GMS News

Weeks 1-9

Spring 2012

Contents List

Editorial Norman Lowe

1st quarter overview Angus Tyner

The importance of the GMS Garden Questionnaire Adam Bates

A bright snippet from Lincolnshire Peter Burnett

GMS Annual Conference sponsored by Mapmate David Price

Solution to Lepidopteran Crossword No. 2 Nonconformist

Egg-box arranging? David Baker

Quarter 1 in Scotland Heather Young

From the classroom to the garden Albert Nolan Editorial Welcome to the First GMS newsletter of the 2012 season, covering the first 9 weeks. This is the first newsletter that I’ve had the privilege of editing and I’d like to start off on the right foot by giving you the good news. First, the number of recorders taking part is continuing to rise and we have received 309 sets of records for the quarter from throughout the British Isles. And second, I have received lots of articles for my first edition, so much so that I’ve had to turn one of them into a two-part serial! I’ve also had to miss out most of the moth pics that people like so much. This is great, but I’ll be wanting more good stuff for subsequent newsletters, so do keep articles rolling in. You can send them to me at any time, but I’ll probably be especially keen to get them as the publication deadline gets closer! That was the good news. On the downside, so far it seems to have been the worst year for moths that people can remember, and we have recorders and contacts who have been trapping moths for many years. I hope this is just a consequence of the truly awful weather – in my garden in Wales I have hardly any apples on my tree, presumably because it’s just been too cold for the pollinating insects. But it’ll be interesting to see what happens if and when we start getting warm days and nights later in the year. Remember, GMS is supported by our sponsors, whose adverts are featured throughout this newsletter. Please remember them when you are making your purchases.

Finally, if you have any comments, suggestions or any material for future newsletters, drop me a line on norman@enviro-consulting.com. Feel free to complain about anything including the lack of moth pics, or to say nice things about what you did like. All views welcome.

Common Quaker – down by 30% this year Dave Grundy Overview GMS 2012 1st Quarter

Once again a fantastic response from recorders with 309 gardens represented. This compares to 306 in 2011 and 261 in 2010. We all know that the weather has a huge bearing on what we find in our traps in the morning. This was very evident during March and April 2012, the period covered by Quarter 1. Q1 was practically a period of 2 halves! Generally it was the warmest March for more than 50 years. It was also quite dry and sunny and it is fair to say that all us had a good taste of summer in late March. April was actually colder than March and was generally coldest for more than 20 years. Rain accompanied the cold and as it has remained with us till 2nd half of May.

Small Quaker – nearly 50 in each garden Dave Grundy

So what were moth numbers like? Latter half of March was dominated by large catches with some reports of very early emergences. By the end of April numbers were akin to midwinter with tales of empty traps. Let’s get to the nitty gritty of the top 20 or so. I’ve decided to compare to an average of the previous 3 seasons rather than just one season. So I’ve averaged out seasons 2009/11 and the % rise/fall is the comparison with this average. Note this table summarises core species only. These species are on the recording sheet of every region, although not all species occur in all regions.

GMS 2012 1st Quarter – 309 Gardens (core species only)

(2009-11 position)

Total

Mean per garden

% Change vs 09-11 mean

1 (3) Small Quaker 15409 49.9 122.6

2 (1) Hebrew Character 11977 38.8 -21.9

3 (2) Common Quaker 9655 31.2 -30.4

4 (4) Clouded Drab 4285 13.9 -19.8

5 (5) Early Grey 2301 7.4 11.1

6 (6) Twin-spotted Quaker 2072 6.7 59.7

7 (7) Chestnut 911 2.9 13.4

8 (12) March Moth 576 1.9 3.6

9 (13) Oak Beauty 431 1.4 -12.8

10 (26) Light Brown Apple Moth 427 1.4 176.3

11 (19) Dotted Border 422 1.4 36.5

12 (8) Early Thorn 414 1.3 -39.1

13 (14) Double-striped Pug 334 1.1 -32.4

14 (15) Powdered Quaker 260 0.8 -44.0

15 (20) Shoulder Stripe 198 0.6 -35.9

16 (24) Satellite 167 0.5 -22.7

17 (11) Brindled Beauty 156 0.5 -72.0

18 (16) Muslin Moth 110 0.4 -74.6

19 (9) Shuttle-shaped Dart 99 0.3 -84.7

20 (?) Angle Shades 95 0.3 156.2

21 (21) Streamer 67 0.2 -72.8 Clearly the headline grabber rests with Small Quaker! While most species have shown a decline in numbers recorded, Small Quaker has more than doubled and has leap frogged both Hebrew Character and Common Quaker to take top spot. Other notable increases are Twin-spotted Quaker, (though still in 6th), Light Brown Apple Moth (jumping 16 places to 10th and resurging after a milder winter) and Angle Shades breaking into top 20. The species to show the biggest reduction in numbers recorded generally have their peak season in April. These included Brindled Beauty, Muslin Moth, Shuttle-shaped Dart and Streamer. All showed a 70%+ decline versus the 09-11 mean. Abundance by region

The next table breaks down this top 21 into regional values. The figures represent the mean number of moths per garden. The abbreviation for the regions are listed here

NW North West England SC Scotland NE North East England

IR Ireland YH Yorkshire & Humberside EE East England

WA Wales WM West Midlands EM East Midlands

SW South West England CI Channel Islands SE South East England

I’ve highlighted maximum numbers for a species in red and minimum in blue. Now we can see where all those Small Quakers were recorded - the South-east and West Midlands in particular. But what the figures hide is that even within the region, it is just a handful of gardens that are mainly responsible for the high numbers of Small Quaker. One garden in South-east recorded 2182 Small Quaker, 47% of the region’s total of 4611, or 14% of the total from all 309 gardens. Another garden, this one in West Midlands, recorded 792 Small Quaker on one night, a quarter of the regions total of 3112. Relatively, Muslin Moth and Shuttle-shaped Dart fared well in the Channel Islands, but this was down to a good final night (week 9) there compared to the rest of British Isles when some 50% of gardens had empty traps. More on this later.

NW SC NE IR YH EE WA WM EM SW CI SE

Number of gardens 28 16 8 9 12 26 38 38 29 60 7 38

Small Quaker 32.5 1.1 3.4 4.5 24.4 50.4 29 81.9 18.4 42.2 1.3 121.3

Hebrew Character 25.2 42.3 41.5 43.5 28.5 18.4 63.2 38.2 13.4 48.9 22.6 26.7

Common Quaker 28.8 6.9 8.9 24.8 19.3 22.9 23.4 37.3 16.7 32.2 35.9 48.4

Clouded Drab 11.8 8.7 5.3 27 16.8 7.3 21.5 20.1 11.6 8.2 6.1 9.3

Early Grey 2.4 1.9 2.4 8.5 3.2 4.4 13.1 4.2 2.4 8.8 54.3 6.6

Twin-spotted Quaker 5.6 0.3 0.5 7.4 2 4.5 12.7 8.3 1.9 6.5 2.1 7.4

Chestnut 4.6 0.8 0.9 2 2.3 1.3 4.2 1.7 1 3.3 0.9 2.4

March moth 0.8 1 0.5 2.1 0.8 1.7 1.6 2.1 0.6 1.9 0.1 4.4

Oak Beauty 0.8 0.2 0.6 2.3 0.2 0.6 2.4 1.4 0.5 1.8 0.7 1.8

Lt Brown Apple Moth 0.3 0 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.3 3.1 7.9 2.6

Dotted Border 0.7 0.9 0 1.9 0.5 1.2 2.2 1.1 0.6 1.9 0.9 1.2

Early Thorn 0.8 0.3 0.8 3.1 0.8 0.2 2.2 1.1 0.5 2 6.9 0.3

Double-striped Pug 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.1 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.2 1.8 4.7 2.2

Powdered Quaker 0.3 0.4 0.8 2.5 1 0.4 1.3 0.8 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.4

Shoulder Stripe 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.3 0.1 2.8 0.9 0.2 0.5 0 0.2

Satellite 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.3 1.4 0 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5

Brindled Beauty 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.2 2 0.9 0.1 0.3 0 0.4

Muslin Moth 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 0.6 5.1 0.4

Shuttle-shaped Dart 0.3 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 6.3 0.6

Angle Shades 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 3.4 0.5

Streamer 0.1 0.1 0 0.3 0 0.1 0.8 0.2 0 0.3 0 0.1

Regional top 10 The next table contains the regional top 10 which includes non core species, these being Mottled Grey, Early Tooth-striped and Yellow-horned in Scotland and Red Chestnut in North-west, Scotland, North-east and Wales.

Hebrew Character and Common Quaker are in the top 3 in every region. Clouded Drab and Early Grey also feature in the top 10 in every region with the latter in a very strong 1st position in Channel Islands. Small Quaker occupies the top stop in 5 regions but does not feature in the Channel Islands top 10 (17th position ) even though in the neighbouring South-east Small Quaker was the most abundant moth.

North West Mean Scotland Mean North East Mean

Small Quaker 32.5 Hebrew Character 42.3 Hebrew Character 41.5

Common Quaker 28.8 Clouded Drab 8.7 Common Quaker 8.9

Hebrew Character 25.2 Common Quaker 6.9 Clouded Drab 5.3

Clouded Drab 11.8 Mottled Grey 2.4 Small Quaker 3.4

Twin-spotted Quaker 5.6 Red Chestnut 2.4 Early Grey 2.4

Chestnut 4.6 Early Grey 1.9 Red Chestnut 1.1

Early Grey 2.4 Early Tooth-striped 1.7 Double-striped Pug 0.9

Red Chestnut 1.1 Yellow Horned 1.4 Chestnut 0.9

March Moth 0.8 Small Quaker 1.1 Early Thorn 0.8

Early Thorn 0.8 March moth 1.0 Powdered Quaker 0.8

Ireland Mean Yorkshire & Humber Mean East England Mean

Hebrew Character 42.3 Hebrew Character 28.5 Small Quaker 50.4

Clouded Drab 24.2 Small Quaker 24.4 Common Quaker 22.9

Common Quaker 24.0 Common Quaker 19.3 Hebrew Character 18.4

Early Grey 7.9 Clouded Drab 16.8 Clouded Drab 7.3

Twin-spotted Quaker 6.6 Early Grey 3.2 Twin-spotted Quaker 4.5

Small Quaker 4.1 Chestnut 2.3 Early Grey 4.4

Early Thorn 3.1 Twin-spotted Quaker 2.0 March moth 1.7

Powdered Quaker 2.2 Satellite 1.4 Chestnut 1.3

March moth 2.1 Powdered Quaker 1.0 Dotted Border 1.2

Oak Beauty 2.0 White-shouldered House-moth 0.9 Oak Beauty 0.8

Wales Mean West Midlands Mean East Midlands Mean

Hebrew Character 63.2 Small Quaker 81.9 Small Quaker 18.4

Small Quaker 29.0 Hebrew Character 38.2 Common Quaker 16.7

Common Quaker 23.4 Common Quaker 37.3 Hebrew Character 13.4

Clouded Drab 21.5 Clouded Drab 20.1 Clouded Drab 11.6

Early Grey 13.1 Twin-spotted Quaker 8.3 Early Grey 2.4

Twin-spotted Quaker 12.7 Early Grey 4.2 Twin-spotted Quaker 1.9

Chestnut 4.2 March moth 2.1 Chestnut 1.0

Shoulder Stripe 2.8 Chestnut 1.7 Dotted Border 0.6

Red Chestnut 2.6 Oak Beauty 1.4 March moth 0.6

Oak Beauty 2.4 Dotted Border 1.1 Early Thorn 0.5

South West Mean Channel Islands Mean South East Mean

Hebrew Character 48.9 Early Grey 54.3 Small Quaker 121.3

Small Quaker 42.2 Common Quaker 35.9 Common Quaker 48.4

Common Quaker 32.2 Hebrew Character 22.6 Hebrew Character 26.7

Early Grey 8.8 Light Brown Apple Moth 7.9 Clouded Drab 9.3

Clouded Drab 8.2 Early Thorn 6.9 Twin-spotted Quaker 7.4

Twin-spotted Quaker 6.5 Shuttle-shaped Dart 6.3 Early Grey 6.6

Chestnut 3.3 Clouded Drab 6.1 March moth 4.4

Light Brown Apple Moth 3.1 Muslin Moth 5.1 Light Brown Apple Moth 2.6

Early Thorn 2.0 Double-striped Pug 4.7 Chestnut 2.4

March Moth 1.9 Angle Shades 3.4 Double-striped Pug 2.2

Weekly breakdown by region

For this quarter I requested full results from the coordinators and I’m much obliged to them for fulfilling my request. This allowed me to do a weekly breakdown to present the

abundance of moths recorded, mainly during weeks 3 to 5. The vertical scale on left is simply numbers, the scale on right is temperature. The peak of the summer weather was in late March with temperatures exceeding 20°C across much of the British Isles, more typical of May. Week 4 had the highest abundance in most regions, the exceptions being Ireland which peaked in week 2, South-east which had a marginally better week 3 and Channel Islands which stood alone of all regions by having a good final week.

The numbers of species recorded in each region each week is not so clear-cut. The more gardens recording, the more the species, so regions with few gardens will generally have reduced diversity. But it does seem that the most southern regions of South-west, South-east and Channel Islands had an increase of species numbers throughout the quarter with a noticeable increase in week 9. The species numbers in northern regions had a similar pattern to abundance, generally peaking during the mid period and were at their lowest numbers in week 9 in half the regions. Speaking of week 9, talk of empty traps are usually confined to Winter GMS or the first few weeks, but this year, week 9 had the most empty traps across most regions, with up to 50% of traps empty in Scotland, North-east and East Midlands. The final week was either cold or wet.....or both! With eastern regions subjected to a cold easterly. But in the Channel Islands, not one empty trap across all weeks! I would like feedback on this graph presentation. Is it interesting, visible enough? It took quite a lot more effort both on my part and on the part of the coordinators and I did say it was probably a one-off. However, if there is a demand then perhaps it won’t be! Feedback either direct to me or to your coordinator.

Angus Tyner

The importance of the GMS Garden Questionnaire

It is a bright, crisp, refreshing morning and you are about to open your moth trap. The moment is filled with anticipation. What will be inside? Will there be some beautiful moths, maybe a hawk-moth, maybe a Burnished Brass? Will there be a first for the year, for your garden, for the vice county, maybe even the region? This moment of discovery is exciting. After many mornings, you build up a picture of the moths using your garden. Your contribution adds to the body of knowledge on the phenology and distribution of different species, and you can see this contribution as a dot on the map. The process is satisfying and rewarding. You have a questionnaire to fill in about the characteristics of your garden and the surrounds. Questionnaire. Even the word itself conjures dreary feelings of tedium. You usually make a point of crossing the street to avoid desperate looking people with clipboards. You will probably have to look at a map. What does that question mean? Is the pond in my garden counted? Will you ever see the results from doing this? You lay it aside meaning to get round to it at some point. It never gets filled in. The vast majority of GMS participants have returned their Garden Questionnaires, but there are always some outstanding, and each year participants return species data without having ever returned a questionnaire. I can fully understand why, the thought of filling in questionnaires makes my blood run cold. So why is the GMS Garden Questionnaire important? Why should you bother? The questionnaire is just as important as the species data because it greatly increases the range of questions that can be asked of the species data. Do garden or landscape features most strongly influence moths (will your wildlife gardening make any difference)? Which landscape features most strongly influence moths (is the proximity of coastline or woodland most important)? At what scale do moths respond to landscape characteristics (does your garden 100m into the edge of a town have a more rural or urban moth assemblage)? Some of this information can of course be derived remotely using maps and remote sensing methods, but this can only go so far. Information on some features are not easily obtained, such as proximity to street lights. Other information is often out of date and inaccurate. Most importantly, much of the information cannot be gathered by any other means, such as your garden habitat features (e.g. nettle patch, compost heap). Some GMS participants will be most interested in the phenology, distribution and inter-annual changes in abundance of moths. Has climate warming allowed some species to expand their flight season, extend their northward distribution, or become more abundant over time? Information gathered from Garden Questionnaires is not needed to answer such questions, but it can be used to answer more nuanced and potentially enlightening questions. Towns are hotter than the surrounding countryside because of the urban heat island effect; does this alter the phenology of a species? Does this allow vanguard populations to become established in urban areas further north than in rural areas? Does habitat diversity interact with range expansions (do species on the edge of their range establish populations in more diverse, favourable habitat first)? The information gathered from Garden Questionnaires is one of the great strengths of the GMS compared to similar initiatives. It is essential information. So much so, that one of my first tasks when I receive GMS data for analysis is to delete species data for which there is no garden questionnaire. I cannot use the data without this information, and this is a terrible waste of at least 26 weeks of work. So if you haven’t quite got round to sending in your Garden Questionnaire, please do so. Gathering background environmental data isn’t as boring as it first seems.

Adam Bates

A bright snippet from Lincolnshire

The opening weeks of GMS have seen poor catches here in Lincolnshire and even at the start of May the weather has not really warmed up yet. I arrived home last Saturday afternoon after watching another dismal display by our local football team to be greeted by my wife with 'there's a massive moth on the lounge window, it's been sat there most of the

afternoon.' Imagine my surprise to find this female Emperor just sat there, partly on the actual glass and partly on the frame of the window. I quickly potted up, took some pics and left it overnight with a view to release on the Sunday. Sunday morning arrived and I took the pot with a view to releasing in our local wood. I then noticed that the moth had been busy overnight and a batch of eggs laid. Not having any moth breeding facilities, or knowledge , I looked at the food plant for the species and decided to release both the Emperor and the eggs ( very carefully ) in a batch of hawthorn bushes alongside the village

allotments. Not too sure how they will all fare and whether I did the right thing at the time. I should add that our garden is small but open with stewardship fields at the back and then the river Witham flowing from Lincoln towards Boston. I have been told that this species can turn up anywhere , even a small village garden !

Peter Burnett

GMS Annual Conference Sponsored by Map Mate Back in March, on a beautiful bright and sunny day, when we all thought spring had arrived for good, GMS-ers from all over the country were drawn (like moths to a light!) to the little village of Apperley, set in the heart of the Gloucestershire countryside, for the 2012 Annual Conference. As usual it was really well organised. On arrival you were directed where to park, provided with name labels, and offered coffee and a huge spread of delicious cakes to revive you after your journey. Everywhere, people were eager to meet each other, put faces to names and generally engage each other in conversation. Around the main hall stall holders were offering books, guides, moth traps, equipment and plenty of advice on where to spend your money. Peter Hugo greeted everyone, introduced the conference and the speakers, and chaired the day's sessions, though he did make us all feel a little inadequate by casually mentioning that he ran no less than seven traps each week for GMS. David Grundy started the ball rolling with a review of 2011. In his usual laid back and relaxed style, which he always seems to combine with infectious enthusiasm for the subject and a dauntingly detailed knowledge of moths, he took us through the ups and downs of GMS mothing last year. He was delighted that records were received from 341 gardens providing an excellent dataset spanning the country from Shetland to the Channel Islands, and from County Donegal to Sussex. He emphasised the importance of regular, standardised recording, even enthusing about nil records. As he said "An empty trap is a valuable record", - though he did go on to qualify this statement by adding ". . . as long as it was switched on!" Continuity is the other important feature in order that meaningful trends

can be established, so the longer you record the more important are your records. In fact he suggested that ". . .once you've done 5 or 6years, you're not allowed to leave the scheme!" He then took us through an interesting selection of top 20s, trends, monthly and regional distributions, the detail of which will all be found in the Annual Report for 2011.

Next on stage was Adam Bates, from Birmingham University, where along with Jon Sadler, he's been analysing the GMS data collected to date. With over half a million moths recorded, and some 3 million cells in his main spreadsheet, there's certainly plenty for him to go at. He gently led us through the process of data selection and analysis, emphasising the importance of trying to ensure variable factors (such as the size of your moth trap's bulb, location, habitat etc) are clearly understood. He provided a range of interesting correlations and trends relating to various factors; I recall he was able to demonstrate general conclusions that you get less moths as you go north, and more as you go east; that coastal locations produce more moths than inland, and in general the bigger the bulb the more moths you catch. However, there were many more subtle and noteworthy differences that he highlighted to provide an interesting and intriguing talk, which hopefully made us all feel that our collective data were genuinely of scientific value. On the programme it said this was to be followed by "Lunch and informal chat". Well, there was a really superb of selection of food, which everyone tucked into, and there was certainly lots of informal chat, with people spilling outside to enjoy the warm sunshine. Earnest conversations about the merits of different approaches to trapping could be heard. Many were comparing notes on differences in the catches between their respective regional locations and (needless to say), there was plenty of bragging about unusual or exotic species caught. There were even a few moth specimens to inspect that had been brought along including an attractive Small Eggar, (which Waring &Townsend says is "Nocturnal, but rarely seen, except occasionally in light traps"; - they can now add " . . and at GMS meetings"!)

Tony Davis, from Butterfly Conservation, started the afternoon session and emphasised that the organisation is not just concerned with butterflies. To demonstrate this he took us through the year looking at some of the rare moth species that they are studying in connection with the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Amongst others he introduced us to the micro Coleophora wockeella, which is recorded from one site 10m x 100m in extent; the Sloe

Carpet which is apparently intolerant of any form of management of its food plant (blackthorn); and Scythris siccella which is found on a tiny area of Chesil Beach where

around 50 larvae were found. Trying to understand what these threatened species need is very valuable, and in some cases Tony showed how this had led to marked improvements in numbers thanks to small changes in habitat management to encourage their food plants. John Wilson admitted to enjoying "playing around with data" and then went on to demonstrate to good effect how he had applied this to a study of the Orthosia data from GMS. He gently eased us into readily accepting that to analyse such data it was necessary to do a square root transformation and then to add 0.5 to the answer! Armed with this knowledge, we went on to look at numbers and the pattern of occurrence of these species. One noteworthy finding was that taking the peak numbers for a species was not necessarily a true measure of its abundance. Looking at the length of the flight period and totalling up the numbers within this was perhaps more meaningful. For example 2005 had the highest peaks for Orthosia numbers, but a short flight period, whereas 2008 had lower nightly numbers but a much longer season; a simple but thought provoking approach to assessing numbers, (though I'm still worried where I get my half a moth from to add to the square root transformation!). The book, "The Moths of the Bristol Region" was the focus for John Martin's talk. He showed us the wide variety of habitats available in the region, from the limestone uplands to the low lying levels and marshes. He introduced us to some characteristic moths of the region, including the Clouded Magpie (the emblem of the Bristol Moth Group), Small Purple Bar, Silky Wave and Small Scallop. He described (sometimes in heartfelt terms) the trials and tribulations of putting together a book like this for publication, but obviously had huge satisfaction in having contributed to such a worthwhile and high quality end product. Appropriately, as we were deep in the Gloucestershire countryside, the day was rounded off by Peter Cranswick, from "just up the road" at Slimbridge, giving us a guided tour of some of the more interesting moths in the county. We looked at species like Barberry Carpet, Plumed Prominent (for which there is now an "Annual Plumed Prominent Gathering" of moth-ers); the Severn Vale specialty Mistletoe Marble; and the Devon Piercer (which as it only currently appears to occur in Gloucestershire is perhaps inappropriately named – but as Peter said "There you go!"). He also demonstrated the excellent set of online moth maps for

the county put together by Roger Gaunt and Guy Meredith (at http://www.gloucestershire-butterflies.org.uk/Guys_maps/mothmap.html ) which provide a wealth of distribution data. Peter Hugo wound up the meeting, with grateful thanks to all the speakers, organisers, caterers, sponsors, and stall holders – a sentiment that was surely echoed by all participants. There was a pleasant, friendly atmosphere throughout the day, the food was just marvellous, and I'm sure we all went away having bought all sorts of things we couldn't resist. Overall it was both an instructive meeting, with some fascinating observations and stimulating ideas, as well as a friendly social gathering of like-minded people. Thanks to everyone who helped to make it such a success.

David Price

Egg-box arranging? I wonder if the Japanese have a word for the hobby of egg-box arranging, perhaps oobuxigama or similar. I seem to have taken up this new hobby since 7th April this year and have now spent 19 of the 22 April days since that date in simply re-arranging the boxes within my moth-trap. The other 3 days have only required the removal and recording of 1 moth per day. Comments such as “worst April since I started trapping”, “worst spell ever” etc. have led me to back-track through my records since the start of this century, which coincide with my complete years of recording. The chart below shows the records for macro-moths only. Results for the Month of April

Year Nights trap ran No trap Species caught Numbers Caught Ave per night

2000 14 16 10 57 4.07

2001 21 9 7 99 4.71

2002 28 2 20 300 10.71

2003 30 0 16 152 5.06

2004 29 1 13 220 7.51

2005 29 1 15 141 4.82

2006 30 0 12 210 7.00

2007 29 1 18 127 4.38

2008 30 0 9 55 1.83

2009 30 0 23 188 6.27

2010 30 0 18 159 5.31

2011 30 0 30 197 6.57

2012 29 1 7 28 0.96

In the first year or two of trapping I listened to one or two trappers who said “we don’t bother on bad nights etc. and so the non trapping nights were higher in 2000 and 2001. However, since then I have tried to run the trap whatever the weather and only bad health or being away from home has meant a “no- trap” event. As highlighted in red above, I find that 2008 was the closest to the present year but although the catches were double the actual species count was not much better, i.e. 9 instead of 7. However, the number of nights without a catch was 7 in 2008 whilst this year it was 19, which does seem to show how much more severe the weather has been this year. The real saving grace was a new micro for VC64 on 21st April, that being Mompha sturnipennella, so

life isn’t all bad. I am sure that the GMS statisticians will be giving us much more detail than my simple check shows and that the situation may well be different elsewhere in the country, so it will be interesting to see just how others have fared. At the time of writing, 18th May, things are not any better with a further 9 empty traps in 14 nights. This time last year I had counted 61 species of macro against this year’s 20. Some change!!!

David Baker Quarter 1 in Scotland

Following a winter that was much less harsh than the previous two, spring moths were surprisingly thin on the ground, or in the air, during the first 9 weeks of the 2012 scheme in Scotland, despite the unusually warm (brief) spell in March.

Quarter 1 2009

(15 gardens) 2010

(15 gardens) 2011

(20 gardens) 2012

(16 gardens)

Total moths / garden 144.33 145.07 265.55 75.00

Number of GMS species recorded

35 37 55 30

Species with an average of >1 per garden

14 13 16 10

Table1. Quarter 1 results 2009-12.

16 sets of results were returned for Q1, from gardens providing as good a representative geographical sample as could be desired. On average, the number of species as well as individual moths recorded per garden was well down on last year, and indeed on the previous two as well, with only 10 species achieving an average of more than 1 per garden, as shown in Table 1. The top three species were the usual suspects – Hebrew Character, Clouded Drab and Common Quaker – but all were far less abundant than they have been previously, particularly Common Quaker, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure1. Numbers of the three commonest Q1 species 2009-12.

It was not only the species emerging in spring that suffered – overwintering species like the Chestnut and Satellite did not seem to appreciate the milder conditions either. The Chestnut went from an average of nearly 12 per garden in 2011 down to less than 1 per garden this time, while only one single Satellite was recorded, reinforcing the results from the Winter GMS. There did not seem to be any particular ‘winners’ this time – there were a few more Mottled Grey around, resulting in a VC first for the Outer Hebrides (VC 110), and Early Grey and Yellow Horned were present in slightly larger numbers, but most species showed a decline. With the cold, damp weather that arrived at the end of March continuing well into May, it will be interesting to see how this affects the emergence of the early summer species, so keep trapping and let’s find out!

Heather Young From the Classroom to the Garden

I clasped my hands awkwardly while the students recited their morning prayers. As the words echoed around the classroom I wondered if the mysteries of religion were on a par with moths in the minds of the kids. Today I was in my local school in Rearcross village, Tipperary, and the Junior/Senior classes were preparing to come to my garden to look at moths. Having come to moths in my late twenties and struggled along without guide or reference I was hoping to make their learning about moths an easier experience.

I had run the trap the previous night and had hardly slept a wink fretting over would any moths appear. By three in the morning I was imagining gale force winds and rain but thankfully the Hebrew Characters were out in force and the kids would not be disappointed. A “Say hello to the moth man” brought me back to reality and after a few minutes introduction we were ready to leave. Children have a natural affinity and curiosity about the natural world and ask the most interesting questions. This makes them a highly enjoyable group to work with but also quite challenging. All of the kids had practically no positive engagement with moths, except when one wandered into their house and a parent ran around screaming till the unfortunate thing was

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2009 2010 2011 2012

Ave

rage

/ G

ard

en

Hebrew Character

Clouded Drab

Common Quaker

either crushed or released out a window. Some of them had inherited this unnatural fear and were quite nervous so I was trying to present moths in a more positive light. On the short walk down the kids were chattering about Easter, only a few days away and how many eggs they were going to get. When we reached the garden they gathered around the trap and we started to check the egg cartons for moths. The first Hebrew Character we found drew gasps of excitement and fear and they were passed around to be examined. Some of the kids were very brave and placed them on their hands. We looked at the lovely markings on its wings and the kids were amazed that moths could be so colourful. Now that I had their attention we talked about how moths are an important source of food for bats and how they caterpillars are eaten by many species of birds. Just as I thought to myself that this is going quite well one of the kids let out a scream and started to dance around. In between shouts of “get it out” we figured out that a moth had dropped onto his shoe and quite naturally had gone for the darkest spot which unfortunately was up the leg of his pants. Myself and his teacher exchanged glances and agreed we had no intention of searching for the missing moth. I gently explained that when he got home and undressed it would fly out. Moths get transported to new locations in different ways but this must surely this must be one of the strangest methods.

The rest of the kids thought that this was a great game and soon they were all running around screaming. I quibbled to the teacher that the moment for education had passed but she laughed and said they were having a great time. After a few minutes things settled down and we released the surviving moths safely in the long grass. Next we sowed up a pot with wildflowers for each of the kids so that they could attract moths into their gardens. Before we left I asked the kids to look in the moth trap for a very special surprise. As we lifted out the last egg cartoon we found loads of mini chocolate eggs. I told the kids that at this time of year a very special moth comes and leaves chocolate eggs for boys and girls. I don’t think they believed me but they were glad of the sweets and it might leave a positive impression.

The workshop ended without any more dramas but I was left feeling uncertain as to how the kids had found their first introduction to the world of moths. However, a few days later I was in the school and the some of the students gathered around and told me all about the moths they had seen at night at lighted windows and in their gardens. This gave me renewed hope that a new generation will grow up with a deeper appreciation and understanding of moths. (To be continued in the next edition).

Albert Nolan Solution to Lepidopteran Crossword No. 2 by Nonconformist

M A G P I E E G L A U C O U S G

A O G R N R B E E

N O L A N E G L E C T E D P M

Y D L M E L O R A N G E

L A T T I C E D N E T I L

I R N R A R E T I N I A A

N I N G R A I L E D E T G D

E A L D D E A R L Y

D I N G Y D R E P A N A D O

G E R O N I A T R A

A L L I M E F R N I O

S H E L L I H E A T H T I S S U E

H O L R H E N

P S I W A L L N A E V A N A D

U E R T

G L U N A R T H O R N S H E A R S