Garden Scheme Report 2018

Stephen Passey – May 2019

1

GMS Report 2018

CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 2 Top 30 Species 2018 3 Abundant and Widespread Species 6 in Decline or On the Rise? 8 Winter GMS 2018-19 14 New Coordinators 17 GMS Annual Conference 18 GMS Sponsors 19 Links & Acknowledgements 20

Cover photograph: Griposia aprilina - Merveille du Jour (S. Passey)

Introduction

The Garden Moth Scheme (GMS) is open to anyone from the UK and Ireland interested in recording moths in their garden. 335 completed recording forms were received for 2018, with a few outstanding, a decrease on the previous year (360) but only slightly below the last ten years’ average of 344 returns. The GMS has consistently received records from over 300 sites across the UK and Ireland since 2010, and there are now over 1.6 million records in the GMS database.

Worrying declines in populations have been observed over the last few decades. We examine some threatened and some thriving species from the core species list and attempt some comparisons between GMS data and recently published data from the Rothamsted Insect Survey (RIS).

Last Winter was an exceptional one for the Winter Garden Moth Scheme, which ran from November 2018 to late February 2019. 93 recorders returned valid forms for the scheme. Quite often the Winter period slows to a crawl with many empty traps – but this year was a little different!

This year marks the first full year under new coordinators, Helen and Stephen Passey. Hopefully the transition has not been too painful and we have written a short article to introduce ourselves. A summary of the GMS Annual Conference in Bamford by Norman Lowe is also included. Next, we will look at the Top 30 Species analysis from the 2018 GMS including a look at how the total number of moths in our gardens has changed over time.

2

Top 30 Species 2018

Analysis of the top 30 most abundant moths in 2018 is detailed in Table 1. Despite a lower than average number of returns for 2018 the total average number of moths per garden has risen again for a second year since 2016, by 6.7%.

Average per garden 2018 2017 % Position Species (335) (360) change - Total 1491.5 1398.4 +6.7 1(1) Large Yellow Underwing 130.1 187.4 -30.6 2(2) Heart and Dart 65.6 56.1 +16.8 3(4) Setaceous Hebrew Character 46.3 37.2 +24.5 4(7) Uncertain/Rustic agg. 39.0 35.2 +10.8 5(5) Hebrew Character 36.7 35.4 +3.7 6(10) Common Rustic agg. 34.1 26.2 +30.0 7(12) Common Quaker 32.9 25.2 +30.6 8(8) Dark Arches 31.1 32.2 -3.5 9(9) Flame Shoulder 25.1 28.0 -10.2 10(6) Light Brown Apple Moth 25.1 35.3 -28.8 11(13) Riband Wave 25.1 23.9 +4.9 12(16) Square-spot Rustic 24.2 19.5 +24.2 13(3) Garden Grass-veneer 23.6 38.5 -38.7 14(15) Common Footman 22.0 22.0 +0.3 15(24) Agriphila straminella 20.5 12.7 +61.1 16(14) Lesser Broad-bordered Yellow Underwing 20.5 22.9 -10.7 17(11) Brimstone Moth 20.5 26.0 -21.2 18(25) Lunar Underwing 19.9 12.4 +60.8 19(18) Mother of Pearl 18.3 16.5 +10.7 20(17) Lesser Yellow Underwing 18.0 18.8 -4.1 21(32) Agriphila tristella 17.2 9.6 +80.3 22(36) Vine's Rustic 16.9 8.3 +103.4 23(44) Silver Y 16.8 6.7 +151.4 24(20) Straw Dot 16.6 14.7 +13.0 25(33) Shuttle-shaped Dart 16.3 9.5 +71.4 26(28) Clouded Drab 14.4 10.4 +39.0 27(19) Beauty 14.4 15.3 -6.2 28(23) Marbled Minor agg. 14.3 12.9 +11.6 29(26) Buff Ermine 13.2 11.2 +17.6 30(29) Bright-line Brown-eye 11.1 10.1 +9.9

Table 1. The thirty most abundant species in 2018 in terms of average number of individuals recorded per garden, ranked in 2018 order with their 2017 position in brackets, with an indication of percentage change year on year.

3

Species Abundance

Autographa Gamma – Silver Y (S. Passey) Large Yellow Underwing remains by far the most abundant species recorded despite a thirty percent reduction in numbers from last year. Garden Grass-veneer was worst off, falling 38% following its boom in 2017. Light Brown Apple Moth suffered slightly less than the Large Yellow Underwing. These are not especially dramatic losses and most moths in the Top 30 experienced an increase in average numbers in 2018. Silver Y (Figure 1) returned to the Top 30 with significant peaks in numbers between mid-May and mid-June and then in July. Vine’s Rustic, Agriphila tristella and Shuttle- shaped Dart also jumped back into the charts.

Silver Y flight times in 2018 and 2017 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8

Average per site per Average 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Calendar week

2018 2017

Figure 1. Silver Y average numbers peaked significantly in 2018 compared with 2017.

4

Total Moths per Garden

Looking at the total average number of moths per site over the course of the GMS (Figure 2) we see a number of peaks and troughs. 2010 and 2014 were particularly good years for our moths, while 2012 and 2016 were less so. In 2018 we are on the rise again – will this continue in 2019?

GMS Core Species 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400

Average total moths per site per moths total Average 200 0 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 GMS Year

Figure 2. Average number of core species moths per site by year to date for the duration of the GMS. The blue line is the overall trend since the start of the GMS in 2003. The red line is the trend since 2010 using data from 300 or more sites. Concerned about variations in regional species lists, I only used the core species to generate the graph in Figure 2. However, I subsequently found that the graph does not change appreciably if you include regional species as well. These non-core species count for below 5% of the total individuals recorded by the GMS (less than 300,000 out of 5.6 million individuals), so there is not much effect on the overall trends.

Another caveat is that this analysis does not correct for the changes in the core species list - which has risen from 177 species to 233 over the years. Considering the very large numbers of our most common moths this may not skew the figures much but a very strong argument for not changing the species list is that it makes this kind of analysis more consistent year on year as we progress. Note also that the reduction in recorders over the Winter is not accounted for, but ought to introduce a less than 1% error in each year.

After all this nit-picking, can we see any overall trend in the results over the last 16 years? The blue trendline shows a slight increase in numbers since 2003 (+15%) but remember that we have added species to the core list over this time. We are on the red downward slope if we only consider the data since 2010 (from greater than 300 sites per year). This data appears to show a slight decline (-10%). As always more data will help to further clarify the state of our common moth populations.

5

Abundant and Widespread Species

The top 20 most abundant (Table 2) and most widespread (Table 3) species from the scheme change slightly as records are added each year to the GMS database.

The top 5 positions on the abundance table remain unchanged since last year. Despite having a worse year than 2017, Large Yellow Underwing still by far the most abundant species in the database. There is not much chance of this changing as this is still more than twice as many individuals as the Heart and Dart in second place. Lesser Broad-bordered Yellow Underwing continues to slip down the table though Lesser Yellow Underwing holds its spot.

2003-2018 2003 - 2017 Totals Totals Large Yellow Underwing 655945 Large Yellow Underwing 611602 Heart and Dart 304767 Heart and Dart 282610 Dark Arches 169640 Dark Arches 159195 Setaceous Hebrew Character 167179 Setaceous Hebrew Character 151605 Hebrew Character 144885 Hebrew Character 132362 Common Quaker 121922 Light Brown Apple Moth 112959 Light Brown Apple Moth 121636 Lesser Broad-bordered Yellow Underwing 111450 Common Rustic agg. 119634 Common Quaker 110572 Lesser Broad-bordered Yellow Underwing 118393 Common Rustic agg. 108137 Garden Grass-veneer 109852 Garden Grass-veneer 101760 Square-spot Rustic 105440 Square-spot Rustic 97284 Riband Wave 102863 Riband Wave 94426 Flame Shoulder 100861 Flame Shoulder 92375 Common Footman 87675 Common Footman 80158 Lesser Yellow Underwing 85232 Lesser Yellow Underwing 79126 Brimstone Moth 80693 Brimstone Moth 73795 Small Quaker 61782 Small Quaker 59087 Shuttle-shaped Dart 60022 Common Marbled Carpet 54733 Willow Beauty 59318 Shuttle-shaped Dart 54533 Lunar Underwing 59020 Willow Beauty 54456

Table 2. The most abundant species in the GMS database, based on total number of individuals, comparing all records for 2003 - 2018 and 2003 - 2017.

6

Most Widespread Species

Based on the assumption that everyone records ‘Nothing’ at some point(!) - we now have records from 597 10 km squares across the UK and Ireland, an increase of 34 squares since last year (Table 3). All of the most 19 widespread moth species have now been recorded in well over 500 of them.

2003 - 2018 2003 - 2017 10 km 10 km

records records Nothing 597 Nothing 563 Hebrew Character 588 Large Yellow Underwing 556 Large Yellow Underwing 585 Hebrew Character 555 Common Quaker 581 Common Quaker 550 Dark Arches 577 Dark Arches 549 Brimstone Moth 572 Brimstone Moth 542 Silver Y 568 Flame Shoulder 540 Flame Shoulder 567 Lesser Yellow Underwing 539 Lesser Yellow Underwing 567 Heart and Dart 537 Common Marbled Carpet 565 Common Marbled Carpet 536 Heart and Dart 563 Lesser Broad-bordered Yellow Underwing 534 Lesser Broad-bordered Yellow Underwing 562 Silver Y 533 Riband Wave 560 Riband Wave 533 Garden Carpet 558 Square-spot Rustic 528 Clouded Drab 555 Garden Carpet 528 Square-spot Rustic 554 Clouded Drab 521 Snout 543 Snout 519 Early Grey 541 Poplar Hawk-moth 516 Poplar Hawk-moth 540 Angle Shades 512 Common Rustic agg. 539 Common Rustic agg. 509

Table 3. Most widespread species in the GMS dataset based on presence in 10 km squares, comparing all records for 2003 - 2018 and 2003 - 2017.

7

Moths in Decline or on the Rise?

In 2013, the last State of Britain’s Larger Moths report was released by Butterfly Conservation (https://butterfly-conservation.org/moths/the-state-of-britains-moths), using data from the Rothamsted Insect Survey’s (RIS) light trap data. Overall, the figures showed a 28% decrease in the number of moths trapped from 1968 to 2007. Although many species showed dramatic declines the report also highlighted a number of species which showed increases over the same period.

This year the RIS has published online trend data for 432 abundant moth species caught by their light trap network, which currently consists of over 80 traps in a wide variety of habitats (https://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/insect-survey). With over 450 sites surveyed since the 1960s with 54 sites operating for 15 years or more, the data published runs up to 2016 and is well worth a look. It is very interesting to see the long term trends and in particular how some of the moths have done in the nine years since 2007. It is also interesting to compare the GMS data with RIS figures for our core moth species.

Please note the RIS graphs are modelled to estimate how many moths would be trapped across the whole network if all the traps ever operated in the scheme were running all at once. The numbers are therefore much higher than the original figures the RIS analysis is based upon. Modelling was performed by the Centre for Hydrology and Ecology and RIS using RIS data (please see the Acknowledgements section at the end of this Report for more details).

Ennomos fuscantaria - Dusky Thorn

Ennomos fuscantaria - Dusky Thorn (S. Passey)

Out of the moths in decline present in our core species list Dusky Thorn showed the worst decline in The State of Britain’s Larger Moths with a shocking 98% decline over 40 years. However, more recent RIS data shows a slight increase over the last few years with roughly eight times as many moths in 2016 as in 2012 (Figure 3):

8

Figure 3. Counts and trend for Dusky Thorn modelled by CEH and RIS from RIS data. Published online at: https://insectsurvey.com/static/RISdata/moth/trend/Geometridae/Ennomos%20fuscantaria.sv g

Does the GMS data also show an increase? If we look at our data for Dusky Thorn (Figure 4) we do see a similar increase, between 2012 and 2016, comparable to that seen by the RIS:

Dusky Thorn average per site 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5

Average per site per Average 1 0.5 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 GMS Year

Figure 4. Dusky Thorn upward trend since 2007.

It is heartening to see a recovery in numbers since 2012 but we are still a long way off from the original populations recorded in the 1970s. A previous increase seen around 1990 also fell back into decline again a couple of years later. One wonders

9 what factors (Dutch , pesticide use, climate, land use changes?) are influencing these population changes.

Arctia caja - Garden Tiger

Arctia caja – Garden Tiger – S. Passey

Our second moth in decline is the Garden Tiger. The State of Britain’s Larger Moths calculates a 92% decline in numbers over 40 years and the RIS graph shows this steady decline since 1970. But from 2007 the graph shows a slight uptick (Figure 5):

Figure 5. Counts and trend for Garden Tiger modelled by CEH and RIS from RIS data. Published online at: https://insectsurvey.com/static/RISdata/moth/trend/Erebidae/Arctia%20caja.svg

10

Garden Tiger average per site 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 Average per site per Average 0.4 0.2 0 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 GMS Year

Figure 6. Garden Tiger has been on an upward trend since 2003.

Data from the GMS (Figure 6) also shows an upward trend since records began but it is difficult to say if this is a true trend due to the expanding geographical range of the GMS from 2003 to 2010. Certainly since 2010, although the numbers have fluctuated year on year the trend appears to be more level.

Least Carpet

In The State of Britain’s Larger Moths, Least Carpet had shown an incredible 75,000% increase over 40 years. The RIS graph illustrates its inexorable climb (Figure 7).

GMS data in Figure 8 does show a very slight upward trend as well although over this time period perhaps there is not quite enough data to be sure. Either way, perhaps this species will begin to level off at some point?

11

Figure 7. Counts and trend for Least Carpet modelled by CEH and RIS from RIS data. Published online at: https://insectsurvey.com/static/RISdata/moth/trend/Geometridae/Idaea%20rusticata%20astr osignaria.svg

Least Carpet average per site 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 Average per site per Average 0.4 0.2 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 GMS Year

Figure 8. GMS trend for Least Carpet since 2007.

Scarce Footman

Another winner in the Butterfly Conservation report, Scarce Footman had shown a 3,580% increase over the 40 year period up until 2007. However the RIS graph, including more recent data up until 2016, appears to show a slight decrease or at least a levelling off in recent years (Figure 9):

12

Figure 9. Counts and trend for Scarce Footman modelled by CEH and RIS from RIS data. Published online at: https://insectsurvey.com/static/RISdata/moth/trend/Erebidae/Eilema%20complana.svg

Scarce Footman average per site 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 Average per site per Average 1 0.5 0 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 GMS Year

Figure 10. GMS trend for Scarce Footman since 2004.

Again, the GMS data (Figure 10) appears to be in broad agreement with a slight downward trend since 2004, although this could be exaggerated by pre-2010 data. Numbers since 2010 certainly do not show a climb in numbers.

Hopefully the above comparisons will be of interest and hint at the possibility of combining complementary databases for future research into moth population trends. The GMS is currently exploring possible research collaborations with institutions including the RIS and Butterfly Conservation in order to make the most of our growing database. 13

Winter GMS 2018-19

The Winter GMS for 2018-19 ran from early November until late February this year with our hardy moth trappers returning 93 valid recording forms. The results showed a dramatic increase in the numbers of moths recorded over the Winter period compared with the 2017-18 Winter GMS. Over twice as many moths (5,193) were recorded when compared with the 2017-18 scheme and no moths in the top 20 showed any sign of decline.

Average per garden % Position Species 2018-19 2017-18 change Total 55.84 22.03 153 1(1) December Moth 6.16 3.87 59 2(3) Winter Moth 5.14 3.46 49 3(2) Mottled Umber 5.09 3.64 40 4(4) Pale Brindled Beauty 3.85 1.65 133 5(5) 3.48 1.42 145 6(20) Common Quaker 3.18 0.18 1668 7(6) Light Brown Apple Moth 2.57 1.39 85 8(8) November Moth agg. 2.13 0.57 274 9(10) Yellow-line Quaker 2.08 0.41 406 10(24) Spruce Carpet 1.83 0.13 1306 11(9) Red-Green Carpet 1.73 0.49 253 12(15) Dotted Border 1.61 0.31 420 13(7) Feathered Thorn 1.61 0.69 134 14(22) Hebrew Character 1.16 0.16 626 15(17) March moth 1.09 0.25 334 16(18) Spring Usher 0.96 0.24 299 17(12) Early Moth 0.82 0.34 140 18(12) Dark Chestnut 0.78 0.34 131 19(26) Mottled Grey 0.70 0.11 535 20(56) Diamond-back Moth 0.66 0 N/A

Table 4. Winter GMS species in 2018-19 in terms of average number of individuals recorded per garden, ranked in 2018 order with their 2017 position in brackets, with an indication of percentage change year on year.

The increased numbers appear to be driven by two factors: 1) Autumnal moths continuing to fly after the beginning of the Winter scheme and 2) Spring species emerging earlier than usual, before the start of the main scheme in 2019. Temperatures are one likely culprit, as the UK experienced above average Winter temperatures in 2018 and saw a record-breaking heatwave late February this year. Some species saw greater than ten-fold increases as their flight times extended into the mild November or started during the heatwave.

Table 4 shows the Winter GMS summary for 2018-19. Spruce Carpet showed an extension in flight time into the Winter unprecedented in previous years of the GMS. 14

Then, Spring-flying Orthosias such as Common Quaker and Hebrew Character jumped up the leader board as they emerged in February. 88 Hebrew Character were recorded in the last week of the Winter GMS this year alone, beating the previous record of 29 for the same calendar week in 2012. An early flush of Common Quaker was also observed, kicking in a week earlier than previous early starts in 2017 and in 2011-12.

Thera Britannica – Spruce Carpet – S. Passey

Spruce Carpet flight time Winter 1.2 GMS

1

0.8 GMS Main Scheme

0.6

0.4

Average moths per garden mothsper Average 0.2

0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Calendar Week

2016 2017 2018

Figure 11. Spruce Carpet peaked beyond the start date of the 2018 Winter GMS.

Spruce Carpet’s range extended beyond the beginning of the Winter GMS in 2018 (Figure 11). The peak flight time occurred in the first week of the Winter GMS, some weeks later than in 2017 and 2016.

15

Common Quaker and Hebrew Character (S. Passey)

Common Quaker emergence 16

14

12 Winter GMS GMS Main Scheme

10

8

6

4 Average moths per garden mothsper Average 2

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Calendar Week

2017 2018 2019

Figure 12. Common Quaker emerged early in 2019, with numbers picking up before the end of the Winter GMS period.

Common Quaker started to emerge before the end of the Winter GMS period this year (Figure 12), whereas in 2016-17 few individuals were recorded, 295 were recorded in early 2019. Hebrew Character also emerged early (Figure 13).

16

Hebrew Character emergence 9 8 7 Winter GMS 6 GMS Main Scheme 5 4 3 2 Average moths per garden mothsper Average 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Calendar week

2017 2018 2019

Figure 13. Hebrew Character also began to emerge before the end of the 2018-19 GMS.

Nobody recorded no moths at all during the winter scheme and 14 recorded over 100 individual moths. Three recorded over 200 individuals and the highest number of individuals trapped was 573 from Wales.

New Coordinators

This annual report marks the first year of coordination by Helen and Stephen Passey. Many thanks to Heather Young for helping the transition to go smoothly and we hope she enjoys her retirement! We are very excited to be able to continue Heather and Dave Grundy’s work in running the GMS and hope to be able to continue to make it a great success.

We still haven’t had the opportunity to meet many of you so it is probably worth a few words of introduction. We started moth recording just a few years ago in Northumberland with a loaned trap sponsored by ERIC North East, advertised through Butterfly Conservation and kindly provided by Mike Cook. After that we were very keen to get our own trap to continue recording moths. We have since relocated to the Vale of Glamorgan in South Wales so have seen quite a variety of species since starting recording.

Remember that your regional coordinator is your first point of contact but if you can't get through or have any other queries please contact either of us at [email protected] or for database queries Stephen at [email protected].

Contact details for all the national and regional coordinators are in the ‘Communications’ section of our website: http://www.gardenmoths.org.uk/

17

GMS Annual Conference 2019 – Norman Lowe

The Garden Moth Scheme Annual Conference was held at Bamford Village Institute, Derbyshire on 31 March 2019. Around 60 people were present.

Norman Lowe started things off with the usual look back at the highs and lows of GMS 2018. This was followed by Zoe Randle of Butterfly Conservation describing progress on the eagerly-awaited Atlas of macro moths, which is now expected to be published sometime during the summer. One of the biggest challenges has been checking and verifying the records, utilising the expertise of the County Recorders backed up by oversight from the Butterfly Conservation moth team.

After lunch Steven Rutherford from The British Naturalists’ Association gave us an in-depth view of phenology through the food chain and in particular how this is affected by climate change. He then looked at biodiversity and habitats, especially how these habitats are becoming more fragmented.

The afternoon session was devoted to thinking about the future of the Garden Moth Scheme with an introduction by Norman describing our activities both current and forthcoming. An ongoing issue is ensuring that we maintain and develop our volunteer resource. These include not only our individual recorders, but Area and National Coordinators and our specialist volunteers covering IT, data manipulation and communications both internal and external. We also rely greatly on our sponsors and on joint working with other organisations. Forthcoming issues included the completion of the personal data policy, and a new initiative, regional GMS Conferences. Two are scheduled for 2019, North West England on July 6th and South Wales on November 24th.

We finished the day with two discussions on where GMS should go in 2019 and beyond. The first covered the means by which our records could best be provided to County Moth Recorders whilst avoiding the twin evils of data either not being received by the CMRs or being received twice leading to duplicated records. Two suggestions were debated. The first was that data from the national database should be filtered by Vice County and sent to each CMR. The second was that it should be left to each individual recorder to send their own results to the CMR. It was accepted that neither of these was without drawbacks and Zoe agreed to contact VCRs through Butterfly Conservation to obtain their views.

The second debate looked forward to the forthcoming review of the moth list. Although some in the audience favoured adding more species, most were of the view that the current list was long enough and already discouraged some prospective new recorders. The preferred view seemed to be that no additions at all should be made though there was some sympathy for adding Box Moth.

The enjoyment of the day was greatly increased by the presence of our long-term commercial supporters Atropos Books and Hachiware Art, and our new sponsors Watkins and Doncaster.

18

GMS Sponsors

We were very thankful for financial assistance from the following organisations during 2018 especially from our new sponsor Watkins and Doncaster; please consider using our sponsors for your purchases!

Atropos Books Online book store and publication of Atropos, the journal for butterfly, moth and dragonfly enthusiasts. Special offers available on the website. www.atroposbooks.co.uk The Boat House, Church Cove, Lizard, Cornwall, TR12 7PH 01326 290287 [email protected]

Watkins and Doncaster

www.watdon.co.uk PO Box 114,Leominster,HR6 6BS Tel: +44 (0)333 800 3133 [email protected]

ALS - Anglian Lepidopterist Supplies For all your equipment requirements from moth traps to pots and generators – quality products at affordable prices. www.angleps.com Station Road, Hindolveston, Norfolk, NR20 5DE 01263 862068 9am – 5pm Monday to Friday [email protected]

The Compact 20w Actinic Skinner Moth Trap now available in mains and 12 volt versions. Catch rates outperform any other actinic system and comparable to the Twin 30w Actinic Robinson Trap. See our web site for further details.

19

MapMate is a biological recording system designed for enthusiasts to record, map, analyse and share their natural history sightings. It was originally developed for moth recording and has now expanded to include most of the UK fauna and flora. It is being used by some 20,000 individuals and institutions in the UK including very large groups like the RSPB and the Botanical Society of the British Isles. www.mapmate.co.uk

MapMate continues to support the GMS by providing software and support for the GMS database, and for that we are very grateful.

Links

GMS Website - http://www.gardenmoths.org.uk/ - the Communications section gives information on the regional coordinators; the Downloads section provides access to Identification Guides, Annual Reports and Newsletters, as well as all the regional recording forms and instructions.

Facebook Page - https://www.facebook.com/GardenMothScheme - we now have over 1250 ‘Likes’!

Facebook Group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/438806469608527/ - currently with more than 2200 Members (not all active GMS participants) – open membership – all recording forms, instructions and micro-moth identification guides are available in the Files section.

Acknowledgements

A big thank you to all the GMS members who put their traps out each week regardless of the weather and rise inhumanly early the next morning to count moths, none of this would be possible without you. An additional thank you to all the hardy Winter trappers who do the same in even more extreme conditions (although we hope this year’s warm Winter made a nice change!). Many thanks to the Regional Coordinators and other volunteers who keep the scheme running all over the country with particular thanks to Mike Cook for generating the recording forms and Roger Freestone for maintaining the membership lists and keeping track of questionnaires. Thanks to Norman Lowe and Evan Lynn for producing the newsletters and to Sally Soady and Norman for organising this year’s annual conference. We are especially grateful to Heather Young for helping us to transition into the coordinators’ roles and maintaining the GMS database so far. We are extremely grateful to our sponsors above for helping the GMS to continue by helping to fund conferences and IT support.

Thanks also to Chris Shortall from Rothamsted Research for providing high resolution versions of the RIS moth species trends. These graphs were produced by Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) and Rothamsted Insect Survey (RIS) with assistance from Butterfly Conservation using RIS data. This work was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) under research programme NE/N018125/1 LTS©\M ASSIST © Achieving Sustainable Agricultural Systems. 20