Cited by 150Plant and animal studiesEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesAvian ecology and behavior

Long-term changes in the abundance of flying insects

Open access
SHORTALL, CHRIS R., MOORE, ALISON, SMITH, EMMA, HALL, MIKE J., WOIWOD, IAN P., HARRINGTON, RICHARD·2009·Insect Conservation and Diversity

Abstract

Abstract. 1. For the first time, long‐term changes in total aerial insect biomass have been estimated for a wide area of Southern Britain. 2. Various indices of biomass were created for standardised samples from four of the Rothamsted Insect Survey 12.2 m tall suction traps for the 30 years from 1973 to 2002. 3. There was a significant decline in total biomass at Hereford but not at three other sites: Rothamsted, Starcross and Wye. 4. For the Hereford samples, many insects were identified at least to order level, some to family or species level. These samples were then used to investigate the taxa involved in the decline in biomass at Hereford. 5. The Hereford samples were dominated by large Diptera, particularly Dilophus febrilis , which showed a significant decline in abundance. 6. Changes in agricultural practice that could have contributed to the observed declines are discussed, as are potential implications for farmland birds, with suggestions for further work to investigate both cause and effect.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1752-4598.2009.00062.x

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Campbell, L.H., Avery, M.I., Donald, P., Evans, A.D., Green, R.E. & Wilson, J.D. (1997) A Review of the Indirect Effects of Pesticides on Birds. JNCC Report No. 227, Joint Nature Con- servation Committee, Peterborough.
  2. Chamberlain, D.E., Fuller, R.J., Bunce, R.G.H., Duckworth, J.C. & Shrubb, M. (2000) Changes in the abundance of farm- land birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensifica- tion in England. Journal of Applied Ecology, 37, 771-788.
  3. Fuller, R.J., Noble, D.G., Smith, K.W. & Vanhinsbergh, D. (2005) Recent declines in populations of woodland birds in Britain: a review of possible causes. British Birds, 98, 116- 143.
  4. Ó 2009 Rothamsted Research Journal compilation Ó 2009 The Royal Entomological Society, Insect Conservation and Diversity, 2, 251-260
  5. Moreby, S.J. (2004) Birds of lowland arable farmland: the impor- tance and identification of invertebrate diversity in the diet of chicks. Insect and Bird Interactions (ed. by H.F. van Emden and M. Rothschild), pp. 21-35. Intercept, Andover, UK.
  6. Parmenter, L. & Owen, D.F. (1954) The swift Apus apus as a predator of flies. Journal of the Society of British Entomology, 5, 27-33.
  7. Payne, R.W., Harding, S.A., Murray, D.A., Soutar, D.M., Baird, D.B., Welham, S.J., Kane, A.F., Gilmour, A.R., Thompson, R., Webster, R. & Tunnicliffe Wilson, G. (2005) The Guide to GenStat Release 8. Part 2: Statistics. VSN International, Oxford, UK.
  8. by N.J. Aebischer, N.D. Evans, P.V. Grice and J.A. Vickery), pp. 26-35. BOU, Tring, UK.
  9. by L.G. Firbank, N. Carter, J.F. Darbyshire and G.R. Potts), pp. 275-304. Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Accepted 10 June 2009 First published online 21 August 2009

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
SHORTALL, C. R., MOORE, A., SMITH, E., HALL, M. J., WOIWOD, I. P., & HARRINGTON, R.
Affiliations
Rothamsted Research (GB)
Corresponding author
HARRINGTON, RICHARD
Venue
Insect Conservation and Diversity
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-10-22
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
251-260
ISSN
  • 1752-458X (ISSN-L)
  • 1752-4598
OpenAlex
W2136037660
Cited by
150
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Insect Conservation and Diversity (publishedVersion)
  • Rothamsted Repository (Rothamsted Repository) (acceptedVersion)
  • Rothamsted Repository (Rothamsted Repository) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Natural England
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBS/E/C/00004957)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
Keywords
flying insects, long-term monitoring, Rothamsted Insect Survey, suction traps, Diptera, agricultural intensification, farmland birds, southern Britain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review