28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Drivers and pressures behind insect decline in Central and Western Europe based on long-term monitoring data

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Insect declines have been discussed intensively among experts, policymakers, and the public. Albeit, decreasing trends have been reported for a long time for various regions in Europe and North America, but the controversial discussion over the role of specific drivers and pressures still remains. A reason for these uncertainties lies within the complex networks of inter-dependent biotic and abiotic factors as well as anthropogenic activities that influence habitats, communities, populations, and individual organisms. Many recent publications aim to identify both the extent of the observed declines and potential drivers. With this literature analysis, we provide an overview of the drivers and pressures and their inter-relationships, which were concluded in the scientific literature, using some of the best-studied insect groups as examples. We conducted a detailed literature evaluation of publications on Carabidae (Coleoptera) and Lepidoptera trends with data for at least 6 years in countries of Central and Western Europe, with a focus on agricultural landscapes. From the 82 publications identified as relevant, we extracted all reported trends and classified the respective factors described according to the DPSIR model. Further, we analysed the level of scientific verification (presumed vs correlated vs examined) within these papers for these cited stressors. The extracted trends for both species groups underline the reported overall declining trend. Whether negative or positive trends were reported in the papers, our semi-quantitative analysis shows that changes in insect populations are primarily anthropogenically driven by agriculture, climate change, nature conservation activities, urbanisation, and other anthropogenic activities. Most of the identified pressures were found to act on habitat level, only a fraction attributed to direct effects to the insects. While our analysis gives an overview of existing research concerning abundance and biodiversity trends of carabids and lepidopterans, it also shows gaps in scientific data in this area, in particular in monitoring the pressures along with the monitoring of abundance trends. The scientific basis for assessing biodiversity changes in the landscape is essential to help all stakeholders involved to shape, e.g. agriculture and other human activities, in a more sustainable way, balancing human needs such as food production with conservation of nature.

          Related collections

          Most cited references93

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

            Global declines in insects have sparked wide interest among scientists, politicians, and the general public. Loss of insect diversity and abundance is expected to provoke cascading effects on food webs and to jeopardize ecosystem services. Our understanding of the extent and underlying causes of this decline is based on the abundance of single species or taxonomic groups only, rather than changes in insect biomass which is more relevant for ecological functioning. Here, we used a standardized protocol to measure total insect biomass using Malaise traps, deployed over 27 years in 63 nature protection areas in Germany (96 unique location-year combinations) to infer on the status and trend of local entomofauna. Our analysis estimates a seasonal decline of 76%, and mid-summer decline of 82% in flying insect biomass over the 27 years of study. We show that this decline is apparent regardless of habitat type, while changes in weather, land use, and habitat characteristics cannot explain this overall decline. This yet unrecognized loss of insect biomass must be taken into account in evaluating declines in abundance of species depending on insects as a food source, and ecosystem functioning in the European landscape.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands.

              Despite widespread concern about declines in pollination services, little is known about the patterns of change in most pollinator assemblages. By studying bee and hoverfly assemblages in Britain and the Netherlands, we found evidence of declines (pre-versus post-1980) in local bee diversity in both countries; however, divergent trends were observed in hoverflies. Depending on the assemblage and location, pollinator declines were most frequent in habitat and flower specialists, in univoltine species, and/or in nonmigrants. In conjunction with this evidence, outcrossing plant species that are reliant on the declining pollinators have themselves declined relative to other plant species. Taken together, these findings strongly suggest a causal connection between local extinctions of functionally linked plant and pollinator species.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                23 August 2023
                2023
                : 18
                : 8
                : e0289565
                Affiliations
                [1 ] gaiac, Research Institute for Ecosystem Analysis and Assessment, Aachen, Germany
                [2 ] Bayer AG, Monheim am Rhein, Germany
                [3 ] BASF SE, Limburgerhof, Germany
                [4 ] Syngenta Crop Protection, Basel, Switzerland
                University of the Balearic Islands, SPAIN
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing insterests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1005-4323
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9652-5984
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2329-5924
                Article
                PONE-D-23-00796
                10.1371/journal.pone.0289565
                10446172
                37611013
                399f0b32-f16f-47d3-a6c6-7d7149da17c8
                © 2023 Rumohr et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 10 January 2023
                : 20 July 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 2, Pages: 22
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100008791, Bayer CropScience;
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100010761, Syngenta International;
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004349, BASF;
                Award Recipient :
                CUB, MTM, CM, MB, and MS are co-authors and contributed to the establishment of the study concept and to the evaluation and interpretation of the data, and to the preparation of the manuscript, as stated. The study was financially supported by Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Zoology
                Entomology
                Insects
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Animals
                Invertebrates
                Arthropoda
                Insects
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Zoology
                Animals
                Invertebrates
                Arthropoda
                Insects
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Zoology
                Entomology
                Insects
                Moths and Butterflies
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Animals
                Invertebrates
                Arthropoda
                Insects
                Moths and Butterflies
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Zoology
                Animals
                Invertebrates
                Arthropoda
                Insects
                Moths and Butterflies
                Earth Sciences
                Atmospheric Science
                Climatology
                Climate Change
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Conservation Science
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Conservation Biology
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Conservation Science
                Conservation Biology
                Earth Sciences
                Geography
                Human Geography
                Land Use
                Social Sciences
                Human Geography
                Land Use
                Earth Sciences
                Atmospheric Science
                Climatology
                Climate Change
                Anthropogenic Climate Change
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Biodiversity
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Biodiversity
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article