Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40926576›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of animal ecology2025

Habitat and land-use intensity shape moth community structure across temperate forest and grassland.

Rafael Achury, Michael Staab, Sebastian Seibold, Jörg Müller, Lea Heidrich, Marcel Püls, Hermann Hacker, Carlos Roberto Fonseca, Markus Fischer, Nico Blüthgen and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of animal ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

11 authors.

Rafael AchuryTerrestrial Ecology Research Group, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, School of Life Sciences, Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0435-3594
Michael StaabEcological Networks, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0894-7576
Sebastian SeiboldTerrestrial Ecology Research Group, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, School of Life Sciences, Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7968-4489
Jörg MüllerBavarian Forest National Park, Grafenau, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1409-1586
Lea HeidrichEnvironmental Informatics, Faculty of Geography, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3229-4758
Marcel PülsBavarian Forest National Park, Grafenau, Germany.ORCID 0009-0003-5438-971X
Hermann HackerBavarian Forest National Park, Grafenau, Germany.
Carlos Roberto FonsecaDepartamento de Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0292-0399
Markus FischerInstitute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5589-5900
Nico BlüthgenEcological Networks, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6349-4528
Wolfgang WeisserTerrestrial Ecology Research Group, Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, School of Life Sciences, Technische Universität München, Freising, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2757-8959

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Land-use change and intensification are major drivers of biodiversity loss, yet their effects on diversity have usually been studied within a single habitat type or land-use category, limiting our understanding of cross-habitat patterns. Moths, a species-rich taxon worldwide, represent a significant portion of the biodiversity in both temperate forests and grasslands, functioning as pollinators and herbivores. While increasing land-use intensity (LUI) in both habitats is expected to negatively impact moth assemblages, the strength of this effect remains uncertain. Moreover, land-use intensification interacts with broader environmental factors, such as weather conditions and the spread of artificial light at night (ALAN), but their combined effects on moth community diversity and turnover across habitats remain poorly understood. We sampled moth communities across 150 grassland and 150 forest plots along land-use gradients in Germany. We quantified plot- and landscape-scale LUI and tested the role of plant diversity, temperature and precipitation during the night of sampling and the preceding season, and ALAN in shaping moth diversity (standardized by coverage) along Hill numbers. Forests supported significantly higher moth abundance, biomass and diversity than grasslands, with habitat type being the main driver of moth community composition. LUI at the plot scale had contrasting effects on moth abundance, increasing it in forests but reducing it in grasslands. Impacts of LUI were more pronounced at the landscape level, reducing moth diversity particularly in areas dominated by grasslands. Plant diversity and temperature were key determinants for moth communities, increasing alpha diversity across diversity metrics, that is Hill numbers. ALAN had no significant influence on moth abundance or biomass but significantly decreased Simpson diversity. Beta diversity increased with geographic distance, habitat change and LUI but decreased with weather differences among plots. Our results highlight the interplay between LUI, habitat type and abiotic factors in shaping moth communities across large spatial scales. Effective conservation strategies should consider maintaining habitat heterogeneity and promoting plant diversity, particularly in temperate habitats exposed to high land-use intensification.

Indexed as

BiodiversityForestsGrasslandMothsAnimalsEcosystemGermanyalpha‐ and beta diversityartificial light at night (ALAN)coverage‐based diversityforest and grassland heterogeneityLepidopteralight trappingmoth diversityplant diversity

Identifiers

PMID40926576
PMCPMC12586792

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.