The state of Britain's larger moths

By R. Fox, K. F. Conrad, M. Parsons, M. Warren, I. Woiwod. 2006

116 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Genetics, Plant Science, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/224f33f09deab95b256366c6d8e87883123964fd

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Genetics

In Plant Science

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

The decline of moths in Great Britain: a review of possible causes (2013, background): “That these 337 species are considered widespread and generally common in Britain (Skinner, 2009; Waring et al., 2009) underscored the significance of Conrad et al.’s findings for biodiversity conservation (Fox et al., 2006b).”
The state of Britain's larger moths 2013 (2006, unknown): “Ke ith T ai lb y 83 Fox 2013 84 Burns et al. 2016, Mangels et al. 2017 85 Staley et al. 2016, Froidevaux et al. 2019 86 Merckx et al. 2018, Merckx & Van Dyck 2019 87 Wilson & Fox 2020 88 Mason et al. 2015 89 Pearce-Higgins et al. 2017 90 Platts et al. 2019 91 Martay et al. 2017, Palmer et al. 2017…”
Increased migration of Lepidoptera linked to climate change (2007, methodology): “These may partly compensate for population declines arising from habitat degradation and potential extinctions (Warren et al., 2001; Thomas et al., 2004; Fox et al., 2006).”
The UK Environmental Change Network: Emerging trends in the composition of plant and animal communities and the physical environment (2009, background): “leautieri, increases in larval food are the most likely cause of the upward trends (Fox et al., 2006).”
Testing biotic indicator taxa: the sensitivity of insectivorous mammals and their prey to the intensification of lowland agriculture (2007, background): “Noctuidae and Hepialidae deserve further investigation, particularly given the recent concern expressed over moth declines (Fox et al. 2006) and that Lepidoptera are recommended as indicator taxa (Luff & Woiwod 1995; Thomas 2005).”
Macro‐moth families differ in their attraction to light: implications for light‐trap monitoring programmes (2014, unknown): “Currently, projects that collect standardised macromoth counts regionally and year-round are ongoing in Britain and Flanders only (Veraghtert, 2012; Fox et al., 2013).”
Air pollution and its effects on lichens, bryophytes, and lichen‐feeding Lepidoptera: review and evidence from biological records (2015, background): “However, many of the lichen-feeding species appear to have increased, some significantly, especially the eight footman moths for which population and distribution trends have been analyzed (Conrad et al., 2006; Fox et al., 2006, 2013).”
The state of the Dutch larger moth fauna (2011, background): “Comparison with the British situation Clearly, the bleak situation depicted by Fox et al. (2006) for Britain does hardly differ from that in the Netherlands.”
Geographical range margins of many taxonomic groups continue to shift polewards (2015, unknown): “For example, Fox et al. (2013) suggested that the range extension of footman moths in Great Brit-ain could be related to an increased availability of larval hosts (algae and lichens), which in turn could beneﬁt from changes in air quality and nutrient availability, as well as climate change…”
REVIEW: An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides (2013, background): “…for bees, butterflies, moths, carabid beetles and birds (the groups for which good data are available) all show significant overall declines in recent years, particularly in farmland (Biesmeijer et al. 2006; Fox et al. 2006; Wilson, Evans & Grice 2010; Brereton et al. 2011; Brooks et al. 2012).”
Insect Declines in the Anthropocene. (2020, background): “Much like butter"ies, there is an alarming record of decreases in moth abundance and species diversity (28, 29, 32, 45, 48, 49, 115, 207).”