Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Perspective

A window to the world of global insect declines: Moth biodiversity trends are complex and heterogeneous

View ORCID ProfileDavid L. Wagner, View ORCID ProfileRichard Fox, View ORCID ProfileDanielle M. Salcido, and View ORCID ProfileLee A. Dyer
PNAS January 12, 2021 118 (2) e2002549117; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002549117
David L. Wagner
aEcology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for David L. Wagner
  • For correspondence: david.wagner@uconn.edu
Richard Fox
bButterfly Conservation, East Lulworth, Dorset BH20 5QP, United Kingdom;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Richard Fox
Danielle M. Salcido
cEcology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Danielle M. Salcido
Lee A. Dyer
cEcology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Lee A. Dyer
  1. Edited by Matthew L. Forister, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, and accepted by Editorial Board Member May R. Berenbaum October 13, 2020 (received for review March 20, 2020)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Moths are the most taxonomically and ecologically diverse insect taxon for which there exist considerable time-series abundance data. There is an alarming record of decreases in moth abundance and diversity from across Europe, with rates varying markedly among and within regions. Recent reports from Costa Rica reveal steep cross-lineage declines of caterpillars, while other sites (Ecuador and Arizona, reported here) show no or only modest long-term decreases over the past two decades. Rates of decline for dietary and ecological specialists are steeper than those for ecologically generalized taxa. Additional traits commonly associated with elevated risks include large wingspans, small geographic ranges, low dispersal ability, and univoltinism; taxa associated with grasslands, aridlands, and nutrient-poor habitats also appear to be at higher risk. In temperate areas, many moth taxa limited historically by abiotic factors are increasing in abundance and range. We regard the most important continental-scale stressors to include reductions in habitat quality and quantity resulting from land-use change and climate change and, to a lesser extent, atmospheric nitrification and introduced species. Site-specific stressors include pesticide use and light pollution. Our assessment of global macrolepidopteran population trends includes numerous cases of both region-wide and local losses and studies that report no declines. Spatial variation of reported losses suggests that multiple stressors are in play. With the exception of recent reports from Costa Rica, the most severe examples of moth declines are from Northern Hemisphere regions of high human-population density and intensive agriculture.

  • Lepidoptera
  • insect decline
  • parasitoids
  • insectivores

While butterflies provide the deepest historical lens to examine the phenomenon of global insect decline, macrolepidopteran moths arguably supply the next largest set of historical records. In Europe, moths have been the focus of collecting efforts for over 200 y and systematic monitoring for many decades. Moths offer additional advantages over butterflies for assessing insect biodiversity change. They are much more ecologically diversified and at least 15 times more taxonomically diverse than butterflies (1). Their ranks include a wide spectrum of herbivores, including tree, shrub, forb, grass, fungus, lichen, and alga feeders, as well as detritivores (2). Moths include rich assemblages tied to all terrestrial plant communities from subpolar regions to the equator. Their species taxonomy is less problematic than that of most insect lineages, and, for some countries, there have been reliable identification guides for more than a century. The immature stages of Lepidoptera are among the best known of any insect order, and knowledge of their host associations and other life-history traits can contribute considerably to efforts to understand and predict demographic declines and implications for ecosystem functioning. It is estimated that 90% have specialized host associations as larvae (3) and, thus, can serve as a fine-meshed filter for assessing changes across virtually all terrestrial plant communities. Moths represent a substantial component of the insect biomass available to insectivorous vertebrates, both as caterpillars and adults, and are an important dietary source for many animals, most notably bats and songbirds (4, 5). They are the very fabric underlying the species-rich radiations of parasitoids in the Chalcidoidea, Ichneumonoidea, and Tachinidae, which collectively make up much of the planet’s metazoan species diversity (6), and moths likely play a much-underestimated role as pollinators of angiosperms (7). Depletions of moths will have effects that will cascade, upward and downward, triggering further losses of interactions and species. Thus, there is ample reason to regard macrolepidopterans as a worthy focal group to study global biodiversity change, and one which has much to offer as a proxy for other insect lineages with more nascent taxonomy, poorly known ecologies, and sparser long-term biomonitoring data. Because butterflies represent a polyphyletic group of diurnal moths, we include them loosely in our treatment (8).

Recent global attention on insect declines has focused on a handful of alarming reports of population collapses and seemingly remains anchored to these studies, even when some methods, results, interpretations, and universality are called into question (9, 10). Much remains unknown. To date, there have been only modest efforts to evaluate the spatial, temporal, and taxonomic aspects of insect declines, which has limited the capacity to identify the primary causal factors. Similarly, the extent to which rates of declines are commensurate with sympatric losses of vertebrates, plants, and other noninsect taxa has received only limited consideration. Empirical estimates in well-studied regions suggest that proportions of threatened species and rates of decline in insects are similar to or exceed those of vertebrates (11, 12).

Chronology of Moth Declines

Human-catalyzed changes to moth biodiversity commenced in prehistoric times, when people started diverting water and clearing forests for consumption, agriculture, and fuel (13). Museum collections provide a window to examine historical losses of macrolepidopterans, even though data may be sparse in cases, and especially so for nonlepidopterans. Habel et al. (14) reported that butterfly diversity in southwest Germany began to diminish more than a century ago and that rates of declines remained relatively constant until the industrialization of agriculture in the 1950s. The losses of butterflies from Belgium and Netherlands were already evident by the middle of the 20th century (15, 16).

Multidecadal time-series data on insect populations have the potential to reveal when declines began and how rates are varying. They also provide some power to suggest what stressors are the most relevant causal factors at a given site and over what time frames they function. For moths, the most comprehensive time-series data come from decades of standardized sampling carried out in the United Kingdom through the Rothamsted Insect Survey (17, 18). C. B. Williams initiated monitoring using light traps at Rothamsted, Hertfordshire, from 1933 to 1936 and 1946–49. Monitoring recommenced in 1960 and has continued ever since, now as part of a UK-wide network. This long time series at Rothamsted revealed a 71% reduction in average numbers of macrolepidopterans when comparing the pre-1950 data with catches between 1960 and 1979, which is attributed to land-use change and agricultural intensification (19). Subsequent analysis across the network revealed a significant decrease in macromoth abundance (31% decrease 1969–2016) for Great Britain (GB) (18). Moth biomass values derived from the Rothamsted Insect Survey increased rapidly from 1967 to 1982, but then declined from 1983 onward at an average rate of loss of 1.1% per year (20). Other multidecadal declines in moth faunas have been reported from Europe (e.g., refs. 21⇓⇓–24).

There are numerous historical time-series datasets of Lepidoptera and other insect populations that have yet to be analyzed in the context of current insect decline, including agricultural pest-monitoring data and studies of food availability for insectivorous birds. EntoGEM, a systematic mapping project to identify and collate insect population time-series studies (25), has uncovered many promising data sources that have the potential to further understand the scope and nature of global insect-population trends, resolve effect sizes, and identify knowledge gaps in the decline literature.

Moth Biodiversity Changes Are Spatially and Taxonomically Heterogeneous

Great heterogeneity in moth trends exists geographically and taxonomically, yielding a complex picture that cautions against ambitious extrapolation and generalization. There are also methodological and statistical issues that affect the reliability of trend estimates for moths and other insects (10).

Spatially, moth trends vary at continental, regional, and even local scales, which suggests that different stressors are in play. While patterns of moth decline are prevalent across western, central, and northern European countries (17, 21⇓⇓–24, 26), typically, there is considerable within-country heterogeneity. Conrad et al. (17) found that total abundance of macrolepidopterans decreased significantly (by 44%) in the southern half of GB over the period 1968–2002, but showed no overall change in the northern half. The median species trend at southern monitoring stations was a decrease three times greater than that at northern sites.

Regional assessments in the New World also provide evidence of spatial heterogeneity in trends. In the Missouri Ozarks, United States, a region with only modest human impacts, caterpillar numbers on oaks have fluctuated markedly over the past 20 y, but there is no signal of overall decline (27). Likewise, caterpillar collections from southeastern Arizona, United States, show great interannual fluctuation, but little evidence of decreasing abundances (data presented below). In the tropics, time-series data on moths are scarce, but two recent assessments from Central America reported greatly diminished macrolepidopteran diversity and abundance in Costa Rica (28, 29). Our data below for cloud forest caterpillars in Ecuador show no change.

Even in studies showing clear overall declines, some fraction of the moth fauna is increasing (e.g., refs. 17 and 21 and GB case study below). We are unaware of an instance where all lineages are in collapse, a signal that would implicate stressor(s) acting uniformly across families of Lepidoptera.

The assemblage-level signals described above are blind to taxonomy, lumping stenotopic species with generalists, and do not account for the colonizations of new taxa in response to land use and climate changes. Steep declines in the autochthonous fauna of a defined area could be masked by population increases of recent arrivals; for example, boreal communities undergoing long-term climate warming could be particularly susceptible to such processes.

The different metrics used to measure change can contribute additional complexity to our understanding of moth biodiversity trends. A long-term study in Hungary found significant reductions in alpha and beta diversity (indicating biotic homogenization of moth communities), but no decline in total abundance (22). In GB, imputed biomass of macrolepidopterans increased, whereas abundance decreased (18, 20). Of course, temporal changes in metrics used to assess changes in biotic communities, such as species richness, biomass, and trends in abundance and occupancy, can differ for many reasons. These could be spurious, stemming from differences in measurement, scale, or time lags, or they could reflect real discrepancies driven by differential responses of individual species, with the identities of winners and losers being due to different traits, demographics, and spatial distributions, generating conflicting signals at the assemblage level (30).

Case Studies

Below, we share data from a recent assessment of GB moth distributions, Costa Rican caterpillars, and two unpublished datasets on caterpillar abundance in Arizona and Ecuador. Methodological details for each study are included in SI Appendix and the legends for Figs. 1 and 2.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Summary of species-occupancy trends (log(trend + 100)) measured as the percentage change in modeled occupancy of 1-km × 1-km squares derived from citizen-science occurrence data for GB moth species for 1970–2016 (390 species) and 2000–2016 (559 species) (33), indicating the percentage of species belonging to each of four trend categories. The dashed horizontal line represents zero change; green points indicate species with positive trends and blue those with negative trends. Statistically significant changes (sig.) were assigned based on an alpha = 0.05. Recording intensity was lower in the early decades, so fewer species have sufficient data to enable the production of robust trends in the long-term assessment. Note that percent values do not necessarily sum to 100 due to rounding.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Trends for yearly caterpillar abundances for three New World sites: Arizona (A), Costa Rica (B), and Ecuador (C) (see SI Appendix for details). For all sites, externally feeding caterpillars and their insect parasitoids were collected via opportunistic and standardized plot-level methods and reared. Plots in Left show annual means and SEs of monthly abundance estimates (opportunistic collection: dark gray) and densities (standardized plot level: light gray). Plots in Right illustrate trends over time for each superfamily, measured as annual changes in abundances, summarized as β coefficients with 80% credible intervals estimated from hierarchical Bayesian linear regressions. Year coefficients (and intercepts) were estimated for each superfamily separately (as the lower level in the hierarchy) and simultaneously across all superfamilies (“overall beta coefficient”). Response variables were modeled as normal distributions with uninformative priors. As a complementary measure of confidence, we calculated the fraction of the posterior distribution less or greater than zero and colored accordingly. Colors can be interpreted as the probability that a superfamily has been observed decreasing (blue) or increasing (green) in frequency, where darker hues indicate superfamilies with over 95% of the distribution either above (dark green) or below (dark blue) zero. The estimate at the highest level of the hierarchy for which all superfamilies are nested is indicated by black and denoted as the overall beta coefficient. Abundance trends for different superfamilies varied the most for the Arizona site, with some superfamilies slightly increasing and others slightly decreasing. Using Bayesian hierarchical linear models, we estimated superfamily abundances across years and provide evidence for no change in abundances and densities of moth caterpillars (Arizona), overall decreases (Costa Rica), and slight decreases (Ecuador). Results are similar when correcting for sampling effort and examining abundances or densities per person-days (SI Appendix, Fig. S2). Expanded methodology and all β estimates are provided in SI Appendix.

Distribution Trends Vary Among Macrolepidopterans in GB.

GB is one of the few places globally with spatially and temporally extensive surveillance of moth populations. In addition to multidecadal analyses showing significant decreases in moth abundance in the standardized nightly sampling of the Rothamsted Insect Survey (17, 18, 31, 32), long-term distribution change of GB moths has also been assessed from nonsystematic observations made by citizen scientists.

An assessment of GB distribution records for 673 moth species for 1970–2010 found that 39% of species had decreased significantly in frequency of occurrence compared with 24% of species that had significant positive trends (26). Northerly distributed species decreased on average, consistent with a negative response to climate change, but widespread species decreased overall only in the southern half of GB, as had been found for moth abundance (17), suggesting that land-use change and urbanization may be driving these trends (26).

However, more recent studies (e.g., refs. 33 and 34) of the GB moth distribution data utilized in Fox et al. (26), using longer time periods and different analysis methods, show more mixed results—again revealing the complexity and heterogeneity in evidence of moth biodiversity change. Using 24 million moth-occurrence records, an occupancy-modeling approach generated robust longer-term (1970–2016) and short-term (2000–2016) trends in fine-scale (1 km × 1 km) spatial distribution for 390 and 559 species, respectively (33). The results (Fig. 1) show similar proportions of winners and losers, rather than a clear picture of overwhelming decline. Since 1970, for example, 121 species (31%) had decreased significantly, while 148 (38%) had increased significantly. Species that have increased in distribution are ecologically and taxonomically diverse and include long-term resident species as well as recent colonists (35).

Another assessment of the same GB moth data, using a Bayesian occupancy-modeling approach, recorded an overall increase (of 8.7%) in mean occupancy by moths (714 species) over the period 1970–2015 (34). The apparent decoupling of abundance and distribution trends in GB moths demonstrates the difficulty of assessing biodiversity change and its implications for ecological interactions, even where considerable data are available. The same pattern has also been reported for moths in Finland (24), where significant increases in species richness in a 20-y study, likely caused by climate-driven poleward range expansions, contrasted with simultaneous abundance decreases.

Caterpillar Abundance in Arizona, Ecuador, and Costa Rica.

We also examined a subset of sites from a long-term rearing program focused on cataloging caterpillar–parasitoid interaction diversity across the Americas (36). Annual trends in caterpillar abundances (from plot-based collecting) across an elevational gradient (1,200 to 2,800 m above sea level [a.s.l.]) in Arizona from 2004 to 2019 showed subtle to no declines for annual monthly means of abundances (Fig. 2A) (refer to SI Appendix for methods) and reflect the great temporal variation that is common to desert ecosystems. Although there were no strong trends over this 16-y period, some superfamilies were slightly increasing (e.g., Gelechioidea), while others were slightly decreasing (e.g., Zygaenoidea and Papilionoidea).

Similarly, for one well-sampled site in an Ecuadorian cloud forest (2000 m a.s.l.), there were no overall trends in caterpillar abundances from 2001 to 2019; again, there were subtle increases for a few superfamilies (e.g., Choreutoidea) and modest decreases for others (e.g., Zygaenoidea) (Fig. 2C). In contrast, caterpillar abundances in Costa Rica were characterized by substantive declines across all superfamilies and for two distinct sampling methods (Fig. 2C), with a 99% probability of decline for all families. Results from these three studies again highlight the spatially and taxonomically heterogeneous nature of moth declines. Differences in larval densities or abundance are similar for the two methodological approaches (Fig. 2), which is also true when patterns of abundance are corrected for sampling effort (SI Appendix, Fig. S2).

Stressors

One of the more salient aspects of reported insect declines is that multiple drivers are implicated. Drivers may interact additively, synergistically, or antagonistically and operate at different locations and over different time periods (12, 23). The principal causes of moth declines include many of the factors associated with biodiversity losses across the tree of life: habitat destruction and degradation, agricultural intensification, climate change, urbanization, pollution, and introduced species (31, 37). Below, we briefly summarize evidence for principal stressors in relation to population-level and diversity losses of moths.

Land-use changes comprise the primary drivers of historical declines in European butterflies dating to the 1800s and 1900s (14). Land-use change includes many stressors known to affect biodiversity: deforestation, agricultural intensification, commercial forestry practices, and urbanization. In this broad sense, land-use change surely has the greatest impact on the status of moths in Europe (23, 31, 38, 39) and on insects and other wildlife globally.

Faunal turnover associated with farmland abandonment and forest succession is an underappreciated factor affecting moth diversity. Much of Europe has been an agrarian and pastoral landscape for centuries, but since World War II, traditional farms have been converted to larger-scale, high-input, high-yield agriculture or abandoned and let go to reforest. Afforestation can result in sweeping faunal changes (40⇓–42), as open, early successional habitats give way to closed-canopy forests—while both moth abundance and richness typically increase as a result, early seral taxa, which often include many threatened species in forested regions, can disappear over the course of a single decade or two.

Climate change is exerting substantial effects on biodiversity globally, including Lepidoptera (e.g., refs. 43 and 44). It has been linked to increasing rates of poleward expansion of macrolepidopterans in GB (45), some examples of range contractions (e.g., ref. 46), and overall declines in macromoth abundance (47). The impacts of extreme climatic events are increasingly considered important in driving changes in moth faunas. These include severe drought (48, 49) and the resultant increased frequency of wildfires (50), winter warmth (51), and flooding events (29). Years with extreme climatic conditions are associated with major population changes among moths (52) and may play a role in determining long-term trends in moth abundance and biomass (20, 21). The effects of increased climate variability, even in the absence of extreme events, is expected to impact many taxa.

Nitrification due to fertilizer use and combustion of fossil fuels, with the latter being especially problematic because of its ubiquity, is increasingly identified as an important driver of macrolepidopteran community changes (23, 26, 53, 54). Nitrogen input triggers complex changes to plant communities, including shifts in plant assemblages (55) that may lead to losses of specialized herbivores that are dependent on plants adapted to nutrient-limited soils (53). Enhanced plant growth, resulting from elevated levels of nitrogen, can be disadvantageous to thermophilic taxa, by shading out bare ground areas needed for growth and development (56). As a result of nitrification, moth taxa associated with nutrient-poor (and especially nitrogen-limited) habitats—bogs, oligotropic grasslands, barrens, sandplains, and dunes—are expected to be disproportionately impacted.

Myriad other stressors, individually and collectively, have been linked to the decline of moths and other insects at both local and regional scales. Pesticides are directly and indirectly—via contamination of nectar sources and larval host plants—implicated in the declines of Lepidoptera and other insects in Europe (57). Systematic insecticides, especially imidacloprids and related neonicotinoids, are receiving increasing scrutiny, given their wide use, broad toxicity, mobility in ground and surface water, and capacity to persist in soils for months (58, 59). Several studies have implicated exotic plants and introduced biological control agents as threats to moths (60, 61). While it is thought that artificial light at night is contributing to moth declines (62), it is difficult to separate impacts of light pollution from the manifold impacts of urbanization. The proportion of moth declines due to other aspects of urbanization is difficult to estimate, but a number of studies have documented that urbanization has large negative effects on moth diversity and abundance (e.g., ref. 63) and favors thermophilic and generalist species (64). Other stressors mentioned here may be intensified in urban areas; thus, species that are already at risk are more likely to decline in urban areas (65).

Common Traits Among Moth Taxa that Are Declining

Trait-based assessments can reveal patterns in the heterogeneity of diversity trends and help make predictions of risk. The most frequently reported trait correlated with declining moth taxa is larval diet breadth (66⇓⇓–69). Many of the moths that are increasing in northwestern Europe are generalized taxa and migrants (26, 35); their gains can mask declines in specialized taxa if species-level data are not considered.

In two studies, body size (forewing length) was the single best predictor of declining populations (70, 71). Reports from the northeast United States also draw attention to the decline of larger moths (72, 73). Other traits shared by declining moths include univoltinism, short flight seasons, low dispersal ability, and overwintering in the egg stage (21, 67, 68, 70, 71, 74). Moths with canalized phenotypes are declining faster than those that are polytypic (69, 75).

Consequences to Food Webs and Ecosystem Function

Moths are significant components of food webs in all terrestrial ecosystems, contributing substantially to network complexity, interaction diversity, and associated ecosystem stability (76). While adults are important as pollinators (7, 77), the best-resolved networks focus on trophic interactions, with moths providing a large proportion of the consumer nodes connected to plants, as well as the prey or host nodes connected to predators and parasitoids. Losses of moth species will deplete interaction diversity and catalyze further losses of species and interactions, contributing to ecological erosion (78) and reduced ecosystem functioning (29).

Population studies are the most effective means to understand how specific pollinators, herbivores, or prey items will impact associated organisms (79). They can also provide insight into how different species may be responding to stressors, be used to parameterize population models and extrapolate community responses, and guide experimental approaches to studying mechanistic hypotheses about declines. On the other hand, diversity metrics or network parameters are better suited for quantifying losses of ecosystem function and for understanding how food webs are changing.

At the largest scales—biogeographic regions—there is little doubt that moth diversity has decreased, but the details and consequences of those declines are best studied at smaller scales (80) that are sensitive to the idiosyncrasies of different ecosystems and assemblages. For example, plant–caterpillar–enemy webs or plant–pollinator webs in many tropical ecosystems are likely to be more specialized than those in temperate ecosystems (3), so declines of moths from these webs will have greater impacts on interaction diversity and ecosystem function (76).

For generalized insectivores, the consequences of declining lepidopteran numbers might be evaluated from summary measurements of moth abundance or biomass, as opposed to assessing the population dynamics of any focal species or declines in interaction diversity. This could be the case for many vertebrates dependent on lepidopteran prey, including most bats and many insectivorous birds, such as caprimulgids, cuckoos, gnatcatchers, warblers, vireos, and kinglets. Even birds commonly considered to be granivores, such as finches and sparrows, switch to diets largely consisting of caterpillars and other soft-bodied arthropods over the breeding season. Virtually all temperate-zone forest bats are moth specialists, with scarab beetles being of secondary importance. One special case is that of the grizzly bear (Ursa arctos horribilis) population of Yellowstone National Park, where as much as one-third of the annual calorific requirement may derive from the consumption of a single moth species, i.e., aestivating adults of Euxoa axilliaris (81).

Reports of vertebrate insectivore declines are mixed with regard to severity and the likely causal factors (82), and there are few cases that convincingly attribute these declines to reductions in Lepidoptera populations. In a recent assessment of the declines in North American birds, insectivores as a group were not faring well, but there was no obvious signal of elevated decline rates for insect-feeding taxa, relative to other feeding guilds (83).

For specialized interactions, both population-level and community-level declines can be highly consequential. Declines or losses of an individual pollinator species might cause population declines or local extinctions of plants they pollinate, which affects other mutualists, parasites, and competitors of that plant (84). The fates of specialist invertebrate predators, parasitoids, and hyperparasitoids are tied to the population fluctuations of their hosts. Most insect parasitoids are often specialized to a single life stage or even instar of their host (85), which, no doubt, has contributed to their evolutionary radiation, estimated to be well over 400,000 species (6). Long-term decreases in both the absolute numbers and frequency of parasitism in macrolepidopteran caterpillars have been reported in Costa Rica, concomitant with moth-population declines (28, 29).

Concluding Remarks

Global reports of moth demographic trends include cases of increasing, apparently unaffected, and declining faunas. Long-term datasets from western, central, and northern European countries confirm that moth decline is widespread across the continent, but demographic data from outside of Europe are sparse. While our data for caterpillar abundances in Arizona, Costa Rica, and Ecuador contribute to an understanding of population and community dynamics of Lepidoptera outside of Europe, there remains an urgent need for more data to make robust conclusions about the scope and nature of global insect declines. Time-series demographic data are especially needed from the tropics, where the majority of insect-species diversity resides. Both within Europe and elsewhere, the details of moth-biodiversity change reveal great heterogeneity, even within single regions, a pattern that underscores the importance of local stressors. Where species-level data are available for reported declines, essentially all reports convey that some species and lineages are increasing, while a great many are declining, with stenopic, dietarily specialized, and larger species among the biggest losers.

Our understanding of global moth declines suggests that deforestation, agricultural intensification, and climate change, particularly with regard to extreme weather events, are the principal stressors driving long-term losses of moth diversity, with pesticide use, urbanization, invasive alien species, and others likely contributing to declines at more local scales. We see growing evidence that extreme climate events are driving some regional losses and regard droughts, upward shifts in cloudbanks, and other causes of water stress to be especially potent drivers of present and future insect (and plant) declines. Other effects of climate change, such the reduction of winter snow cover and increased fire risk, are also likely to be important. Wet and dry deposition of nitrogen represent a cumulative threat to moths with specialized associations with larval hostplants adapted to low-nutrient conditions. Given the complexity of results from well-studied faunas, such as those of GB, it seems likely that multiple stressors are acting synergistically in any given region, making it difficult to determine causality in cases of moth decline.

If the reported cases of moth-biodiversity change tell us anything, it is that we do not yet know enough. Current knowledge is insufficient to dissect the impacts of numerous potential drivers or to generalize trends across communities, countries, and biomes. Recognizing this point, however, should be a spur to action, rather than a cause of despair. Researchers should focus efforts on synthesizing historical data—where troves of long-term insect data currently exist in museum collections, pest-management and agricultural records, and ecological surveys cataloguing diet or host records. Gathering more high-quality data, especially from the tropics and Southern Hemisphere temperate zone, will be particularly important (9). Meanwhile, actions must be taken now, by individuals, land managers, and governments, to mitigate stressors and address moth-population declines (86⇓⇓–89) to safeguard nature’s vast, essential, and wondrous insect biodiversity.

Data Availability.

Excel spreadsheets plus R code(s) data have been deposited in http://caterpillars.org/ (http://caterpillars.unr.edu/meta/PNAS2020data.pdf) (90).

Acknowledgments

We thank Emily B. Dennis for Fig. 1. For their substantive contributions to data collection, we thank Earthwatch volunteers, Nick Pardikes, Humberto Garcia-Lopez, and Wilmer Simbaña. Eliza Grames and Chris Elphick made helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of the manuscript. Three anonymous reviewers made important contributions to improving the text. Data collection for this study was supported by NSF Grant DEB-1442103, https://experiment.com/, and the Earthwatch Institute. D.L.W. was partially funded by NSF Grant DEB-1557086 and Richard P. Garmany Foundation Award 46276.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: david.wagner{at}uconn.edu.
  • Author contributions: D.L.W., R.F., D.M.S., and L.A.D. performed research; R.F., D.M.S., and L.A.D. analyzed data; and D.L.W., R.F., D.M.S., and L.A.D. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no competing interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. M.L.F. is a guest editor invited by the Editorial Board.

  • This article contains supporting information online at https://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.2002549117/-/DCSupplemental.

Published under the PNAS license.

View Abstract

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. E. J. Van Nieukerken et al
    ., Order Lepidoptera Linnaeus, 1758. Zootaxa 3148, 212–221 (2011).
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. N. Kristensen
    1. J. A. Powell,
    2. C. Mitter,
    3. B. Farrell
    , “Evolution of larval food preferences in Lepidoptera” in Handbook of Zoology, N. Kristensen, Ed. (de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany, 1998), pp. 403–422.
  3. 3.↵
    1. M. L. Forister et al
    ., The global distribution of diet breadth in insect herbivores. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 442–447 (2015).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. M. J. Scoble
    , The Lepidoptera: Form, Function and Diversity (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1992).
  5. 5.↵
    1. D. L. Wagner
    , Caterpillars of Eastern North America: A Guide to Identification and Natural History (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2005).
  6. 6.↵
    1. A. A. Forbes,
    2. R. K. Bagley,
    3. M. A. Beer,
    4. A. C. Hippee,
    5. H. A. Widmayer
    , Quantifying the unquantifiable: Why Hymenoptera, not Coleoptera, is the most speciose animal order. BMC Ecol. 18, 21 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. C. J. MacGregor,
    2. M. J. O. Pocock,
    3. R. Fox,
    4. D. M. Evans
    , Pollination by nocturnal Lepidoptera, and the effects of light pollution: A review. Ecol. Entomol. 40, 187–198 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. A. Y. Kawahara et al
    ., Phylogenomics reveals the evolutionary timing and pattern of butterflies and moths. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 22657–22663 (2019).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. G. A. Montgomery et al
    ., Is the insect apocalypse upon us? How to find out. Biol. Conserv. 241, 108327 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. R. K. Didham et al
    ., Interpreting insect declines: Seven challenges and a way forward. Insect Conserv. Divers. 13, 103–114 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. J. A. Thomas et al
    ., Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303, 1879–1881 (2004).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. R. Dirzo et al
    ., Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345, 401–406 (2014).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. P. H. Raven,
    2. D. L. Wagner
    , Agricultural intensification and climate change are rapidly decreasing insect biodiversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., doi:10.1073/pnas.2002548117 (2021).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. J. C. Habel et al
    ., Butterfly community shifts over two centuries. Conserv. Biol. 30, 754–762 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. D. Maes,
    2. H. Van Dyck
    , Butterfly diversity loss in Flanders (North Belgium): Europe’s worst case scenario? Biol. Conserv. 99, 263–276 (2001).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. 16.↵
    1. A. J. van Strien,
    2. C. A. van Swaay,
    3. W. T. van Strien-van Liempt,
    4. M. J. Poot,
    5. M. F. Wallis de Vries
    , Over a century of data reveal more than 80% decline in butterflies in The Netherlands. Biol. Conserv. 234, 116–122 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. K. F. Conrad,
    2. M. S. Warren,
    3. R. Fox,
    4. M. S. Parsons,
    5. I. P. Woiwod
    , Rapid declines of common, widespread British moths provide evidence of an insect biodiversity crisis. Biol. Conserv. 132, 279–291 (2006).
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. J. R. Bell,
    2. D. Blumgart,
    3. C. R. Shortall
    , Are insects declining and at what rate? An analysis of standardised, systematic catches of aphid and moth abundances across Great Britain. Insect Conserv. Divers. 13, 115–126 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. C. W. Plant
    1. I. P. Woiwod,
    2. P. J. L. Gould
    , “Long-term moth studies at Rothamsted” in The Moths of Hertfordshire, C. W. Plant, Ed. (Hertfordshire Natural History Society, Welwyn Garden City, UK, 2008), pp. 31–44.
  20. 20.↵
    1. C. J. Macgregor,
    2. J. H. Williams,
    3. J. R. Bell,
    4. C. D. Thomas
    , Moth biomass increases and decreases over 50 years in Britain. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1645–1649 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. D. Groenendijk,
    2. W. N. Ellis
    , The state of the Dutch larger moth fauna. J. Insect Conserv. 15, 95–101 (2011).
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    1. A. Valtonen et al
    ., Long-term species loss and homogenization of moth communities in Central Europe. J. Anim. Ecol. 86, 730–738 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. J. C. H. Habel,
    2. R. Trusch,
    3. T. Schmitt,
    4. M. Ochse,
    5. W. Ulrich
    , Long-term large-scale decline in relative abundances of butterfly and burnet moth species across south-western Germany. Sci. Rep. 9, 14921 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    1. L. H. Antão,
    2. J. Pöyry,
    3. R. Leinonen,
    4. T. Roslin
    , Contrasting latitudinal patterns in diversity and stability in a high-latitude species-rich moth community. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29, 896–907 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. E. M. Grames et al.
    , Trends in global insect abundance and biodiversity: A community-driven systematic map protocol. https:/doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Q63UY. Accessed 7 December 2020.
  26. 26.↵
    1. R. Fox et al
    ., 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 (2014).
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. R. J. Marquis et al
    ., Declines and resilience of communities of leaf chewing insects on Missouri oaks following spring frost and summer drought. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 396 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. D. H. Janzen,
    2. W. Hallwachs
    , To us insectometers, it is clear that insect decline in our Costa Rican tropics is real, so let’s be kind to the survivors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., doi:10.1073/pnas.2002546117 (2021).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. D. M. Salcido,
    2. M. L. Forister,
    3. H. Garcia Lopez,
    4. L. A. Dyer
    , Loss of dominant caterpillar genera in a protected tropical forest. Sci. Rep. 10, 422 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. M. Dornelas et al
    ., A balance of winners and losers in the Anthropocene. Ecol. Lett. 22, 847–854 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. R. Fox
    , The decline of moths in Great Britain: A review of possible causes. Insect Conserv. Divers. 6, 5–19 (2013).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. 32.↵
    1. D. Hayhow et al
    ., The State of Nature 2019 (The State of Nature Partnership, UK, 2019).
  33. 33.↵
    1. Z. Randle et al
    ., Atlas of Britain & Ireland’s Larger Moths (Pisces Publications, Newbury, UK, 2019).
  34. 34.↵
    1. C. L. Outhwaite,
    2. R. D. Gregory,
    3. R. E. Chandler,
    4. B. Collen,
    5. N. J. B. Isaac
    , Complex long-term biodiversity change among invertebrates, bryophytes and lichens. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 384–392 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    1. D. H. Boyes,
    2. R. Fox,
    3. C. R. Shortall,
    4. R. J. Whittaker
    , Bucking the trend: The diversity of Anthropocene ‘winners’ among British moths. Front. Biogeogr. 11, e43862 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    1. L. A. Dyer et al
    ., Host specificity of Lepidoptera in tropical and temperate forests. Nature 448, 696–699 (2007).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. D. L. Wagner
    , Insect declines in the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 65, 457–480 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    1. T. Bubová,
    2. V. Vrabec,
    3. M. Kulma,
    4. P. Nowicki
    , Land management impacts on European butterflies of conservation concern: A review. J. Insect Conserv. 19, 805–821 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    1. S. Seibold et al
    ., Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature 574, 671–674 (2019).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. S. G. Nilsson,
    2. M. Franzén,
    3. L. B. Pettersson
    , Land-use changes, farm management and the decline of butterflies associated with semi-natural grasslands in southern Sweden. Nat. Conserv. 6, 31–48 (2013).
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    1. M. Dantas de Miranda,
    2. H. M. Pereira,
    3. M. F. V. Corley,
    4. T. Merckx
    , Beta diversity patterns reveal positive effects of farmland abandonment on moth communities. Sci. Rep. 9, 1549 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    1. A. Ubach,
    2. F. Páramo,
    3. C. Gutiérrez,
    4. C. Stefanescu
    , Vegetation encroachment drives changes in the composition of butterfly assemblages and species loss in Mediterranean ecosystems. Insect Conserv. Divers. 13, 151–161 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    1. I. Chen et al
    ., Asymmetric boundary shifts of tropical montane Lepidoptera over four decades of climate warming. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 34–45 (2011).
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    1. C. Parmesan
    , Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 637–669 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.↵
    1. S. C. Mason et al
    ., Geographical range margins of many taxonomic groups continue to shift polewards. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 115, 586–597 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    1. G. A. Breed,
    2. S. Stichter,
    3. E. E. Crone
    , Climate-driven changes in northeastern US butterfly communities. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 142–145 (2013).
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    1. B. Martay et al
    ., Impacts of climate change on national biodiversity population trends. Ecography 40, 1139–1151 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    1. T. H. Oliver et al
    ., Interacting effects of climate change and habitat fragmentation on drought-sensitive butterflies. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 941 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    1. M. L. Forister, et al
    ., Impacts of a millennium drought on butterfly faunal dynamics. Clim. Chang. Responses 5, 3 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    1. P. Banza et al
    ., Wildfire alters the structure and seasonal dynamics of nocturnal pollen-transport networks. Funct. Ecol. 33, 1882–1892 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    1. O. McDermott Long et al
    ., Sensitivity of UK butterflies to local climatic extremes: Which life stages are most at risk? J. Anim. Ecol. 86, 108–116 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. G. Palmer et al
    ., Climate change, climatic variation and extreme biological responses. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 372, 20160144 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. J. Pöyry et al
    ., The effects of soil eutrophication propagate to higher trophic levels: Effects of soil eutrophication on herbivores. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26, 18–30 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    1. S. Kurze,
    2. T. Heinken,
    3. T. Fartmann
    , Nitrogen enrichment in host plants increases the mortality of common Lepidoptera species. Oecologia 188, 1227–1237 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    1. C. J. Stevens,
    2. T. I. David,
    3. J. Storkey,
    4. C. Fox
    , Atmospheric nitrogen deposition in terrestrial ecosystems: Its impact on plant communities and consequences across trophic levels. Funct. Ecol. 32, 1757–1769 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    1. M. F. Wallis de Vries,
    2. C. A. M. van Swaay
    , A nitrogen index to track changes in butterfly species assemblages under nitrogen deposition. Biol. Conserv. 212, 448–453 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    1. M. Hahn,
    2. A. Schotthöfer,
    3. J. Schmitz,
    4. L. A. Franke,
    5. C. A. Brühl
    , The effects of agrochemicals on Lepidoptera, with a focus on moths, and their pollination service in field margin habitats. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 207, 153–162 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    1. M. L. Forister et al
    ., Increasing neonicotinoid use and the declining butterfly fauna of lowland California. Biol. Lett. 12, 20160475 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. T. J. Wood,
    2. D. Goulson
    , The environmental risks of neonicotinoid pesticides: A review of the evidence post 2013. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 24, 17285–17325 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. D. L. Wagner,
    2. R. G. Van Driesche
    , Threats posed to rare or endangered insects by invasions of nonnative species. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 55, 547–568 (2010).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. P. Z. Goldstein,
    2. S. Morita,
    3. G. Capshaw
    , Stasis and flux among Saturniidae and Sphingidae (Lepidoptera) on Massachusetts’ offshore islands and the possible role of Compsilura concinnata (Meigen) (Diptera: Tachinidae) as an agent of mainland New England moth declines. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 117, 347–366 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.↵
    1. F. van Langevelde et al
    ., Declines in moth populations stress the need for conserving dark nights. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 925–932 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.↵
    1. T. Merckx,
    2. H. Van Dyck
    , Urbanization-driven homogenization is more pronounced and happens at wider spatial scales in nocturnal and mobile flying insects. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 28, 1440–1455 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  64. 64.↵
    1. M. Franzén,
    2. P. E. Betzholtz,
    3. L. B. Pettersson,
    4. A. Forsman
    , Urban moth communities suggest that life in the city favours thermophilic multi-dimensional generalists. Proc. Biol. Sci. 287, 20193014 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    1. A. J. Bates et al
    ., Garden and landscape-scale correlates of moths of differing conservation status: Significant effects of urbanization and habitat diversity. PLoS One 9, e86925 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. L. P. Koh,
    2. N. S. Sodhi,
    3. B. W. Brook
    , Co-extinctions of tropical butterflies and their hostplants. Biotropica 36, 272–274 (2004).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  67. 67.↵
    1. J. S. Kotiaho,
    2. V. Kaitala,
    3. A. Komonen,
    4. J. Päivinen
    , Predicting the risk of extinction from shared ecological characteristics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 1963–1967 (2005).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  68. 68.↵
    1. N. Mattila,
    2. V. Kaitala,
    3. A. Komonen,
    4. J. S. Kotiaho,
    5. J. Päivinen
    , Ecological determinants of distribution decline and risk of extinction in moths. Conserv. Biol. 20, 1161–1168 (2006).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. P. E. Betzholtz,
    2. M. Franzén,
    3. A. Forsman
    , Colour pattern variation can inform about extinction risk in moths. Anim. Conserv. 20, 72–79 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  70. 70.↵
    1. N. Mattila,
    2. J. S. Kotiaho,
    3. V. Kaitala,
    4. A. Komonen,
    5. J. Päivinen
    , Interactions between ecological traits and host plant type explain distribution change in noctuid moths. Conserv. Biol. 23, 703–709 (2009).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    1. E. Coulthard,
    2. J. Norrey,
    3. C. Shortall,
    4. W. E. Harris
    , Ecological traits predict population changes in moths. Biol. Conserv. 233, 213–219 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  72. 72.↵
    1. D. L. Wagner
    , Moth decline in the northeastern United States. News Lepid. Soc. 54, 52–56 (2012).
    OpenUrl
  73. 73.↵
    1. B. E. Young et al
    ., Are pollinating hawk moths declining in the Northeastern United States? An analysis of collection records. PLoS One 12, e0185683 (2017).
    OpenUrl
  74. 74.↵
    1. K. F. Conrad et al
    ., Long-term population trends in widespread British moths. J. Insect Conserv. 8, 119–136 (2004).
    OpenUrl
  75. 75.↵
    1. A. Forsman,
    2. D. Polic,
    3. J. Sunde,
    4. P. Betzholtz,
    5. M. Franzén
    , Variable colour patterns indicate multidimensional, intraspecific trait variation and ecological generalization in moths. Ecography 43, 1–11 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  76. 76.↵
    1. G. Peralta,
    2. C. M. Frost,
    3. T. A. Rand,
    4. R. K. Didham,
    5. J. M. Tylianakis
    , Complementarity and redundancy of interactions enhance attack rates and spatial stability in host-parasitoid food webs. Ecology 95, 1888–1896 (2014).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. 77.↵
    1. R. Rader et al
    ., Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 146–151 (2016).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. 78.↵
    1. L. A. Dyer,
    2. D. K. Letourneau
    , Can climate change trigger massive diversity cascades in terrestrial ecosystems? Diversity (Basel) 5, 479–504 (2013).
    OpenUrl
  79. 79.↵
    1. G. J. Floater,
    2. M. P. Zalucki
    , Habitat structure and egg distributions in the processionary caterpillar Ochrogaster lunifer: Lessons for conservation and pest management. J. Appl. Ecol. 37, 87–99 (2000).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  80. 80.↵
    1. L. A. Dyer
    , Multidimensional diversity associated with plants: A view from a plant-insect interaction ecologist. Am. J. Bot. 105, 1439–1442 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  81. 81.↵
    1. D. White,
    2. K. C. Kendall,
    3. H. D. Picton
    , Grizzly bear feeding activity at alpine army cutworm moth aggregation sites in northwest Montana. Can. J. Zool. 76, 221–227 (1998).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  82. 82.↵
    1. D. E. Bowler,
    2. H. Heldbjerg,
    3. A. D. Fox,
    4. M. de Jong,
    5. K. Böhning-Gaese
    , Long-term declines of European insectivorous bird populations and potential causes. Conserv. Biol. 33, 1120–1130 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.↵
    1. K. V. Rosenberg et al
    ., Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 366, 120–124 (2019).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. 84.↵
    1. J. Harrower,
    2. G. S. Gilbert
    , Context-dependent mutualisms in the Joshua tree–yucca moth system shift along a climate gradient. Ecosphere 9, e02439 (2018).
    OpenUrl
  85. 85.↵
    1. J. K. Waage,
    2. D. Greathead
    1. R. R. Askew,
    2. M. R. Shaw
    , “Parasitoid communities: Their size, structure and development” in Insect Parasitoids, J. K. Waage, D. Greathead, Eds. (Academic Press, New York, NY, 1986), pp. 225–264.
  86. 86.↵
    1. M. L. Forister,
    2. E. M. Pelton,
    3. S. H. Black
    , Declines in insect abundance and diversity: We know enough to act now. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1, e80 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  87. 87.↵
    1. J. A. Harvey et al
    ., International scientists formulate a roadmap for insect conservation and recovery. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 174–176 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  88. 88.↵
    1. M. J. Samways et al
    ., Solutions for humanity on how to conserve insects. Biol. Conserv. 242, 108427 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  89. 89.↵
    1. A. Y. Kawahara,
    2. L. E. Reeves,
    3. J. R. Barber,
    4. S. H. Black
    , Eight simple actions that individuals can take to save insects from global declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., doi:10.1073/pnas.2002547117 (2021).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  90. 90.↵
    1. L. A. Dyer
    , Ecuador and Costa Rica data for Wagner et al. 2020. Caterpillars.org. http://caterpillars.unr.edu/meta/PNAS2020data.pdf. Deposited 25 November 2020.
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A window to the world of global insect declines: Moth biodiversity trends are complex and heterogeneous
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
A window to the world of global insect declines: Moth biodiversity trends are complex and heterogeneous
David L. Wagner, Richard Fox, Danielle M. Salcido, Lee A. Dyer
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jan 2021, 118 (2) e2002549117; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2002549117

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
A window to the world of global insect declines: Moth biodiversity trends are complex and heterogeneous
David L. Wagner, Richard Fox, Danielle M. Salcido, Lee A. Dyer
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jan 2021, 118 (2) e2002549117; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2002549117
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 118 (2)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Article Classifications

  • Biological Sciences
  • Ecology

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Chronology of Moth Declines
    • Moth Biodiversity Changes Are Spatially and Taxonomically Heterogeneous
    • Case Studies
    • Stressors
    • Common Traits Among Moth Taxa that Are Declining
    • Consequences to Food Webs and Ecosystem Function
    • Concluding Remarks
    • Data Availability.
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Abstract depiction of a guitar and musical note
Science & Culture: At the nexus of music and medicine, some see disease treatments
Although the evidence is still limited, a growing body of research suggests music may have beneficial effects for diseases such as Parkinson’s.
Image credit: Shutterstock/agsandrew.
Large piece of gold
News Feature: Tracing gold's cosmic origins
Astronomers thought they’d finally figured out where gold and other heavy elements in the universe came from. In light of recent results, they’re not so sure.
Image credit: Science Source/Tom McHugh.
Dancers in red dresses
Journal Club: Friends appear to share patterns of brain activity
Researchers are still trying to understand what causes this strong correlation between neural and social networks.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Yeongsik Im.
Yellow emoticons
Learning the language of facial expressions
Aleix Martinez explains why facial expressions often are not accurate indicators of emotion.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Goats standing in a pin
Transplantation of sperm-producing stem cells
CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing can improve the effectiveness of spermatogonial stem cell transplantation in mice and livestock, a study finds.
Image credit: Jon M. Oatley.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490