UK Biodiversity Indicators 2014

This documents supportsC4b. Status of UK priority species:

Status of priority species – frequency of occurrence – insects

Technical background report

For further information on C4b. Status of priority species – frequency of occurrence – insectsvisit http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-6850

For further information on the UK biodiversity indicators visit http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1824

Indicator C4b. Status of UK priority species – frequency of occurrence – insects – Technical background report – October 2014

Prepared1 by Nick Isaac, Tom August, Gary Powney and Charlotte Outhwaite, Biological Records Centre, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

NB this paper should be read together with C4a which presents a companion statistic based on time series in relative abundance of priority species.

1. Introduction

The adjustments to the UK biodiversity indicators set as a result of the adoption of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (including the Aichi Targets) at the 10th Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity mean there is a need to report progress against Aichi Target 12:

Target 12: By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.

Previously, the UK biodiversity indicator for threatened species used lead partner status assessments on the status of priority species from three-yearly UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) reporting rounds. As a result of the devolution of biodiversity strategies to the UK's four nations, there is no longer reporting at the UK level of the status of species previously listed by the BAP process.

This paper presents the indicator to provide a robust measure of the status of threatened species in the UK, with 'species identified as conservation priorities' being taken as a proxy for 'threatened species'. Although biodiversity monitoring in the UK may be as good as anywhere else in the world, and a wide range of data and novel analytical approaches have been used, it should be recognised from the outset that any indicator on the status of priority species will be hampered by short comings in the availability of data.

2. Species List

The UK BAP list has been superseded by the biodiversity lists of the four UK countries (Section 41 of the Natural Environmental and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 in England, Section 42 of the NERC Act in Wales, Northern Ireland priority species list in Northern Ireland and the Scottish biodiversity list in Scotland). As a result, there is no single list of species that represents the UK’s species of conservation priority. The criteria for inclusion in each of the four biodiversity lists are derived from those used to identify the UK BAP priority species list, most recently in 2007, but there has been some divergence in approaches, see Table 1. For example, the Scottish biodiversity list and the Northern Ireland priority species list both have criteria based on rarity alone, whereas the UK BAP criteria did not consider rarity; rare species were only listed if they were considered threatened or declining.

1 NB some text re-used from 2013 BIYP Indicator C4b prepared by the Species Indicator Initiative working group and we wish to acknowledge the input from the authors of that original document.

For the purposes of this indicator, an inclusive approach has been taken, whereby a species only has to be included in one of the country lists to be included on the combined list. The Scottish Biodiversity list has a final criterion based on the importance of species to people, however, species designated under this criterion were not considered here. The taxonomic composition of the combined four country list is shown in Table 2.

Some countries have included a small number of taxa below the species level (i.e. sub-species) on their biodiversity lists. Such infra- specific taxa were only retained on the combined four country biodiversity list if the associated species was not included. For example, a sub-species of the grass rivulet moth (Perizoma albulata) is included on the Scottish biodiversity list but it is a full species on the Northern Ireland priority species list, thus on the combined list only the full species was retained.

Table 1: the biodiversity lists of the four countries of the UK

Country Number of Taxa

Criteria for species inclusion

England (S41) 943 On the 2007 UK BAP list

Hen Harrier

Northern Ireland (NI) priority species list

481 1: On the 2007 UK BAP list

2: Rapid decline of >= 2% per year

3: Decline of >=1 % per year and NI holds >= 50% of Irish, or >=20 % of UK population or Irish/UK population restricted to NI

4: Rare in NI (1-2 sites) and NI holds >=50% of Irish, or >=20% of UK population or Irish/UK population restricted to NI

5: >=20 % of a well recognised sub-species in NI

6: Irish Red data book species

7: Red list Birds of Conservation concern Ireland or UK

Scottish Biodiversity List

2,090 S1:On the 2007 UK BAP list

S2:International obligation

S3:Species defined as 'nationally rare' in GB/UK (<15 10km2), which are present in Scotland

S4: Species present in <= 5 km2 or sites in Scotland

S5: Decline of >= 25% in 25 years in Scotland

S6a: Endemic

S6b: Endemic subspecies if also meets another criterion

Wales (S42) 567 International importance, IUCN Global Red List or Red listed in >=50% of EU countries where data is available or other source indicating international threat or decline

International responsibility >=25% of EU/Global population in Wales and decline >=25% in 25 years in Wales

Decline in Wales >=50% in 25 years

Country Number of Taxa

Criteria for species inclusion

Other for example decline and very restricted range

UK (combined four country list)

2,890

Table 2: Taxonomic breakdown of combined four country biodiversity list

Group Number of Species

Invertebrates

insect – beetle (Coleoptera) 191

insect – butterfly 25

insect – dragonfly (Odonata) 4

insect – hymenopteran 103

insect – moth 174

insect – orthopteran 6

insect – other 4

insect – riverfly 8

insect – true bug (Hemiptera) 15

insect – true fly (Diptera) 94

other Invertebrate 233

Vertebrates

Amphibian 4

Bird 127

Fish 57

marine Mammal 22

terrestrial Mammal 26

Reptile 10

Plants and fungi

Vascular plants 409

Alga 254

Stonewort 15

Lichen 546

Bryophytes 301

Fungi 262

Group Number of Species

Grand Total 2890

3. Data Sources

Biological recording data were collated to produce an indicator of change in the frequency of occurrence of a set of priority species in the UK. Biological records are observations of species in a known place in space and time. Most records are made by volunteer recorders and whilst these data may be collected following a specific protocol, the majority of records in these datasets are opportunistic. The intensity of recording varies in both space and time (Isaac et al. 2014a), which is a challenge for estimating robust quantitative trends. Fortunately, a range of methods now exist for producing such trends using unstructured biological records data (e.g. Szabo et al. 2010; Hill 2012, Isaac et al. 2014a). In effect these methods identify long-term changes in species distributions; the term ‘frequency of occurrence’ is however technically more accurate, and is therefore used in this technical document.

Analysis has been restricted to those datasets where an active engagement by the relevant recording scheme made it possible to assess the robustness of the resulting trend estimates. It is anticipated more datasets will be available for future updates of this indicator, broadening its taxonomic scope.

The datasets included in the indicator have been generated using the ’well-sampled sites model’ (Roy et al. 2012; Isaac et al. 2014b). The input data for each species is a table of all the site visits between 1970 and 2011 for the taxonomic group in question, with data on the list length (the number of species recorded) and whether the focal species was recorded (1) or not (0). A site visit is defined as a unique combination of date and 1km2 grid cell. These data were then filtered for data quality, first removing all visits with list lengths shorter than the median for the taxonomic group in question. At the second filtering step, grid cells that had visits in less than three years were excluded. The time series for each species was then estimated from a generalised linear mixed effects model, with year as the covariate and grid cell as a random effect (following Roy et al. 2012). This approach has been shown to produce robust trends in species’ status under a range of realistic scenarios of recorder behaviour (Isaac et al. 2014b).

The annual index for each species is based on the fitted values from the well-sampled sites model for that species. Technically, these fitted values are the probability that the focal species was recorded on an average visit in the year in question. A key assumption of the well-sampled sites model is that species’ detectability has not changed over time. Species were therefore excluded from the indicator for which this assumption is unsupportable, in consultation with the relevant recording scheme. For example, the speckled bush cricket (Leptophyes punctatissima) was excluded because a large proportion of records come from using bat-detectors, which have only recently been adopted by the community of Orthopteran recorders. The consultation is ongoing, and there may be small changes in future years’ publication as a result.

The frequency of occurrence time series end in 2011, there was sufficient data available to extend the time series by two additional years compared to the previous report. Years since 2011 were excluded due to a drop in the number of records, due to the lag between data collection and collation.

The following organisations contributed data for this analysis: BWARS (Bees, Wasps and Ants Recording Society), British Dragonfly Society, Butterfly Conservation, Hoverfly Recording Scheme, and the Orthoptera Recording Scheme.

4. Indicator Methods

Table 3 gives a summary of the relationship between the number of species on the combined four country biodiversity list (FCL) and the number of these for which population time series data are available.

As far as possible, previously published methods of indicator creation were used, both because these are well-established, have undergone peer review and allow comparison of this indicator with existing species indicators for birds (C5), butterflies (C6) and bats (C8). These methods are described briefly below and references are given for further information.

Table 3: Summary of species time series included in the Priority Species Frequency of Occurrence Indicator

 Group Data Type Species with data

Species on FCL Species on FCL with data and meeting criteria

Moths Frequency of Occurrence 

743 174 110

Ants 30 10 2

Bees 198 60 37

Wasps 201 33 23

Hoverflies 209 29 2

Dragonflies 39 4 2

Grasshoppers 31 6 3

Total included in indicator: 179

Each time series was expressed as a proportion of the first year of the time series, so that the first year equals one hundred. Extremely large or small index values can have a disproportionate influence on composite indicators. Following the methods used in the current wild bird index (C5); any index value greater than 10,000 or less than one was set to these values until the index dropped below 10,000 again or above one (Noble et al. 2004). No species had an index value greater than 10,000 in this indicator but six species had time series that dropped below one, these are identified in the species list in Appendix 1.

The period 1970 to 2011 represents the core period where a consistent level of data is available for the greatest number of species (Figure 1), after 2011 the data available drops. As more data becomes available it will be possible to extend the time series further. For those species where the time series did not continue until 2011, the annual estimate was held at the value of the final

data point for all years from the end of the time series to 2011. An additional 5 species of moth have been added to the indicator this year as sufficient data has become available.

Each species in the indicator was weighted equally. When creating a species indicator weighting may be used to try to address biases in a dataset, for example if one taxonomic group is represented by far more species than another, the latter could be given a higher weight so that both taxonomic groups contribute equally to the overall indicator. Complicated weighting can, however, make the meaning and communication of the indicator less transparent. Groups with many species on the FCL could be considered more threatened than others and therefore should contribute more to the overall indicator. Although there was some variation between taxonomic groups in the proportion of species on the list for which data were available, this proportion was substantial for all groups where at least some data were available. The main bias on the data is that some taxonomic groups are not represented at all, which cannot be addressed by weighting. For this reason, and to ensure clarity of communication, equal weighting was used.

Figure 1: Number of species contributing to the headline indicator in each year, 1970 to 2011

To create the composite index for a group, for example by taxonomy, or overall, the geometric mean was calculated from the species time series data (Figure 2). Different species time series had different start dates. This was taken into consideration with the method currently used for the wild bird index (indicator C5); for species time series entering the indicator after the first year, their first year is set to the geometric mean of those species time series already in the

indicator. Confidence intervals for each composite indicator were created using bootstrapping (Buckland 2005; Freeman et al. 2001); in each iteration (n = 10,000) a random sample of species were selected with replication and the geometric mean calculated.

4.1 Headline Indicator

The headline indicator was generated by combining time series of changes in frequency of occurrence for 179 species (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Change in priority species (frequency of occurrence time series), with 95 per cent confidence intervals, 1970 to 2011

Note: Based on 179 species

4.2 Assessment of change

This measure shows a downward trajectory over its 41 year duration. The final value of the index in 2011 is 60 (95% CI 48–75%) suggesting that on average the frequency of occurrence of those priority species represented in the indicator has declined by 40 per cent since 1970. At present these time series are estimated assuming a monotonic rate of change over the full 41 year period, which means it is not possible to disentangle short and long-term change. However, a bar showing the proportion of species showing an increase or decline (of any magnitude, and with no consideration of statistical significance) over the entirety of the time series has been provided.

4.3 Change in priority species by taxonomic group

The headline indicator (Figure 2) masks variation within and between taxonomic groups. Figure 3 shows indicators for each taxonomic group separately. These were generated using the same methods as the overall indicator. Hoverflies, dragonflies and grasshoppers were combined under the heading “Other Insects” as this was a very small group consisting of just 7 species.

Figure 3: Change in species frequency of occurrence, by taxonomic group, 1970 to 2011

Note: the number of species included in each line is shown in brackets.

Both the moths group and the bees, wasps and ants group show on average a decline over the time period assessed. Moths have seen a decline in their frequency of occurence to 49 per cent of the 1970 value and this decline has been consistent across the time period assessed. The bees, wasps and ants have also experienced a consistent decline since 1970 with a final index value in 2011 of 79, indicating a decrease in the frequency of occurrence of 21 per cent.

The index of “Other Insects” has increased over time, in contrast to the decreasing trajectory in the 2013 report. The change in trajectory reflects the addition of new data, which have lead to an increase in the number of sites that meet our threshold of three years’ data used to define well-sampled sites. For some species with small distributions (i.e. the majority of species on the four-country list), the addition of a few sites has a dramatic impact on the trend estimate (e.g. the Norfolk hawker, Aeshna isosceles). Furthermore, there are just seven species in the “Other Insects” group, so changes in the trend estimate for individual species have large impacts on the overall index. These phenomena highlight the sensitivity of this index to small sample-size

effects: research is ongoing to ameliorate these effects and to derive a more robust indicator of priority species.

There are two points in the other insects line of figure 3 where the direction of the line changes more noticibly (1972 and 1979), rather than following a smooth curve. This is due to species entering the time series at this point (this can also be seen in figure 1) and altering the average change across the group at that point. As this group is so small, these changes are more noticable.

5. Comparing methods for occurrence data analysis

A range of methods exist for estimating trends from biological records (reviewed in Isaac et al 2014a). In this report the well-sampled sites (WSS) model approach has been used, which has been shown to produce robust trends in species’ status under a range of realistic scenarios of recorder behaviour (Isaac et al. 2014b). However, Bayesian occupancy models are probably more robust and more powerful, as well as much more computationally intensive. In this section we test the validity of our WSS-based indicator by comparing it with an index based on Bayesian occupancy models for a subset of species (the bees, wasps and ants).

In the WSS-based priority species indicator (Figure 2) there were 62 species within this group and the index exhibited a declining trend across the period 1970–2011 (Figure 3). We compared the two methods for 61 species across the shorter time period of 1980–2010 (Figure 4). One species had to be removed from the original data set as it consisted of too few data points for the Bayesian occupancy model to be run.

Figure 4: Changes in frequency of occurrence for priority bee, wasp and ant species illustrated by the well-sampled sites (WSS) model and the Bayesian occupancy model (OCC), 1980 to 2010 with 95 per cent confidence intervals

Both models track a similar declining trajectory of the frequency of occurrence for this group of species. This gives us confidence that the headline indicator (figure 2) is robust.

The 95% confidence intervals for the WSS models increase over time whereas the amount of variation in the annual geometric mean estimates from the Bayesian occupancy models remained fairly stable. Qualitatively identical results were obtained when the indicator was restricted to species with a) >100 and b) >1,000 unique records since 1980 (results not shown).

The annual index for the WSS indicator is the geometric mean of the annual fitted values taken from the species-specific WSS linear models. As the WSS indicator is based on fitted values from linear models, the temporal increase in the 95% confidence reflects the gradual divergence of the species-specific trend lines from the fixed origin of 100 in 1980. In contrast, the Bayesian indicator is the geometric mean of the species-specific annual estimates in the proportion of occupied sites after accounting for variation in detectability. These annual values are not resticted to follow a linear pattern, which is reflected in the temporal stability of the 95% confidence intervals and the irregular pattern of the indicator.

The well-sampled sites method estimates an overall trend of the probability a species is recorded during a typical visit (Isaac et al. 2014b), from which the annual index values for each species are calculated. By contrast, the occupancy model explicitly models the data collection process and produces annual estimates for each species of the proportion of occupied sites (van Strien et al. 2013). Although the WSS model produces a robust linear trend over the entire time period assessed, the Bayesian occupancy model produces yearly values which are corrected for recorder effort which can be more useful for short term interpretations of the index.

Results for past years will not be affected by the addition of data for future years in the Bayesian occupancy model, which is not the case for the WSS model. Overall, the Bayesian occupancy model is more understandable; presenting the proportion of sites occupied by a species, whereas the WSS model is the probability of observing a species on an average visit.

5.1 Comparing abundance and frequency of occurrence data

The only group for which there are time series in both relative abundance and frequency of species occurrence is the moths; 72 species have time series in both data types. In order to investigate if these data produce different trends two indices for this group of species were estimated: first, a measure based on the abundance time series for each species and second, a measure using the frequency of occurrence time series for each species. Figure 5 shows a strong correlation between the annual index values of these two indicators, showing they exhibit a similar pattern of change.

Figure 5: Comparison between the annual index values for measures derived from abundance time series and frequency of occurrence time series for those moth species where both are available.

6. Future developments

Time series should become available for a larger suite of taxonomic groups and therefore more species should be included in the indicator in future years, improving representativity. In

addition, analysis will be undertaken to seek to understand the impact of different priority-listing criteria in the UK’s four nations.

Moving to a Bayesian Occupancy framework will make it possible to assess change over shorter time periods, perhaps by decades. Whilst the Bayesian Occupancy model is likely to be the preferred tool for future indicators, further research is required to assess whether short-term fluctuations in the index value reflect reality or are artefacts.

As the sample size increases it should become possible to investigate other ways to break down the indicator; possibilities include, by country, upland/lowland, ecosystems/habitats, traits/life history strategies and or by trophic level.

Regardless of advances in statistical techniques there are species on the priority species lists for which data are currently too sparse to model robust trends. This is for a variety of reasons, including rarity (few occupied sites), low detectability or few active recorders. In order for the indicator to be representative of all types of species on the biodiversity lists, a method of assessing the changing status of a sample of these remaining data-poor species will need to be considered.

References

Buckland, S.T., Magurran, A.E., Green, R.E. & Fewster, R.M. (2005) Monitoring change in biodiversity through composite indices. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 360, 243–254.

Collen, B., Loh, J., Whitmee, S., McRae, L., Amin, R. & Baillie, J. (2008) Monitoring Change in Vertebrate Abundance: the Living Planet Index. Conservation Biology, 23, 317–327.

Freeman, S.N., Baillie, S.R. & Gregory, R.D. (2001) Statistical analysis of an indicator of population trends in farmland birds, BTO Research Report no. 251, Thetford. http://www.bto.org/sites/default/files/u196/downloads/rr251.pdf.

Fox, R., Parsons, M.S., Chapman, J.W., Woiwod, I.P., Warren, M.S. & Brooks, D.R. (2013) The State of Britain’s Larger Moths 2013. Butterfly Conservation and Rothamsted Research, Wareham, Dorset, UK.

Hill, M.H. (2012) Local frequency as a key to interpreting species occurrence data when recording effort is not known. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 3(1), 195–205.

Isaac, N.J.B., August, T.A., Harrower, C. & Roy, D.B. (2013) Trends in the Distribution of UK native species 1970-2010. Preliminary report to JNCC. JNCC Report No 488. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/488_Web.pdf .

Isaac, N.J.B., van Strien, A.J., August, T.A., de Zeeuw, M.P. & Roy, D.B. (2014a) Statistics for citizen science: extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12254

Isaac, N.J.B., van Strien, A.J., August, T.A., de Zeeuw, M.P. & Roy, D.B. (2014b) Extracting ro-bust trends in species’ distributions from unstructured opportunistic data: a comparison of methods. BioRXiv. doi:10.1101/006999

Noble, D.G., Newson, S.E. & Gregory, R.D. (2004) Approaches to dealing with disappearing and invasive species in the UK’s indicators of wild bird populations. A report by the BTO and RSPB under contract to Defra (Wild Bird Indicators).

Roy, H.E., Adriaens, T., Isaac, N.J.B., Kenis, M., Martin, G.S., Brown, P.M.J. & Hautier, L., et al. (2012) Invasive alien predator causes rapid declines of native European ladybirds. Diversity and Distributions, 18, 717–725.

Szabo, J.K., Vesk, P.A., Baxter, P.W.J. & Possingham, H.P. (2010) Regional avian species declines estimated from volunteer-collected long-term data using List Length Analysis. Ecological Applications, 20, 2157–2169.

Van Strien, A.J., van Swaay, C.A.M. & Termaat, T. (2013) Opportunistic citizen science data of animal species produce reliable estimates of distribution trends if analysed with occupancy models. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50(6), 1450–1458. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12158

Appendix 1 – Species List

Scientific_Name Common_Name Group England S41

Wales S42

Scotland biodiversity

list

NI priority species

list

Capped at.10000

Halted at 1

Ammophila sabulosared banded sand wasp bwa N N Y N NA NA

Ancistrocerus parietum wall mason wasp bwa N N Y N NA NA

Andrena cineraria grey mining bee bwa N N Y N NA NA

Andrena coitana a bee bwa N N N Y NA NA

Andrena denticulata a bee bwa N N N Y NA NA

Andrena fuscipes a bee bwa N N N Y NA NA

Andrena helvola a mining bee bwa N N Y N NA NA

Andrena marginata a mining bee bwa N N Y N NA NA

Andrena nigroaenea a bee bwa N N N Y NA NA

Andrena praecox a bee bwa N N N Y NA NA

Andrena ruficrus a mining bee bwa N N Y N NA NA

Anoplius concinnusa spider-hunting wasp bwa N N Y N NA NA

Anthidium manicatum wool-carder bee bwa N N Y N NA NA

Anthophora furcatafork tailed flower bee bwa N N Y N NA NA

Bombus humilisbrown-banded carder-bee bwa Y Y N N NA NA

Bombus muscorum moss carder bee bwa Y Y Y Y NA NA

Bombus ruderariusred-shanked carder-bee bwa Y Y Y N NA NA

Cerceris quadricincta a wasp bwa Y N N N NA NA

Cerceris quinquefasciata a wasp bwa Y N N N NA NA

Ceropales maculataa spider-hunting wasp bwa N N Y N NA NA

Scientific_Name Common_Name Group England S41

Wales S42

Scotland biodiversity

list

NI priority species

list

Capped at.10000

Halted at 1

Colletes daviesanus a bee bwa N N Y N NA NA

Colletes fodiens a bee bwa N N Y N NA NA

Crabro peltarius a solitary wasp bwa N N Y N NA NACrossocerus megaceph-alus a digger wasp bwa N N Y N NA NACrossocerus quad-rimaculatus

4-spotted digger wasp bwa N N Y N NA NA

Diodontus tristismelancholy black wasp bwa N N Y N NA NA

Dipogon subintermediusa spider-hunting wasp bwa N N Y N NA NA

Dipogon variegatusa spider-hunting wasp bwa N N Y N NA NA

Ectemnius cephalotes a digger wasp bwa N N Y N NA NA

Ectemnius continuus a digger wasp bwa N N Y N NA NA

Epeolus variegatus a cuckoo bee bwa N N Y N NA NA

Eucera longicornis long-horned bee bwa Y Y N N NA NA

Evagetes crassicornisa spider-hunting wasp bwa N N Y N NA NA

Formica aquilonia Scottish wood ant bwa N N N Y NA NA

Formica fusca negro ant bwa N N Y N NA NA

Hedychridium ardens a ruby-tailed wasp bwa N N Y N NA NA

Hylaeus brevicornis a bee bwa N N Y Y NA NA

Hylaeus hyalinatus a bee bwa N N N Y NA NALasioglossum angusti-ceps a bee bwa Y N N N NA Y

Lasioglossum fulvicorne a mining bee bwa N N Y N NA NALasioglossum nitidiuscu-lum a bee bwa N N N Y NA NA

Lasioglossum rufitarse a solitary bee bwa N N N Y NA NALasioglossum smeath-manellum a mining bee bwa N N Y N NA NA

Lasioglossum villosulum shaggy mining bee bwa N N Y N NA NA

Lindenius albilabris a digger wasp bwa N N Y N NA NA

Mutilla europaea large velvet ant bwa N N Y N NA NA

Nomada errans a bee bwa Y N N N NA Y

Nomada fabricianaFabricius' nomad bee bwa N N Y N NA NA

Nomada goodeniana a bee bwa N N N Y NA NA

Nomada leucophthalma a nomad bee bwa N N Y N NA NA

Nomada obtusifrons a nomad bee bwa N N Y N NA NA

Nomada striata a bee bwa N N N Y NA NAOdynerus melanoceph-alus a mason-wasp bwa Y Y N N NA NA

Osmia aurulentagold-fringed mason bee bwa N N Y N NA NA

Oxybelus uniglumiscommon spiny dig-ger wasp bwa N N Y N NA NA

Pompilus cinereus leaden spider wasp bwa N N Y N NA NA

Priocnemis schioedteia spider-hunting wasp bwa N N Y N NA NA

Sphecodes ferruginatus a bee bwa N N N Y NA NA

Scientific_Name Common_Name Group England S41

Wales S42

Scotland biodiversity

list

NI priority species

list

Capped at.10000

Halted at 1

Sphecodes gibbus a bee bwa N N Y Y NA NA

Sphecodes pellucidus a solitary bee bwa N N N Y NA NA

Stelis punctulatissima a cuckoo bee bwa N N Y N NA NATachysphex pompili-formis

a spider-hunting wasp bwa N N Y N NA NA

Acronicta psi grey dagger moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Acronicta rumicis knot grass moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Agrochola helvola flounced chestnut moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Agrochola litura brown-spot pinion moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Agrochola lychnidis beaded chestnut moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Allophyes oxyacanthaegreen-brindled crescent moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Amphipoea oculea ear moth moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Amphipyra tragopoginis mouse moth moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Apamea anceps large nutmeg moths Y Y Y N NA NA

Apamea remissa dusky brocade moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Arctia caja garden tiger moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Asteroscopus sphinx the sprawler moths Y Y N Y NA NA

Atethmia centragocentre-barred sal-low moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Blepharita adusta dark brocade moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Brachylomia viminalis minor shoulder-knot moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Caradrina morpheus mottled rustic moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Celaena haworthii Haworth's minor moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Celaena leucostigma the crescent moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Chesias legatella the streak moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Chesias rufata broom-tip moths Y Y Y N NA NA

Chiasmia clathrata latticed heath moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Cymatophorima diluta oak lutestring moths Y Y Y N NA NA

Dasypolia templi brindled ochre moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Diarsia rubi small square-spot moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Diloba caeruleocephala figure of eight moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Ecliptopera silaceata small phoenix moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Ennomos erosaria September thorn moths Y Y Y N NA NA

Ennomos fuscantaria dusky thorn moths Y Y N N NA NA

Ennomos quercinaria August thorn moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Entephria caesiatagrey mountain car-pet moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Epirrhoe galiata galium carpet moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Eugnorisma glareosa autumnal rustic moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Eulithis mellinata the spinach moths Y Y Y N NA NA

Euxoa nigricans garden dart moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Euxoa tritici white-line dart moths Y Y Y N NA NA

Graphiphora augur double dart moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Heliophobus reticulata bordered gothic moths Y Y N N NA Y

Hemaris tityus narrow-bordered moths Y N Y Y NA NA

Scientific_Name Common_Name Group England S41

Wales S42

Scotland biodiversity

list

NI priority species

list

Capped at.10000

Halted at 1

bee hawk-mothHemistola chryso-prasaria small emerald moths Y Y Y N NA NA

Hepialus humuli ghost swift moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Hoplodrina blanda the rustic moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Hydraecia micacea rosy rustic moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Idaea dilutaria silky wave moths Y Y N N NA NA

Jodia croceago orange upperwing Moths Y Y N N NA NA

Lycia hirtaria brindled beauty moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Macaria wauaria the v-moth moths Y Y Y N NA NA

Malacosoma neustria the lackey moths Y Y Y N NA NA

Melanchra persicariae dot moth moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Melanchra pisi broom moth moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Melanthia procellata pretty chalk carpet moths Y Y N N NA NA

Mesoligia literosa rosy minor moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Mythimna commashoulder-striped wainscot moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Oria musculosa Brighton wainscot moths Y N N N NA Y

Orthonama vittata oblique carpet moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Orthosia gracilis powdered quaker moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Pelurga comitata dark spinach moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Perizoma albulata grass rivulet moths Y Y Y Y NA Y

Protolampra sobrina cousin german moths N N Y N NA NA

Rhizedra lutosa large wainscot moths Y Y Y N NA NAScopula margine-punctata mullein wave moths Y Y Y Y NA NAScotopteryx chenopodi-ata shaded broad-bar moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Spilosoma lubricipeda white ermine moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Spilosoma luteum buff ermine moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Stilbia anomala the anomalous moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Tholera cespitis hedge rustic moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Tholera decimalis feathered gothic moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Thumatha senexround-winged muslin moths N N Y N NA NA

Timandra comae blood-vein moths Y Y Y N NA NA

Trichiura crataegi pale eggar moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Tyria jacobaeae cinnabar moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Watsonalla binaria oak hook-tip moths Y Y Y N NA NA

Xanthia gilvago dusky-lemon sallow moths Y Y Y N NA NA

Xanthia icteritia the sallow moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Xanthorhoe decoloraria red carpet moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Xanthorhoe ferrugatadark-barred twin-spot moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Xestia agathina heath rustic moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Xestia castaneaneglected or grey rustic moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Adscita statices forester moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Scientific_Name Common_Name Group England S41

Wales S42

Scotland biodiversity

list

NI priority species

list

Capped at.10000

Halted at 1

Aleucis distinctata sloe carpet moths Y N N N NA NA

Anarta cordigerasmall dark yellow underwing moths N N Y N NA Y

Catocala promissalight crimson under-wing moths Y N N N NA NA

Chortodes brevilinea Fenn's wainscot moths Y N N N NA NA

Chortodes extrema concolorous moths Y N N N NA NA

Cosmia diffinis white-spotted pinion moths Y Y N N NA NA

Cossus cossus goat moth moths Y Y Y N NA NA

Cyclophora pendularia dingy mocha moths Y Y N N NA NA

Cyclophora porata false mocha moths Y N N N NA NA

Dicycla oo heart moth moths Y N N N NA NA

Endromis versicolora Kentish glory moths N N Y N NA NA

Entephria flavicinctatayellow-ringed car-pet moths N N N Y NA NA

Eriogaster lanestris small eggar moths N N N Y NA NA

Hadena albimacula white spot moths Y N N N NA NA

Heliothis maritimashoulder-striped clover moths Y N N N NA Y

Lithostege griseata grey carpet moths Y N N N NA NA

Macaria carbonarianetted mountain moth moths N N Y N NA NA

Minoa murinata drab looper moths Y Y N N NA NA

Noctua orbonalunar yellow under-wing moths Y Y Y N NA NA

Paracolax tristalis clay fan-foot moths Y N N N NA NA

Parasemia plantaginis wood tiger moths N N N Y NA NA

Pechipogo strigilata common fan-foot moths Y N N N NA NA

Perizoma blandiata pretty pinion moths N N N Y NA NA

Polia bombycina pale shining brown moths Y Y N N NA Y

Rheumaptera hastata argent and sable moths Y Y Y Y NA NA

Scotopteryx bipunctaria chalk carpet moths Y Y N N NA NA

Shargacucullia lychnitis striped lychnis moths Y N N N NA NATrichopteryx poly-commata barred tooth-striped moths Y N Y N NA NA

Trisateles emortualis olive crescent moths Y N N N NA NA

Tyta luctuosa four-spotted moth moths Y N N N NA NA

Xestia ashworthii Ashworth’s rustic moths N Y N N NA NA

Xylena exsoleta sword-grass moths N Y Y Y NA NA

Aeshna isosceles Norfolk hawkerother in-sects Y N N N NA NA

Anasimyia transfuga a hoverflyother in-sects N N Y N NA NA

Cheilosia chrysocoma a hoverflyother in-sects N N Y N NA NA

Coenagrion mercuriale Southern damselflyother in-sects Y Y N N NA NA

Decticus verrucivorus wart-biterother in-sects Y N N N NA NA

Metrioptera brachyptera bog bush-cricketother in-sects N N Y N NA NA

Stethophyma grossum large marsh other in- Y N N N NA NA

Scientific_Name Common_Name Group England S41

Wales S42

Scotland biodiversity

list

NI priority species

list

Capped at.10000

Halted at 1

grasshopper sects