butterfly numbers and weather: predicting historical trends in abundance and the future effects of climate change J. Anim. Ecol.70: 201–217.Google Scholar
  39. Royama T. 1992. Analytical Population Dynamics, 1st ed Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  40. Stevens C. J., Dise N. B., Mountford J. O. and Gowing D. J 2004. Impact of nitrogen deposition on the species richness of grasslands. Nature 303: 1876–1879.Google Scholar
  41. Taylor L. R. and French R. A. 1974. Effects of light-trap design and illumination on samples of moths in an English woodland. Bull. Ent. Res.63: 583–594.Google Scholar
  42. Taylor L. R. and Woiwod I. P. 1982. Comparative synoptic dynamics I. Relationships between inter- and intra-specific spatial and temporal variance/mean population parameters J. Anim. Ecol.51: 879–906.Google Scholar
  43. Taylor L. R., Woiwod I. P. and Perry J. N. 1978. The density-dependence of spatial behaviour and the rarity of randomness. J. Anim. Ecol.47: 383–406.Google Scholar
  44. Thomas C. D. and Abery J. C. G. 1995. Estimating rates of butterfly decline from distribution maps – the effect of scale Biol. Conserv.73: 59–65.Google Scholar
  45. Thomas C. D. and Lennon J. J. 1999. Birds extend their ranges northwards. Nature 399: 213.Google Scholar
  46. Thomas J. A. 1995. The conservation of declining butterfly populations in Britain and Europe: priorities, problems and successes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc.56: 55–72.Google Scholar
  47. Thomas J. A., Telfer M. G., Roy D. B., Preston C. D., Greenwood J. J. D., Asher J., Fox R., Clarke R. T. and Lawton J. H 2004. Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303: 1879–1881.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Turner J. R. G., Gatehouse C. M. and Corey C. A. 1987. Does solar-energy control organic diversity – butterflies, moths and the British climate. Oikos 48: 195–205.Google Scholar
  49. Van Strien A. J., Pannekoek J. and Gibbons D. W. 2001 Indexing European bird population trends using results of national monitoring schemes: a trial of a new method. Bird Study 48: 200–213.Google Scholar
  50. Waring P., Townsend M. and Lewington R. 2003. Field Guide to the Moths of Great Britain and Ireland, 1st ed. British Wildlife Publishing, Hook, UK.Google Scholar
  51. Warren M. S. 1993a. A review of butterfly conservation in central southern Britain. 1. Protection, evaluation and extinction on prime sites. Biol. Conserv.64: 25–35.Google Scholar
  52. Warren M. S. 1993b. A review of butterfly conservation in central Southern Britain. 2. Site management and habitat selection of key species. Biol. Conserv.64: 37–49.Google Scholar
  53. Warren M. S., Hill J. K., Thomas J. A., Asher J., Fox R., Huntley B., Roy D. B., Telfer M. G., Jeffcoate S., Harding P., Jeffcoate G., Willis S. G., Greatorex-Davies J. N., Moss D. and Thomas C. D. 2001. Rapid responses of British butterflies 135. to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature 414: 65–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Williams C. B. 1948. The Rothamsted light-trap. Proc. Roy Ent. Soc. Lond. (A)23: 80–85.Google Scholar
  55. Williams C. B. 1952. Some notes on killing insects for collections and for scienti fi c research. Entomologist 85: 271–279.Google Scholar
  56. Woiwod I. P. 1991. The ecological importance of long-term synoptic monitoring. In: Firbank L. G., Carter N., Darbyshire J. F. and Potts G. R.(eds), The Ecology of Temperate Cereal Fields. Proceedings 32nd Symposium of the British Ecological Society with the Association of Applied Biologists. Blackwell Scienti fi c, Oxford, pp. 275–304.Google Scholar
  57. Woiwod I. P. and Hanski I. 1992. Patterns of density dependence in moths and aphids. J. Anim. Ecol.61: 619–629.Google Scholar
  58. Woiwod I. P. and Harrington R. 1994. Flying in the face of change: the Rothamsted Insect Survey. In: Leigh R. and Johnston A.(eds), Long-term Experiments in Agricultural and Ecological Sciences. CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 321–342.Google Scholar
  59. Young M. R. 1997. The Natural History of Moths. T. & A. D Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelvin F. Conrad
    • 1
  • Ian P. Woiwod
    • 1
  • Mark Parsons
    • 2
  • Richard Fox
    • 2
  • Martin S. Warren
    • 2
  1. 1.Rothamsted ResearchHarpendenUK
  2. 2.Butterfly ConservationManor YardEast LulworthUK

Personalised recommendations