Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/22572
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGilburn, Andreen_UK
dc.contributor.authorBunnefeld, Nilsen_UK
dc.contributor.authorWilson, John McVeanen_UK
dc.contributor.authorBotham, Marc Sen_UK
dc.contributor.authorBrereton, Tom Men_UK
dc.contributor.authorFox, Richarden_UK
dc.contributor.authorGoulson, Daveen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2017-06-09T23:48:42Z-
dc.date.available2017-06-09T23:48:42Z-
dc.date.issued2015-11-24en_UK
dc.identifier.othere1402en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/22572-
dc.description.abstractThere has been widespread concern that neonicotinoid pesticides may be adversely impacting wild and managed bees for some years, but recently attention has shifted to examining broader effects they may be having on biodiversity. For example in the Netherlands, declines in insectivorous birds are positively associated with levels of neonicotinoid pollution in surface water. In England, the total abundance of widespread butterfly species declined by 58% on farmed land between 2000 and 2009 despite both a doubling in conservation spending in the UK, and predictions that climate change should benefit most species. Here we build models of the UK population indices from 1985 to 2012 for 17 widespread butterfly species that commonly occur at farmland sites. Of the factors we tested, three correlated significantly with butterfly populations. Summer temperature and the index for a species the previous year are both positively associated with butterfly indices. By contrast, the number of hectares of farmland where neonicotinoid pesticides are used is negatively associated with butterfly indices. Indices for 15 of the 17 species show negative associations with neonicotinoid usage. The declines in butterflies have largely occurred in England, where neonicotinoid usage is at its highest. In Scotland, where neonicotinoid usage is comparatively low, butterfly numbers are stable. Further research is needed urgently to show whether there is a causal link between neonicotinoid usage and the decline of widespread butterflies or whether it simply represents a proxy for other environmental factors associated with intensive agriculture.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherPeerJen_UK
dc.relationGilburn A, Bunnefeld N, Wilson JM, Botham MS, Brereton TM, Fox R & Goulson D (2015) Are neonicotinoid insecticides driving declines of widespread butterflies?. PeerJ, 3, Art. No.: e1402. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1402en_UK
dc.rights© 2015 Gilburn et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_UK
dc.titleAre neonicotinoid insecticides driving declines of widespread butterflies?en_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.7717/peerj.1402en_UK
dc.citation.jtitlePeerJen_UK
dc.citation.issn2167-8359en_UK
dc.citation.volume3en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.author.emailandre.gilburn@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.citation.date24/11/2015en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBiological and Environmental Sciencesen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBiological and Environmental Sciencesen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBiological and Environmental Sciencesen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationCentre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH)en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationButterfly Conservation Ltden_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationButterfly Conservation Ltden_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Sussexen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000365803500001en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84949671205en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid582905en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-3836-768Xen_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-1349-4463en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0003-2344-6155en_UK
dc.date.accepted2015-10-23en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2015-10-23en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2015-12-03en_UK
rioxxterms.apcpaiden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorGilburn, Andre|0000-0002-3836-768Xen_UK
local.rioxx.authorBunnefeld, Nils|0000-0002-1349-4463en_UK
local.rioxx.authorWilson, John McVean|0000-0003-2344-6155en_UK
local.rioxx.authorBotham, Marc S|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorBrereton, Tom M|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorFox, Richard|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorGoulson, Dave|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2015-12-03en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/|2015-12-03|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameGilburn et al_peerj-1402_2015.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
local.rioxx.source2167-8359en_UK
Appears in Collections:Biological and Environmental Sciences Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Gilburn et al_peerj-1402_2015.pdfFulltext - Published Version451.2 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.