Long‐term changes to the frequency of occurrence of British moths are consistent with opposing and synergistic effects of climate and land‐use changes

Abstract

Species’ distributions are likely to be affected by a combination of environmental drivers. We used a data set of 11 million species occurrence records over the period 1970–2010 to assess changes in the frequency of occurrence of 673 macro-moth species in Great Britain. Groups of species with different predicted sensitivities showed divergent trends, which we interpret in the context of land-use and climatic changes.A diversity of responses was revealed: 260 moth species declined significantly, whereas 160 increased significantly. Overall, frequencies of occurrence declined, mirroring trends in less species-rich, yet more intensively studied taxa.Geographically widespread species, which were predicted to be more sensitive to land use than to climate change, declined significantly in southern Britain, where the cover of urban and arable land has increased.Moths associated with low nitrogen and open environments (based on their larval host plant characteristics) declined most strongly, which is also consistent with a land-use change explanation.Some moths that reach their northern (leading edge) range limit in southern Britain increased, whereas species restricted to northern Britain (trailing edge) declined significantly, consistent with a climate change explanation.Not all species of a given type behaved similarly, suggesting that complex interactions between species’ attributes and different combinations of environmental drivers determine frequency of occurrence changes.Synthesis and applications. Our findings are consistent with large-scale responses to climatic and land-use changes, with some species increasing and others decreasing. We suggest that land-use change (e.g. habitat loss, nitrogen deposition) and climate change are both major drivers of moth biodiversity change, acting independently and in combination. Importantly, the diverse responses revealed in this species-rich taxon show that multifaceted conservation strategies are needed to minimize negative biodiversity impacts of multiple environmental changes. We suggest that habitat protection, management and ecological restoration can mitigate combined impacts of land-use change and climate change by providing environments that are suitable for existing populations and also enable species to shift their ranges.

Climate change surpasses land-use change in the contracting range boundary of a winter-adapted mammal

“…Alternatively, the dynamics of trailing edge range boundaries are the culmination of multiple localized extirpations, as areas at the edge of a species' climate niche become unsuitable [18,19]. If a species' trailing edge range boundary has shifted north as a result of land-use change, then these populations may be less sensitive to more subtle changes in climate [8,20]. With increased warming, however, the mechanisms driving these trailing edge range boundaries may shift away from habitat availability as the direct impacts of climate change become increasingly pronounced.…”

Are woodland creation schemes providing suitable resources for biodiversity? Woodland moths as a case study

“…about two-thirds of British macromoths) occurring regularly in woodlands (Waring 1989;Young 1997). In addition, many moth species have undergone significant population declines over the last few decades Fox et al 2014) and have gained special conservation concern status (e.g. have become UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species which require national conservation plans to enhance their populations; Butterfly Conservation 2007).…”

Achteruitgang insectenpopulaties in Nederland: trends, oorzaken en kennislacunes

“…Voor het bepalen van de oorzaken van trends is het nuttig om onderscheid te maken tussen in Europa is een overall-achteruitgang vastgesteld van de soortenrijkdom en/of de aantallen van bepaalde insectengroepen, waaronder dagvlinders (Thomas, Telfer et al 2004;Van Dyck, Van Strien et al 2009;Dirzo, Young et al 2014;Habel, Segerer et al 2016;Thomas, 2016, Van Swaay, Van Strien et al 2016, nachtvlinders (Conrad, Warren et al 2006;Fox 2013, Fox, Oliver et al 2014, zweefvliegen Vogel, 2017), loopkevers (Brooks, Bater et al 2012) en wilde bijen (Biesmeijer, Roberts et al 2006;Goulson, Lye et al 2008;Carvalheiro, Kunin et al 2013;Scheper, Reemer et al 2014). …”