Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32215052›Full record

ArticleInsect conservation and diversity2020

Are insects declining and at what rate? An analysis of standardised, systematic catches of aphid and moth abundances across Great Britain.

James R Bell, Dan Blumgart, Chris R Shortall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insect conservation and diversity, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The genome sequence of the Common Quaker,Wellcome open research · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

James R BellRothamsted Insect Survey, Rothamsted Research, West Common Harpenden UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1640-6120
Dan BlumgartRothamsted Insect Survey, Rothamsted Research, West Common Harpenden UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2591-7686
Chris R ShortallRothamsted Insect Survey, Rothamsted Research, West Common Harpenden UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7175-5393

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although we have known anecdotally that insects have been declining in Great Britain for more than 100 years, insect declines have only been statistically estimated over the last 20 years. Estimation of the rate of those declines is still hotly debated, fuelled by a lack of standardised, systematically collected data.More than 24 million individual moths and aphids collected from 112 light traps and 25 12.2 m suction-traps, respectively, were analysed using mixed models. Our objective was to estimate the long-term trends in both groups based on annual totals recorded every year between 1969 and 2016.The models showed that two paradigms existed: Over 47 years, long-term linear trends showed that moths had declined significantly by -31%, but short-term trends indicated that there were periods of significant decline and recovery in most decades since the 1960s. Conversely, despite aphid annual totals fluctuating widely, this group was in a steady state over the long-term, with a non-significant decline of -7.6%. Sensitivity analysis revealed that moth trends were not driven by a group of abundant species, but the sign of the overall aphid trends may have been driven by three of the most abundant species.The spatial extent of moth trends suggests that they are extremely heterogeneous. Uniquely, moth declines were different among several habitat types, with robust significant declines found in coastal, urban and woodland habitats, but notably not in agricultural, parkland and scrubland habitats. Conversely, aphid trends showed spatial synchrony extending to 338 km, albeit with local variation.

Indexed as

Aphidsinsect conservationlight trapsmgcvmothspoptrendsuction traps

Identifiers

PMID32215052
PMCPMC7079554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.