CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 955Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesPlant and animal studiesSpecies Distribution and Climate Change

Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis

Thomas, J. A., Telfer, M. G., Roy, D. B., Preston, C. D., Greenwood, J. J. D., Asher, J., Fox, R., Clarke, R. T. +1 more·2004·Science
DOI 10.1126/science.1095046
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There is growing concern about increased population, regional, and global extinctions of species. A key question is whether extinction rates for one group of organisms are representative of other taxa. We present a comparison at the national scale of population and regional extinctions of birds, butterflies, and vascular plants from Britain in recent decades. Butterflies experienced the greatest net losses, disappearing on average from 13% of their previously occupied 10-kilometer squares. If insects elsewhere in the world are similarly sensitive, the known global extinction rates of vertebrate and plant species have an unrecorded parallel among the invertebrates, strengthening the hypothesis that the natural world is experiencing the sixth major extinction event in its history.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.1095046

Cites

24 of 24 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?

  • Declines of individual species or taxa may not reflect the general state of local entomofauna.

    “Declines of individual species or taxa (e.g. [7, 26]) may not reflect the general state of local entomofauna [27].”

    From More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas (2017) · cites this paper as [27]

  • Recently reported declines in butterflies, wild bees and moths are in parallel with a severe loss of total aerial insect biomass, suggesting that the flying insect community as a whole has been decimated over the last few decades.

    “Our results demonstrate that recently reported declines in several taxa such as butterflies [7, 25–27, 58], wild bees [8–14] and moths [15–18], are in parallel with a severe loss of total aerial insect biomass, suggesting that it is not only the vulnerable species, but the flying insect community as a whole, that has been decimated over the last few decades.”

    From More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas (2017) · cites this paper as [27]

  • Agricultural intensification, including the disappearance of field margins and new crop protection methods, has been associated with an overall decline of biodiversity in plants, insects, birds and other species in the current landscape.

    “Agricultural intensification, including the disappearance of field margins and new crop protection methods has been associated with an overall decline of biodiversity in plants, insects, birds and other species in the current landscape [20, 27, 67].”

    From More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas (2017) · cites this paper as [27]

  • Other studies have documented declines in arthropod abundance across a broad range of geography, habitats, and taxa.

    “Other studies have also documented declines in arthropod abundance across a broad range of geography, habitats, and taxa (10–12, 54, 55, 56–58).”

    From Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rainforest food web (2018) · cites this paper as [55]

  • Over a 20-y period, 54% of bird species native to Britain have also decreased.

    “Over a 20-y period, 54% of bird species native to Britain have also decreased (55).”

    From Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rainforest food web (2018) · cites this paper as [55]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Thomas, J. A., Telfer, M. G., Roy, D. B., Preston, C. D., Greenwood, J. J. D., Asher, J., Fox, R., Clarke, R. T., & Lawton, J. H.
Affiliations
Butterfly Conservation (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Thomas, J. A.
  • Telfer, M. G.
ORCID
Venue
Science
Publisher
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Published
2004-03-19
Volume
303
Issue
5665
Pages
1879-1881
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
DOI
10.1126/science.1095046
OpenAlex
W2124033961
Cited by
955
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 50 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 40
FWCI
41.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecological Modeling › Species Distribution and Climate Change
Keywords
species extinction, population decline (ecology), butterflies, birds, vascular plants, sixth mass extinction, regional extinction, Great Britain, biodiversity loss
MeSH terms
Animals, Birds, Butterflies, United Kingdom, Plants, Population Density, Population Dynamics, Ecosystem, Biodiversity

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