• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Garden moth list 2004 (2 Viewers)

Ben Dickinson said:
Just out of interest, someone further up said that moth catches this year have been universally down - are moths generally in some sort of decline?

Hello Ben,
Moth trapping produces various results depending on a large number of variables. E.g. Locality, type of habitat, air temperature, humidity, wind direction and wind speed, there may also be subtle changes in all of these factors which can alter the number of species and the totals of individual species caught.

No one can guarentee catching moths every night they trap. The type of trap used can also effect results. In my area the local council have recently replaced all the street lighting, and orange sodium bulbs now light my village. These have had an effect on the numbers of moths I catch in my garden. It's annoying at times to see very little in the way of moths coming to my MV trap when I can plainly see quite a number flying around the streetlights at the far end of my garden.

There has been some publicity on the Butterfly Conservation Web Site which mentions a decline in moth numbers in various parts of the British Isles. This data was obtained from the users of Rothamstead Moth Traps, who have, over a period of several years and in some cases decades, noted a decline in numbers of particular species being caught.

I for one am not at all surprised at that. Rothamstead Traps which are in a permanent position, operate every night of the year, and kill every insect entering the trap. Over a period of years or decades these traps are certainly likely to deplete the numbers of any local population. Admittedly, moths are mobile and do move around, but eventually less and less numbers of any particular species are caught.

Were these traps to be switched off for perhaps five years, and then put back into use, I would expect those species which had been reported in decline, to be far more common in each trapping area. I am fully aware that Rothamstead traps only 'sample' the local population where the trap is located. But, it's like a sample 'bite' out a sandwich, if you take enough sample bites, the sandwich is eventually gone. It's the same with moth populations, same principle and the same eventual result.

Most moths caught at light are males, every one captured in Rothamstead traps and killed off, means simply that females of that species in the vicinity are less likely to find a mate and sucessfully breed. The principle of exterminating males of 'Pest' species is practiced worldwide and there are many sites on the WWW that advertise traps to attract the males, although these are usually based on the female's pheremone.

Local populations do fluctuate for many reasons, some species disappear and are replaced by other not previously recorded. That's what makes recording so interesting, you never know what is going to turn up.

Harry
 
There seems to be widespread anecdotal evidence that insect numbers have generally declined. Which is hardly surprising given the wide use of insecticides. The RSPB 'splatometer' tests will make the figures 'scientific', I suppose. There has also been a decline in the numbers of many insectivorous birds. We've been having a discussion on our local newsgroup about the reduced number of spotted flycatchers breeding in Surrey in recent years. They are becoming quite hard to find.
 
harry eales said:
Hello Ben,
Moth trapping produces various results depending on a large number of variables. E.g. Locality, type of habitat, air temperature, humidity, wind direction and wind speed, there may also be subtle changes in all of these factors which can alter the number of species and the totals of individual species caught.

No one can guarentee catching moths every night they trap. The type of trap used can also effect results. In my area the local council have recently replaced all the street lighting, and orange sodium bulbs now light my village. These have had an effect on the numbers of moths I catch in my garden. It's annoying at times to see very little in the way of moths coming to my MV trap when I can plainly see quite a number flying around the streetlights at the far end of my garden.

There has been some publicity on the Butterfly Conservation Web Site which mentions a decline in moth numbers in various parts of the British Isles. This data was obtained from the users of Rothamstead Moth Traps, who have, over a period of several years and in some cases decades, noted a decline in numbers of particular species being caught.

I for one am not at all surprised at that. Rothamstead Traps which are in a permanent position, operate every night of the year, and kill every insect entering the trap. Over a period of years or decades these traps are certainly likely to deplete the numbers of any local population. Admittedly, moths are mobile and do move around, but eventually less and less numbers of any particular species are caught.

Were these traps to be switched off for perhaps five years, and then put back into use, I would expect those species which had been reported in decline, to be far more common in each trapping area. I am fully aware that Rothamstead traps only 'sample' the local population where the trap is located. But, it's like a sample 'bite' out a sandwich, if you take enough sample bites, the sandwich is eventually gone. It's the same with moth populations, same principle and the same eventual result.

Most moths caught at light are males, every one captured in Rothamstead traps and killed off, means simply that females of that species in the vicinity are less likely to find a mate and sucessfully breed. The principle of exterminating males of 'Pest' species is practiced worldwide and there are many sites on the WWW that advertise traps to attract the males, although these are usually based on the female's pheremone.

Local populations do fluctuate for many reasons, some species disappear and are replaced by other not previously recorded. That's what makes recording so interesting, you never know what is going to turn up.

Harry

I know very little about all this so what follows are my own ill-informed musings.

I would think the sandwich analogy is not valid as sandwiches don't breed in between nibbles. Also if only a small proportion of males are taken then there are still plenty of males left to mate with the remaining females and with a bit of effort I am sure they could get around to most of them. Even the males taken by the trap may already have mated.

Aren't Rothamstead traps intentionally rather inefficient? They would certainly not be anything like on the scale of pheromone lures, which could assemble just about every male of the target species for some distance.

I still don't like the concept of Rothamstead traps - I can't quite see why live trapping and release is not feasible. Is there any literature on how they affect local populations long term? How would you know if it was the trap or other factors?
 
Hello Brian

brianhstone said:
I know very little about all this so what follows are my own ill-informed musings.

I would think the sandwich analogy is not valid as sandwiches don't breed in between nibbles. Also if only a small proportion of males are taken then there are still plenty of males left to mate with the remaining females and with a bit of effort I am sure they could get around to most of them. Even the males taken by the trap may already have mated.

I used the sandwich simply to demonstrate that you can only have so many bites before it is all gone. Certainly some males may have mated prior to being captured, but then again, they all may not have. Reducing the local popullation every night during the flight period of any insect is bound to have a cumulative effect eventually.

Aren't Rothamstead traps intentionally rather inefficient? They would certainly not be anything like on the scale of pheromone lures, which could assemble just about every male of the target species for some distance.

Rothamstead traps are fortunately, relatively inefficient compared to many modern traps, but they are run every night of the year and the total number of specimens killed is rather high. The majority of commercial pheromone traps are used by forresters because of their efficiency in catching pest species, but only individual destructive species are targetted.

I still don't like the concept of Rothamstead traps - I can't quite see why live trapping and release is not feasible. Is there any literature on how they affect local populations long term? How would you know if it was the trap or other factors?

Unfortunately not all Rothamstead trap operators are experienced entomologists capable of moth identification. Many operators are simply volunteers helping out the Rothamstead Recording Scheme. A local recorder (now deceased) used to get 5 -10 packages a day from Rothamstead trappers for identification. It would be impractical to send living specimens from a trap perhaps several hundred miles to another recorder especially on a daily basis. I agree live trapping would be better but it's just not practicable the way the scheme is organised. Regarding literature, I'm not aware if any capture statistics are published by the Rothamstead Scheme, but they will have all the record sheets submitted by recorders since the scheme started.

It stands to reason that if you constantly take numbers of specimens of any given species from one particular area year after year after year, then at some time the population (locally at least) will be reduced. A female moth may lay several hundred eggs but generally speaking only one or two survive to adulthood. The more that are removed by catching, the less there will be the following year. Another friend of mine used to catch upto 10 specimens a night of the December Moth, every night that the moth was flying, the following year there were less captures of the same species, four or five years later he was lucky to see one specimen every other night. Fortunately he has stopped trapping.


Harry
 
Update

I had what I think was my first 'notable' species for the garden--to my surprise as I'd assumed it was just a micro--rosy marbled, N(b).
How are others' lists going?
No, it seems that I've had two notables, as alder kitten is also an N(b)--at least in one of my books!
 

Attachments

  • rosy_marbled.jpg
    rosy_marbled.jpg
    54.9 KB · Views: 113
  • alder_kitten1.jpg
    alder_kitten1.jpg
    37.2 KB · Views: 76
Last edited:
Update on garden list in Dorset VC9

Further to posting #20 on 13th June, up to the end of July in just over a year I have reached 330 species - 3 notable b's in there. A further 20 species in adjoining tetrads in last 2 months since going mobile with actinic. Can't be bad.
 
Update - update

335 as of this morning (not including butterflies).
 

Attachments

  • S-W Frit 4 web.jpg
    S-W Frit 4 web.jpg
    25.2 KB · Views: 94
  • Marsh f.jpg
    Marsh f.jpg
    29.3 KB · Views: 106
  • Green H.jpg
    Green H.jpg
    17.5 KB · Views: 118
  • Small Tort 2.jpg
    Small Tort 2.jpg
    27.1 KB · Views: 115
Last edited:
Garden list is on about 327 I think, which would include butterflies as well.

Added Straw Underwing, Spindle Ermine and Agriphila selasella at the weekend.
 
I have noticed some activity regarding moths in my garden of late, i am new to the subject and i'm hearing about moth traps, can some one enlighten me or send me to a thread which is relevant, as i'm sure this subject has been raised before, without wanting to bore anyone!!!. I send my thanks in advance
 
Thanks all of you, the advice and information you have given in this thread has got to be the best that one could find anywhere. I was about to start searching through the local libary for this information and, "unbelievable" you guys have given it to me in two pages. Grea stuff this forum.
Tanny
 
I have only just decided to join into this thread as I am a complete novice and all my moths have been seen in the house, not the garden (apart from Pyrausta aurata, which was seen in the greenhouse)

I have lived at this property for 13 months and in that time managed 50 species that have been identified.

This is the list:

Agapeta hamana
Agriphila geniculea
Agriphila straminella
Agriphila tristella
Bee Moth
Bordered Straw
Bright-line Brown-eye
Brimstone
Brown House Moth
Carcina quercana
Carnation Tortix
Catoptria falsella
Chrysoteuchia culmella
Common Carpet
Common Emerald
Common Footman
Common Pug
Common Wainscot
Dark Fruit-tree Tortrix
Double striped Pug
Garden Carpet
Gothic
Emmelina monodactyla
Endotricha flammealis
Epiphyas postvittana
Large yellow Underwing
Lesser Yellow Underwing
Light Brown Apple Moth
Marbled Beauty
Minor Shoulder-knot
Mother of Pearl
Mottled Rustic
Orange Swift
Phlyctaenia coronata
Poplar Hawk Moth
Pyrausta aurata
Riband Wave
Setaceous Hebrew Character
Shuttle-shaped Dart
Silver Y
Single dotted Wave
Small Dusty Wave
Small Blood Vein
Small Fan Foot Wave
Small Magpie
Square spot Rustic
Swallow tailed Moth
Twenty Plume Moth
The Uncertain
Willow Beauty

Not in the class of you guys but nonetheless I am pleased with them. Thankfully I have photos of everyone of them as well.

I hope if my move to Peterborough goes ahead that I will be able to add considerably to those numbers.
 
I'm up to 184 species now... so I hope to break the 200 mark soon. Recent additions include rosy marbled and the olive, both quite scarce in Surrey. Last night I thought I'd got an exceptionally large moth on the window but it turned out to be a roosting large white butterfly. Do they often come to light?
Ken
 
Had my first lesser common rustic on Friday... found dead in my shed. The county recorder did what Harry so elegantly refers to as a 'nads job'. I'll make 200 yet!
 
Surreybirder said:
Had my first lesser common rustic on Friday... found dead in my shed. The county recorder did what Harry so elegantly refers to as a 'nads job'. I'll make 200 yet!

Well done Ken,
Nah, even the religious types seldom make it past 100 Ken. So unless you have the secret of the elixer of life, you'll pop off like the rest of us at under the 100 year old mark. lol.

Harry
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top