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.

  • Matters Arising
  • Published:

M. S. Crossley et al. reply

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 5, pages 595–599 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

The Original Article was published on 05 April 2021

The Original Article was published on 05 April 2021

replying to E. A. R. Welti et al. Nature Ecology & Evolution https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01424-0 (2021)

replying to M. Desquilbet et al. Nature Ecology & Evolution https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01427-x (2021)

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Time trends in arthropod abundance among LTERs.
Fig. 2: Time trends in arthropod diversity among LTERs.
Fig. 3: Comparison of abundance trends per taxon between original and updated datasets.

Data availability

All curated data used for analyses in this study are available on GitHub (https://github.com/mcrossley3/insectLTER).

Code availability

R code used to curate and analyse data in this study is available on GitHub (https://github.com/mcrossley3/insectLTER).

References

  1. Welti, E. A. R. et al. Studies of insect temporal trends must account for the complex sampling histories inherent to many long-term monitoring efforts. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01424-0 (2021).

  2. Crossley, M. S. et al. No net insect abundance and diversity declines across US Long Term Ecological Research sites. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1368–1376 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Desquilbet, M., Cornillon, P.-A., Gaume, L. & Bonmatin, J.-M. Adequate statistical modelling and data selection are essential when analysing abundance and diversity trends. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01427-x (2021).

  4. Didham, R. K. et al. Interpreting insect declines: seven challenges and a way forward. Insect Conserv. Divers. 13, 103–114 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Welti, E. A. R., Roeder, K. A., de Beurs, K. M., Joern, A. & Kaspari, M. Nutrient dilution and climate cycles underlie declines in a dominant insect herbivore. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 7271–7275 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Martinat, P. J. & Allen, D. C. Saddled prominent outbreaks in North America. North. J. Appl. For. 5, 88–91 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ives, A. R., Abbott, K. C. & Ziebarth, N. L. Analysis of ecological time series with ARMA(p,q) models. Ecology 91, 858–871 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. White, E. R. Minimum time required to detect population trends: the need for long-term monitoring programs. BioScience 69, 26–39 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ives, A. R. For testing the significance of regression coefficients, go ahead and log-transform count data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 828–835 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. O’Hara, R. B. & Kotze, D. J. Do not log-transform count data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 118–122 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. van Klink, R. et al. Meta-analysis reveals declines in terrestrial but increases in freshwater insect abundances. Science 368, 417–420 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

    Michael S. Crossley & William E. Snyder

  2. Department of Biology and Health Sciences, Hendrix College, Conway, AR, USA

    Matthew D. Moran

Authors
  1. Michael S. Crossley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William E. Snyder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew D. Moran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.S.C., W.E.S. and M.D.M. conceived of the idea of this study. M.S.C. conducted formal analysis. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael S. Crossley.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks Nick Isaac, Manu Saunders and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Effort-standardized time trends in arthropod abundance among LTER subsites.

a, Violin plots showing the distribution of abundance trends per taxon averaged among subsites, where abundances were standardized by sampling effort and separated by subsite prior to trend estimation, and trends with < 4 data points were excluded. This analysis differs from that depicted in Fig. 1c,d in that trends associated with experimental treatments in the Cedar Creek sweep nets and North Temperate Lakes crayfish datasets were excluded from analysis. b, Average trend in abundance and 95% confidence intervals from a when trends are averaged among LTERs (d.f. = 12). Mean time trends were not significantly different from zero (p = 0.10). c, Violin plots showing the distribution of abundance trends per taxon averaged among subsites, where abundances were standardized by sampling effort and separated by subsite prior to trend estimation, and trends with < 10 data points were excluded. This analysis differs from that depicted in Fig. 1e,f in that trends associated with experimental treatments in the Cedar Creek sweep nets and North Temperate Lakes crayfish datasets were excluded from analysis. d, Average trend in abundance and 95% confidence intervals from c when trends are averaged among LTERs (d.f. = 11). Mean time trends were not significantly different from zero (p = 0.27).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Effort-standardized time trends in arthropod diversity among LTER subsites.

Time trends in arthropod diversity among LTERs, using the dataset where abundances were standardized by sampling effort and separated by subsite, and time series with < 10 data points were excluded. a, Trends in taxon richness (rarefied). b, Trends in taxon evenness (Pielou’s Index). c, Trends in β diversity (1-Jaccard Similarity Index). Boxplots depict trends among insects as medians (thick line), 25th and 75th percentiles (box edges), 95th percentiles (whiskers), and outliers (circles). Right panels depict average change in diversity metrics and 95% confidence intervals among datasets (d.f.=7). Time trends were not significantly different from zero at α=5%. Please refer to Fig. 1 legend for description of colored text.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Crossley, M.S., Snyder, W.E. & Moran, M.D. M. S. Crossley et al. reply. Nat Ecol Evol 5, 595–599 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01429-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01429-9

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

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