The other taxa behind the State of Nature

2016 report:
Exploring the results from biological records.
Charlie Outhwaite, Tom August, Gary Powney, Nick Isaac
@charlielouo
chaout@ceh.ac.uk

The State of Nature Report 2016

@charlielouo

First report published in 2013

Aim: to provide an overarching assessment of UK flora and fauna.

Complements other measures including the UK biodiversity indicators to

monitor UK wildlife.

This year: MORE taxonomic groups and MORE species.

The 2016 Headlines

Long term:
56% of species have declined.
44 % of species have increased.

@charlielouo

Short term:
53% of species have declined.
47 % of species have increased.

The 2016 Headlines

@charlielouo

An index of species status including 2,501 species showed declines of 16%

since 1970.

60% from
occurrence data

40% from
abundance data

The Data: Biological Records

Taxonomic Group

Ants
Bees
Bryophytes
Carabids
Centipedes
Craneflies
Dragonflies
Empid & dolichopodid
flies
Freshwater fish
Gelechiid moths
Hoverflies
Lichens
Millipedes
Macro moths
Non-marine molluscs
Orthoptera
Soldierflies
Spiders
Trichoptera
Wasps
Total

@charlielouo

Species for
which data
were available
58
243
1,267
355
53
359
69
677
75

Presence only data

Collected by volunteers as part of recording
schemes and societies.
Biological records come with associated
biases

152
287
2,195
61
38
233
83
150
658
206
275
7,494

7,494 species from 20 taxonomic groups

Why occupancy models?

@charlielouo

Hierarchical models that separate out the ecological process from the
detection process.
Aim to account for imperfect detection of species.
Ecological process
Site

True Occupancy State

State model

AB0786

Detection process

Observation model

The Outputs

@charlielouo

Only reliable outputs taken forward into the report.

This resulted in a reduction of species outputs.

80% loss of species outputs

7,494 species
analysed

1,604 species produced

reliable results

The average response across species

@charlielouo

UK Indicator: 1,604 species from 19 taxonomic groups

125

15% decline
since 1970

100
75

50
25

Year

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

1970

Scaled Value (1970 = 100)

150

Species trends
Species trends across 1970 2013.
Proportion of species within each category of change.

@charlielouo

By Taxa: Declines

@charlielouo

Empid and Dolichopodid flies

(n = 46)
45% decline
Lowest in 2010

Orthoptera and allies (n = 26)

53% decline
Lowest in 1987

Index Value (1970 = 100)

200

150

100

50

Year
Photo credits (Flickr): empid gailhampshire, grasshopper Mark Robinson

2010

2005

2000

1995

1990

1985

1980

1975

1970

By Taxa: Stable

@charlielouo

Index Value (1970 = 100)

200

150

Bryophytes (n = 267)
Lowest in 1989

100

50
200

100

50

Year
Photo credits (Flickr): moss Simon Harrod, lichen Mark Robinson

2010

2005

2000

1995

1990

1985

1980

1970

Lichens (n = 232)
Lowest in 1995

150

1975

Year

Index Value (1970 = 100)

2010

2005

2000

1995

1990

1985

1980

1975

1970

By Taxa: Increase

@charlielouo

200

Index Value (1970 = 100)

180
160

Caddisflies (n = 76)
Lowest in 1994
Indicator of water quality

140
120
100
80
60
40

200

20

180

Year

Dragonflies (n = 39)
Lowest in 1995

Index Value (1970 = 100)

2010

2005

2000

1995

1990

1985

1980

1975

1970

160
140
120
100
80
60

40
20

Year
Photo credits (Flickr): Cassifly Andrew, dragonfly Tom Olliver

2010

2005

2000

1995

1990

1985

1980

1975

1970

Priority vs non-priority species

@charlielouo

One of the key UK biodiversity indicators is that for priority species.

Priority species indicator published annually.
Species list compiled from biodiversity lists from each of the 4 countries.
160

120
100
80

60
40
20

Year
Priority (n = 127)

NonPriority (n = 1,477)

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

1970

Index value (1970 = 100)

140

Conclusions

@charlielouo

Less well-studied UK biodiversity has declined by 15%.

There is variation within and between taxonomic groups.
The analysis of biological records has greatly increased what we
know about UK species.

Coming soon:
Recent model development work has greatly improved the precision of
the estimates we are able to obtain for species with fewer records.
We will therefore be able to retain more species outputs and will be
adding other taxa.

Thank you!

@charlielouo
Data providers

Supervisors:
Nick Isaac, Ben Collen,
Richard Chandler, Richard Gregory
CEH group:
Tom August, Gary Powney
State of Nature team,
Fiona Burns, Daniel Heyhow,
Mark Eaton
Volunteers, recording schemes
and societies

Bees, Wasps and Ants

Recording Society

Butterfly
Conservation, National
Moth Recording Scheme

British Myriapod and

Isopod Group,
Millipede Recording
Scheme

Ground Beetle Recording

Scheme

Soldierflies and Allies

Recording Scheme

Orthoptera Recording
Scheme

British Myriapod and

Isopod Group, Centipede
Recording Scheme

British Arachnological
Society, Spider Recording
Scheme

Dipterists Forum, Hoverfly

Recording Scheme

Dipterists Forum, Cranefly

Recording Scheme

Riverfly Recording
Schemes: Trichoptera

Conchological Society of
Great Britain and Ireland

British Dragonfly Society,

Dragonfly Recording
Network

British Lichen Society

Database & Atlas of

Freshwater Fish

Dipterists Forum,
Empididae &
Dolichopodidae Recording
Scheme

British Bryological Society

Questions at the end:

Is it possible that you are monitoring expertise rather than true
trends? Talked about spatial biases and number of records, wasnt
too sure how to address the expertise part. Perhaps should have
mentioned that many experts have been active across the whole
time frame possibly
Should we just be using abundance data? I think this was the
question asked by the person next to Georgina Mace not too
sure. I talked about how the groups dont have abundance data
available probably should have mentioned that it is expensive in
terms of money and man power to collect.
Spatial and habitat biases and how can we account for that?
Talked about spatial biases, recorders tend to record near where
they live etc, include a site effect to account for the variability
between sites. Should have added that probably biased to urban
regions, varies by scheme. Should have talked about habitat biases
more