Cited by 302Lepidoptera: Biology and TaxonomyEntomological Studies and EcologyPlant and animal studies

The decline of moths in Great Britain: a review of possible causes

FOX, RICHARD·2013·Insect Conservation and Diversity

Abstract

Abstract. 1. Population declines among insects are inadequately quantified, yet of vital importance to national and global biodiversity assessments and have significant implications for ecosystem services. 2. Substantial declines in abundance and distribution have been reported recently within a species‐rich insect taxon, macro‐moths, in Great Britain and other European countries. These declines are of concern because moths are important primary consumers and prey items for a wide range of other taxa, as well as contributing to ecosystem services such as pollination. 3. I summarise these declines and review potential drivers of change. Direct evidence for causes of moth declines is extremely limited, but correlative studies and extrapolation from closely related taxa suggest that habitat degradation (particularly because of agricultural intensification and changing silviculture) and climate change are likely to be major drivers. There is currently little evidence of negative population‐level effects on moths caused by chemical or light pollution, non‐native species or direct exploitation. 4. I make suggestions for future research with a focus on quantifying impacts of land management practices, light pollution and climate change on moth population dynamics and developing evidence‐based measures that can be incorporated into agri‐environment schemes and other policy initiatives to help reverse the widespread decline of moths in Great Britain and beyond.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00186.x

Cites

186 of 186 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
FOX, R.
Affiliations
Butterfly Conservation (GB)
Corresponding author
FOX, RICHARD
Venue
Insect Conservation and Diversity
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-01-20
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
5-19
ISSN
  • 1752-458X (ISSN-L)
  • 1752-4598
OpenAlex
W2102641175
Cited by
302
References
186
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 1
FWCI
9.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Insect Conservation and Diversity (publishedVersion)
Funders
Johns Hopkins University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Lepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Entomological Studies and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
Keywords
Lepidoptera, insect decline, habitat degradation, agricultural intensification, silviculture, climate change, light pollution, introduced species, land management, agri-environmental schemes, ecosystem services, Great 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