Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • NEWS AND VIEWS

Robust evidence of declines in insect abundance and biodiversity

Data are mounting that document widespread insect losses. A long-term research project now provides the strongest evidence of this so far, and demonstrates the value of standardized monitoring programmes.
  1. William E. Kunin

    1. William E. Kunin is in the School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

There are certain times in life — whether in our relationships, personal health or scientific research — when we think that we know something but the evidence is less than conclusive. An accumulation of clues or symptoms might suggest a particular interpretation without being strong enough to clinch the argument. In such situations, it can be a relief to finally get a definitive answer, even if the news is bad. Once we know that a problem definitely exists, we may be able to do something about it. Readers might feel the same way when they read the results reported in Nature by Seibold et al.1, which provide compelling evidence of a major problem — large-scale declines in the numbers and diversity of insects and other jointed invertebrates known as arthropods.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

Rent or Buy

All prices are NET prices.

Nature 574, 641-642 (2019)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03241-9

References

  1. 1.

    Seibold, S. et al. Nature 574, 671–674 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Hallmann, C. A., Foppen, R. P. B., van Turnhout, C. A. M., de Kroon, H. & Jongejans, E. Nature 511, 341–343 (2014).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Biesmeijer J. C. et al. Science 313, 351–354 (2006).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Thomas, J. A., Morris, M. G. & Hambler, C. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 344, 47–54 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Maes, D. & Van Dyck, H. Biol. Conserv. 99, 263–276 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. G. Biol. Conserv. 232, 8–27 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Isaac, N. J. B., van Strien, A. J., August, T. A., de Zeeuw, M. P. & Roy, D. B. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 1052–1060 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Winfree, R., Fox, J. W., Williams, N. M., Reilly, J. R. & Cariveau, D. P. Ecol. Lett. 18, 626–635 (2015).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Hallmann, C. A. et al. PLoS ONE 12, e0185809 (2017).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Fischer, M. et al. Basic Appl. Ecol. 11, 473–485 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Noleppa, S. et al. Banning neonicotinoids in the European Union. Research paper 01/2017 (HFFA Research GmbH, 2017).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Subjects

Nature Careers

Jobs

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing

Search

Advanced search

Quick links