Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRST

Agricultural Intensification Causes Decline in Insect Biodiversity

Written By

Mumuni Abudulai, Jerry Asalma Nboyine, Peter Quandahor, Ahmed Seidu and Fousséni Traore

Submitted: June 30th, 2021Reviewed: October 22nd, 2021Published: March 25th, 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.101360

Global Decline of InsectsEdited by Hamadttu El-Shafie

From the Edited Volume

Global Decline of Insects [Working Title]

Dr. Hamadttu El-Shafie

Chapter metrics overview

30 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


The world’s population exceeded 7 billion in late 2011 and it is expected to reach 9.3 billion by 2050. Meanwhile, demand for food is predicted to increase between 50 and 100% by 2050. To meet the food demands of the increasing population, agricultural intensification practices including growing monocultures of high-yielding crop varieties and increased applications of fertilizers and pesticides have been used to increase productivity. These practices, however, impact negatively on biodiversity of existing flora and fauna, particularly causing huge declines in insect biodiversity. This chapter reviews present state of knowledge about agricultural intensification practices and global decline of insect biodiversity (i.e., pest and beneficial insect species) in intensive agricultural system and point out the likely drivers of these declines. It concludes the review by examining sustainable agricultural intensification practices that could be used to mitigate these biodiversity declines while maintaining productivity in intensive agricultural systems.


  • insect decline
  • agricultural intensification
  • crop production
  • food demands
  • beneficial arthropods

1. Introduction

Global decline of biodiversity of many terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, particularly insects, has been a major concern to biologists and ecologists. This is because biodiversity provides many important ecosystem services due their abundance and diversity [1, 2, 3]. Much of the decline has been blamed on human activities such as hunting, habitat loss through deforestation, agricultural expansion and intensification, industrialization and urbanization [4, 5], which together accounted for 30–50% encroachment on natural ecosystems at the end of the twentieth century [6]. Agricultural intensification is considered the key driver of this biodiversity loss in many taxa including birds, insectivorous mammals and insects. The removal of natural habitat elements such as hedgerows, trees and other landscape features together with the recurrent use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in agricultural intensification systems negatively affect overall biodiversity of insects [7]. Extensive use of pesticides is reported as the primary factor responsible for the decline of birds in grasslands [8] and aquatic organisms in streams [9], with probably other factors contributing to or amplifying their effects.

Long-term population monitoring study at several protected areas of Germany revealed a 76% decline in flying insect biomass with an annual loss of 2.8% [10]. Similarly, a study in the rainforests of Puerto Rico showed biomass losses between 98 and 78% for ground-foraging and canopy-dwelling arthropods over a 36-year period, with annual losses between 2.7 and 2.2%, respectively [11]. The authors showed parallel declines in birds, frogs and lizards at the same areas, which they attributed to invertebrate food shortages. The studies above (10–11) confirm the declining trend in flying insects (mainly Diptera) reported earlier for parts of Southern Britain [12]. While climate change may be a contributory factor to arthropod declines, intensification practices including deforestation were reported to be responsible for the annual loss of insect biomass in the tropical rainforest of Germany [10]. The authors also pointed to the effect of synthetic pesticides as a likely driver of the losses in insect biomass.

The above studies demonstrate general knowledge about biodiversity decline in insects. It appears that insect declines are substantially greater than those observed in birds or plants [13], and this could have far reaching consequences on several of the world’s ecosystems. This review summarizes current knowledge about insect declines; that is, the changes in species richness (biodiversity) and population abundance through time in intensive agricultural systems point to the likely drivers of these declines and conclude with management practices that could mitigate these declines in sustainable agricultural systems. Previous reviews are limited in scope to one or a few insect taxa (e.g., butterflies, carabids) in specific regions and made no comparisons across taxa in different geographical regions (e.g., Sequera et al. 2014; Zhao et al. 2015).


2. Agricultural intensification production practices

Agricultural production has struggled over the past few centuries to keep pace with the ever-increasing world population of humans, which exceeded 7 billion in late 2011 and is expected to reach 9.3 billion by 2050 [14]. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the current population of 1.1 billion people is projected to double over the next 30 years [15]. The increasing population increased demand for food and also brought in its wake increased demand for land for housing, roads and other infrastructural needs, which limited land availability for other purposes including agriculture. Thus, the hitherto traditional agricultural practices such as low-input agriculture with inherent low yields and shifting cultivation appeared no longer tenable in the quest to produce enough food for the growing population. This led to the intensification of agricultural practices more especially after World War II. In Europe and North America, the intensification of agriculture began in the first half of the twentieth century, whereas in South America, Africa and Asia, it started mainly in the second half of the century [16].

The agricultural intensification practices include expansion of farms into large commercial enterprises, accompanied by a changed emphasis to monocultures, and the application of increasing inputs of fertilizers and synthetic pesticides [14, 17]. Today’s farmlands are larger in scope than their predecessors, more of monocultures, and more rely more on external inputs such as fertilizer, insecticide, and herbicide. In such systems, there is also greater emphasis on the elimination of weeds, cutting down hedgerows and trees in order to facilitate mechanization of fields. Surface waterways are also modified including stream channelization to ease flow and improve irrigation and drainage of fields. These intensification practices drastically reduce the level of refugia available for insects, herbaceous plants, vertebrate insectivores, and other organisms and consequently an overall decline in biodiversity, both in species numbers and in biomass [14, 18, 19].

More than a quarter of the world tropical forests have been cut since the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992, leaving many to wonder whether there will be any substantial stands of tropical forest remaining by the end of this century. Many grasslands and forested areas have also been converted into croplands and plantations [17]. The effects of these practices on biodiversity loss is further exacerbated by the effect climate change, which limit the location of favored regions for crops and other life forms [17].


3. Effects of agricultural intensification practices on arthropod biodiversity decline

A lot has been reported about the effects of agricultural intensification practices on biodiversity loss in insects. Zabel et al. [19] discussed the trade-offs between increasing agricultural intensification and biodiversity decline. Inevitably, increased structural modification of habitats and change in the heterogeneity of farmlands in agricultural intensification systems affect biodiversity. The intensive practices alter the availability of food and shelter for insects and other life forms, which affect the abundance and diversity of species (14). Consequently, major insect declines were observed when agricultural practices shifted from the hitherto low-input traditional farming to the intensive, industrial-scale production brought about by the Green Revolution [19]. In its wake, rare species associated with protected ecosystems and natural habitats retreated or were lost completely [18, 19]. Monocultures led to a great simplification of insect biodiversity among pollinators, insect natural enemies and nutrient recyclers, and created the suitable conditions for agricultural pests to flourish. Thus, agricultural intensification serves as the main driver of insect declines in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems [20, 21, 22].

Raven and Wagner [17] reported of increased clearing of forests in the tropics for crops, pasture and wood fuel in Central Africa, Central America, many parts of South America and Southeast Asia. An average of 5 million acres of the forest was lost annually to industrial-scale agriculture between 2001 and 2015 [23, 24]. This huge deforestation poses serious threats to the world’s insect biodiversity as the majority of insect species diversity is found in the tropics. Deforestation is one of the major drivers of biodiversity loss and insect declines [17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]. Moreover, deforestation on larger scales has the potential to change weather and rainfall patterns that may further impact negatively on insect populations [24, 25]. Insect biodiversity is very important for successful agriculture in providing many ecosystem services such as pollination, nutrient recycling and biological pest control.

In [26, 27], it was reported that agriculture is the primary contributing factor in insect losses in California and Ohio. According to [27, 28], butterfly diversity in southwest Germany began declining two centuries ago, but with steeper rate of declines observed after World War II, when intensification practices increased. Over the past half century, two-thirds of the common moth species in Great Britain are decreasing in number. Powney et al. [29] analyzed the long-term abundance trends of moths in Great Britain and reported that moth abundances had decreased by 31% over the past five decades [19]. Similarly, in [17], the elevated rate of loss was reported in diverse group of insect fauna of the grassland world, including butterflies and noctuid moths (Lepidoptera); ants, bees and wasps (Hymenoptera); scarab and ground beetles (Coleoptera); crickets, grasshoppers and katydids (Orthoptera); leaf and plant hoppers, seed bugs and their kin (Heteroptera). Further, there are reports of declines of wild bees, particularly from northwestern Europe due to agricultural intensification [30].


4. Biodiversity declines of selected insect groups

This part of the chapter discusses in detail biodiversity declines of selected insect groups caused by the effect of agricultural intensification practices across the globe.

4.1 Lepidoptera

Butterflies and moths have high level of host plant specialization and are therefore vulnerable to habitat deterioration [31]. They also have a wide range of distribution and important for the delivery of key ecosystem services such as biological pest control and pollination [32]. Moths, which are about 10 times more different than butterflies, constitute important prey items for bats and sustain population levels of a myriad of other insectivorous animals [33].

Maes and Van Dyck [34] pioneered report of drastic changes in butterfly biodiversity in Flanders (Belgium) during the twentieth century. They observed that habitat loss due to urbanization and agricultural intensification expansion resulted in a steady decline of 69% of 45 extant species [34]. A follow-up study in the Netherlands by van Dyck [35] also found that 11 out of 20 most common and widespread butterfly species declined in both distribution and abundance between 1992 and 2007. Moreover, local populations of Lasiommata megeraand Gonepteryx rhamniare now endangered and two other species (Aglais ioand Thymelicus lineola) are vulnerable. A parallel study in the Netherland of the range of distribution of 733 species of day-flying moths between 1980 and 2000 showed decline in 85% of species, with 38% critically endangered, 34% vulnerable and 15% threatened [36]. Similarly, a long-term survey at the Kullaberg Nature Reserve in Sweden showed that out of 269 species, 45% declined, 22 were threatened and 159 species were extinct [37]. Monophagous and oligophagous species feeding on grass or herbs in wetlands declined more than those feeding on deciduous trees and shrubs. Also, historical records of 74 butterfly species in Finland showed that 60% of grassland species declined, whereas 86% of generalist species and 56% of those living at forest edge ecotones increased in abundance [38]. For the same locati0n, monitoring the population of 306 noctuid moth species showed drastic declines for species with comparatively longer flight periods and smaller geographical range [39]. Similar findings were reported for northeastern Spain, where in-depth study of the population trend for 66 butterfly species showed a decline in 46 species, while 15 species had increased in abundance and 5 remained stable [40]. A comprehensive report on the status of 576 species of butterflies in Europe found that 71 were threatened and declined over a 25-year period [41]. The greatest declines were observed among specialist butterflies of grassland biotopes (19% species), wetlands and bogs (15%) and woodlands/forests (14%), due to habitat conversion into croplands and intensification of agricultural practices; pesticides negatively affected 80% species. Some species (Lopinga achineand Parnassius apollo) had declined due to afforestation, that is, conversion of open woodland habitats to dense forests. A recent assessment of 435 butterflies species native to Europe revealed that 19% of the species are declining, while 8.5% species are threatened, and three endangered, viz. Pieris brassicae wollastoni, Triphysa phryneand Pseudochazara cingovskii[42]. A comprehensive database from the UK showed that 41 out of 54 common butterflies species had been declining since the 1970s, with 26% of species showing decreases over 40% of their range [30]. The authors suggested habitat fragmentation and/or destruction and intensification of agriculture, including the increased usage of chemical fertilizer and pesticides, as the possible drivers for this biodiversity loss.

Long-term monitoring data of butterflies are limited in the United States. However, surveys in prairie habitats and bogs of Wisconsin and Iowa showed fluctuating populations of certain species. These fluctuations were driven by habitat modification and moisture levels dependent on climate change [43]. Surveys of 67 butterfly species in California between 1972 and 2012 showed initially stable populations until 1997 when populations dropped steeply to 23 species. The observed declines correlated significantly with percentage of land converted to agriculture and usage of insecticide, with neonicotinoid being the most important. The declining trend in 1997 followed the introduction of the neonicotinoid insecticides in that State [44]. In Massachusetts, the distributional ranges of 116 species shifted northward between 1992 and 2010. Two southern species adapted to warmer conditions expanded in range (Papilio cresphontesand Poanes zabulon), while populations of 80% of butterflies declined in southern parts of that State [45]. Although survey records are limited, Lepidoptera declines appear to be less dramatic in certain parts of the Asian region. In Japan, 15% of 240 species of butterflies are threatened, with 80% of grassland species being endangered, and two species (Melitaea scotosiaand Argynnis nerippe) close to extinction in the national territory [46]. The steady intensification of Japan’s traditional “satoyama” landscape (i.e., a mosaic of rice paddy fields, grassland and coppice forests) has negatively affected most species. In Malaysia, some 19% of moths at Mount Kinabalu (Borneo) had their abundance reduced between 1965 and 2007 (Table 1) [47].

Insect taxonDeclining (%)Threatened (%)Extinction rate (%)Reference

Table 1.

Proportion of declining and threatened species per taxa according to IUCN criteria.

4.2 Hymenoptera

Members of this group include bees, ants and wasps. They provide many important ecosystem services such as pollination and biological control of insect pests. Bees are essential pollinators of flowering plants and constitute a third of all pollinators [19]. Also, honey bees have been managed for millennia as a source of honey and beeswax. Hence, a need for information about their population status because of the important ecosystem services they provide [55].

A report on 18 bee species in Britain showed declining trends for seven species since the 1960s. The species with the most declines were Bombus humilis, B. ruderatus, B. subterraneusand B. sylvarum) [56]. The declines were associated with extensive use of chemical fertilizers as a source of nitrogen [57]. In Denmark, five of 12 native species were extinct, whereas the once common Bombus distinguendusis currently classified as a threatened species [58]. In central Europe, 48 out of 60 species and subspecies have declined over the past 136 years. Of this, 30% are considered as endangered species, while four are extinct [59]. These extinctions are associated with agricultural intensification initiated by the Green Revolution in the second half of the twentieth century [59]. Pollinator declines were reported in Swedish red clover fields since 1940 with only two rare species (B. terrestrisand B. lapidaries) remaining stable [59]. Similar to Denmark, B. distinguendusis extinct in the southern part of Sweden, with agricultural expansion and extensive use of agrochemicals reported as the major drivers for biodiversity decline in bees observed over the past 75 years [60]. Similar declining trends were observed among 46% of the Bombusspecies in Europe, of which 24% are endangered and one species (i.e., B. callumanns) showing >80% decline due to extensive application of chemical fertilizers in agricultural areas. Further, studies in North America showed that 50% of the 14 bumblebee species in southern Ontario (Canada) were declining. However, three species (B. bimaculatus, B. impatientsand B. rufocinctus) were increasing in abundance, while another three (B. affinis, B. pensylvanicusand B. terricola) were extinct [61, 62]. In the midwestern regions, a survey on 16 species of bumblebees showed a 50% population decline, while four species (B. borealis, B. ternarius, B. terricolaand B. variabilis) were extinct [18]. A similar decline trend was observed at Itasca State Park (Minnesota), where 11 out of 30 species of stingless bees (Megachilidae) declined, whereas 11 were missing [63, 64, 65] due to herbicide use and agricultural intensification.. On a national scale, where historical records were compared with intensive surveys across 382 locations in the USA, 50% of the initial 96% population declined in the last 30 years, and their habitat was condensed to between 23 and 87% [66]. Also in the USA, 3.5 million out of 6.0 million honey bee colonies reported declines, over the past six decades, representing 0.9% loss per year [67]. These declines were linked to the use of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) in agriculture [68], toxic pesticides for the management of Varroa mites [69, 70] and poor nutritional value of agro-landscapes dominated by monocultures (e.g., corn, oilseed rape, cotton) [71]. Declines have been reported for bees in Brazil (63%), Costa Rica (60%) and Finland (23%) [72, 73]. Again, these declines were attributed habitat loss due to agricultural intensification practices [74, 75, 76, 77]. Other factors contributing to the loss of bees are colony collapse disorder (CCD) caused by pathogens, toxins, parasites and other stressors [58, 78]. Presently, about 40, 30, 29 and 3–13% of colonies are lost annually in USA, Europe, South Africa and China, respectively [55]. The use of pesticides containing neonicotinoids and fipronil is implicated in these losses [58, 78, 79]. These pesticides inhibit the reproductive performances of queens and drones [80, 81], thus compromising the long-term viability of entire colonies [82].

In general, studies [83, 84, 85] identified four major phases of bee extinction particularly in Britain. These are as follows: i) the second half of the nineteenth century, with the introduction of guano fertilizers and conversion of arable crops to permanent grasslands, which reduced floral resources; ii) after the First World War, when florally-diverse crop rotations were replaced with chemical fertilizers; iii) between 1930 and 1960, when most species went extinct probably due to changes in agricultural policy (i.e., Green Revolution) that fostered agricultural intensification; and iv) from 1987 to 1994, when rates of decline slowed down perhaps because the most sensitive species were already lost or reduced substantially [20].

Apart from bees, the status of most other hymenopterans (i.e., ants, wasps and parasitoids) that provide important ecosystem services remains practically unknown to date (Table 2). There is, therefore, a need for intensive research on these species.

Bumble bees18 species7 speciesEngland[56]
Bumble bees14 species8 speciesCanada[61]
Bumble bees60 species48 speciesCentral Europe[59]
Honey bees6-m colonies3.5-m coloniesUSA[67]
Wild bees52% populationBritain[85]
Wild bees67% populationNetherlands[63]
Wild bees32% populationNorth America[64]
Cuckoo wasps23% populationFinland[85]
Stingless bees30 species11 speciesUSA[64]
Orchid bees24 species64% speciesBrazil[72]
Parasitic wasps48 species23% speciesFinland[85]
Ground beetles419 species34% speciesBelgium, Denmark[86]
Ground beetles49 species16% speciesUK[87]
Ladybird beetles68% speciesUSA[86]
Dung beetles31% populationItaly[88]
Saproxylic beetles436 species57% speciesEurope[89]
Dragonflies52 species65% populationUSA[90]
Odonata species200 species57 speciesJapan[91]
Odonata species155 species13 speciesSouth Africa[92]
Stoneflies14 species5 speciesCzech Republic[93]
Stoneflies77 species29% speciesUSA[94]
Mayflies107 species43% speciesCzech Republic[95]

Table 2.

Status of some taxa and their geographical areas.

4.3 Diptera

Hoverflies (Syrphidae) are not only important pollinators, but vital biological pest control agent for pest such as aphids, with a preference for damp habitats. Most studies in the Mediterranean countries showed significant differences in diversity within this taxon, with 249 species alone in Greece [77] and 429 in Spain [96]. This notwithstanding, the only long-term study to date shows reductions in species richness among hoverflies in the Netherlands and the U.K. [76].

4.4 Coleoptera

This insect group contributes greatly to ecosystem management through control of pests and decomposition of organic matter [97]. Habitat destruction, extensive application of toxic chemicals and urbanization are the main causes of their decline. Of 419 species surveyed in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg and Denmark, there was a 34% decline for carabids, with over 50% of xerophilic species of the genera Amara, Harpalusand Cymindisand Carabusrecording a decrease in their populations [98]. Populations of those with large mobility potential remained stable [87]. In the U.K., among 68 carabids at 11 geographical areas, 49 declined, with 26 species considered susceptible and eight threatened, although populations of 19 species remained stable. Generally, 16% of the species were considered extinct throughout the 15-year period of study [99]. There was a 64% species decline in mountainous regions, 31% in moorlands and 28% in pastures. These declines were linked to microclimatic changes and habitat destruction [99]. In a study in New Zealand, 12 species of large carabid beetles were threatened, while another 36 declined with the two genera Mecodemaand Megadromusbeing the most affected [100].

A study of 62 historical datasets of ladybird species in the USA and Canada showed stable species richness and population abundance [86]. However, a 68% decline was observed over a 20-year period in 1986 [86]. Two local species (i.e., Adalia bipunctataand Coccinella novemnotata) were classified as extinct in the north-eastern USA [101]. In addition to agricultural intensification and habitat change, competitive displacement by foreign generalist species, such as C. septempunctataand Harmonia axyridis[102], were identified as potential causes of the decline [103, 104, 105, 106]. In the Czech Republic, populations of six species declined, while seven others increased out of 13 species studied [107].

Studies on the trends of dung beetle abundance and distribution are obtainable only for the Mediterranean region, which has the largest range of dung beetles in Europe [108]. A study in Spain indicated that out of the 55 native species, nine had declined from 28 to 7% loss, while their distributional range contracted from 48 to 29% [108]. Scarabaeus piusand Gymnopleurus mopsuswere the most threatened species. Multivariate analyses showed that commercial farming, urbanization, and extensive use of pesticides were responsible for the declines [108]. Further, a study in Italy showed 31% decline in roller dung beetles and nine were extinct [88]. The trend of decline commenced from 1960s (two species), increased in the 1970s (three species), and peaked in the 1980s (six species). The possible primary decline factors were conversion of pastures to forests, agricultural intensification and a shift from free-ranging to stalled livestock management that reduced dung availability to foraging beetles.

Studies of scarab beetles showed that two Scarabaeusand four Gymnopleurusspecies are threatened, while G. mopsusis probably extinct [109, 110]. In France, a survey of the coastal region of France in 1996 showed nine Scarabaeidae were threatened and two Aphidiidae declined while Geotrupidae were extinct [111]. An earlier study showed 45-fold decline of Scarabaeus semipunctatus[89, 112]. In Europe, a study on saproxylic beetles showed that deforestation, agricultural intensification and wood harvesting caused destruction of native forests, thus endangering the survival of 56 beetle species. The two species, Glaphyra bassetti(Cerambycinae) and Propomacruscypriacus(Euchiridae), were the most threatened [109]. Since the abundance and distribution of 57% of the 436 known species are unidentified, the number of declining species could be even higher [113].

4.5 Hemiptera

These are distinctive phytophagous insects of plane regions, associated with natural and anthropogenic grasslands areas [85]. Sweep-net samples collected from 1963 to 1967 were compared with those collected from 2008 to 2010 at the same sites regarding species diversity, species composition and abundance. Generally, there was no change in species richness, irrespective of the strong interannual variability in abundance and weather condition. However, a decline in 14 species was observed while there was an increase in nine others and one species (Zyginidia scutellaris) increased in abundance and distribution. Median abundance decreased by 66% (from 679 to 231 individuals per site) over the 47-year period [114, 115]. The primary cause factors were attributed to airborne and soil acidification, partly due to agricultural intensification.

4.6 Orthoptera

A wide-ranging study on grasshoppers and crickets was conducted in Germany [116]. There was no fluctuation in their biodiversity and abundance over four decades (median nine species per site), and variations in species groupings were small. The only significant change was a steep decline in the Grasshopper of bare soils, Myrmeleotettix maculatus, while there was an increase in two generalist cricket species, Tettigonia viridissimaand Phaneroptera falcate. Contrasting with other taxa, few Orthoptera species exhibited noticeable decline trends, possibly because most species are highly adaptable polyphagous grazers. Nonetheless, about half of the species are considered threatened in Germany.

4.7 Odonata

Dragonflies (Anisoptera) and damselflies (Zygoptera) are a small group of insects that contribute to the management of nuisance mosquitoes and agricultural pests [117, 118]. Of 118 aquatic insect species that are threatened, 106 are from the order Odonata [94, 119]. A study of 42 sites across USA recorded a decline in 52 species of dragonflies and damselflies, while there was an increase in 29 species over the 98-year period. Nine pollution-tolerant species declined significantly, including four species (Sympetrum danae, Sympetrum costiferum, Ophiogomphus occidentisand Libellula nodisticta) that were in an earlier survey [90]. In Europe, 15% of 138 Odonata species are currently endangered, with two damselflies (Ceriagrion georgifreyiand Pyrrhosoma elisabethae) and one dragonfly (Cordulegaster helladicasp. kastalia) highly threatened with extinction. Major declines for these insects occurred through the post-1960 agricultural intensification, with pollution of irrigation water by urban runoff and extensive application of agrochemicals being major causes [120]. In Japan, 57 out of 200 Odonata species are declining while 19 are threatened [91]. The greatest losses of populations are among lentic species once common in rice paddy fields, with the red dragonflies (Sympetrumspp.) experiencing the sharpest decline since the mid-1990s [121]. This decline has been associated with the use of fipronil and neonicotinoid insecticides [122, 123]. Similarly, of the 155 Odonata species recorded in South Africa, 13 are declining, while four others are extinct [92]. The authors opined that fortification of rare species in natural reserves of the country does not guarantee their survival, as current livestock management and other human activities negatively impact on their population.

4.8 Freshwater taxa

Freshwater insect taxa mostly exhibit inflexible life cycles, with several species being univoltine, thus making them vulnerable to habitat modifications. Flow changes, habitat fragmentation, pollution and invasive species are the main threats to all aquatic organisms, including insects [124, 125]. Data for three main orders of freshwater insects, Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera, are reported here. There were no records found for Coleoptera (e.g., Dytiscidae, Hydrophilidae), Hemiptera (e.g., Notonectidae, Gerridae) or Diptera (e.g., Chironomidae, Tipulidae).

4.8.1 Plecoptera

Stoneflies are ecologically important and characterized by high degrees of endemism and narrow ecological requirements [126]. Previous report in Europe showed a disappearance of Aeniopteryx araneoidesand Oemopteryx loewiover the entire continent, while Isogenus nubeculawas locally extinct [127]. The level of extinction ranges from 50% in Switzerland to 13–16% in the Mediterranean countries such as Spain and Italy. Up to 63% of the 516 European species of stoneflies are vulnerable to habitat destruction and climate change [128]. Stoneflies are susceptible to variation in water flow, even though they show resistance to acidification as compared with other macro-invertebrates [129]. A study of 78 stonefly species at 170 sites in the Czech Republic reported that low- and mid-altitude streams accounted for three quarters of the changes in species diversity. This was mainly due to pollution, impoundment and channelization at those sites [130]. Lowland river habitats indicated five endangered species of the 14 native species documented in the nineteenth century, while four were considered extinct. Over a 50-year period, 12% of the species disappeared, whereas two new species (Brachyptera monilicornisand Leuctra geniculata) appeared. Moreover, 22% of species reported had declined by >50%, including common species such as Perla abdominalis, Amphinemura standfussiand Nemurella pictetii,while a further 10% had become vulnerable.

Unlike terrestrial taxa, most declines were found among habitat generalists and less in specialized species (60–70%), which are tolerant to organic pollution. Sites affected by organic pollution showed only 17–33% decline of subtle and eurytopic species since the mid-1990s [93]; certain amount of species recovery has been detected following pollution modification in acidified habitats [131]. In Switzerland, 50% of the species of stoneflies and mayflies were lost between 1940s and 1980s [132], and similar trend occurred in other European countries and the USA, where 29% of the 77 local stonefly species were lost and 62% of the remainder became endangered over the past century [94]. Main losses occurred in the large rivers and agricultural areas during the 1940s and 1950s, when both agricultural intensification and urban expansion took place. Modification of river flows, channels and drainages structures was considered the driving factors for the declines. The large, long-lived species of Perlidae (summer stones) and Perlodidae (spring stones) were impacted the most, and 36% of summer stones had gone extinct since 1860. For sensitive genera such as Acroneuria, 88% of populations in the entire contingent were lost over the past century, whereas genera tolerant to organic pollution such as Perlestahad increased fourfold.

4.8.2 Ephemeroptera

A checklist of mayfly species in the Czech Republic identified 107 species of which four are considered extinct, seven critically threatened, another seven endangered, 16 vulnerable and 14 near threatened [95]. A comparison of local mayfly also showed variations in species abundance, distribution and composition, but no major declines were observed in biodiversity except for the large lowland rivers, which lost five specialist species [133]. Biodiversity improved slightly in the mid- and upper streams and rivers, possibly because of substantial reduction in water pollution post-1989 [93]. Two species became extinct (Isonychia ignotaand Ephemerella mesoleuca), three became very rare, 11 were declining and nine were expanding their range, including the dominant Centroptilum luteolumand Baetis niger[93]. Main variations were due to losses of previously common and widespread species such as B. alpinusand Epeorus assimilis. The general difference among sites (15–30%) was mainly driven by species replacement. The present communities have shifted toward more simplified and less specialized assemblages in large rivers, whereas mayflies in small creeks have been replaced with species tolerant to pollution and siltation [93, 133]. In North America, a total of 672 species of mayflies are listed though no details are available about their abundance and distribution [134]. A collection for North and South Carolina (USA) reported 204 species [135], but again no status was indicated. A later study in relation to 10 rare species revealed, however, that four of the species sampled in the early twentieth century should be considered extinct [136].

4.8.3 Trichoptera

A comprehensive study on caddiflies species recorded 278 species in comparatively uninterrupted regions of Minnesota (USA) since the 1890s. Among the 278 species, 6–37% have declined in different areas, especially within the Limnephilidae (44% of species), Phryganeidae (21%) and Leptoceridae (12%) families [137]. Agrypnia glacialisand Anabolia sordidaare presently considered extinct, whereas 17 rare species are yet to be found since the 1950s [137]. Entirely affected species are either in the univoltine or in the semivoltine family and because of their long life span and feeding habits, are mainly susceptible to anthropogenic disturbances in water courses. The majority of losses are found among shredder (72%) and predatory species (11%), which agrees well with losses of aquatic taxa in other countries [138, 139].


5. Sustainable agricultural intensification practices to mitigate biodiversity declines

The reports above show clearly that although agricultural intensification practices improve yields, they also impact negatively on the environment as evidenced by the decline in insect biodiversity. Biodiversity is an integral part of the natural resource base for agricultural production and therefore must be protected to sustain and safeguard the increased yields for the present and future generations. Over time, plant productivity decreases as biodiversity is lost [14]. A large proportion of studies (49.7%) point to habitat change as the main driver of insect declines, a factor equally implicated in global bird and mammal declines [135, 136]. Thus, habitat management practices are a key for sustainability of agricultural intensification practices. According to [136, 137], sustainable agricultural intensification is the management and conservation of the natural resource base and the orientation of technological and institutional change to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. It involves a process to produce high yields for existing land resource without affecting the environment. Sustainable intensification must include natural resource management practices that maintain the diversity of habitats as an intrinsic part of the agro-ecosystem or as additional land use interspersed among the fields (Firbank et al. 2008). These practices include crop rotation, reduced tillage, soil and water conservation, application of organic manure, intercropping and agroforestry [136, 138]. The practices will among other benefits ensure sustainable soil fertility through improved soil structure and soil microbial activities. Thus, sustainability requires the integration of multiple practices on a long-term basis to achieve desired environmental and agricultural outcomes. Intercropping with improved cultivars as well as integration of mixed crops with agroforestry and livestock could promote sustainable intensification and food security [137]. Also, the judicious implementation of integrated pest management (IPM) will minimize the use of toxic pesticides and enhance environmental safety for sustainable crop production [138]. Furthermore, in many of the world’s farming systems, biological control constitutes an under-utilized and yet cost-effective tactic for pest control. The effect of biological control will be felt more in sustainable intensification systems such as those that involve IPM practices that are benign to natural enemies of pests and/or conserve biodiversity [139]. For aquatic insects, rehabilitation of marshlands and improved water quality are essential for biodiversity conservation and enhancement [140]. This may require the implementation of effective remediation technologies to clean the existing polluted waters [141, 142].


6. Conclusions

This chapter has provided a comprehensive discussion of effects of agricultural intensification on decline in insect biodiversity. Intensification practices highlighted as causes of this decline include expansion of farms into large commercial enterprises, cutting down hedgerows and trees in order to facilitate mechanization of farms, changed emphasis to monocultures, and increasing application of external input of fertilizers and synthetic pesticides. These practices largely reduce the level of refugia available for insects, herbaceous plants, vertebrate insectivores, and other organisms and consequently an overall decline in biodiversity, both in species numbers and in biomass. Insect biodiversity is integral to the resource base of the plant ecosystem that provides essential services for increased crop productivity and, therefore, must be protected to safeguard the survival of the present and future generations. To mitigate this decline therefore, the chapter highlights sustainable intensification practices to include habitat restoration practices such as intercropping, crop rotation, reduced tillage, agroforestry, application of organic manures coupled with drastic reductions in application of synthetic pesticides.



The authors gratefully acknowledge management and staff of the Entomology Section of CSIR – SARI for their support in diverse ways during the preparation of this book chapter.


Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest in the publication of this book chapter.


  1. 1.Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR. Mammal population losses and the extinction crisis. Science. 2002;296:904-907
  2. 2.Pimm SL, Raven P. Extinction by numbers. Nature. 2000;403(6772):843-845
  3. 3.Diamond JM. The present, past and future of human-caused extinctions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences. 1989;325(1228):469-477
  4. 4.Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Dirzo R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017;114(30):E6089-E6096
  5. 5.Maxwell SL, Fuller RA, Brooks TM, Watson JE. Biodiversity: The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature News. 2016;536(7615):143
  6. 6.Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science. 1997;277(5325):494-499
  7. 7.Tilman D, Fargione J, Wolff B, D’Antonio C, Dobson A, Howarth R, et al. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science. 2001;292:281-284
  8. 8.Mineau P, Whiteside M. Pesticide acute toxicity is a better correlate of U.S. grassland bird declines than agricultural intensification. PLoS One. 2013;8:e57457
  9. 9.Beketov MA, Kefford BJ, Schäfer RB, Liess M. Pesticides reduce regional biodiversity of stream invertebrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013;110(27):11039-11043
  10. 10.Hallmann CA, Sorg M, Jongejans E, Siepel H, Hofland N, Schwan H, et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0185809
  11. 11.Lister BC, Garcia A. Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rainforest food web. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018. DOI: 10.1073/pnas. 1722477115. (in press)
  12. 12.Shortall CR, Moore A, Smith E, Hall MJ, Woiwod IP, Harrington R. Longterm changes in the abundance of flying insects. Insect Conservation and Diversity. 2009;2:251-260
  13. 13.Thomas JA, Telfer MG, Roy DB, Preston CD, Greenwood JJD, Asher J, et al. Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science. 2004;303:1879-1881
  14. 14.Emmerson M, Morales MB, Oñate JJ, Batary P, Berendse F, Liira J, et al. How agricultural intensification affects biodiversity and ecosystem services. Advances in Ecological Research. 2016;55:43-97
  15. 15.Population Reference Bureau (PRB). World Population Data Sheet. 2019. Available from:[Accessed date: 7 February 2020]
  16. 16.Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, et al. Global consequences of land use. Science. 2005;309(5734):570-574
  17. 17.Raven PH, Wagner DL. Agricultural intensification and climate change are rapidly decreasing insect biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021;118(2)
  18. 18.Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience. 1998;48:607-615
  19. 19.Zabel F, Delzeit R, Schneider JM, Seppelt R, Mauser W, Václavík T. Global impacts of future cropland expansion and intensification on agricultural markets and biodiversity. Nature Communications. 2019;10(1):1-10
  20. 20.Raven PH, Wagner DL. Agricultural intensification and climate change are rapidly decreasing insect biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021;118(2)
  21. 21.Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SL, Contu S, Lysenko I, Senior RA, et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature. 2015;520(7545):45-50
  22. 22.Dudley N, Alexander S. Agriculture and biodiversity: A review. Biodiversity. 2017;18:45-49
  23. 23.Stokstad E. New global study reveals the ‘staggering’ loss of forests caused by industrial agriculture. Science. 2018. Available from:[Accessed date: 7 February 2020]
  24. 24.Syktus JI, McAlpine CA. More than carbon sequestration: Biophysical climate benefits of restored savanna woodlands. Scientific Reports. 2016;6:29194
  25. 25.Janzen DH, Hallwachs. Perspective: Where might be many tropical insects? Biological Conservation. 2019;233:102-108
  26. 26.Seibold S et al. Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature. 2019;574:671-674
  27. 27.Wagner DL. Insect declines in the Anthropocene. Annual Review of Entomology. 2020;65:457-480
  28. 28.Biesmeijer JC, Roberts SP, Reemer M, Ohlemüller R, Edwards M, Peeters T, et al. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science. 2006;313(5785):351-354
  29. 29.Powney GD, Carvell C, Edwards M, Morris RK, Roy HE, Woodcock BA, et al. Widespread losses of pollinating insects in Britain. Nature Communications. 2019;10(1):1-6
  30. 30.Fox R, Asher J, Brereton T, Roy D, Warren MT. State of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Newbury, U.K.: Pisces Publications; 2006
  31. 31.Erhardt A, Thomas JA. Lepidoptera as indicators of change in semi-natural grasslands of lowland and upland in Europe. In: Collins NM, Thomas J, editors. The Conservation of Insects and Their Habitats. London: Academic Press; 1991. p. 2130236
  32. 32.Fox R. The decline of moths in Great Britain: a review of possible causes. Insect Conservation and Diversity. 2013;6:5-19
  33. 33.Hahn M, Schotthöfer A, Schmitz J, Franke LA, Brühl CA. The effects of agrochemicals on Lepidoptera, with a focus on moths, and their pollination service in field margin habitats. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2015;207:153-162
  34. 34.Maes D, Van Dyck H. Butterfly diversity loss in Flanders (north Belgium): Europe’s worst case scenario? Biological Conservation. 2001;99:263-276
  35. 35.van Dyck H, van Strien AJ, Maes D, van Swaay CAM. Declines in common, widespread butterflies in a landscape under intense human use. Conservation Biology. 2009;23:957-965
  36. 36.Groenendijk D, van der Meulen J. Conservation of moths in The Netherlands: population trends, distribution patterns and monitoring techniques of day-flying moths. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2004;8:109-118
  37. 37.Franzén M, Johannesson M. Predicting extinction risk of butterflies and moths (Macrolepidoptera) from distribution patterns and species characteristics. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2007;11:367-390
  38. 38.Kuussaari M, Heliölä J, Pöyry J, Saarinen K. Contrasting trends of butterfly species preferring semi-natural grasslands, field margins and forest edges in northern Europe. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2007;11:351-366
  39. 39.Mattila N, Kaitala V, Komonen A, Kotiaho Janne S, PÄIvinen, J. Ecological determinants of distribution decline and risk of extinction in moths. Conservation Biology. 2006;20:1161-1168
  40. 40.Melero Y, Stefanescu C, Pino J. General declines in Mediterranean butterflies over the last two decades are modulated by species traits. Biological Conservation. 2016;201:336-342
  41. 41.van Swaay C, Warren M, Loïs G. Biotope use and trends of European butterflies. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2006;10:189-209
  42. 42.van Swaay C, Cuttelod A, Collins S, Maes D, Munguira MLP, ŠaŠić M, et al. European Red List of Butterflies. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2010
  43. 43.Swengel SR, Swengel AB. Assessing abundance patterns of specialized bog butterflies over 12 years in northern Wisconsin USA. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2015;19:293-304
  44. 44.Forister ML, Cousens B, Harrison JG, Anderson K, Thorne JH, Waetjen D, et al. 2016
  45. 45.Breed GA, Stichter S, Crone EE. Climate-driven changes in north-eastern US butterfly communities. Nature Climate Change. 2012;3:142
  46. 46.Nakamura Y. Conservation of butterflies in Japan: Status, actions and strategy. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2011;1:5-22
  47. 47.Chen IC, Hill JK, Shiu HJ, Holloway JD, Benedick S, Chey VK, et al. Asymmetric boundary shifts of tropical montane Lepidoptera over four decades of climate warming. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2011;20:34-45
  48. 48.Gallai N, Salles JM, Settele J, Vaissière BE. Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics. 2009;68(3):810-821
  49. 49.Williams PH. The distribution and decline of British bumble bees (Bombus Latr.). Journal of Apicultural Research. 1982;21:236-245
  50. 50.Goulson D, Hanley ME, Darvill B, Ellis JS, Knight ME. Causes of rarity in bumblebees. Biological Conservation. 2005;122:1-8
  51. 51.Dupont YL, Damgaard C, Simonsen V. Quantitative historical change in bumblebee (Bombus spp.) assemblages of red clover fields. PLoS One. 2011;6:e25172
  52. 52.Kosior A, Celary W, Olejniczak P, Fijal J, Król W, Solarz W, et al. The decline of the bumble bees and cuckoo bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombini) of Western and Central Europe. Oryx. 2007;41:79-88
  53. 53.Bommarco R, Lundin O, Smith HG, Rundlöf M. Drastic historic shifts in bumble-bee community composition in Sweden. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2012;279:309-315
  54. 54.Bommarco R, Kleijn D, Potts SG. Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2013;28:230-238
  55. 55.Colla S, Packer L. Evidence for decline in eastern North American bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae), with special focus on Bombus affinis Cresson. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2008;17:1379-1391
  56. 56.Thorp RW, Shepherd MD. Profile: Subgenus Bombus. In: Shepherd MD, Vaughan DM, Black SH, editors. Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. Portland, Oregon: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation; 2005
  57. 57.Cameron SA, Lozier JD, Strange JP, Koch JB, Cordes N, Solter LF, et al. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011;108:662-667
  58. 58.Ellis J. The honey bee crisis. Outlooks on Pest Management. 2012;23:35-40
  59. 59.Ellis JD, Evans JD, Pettis J. Colony losses, managed colony population decline, and Colony Collapse Disorder in the United States. Journal of Apicultural Research. 2010;49:134-136
  60. 60.Anderson KE, Sheehan TH, Eckholm BJ, Mott BM, DeGrandi-Hoffman G. An emerging paradigm of colony health: Microbial balance of the honey bee and hive (Apis mellifera). Insectes Sociaux. 2011;58:431-444
  61. 61.Johnson RM, Dahlgren L, Siegfried BD, Ellis MD. Acaricide, fungicide and drug interactions in honey bees (Apis mellifera). PLoS One. 2013;8:e54092
  62. 62.Huang Z. Pollen nutrition affects honey bee stress resistance. Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews. 2012;5:175-189
  63. 63.Cooling M, Hoffmann BD. Here today, gone tomorrow: Declines and local extinctions of invasive ant populations in the absence of intervention. Biological Invasions. 2015;17:3351-3357
  64. 64.Vogel V, Pedersen JS, Giraud T, Krieger MJB, Keller L. The worldwide expansion of the Argentine ant. Diversity and Distributions. 2010;16:170-186
  65. 65.Wilson EO. 2002. The Future of Life. Abacus, Time Warner Book Group, London, UK. Sorvari, J., Hakkarainen, H. Wood ants are wood ants: deforestation causes population declines in the polydomous wood ant Formica aquilonia. Ecological Entomology. 2007;32:707-711
  66. 66.Alburaki M, Chen D, Skinner JA, Meikle WG, Tarpy DR, Adamczyk J, et al. Honey bee survival and pathogen prevalence: From the perspective of landscape and exposure to pesticides. Insects. 2018:65
  67. 67.Brandt A, Hohnheiser B, Sgolastra F, Bosch J, Meixner MD, Büchler R. Immunosuppression response to the neonicotinoid insecticide thiacloprid in females and males of the red mason bee Osmia bicornis L. Scientific Reports 2020;10(1):1-0
  68. 68.Williams GR, Troxler A, Retschnig G, Roth K, Yañez O, Shutler D, et al. Neonicotinoid pesticides severely affect honey bee queens. Scientific Reports. 2015;5(1):1-8
  69. 69.Kairo G, Biron DG, Abdelkader FB, Bonnet M, Tchamitchian S, Cousin M, et al. Nosema ceranae, Fipronil and their combination compromise honey bee reproduction via changes in male physiology. Scientific Reports. 2017;7(1):1-4
  70. 70.Pettis JS, Rice N, Joselow K, vanEngelsdorp D, Chaimanee V. Colony failure linked to low sperm viability in honey bee (Apis mellifera) queens and an exploration of potential causative factors. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0147220
  71. 71.Losey JE, Vaughan M. The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience. 2006;56:311-323
  72. 72.Sorvari J, Hakkarainen H. Wood ants are wood ants: deforestation causes population declines in the polydomous wood ant Formica aquilonia. Ecological Entomology. 2007;32(6):707-711
  73. 73.Petanidou T, Vujic A, Ellis WN. Hoverfly diversity (Diptera: Syrphidae) in a Mediterranean scrub community near Athens, Greece. Annales de la Société entomologique de France. 2011;47:168-175
  74. 74.Pearson DL, Cassola F. World-wide species richness patterns of tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae): Indicator taxon for biodiversity and conservation studies. Conservation Biology. 1992;6:376-391
  75. 75.Desender K, Turin H. Loss of habitats and changes in the composition of the ground and tiger beetle fauna in four West European countries since 1950 (Coleoptera: Carabidae, Cicindelidae). Biological Conservation. 1989;48:277-294
  76. 76.Turin H, Den Boer PJ. Changes in the distribution of carabid beetles in The Netherlands since II. Isolation of habitats and long-term time trends in the occurence of carabid species with different powers of dispersal (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Biological Conservation. 1988;44(3):179-200
  77. 77.Brooks DR, Bater JE, Clark SJ, Monteith DT, Andrews C, Corbett SJ, et al. Large carabid beetle declines in a United Kingdom monitoring network increases evidence for a widespread loss in insect biodiversity. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2012;49(5):1009-1019
  78. 78.Roulston TAH, Goodell K. The role of resources and risks in regulating wild bee populations. Annual Review of Entomology. 2011;56:293-312
  79. 79.Biesmeijer JC, Roberts SPM, Reemer M, Ohlemuller R, Edwards M, Peeters T, et al. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science. 2006;313:351-354
  80. 80.Marlin JC, LaBerge WE. The native bee fauna of Carlinville, Illinois, revisited after 75 years: A case for persistence. Conservation Ecology. 2001;5
  81. 81.Gardner JD, Spivak M. A survey and historical comparison of the Megachilidae (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) of Itasca State Park, Minnesota. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 2014;107:983-993
  82. 82.Bennett AB, Isaacs R. Landscape composition influences pollinators and pollination services in perennial biofuel plantings. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2014;193:1-8
  83. 83.Nemesio A. Are orchid bees at risk? First comparative survey suggests declining populations of forest-dependent species. Brazilian Journal of Biology. 2013;73:367-374
  84. 84.Frankie GW, Rizzardi M, Vinson SB, Griswold TL. Decline in bee diversity and abundance from 1972-2004 on a flowering leguminous tree, Andira inermis in Costa Rica at the interface of disturbed dry forest and the urban environment. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society. 2009;82(1):1-20
  85. 85.Paukkunen J, Poyry J, Kuussaari M. Species traits explain long-term population trends of Finnish cuckoo wasps (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae). Insect Conservation and Diversity. 2018;11:58-71
  86. 86.Sato S, Dixon AF. Effect of intraguild predation on the survival and development of three species of aphidophagous ladybirds: consequences for invasive species. Agricultural and Forest Entomology. 2004;1:21-24
  87. 87.Brown M, Miller S. Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) in apple orchards of eastern West Virginia and the impact of invasion by Harmonia axyridis. Entomological News. 1998;109:143-151
  88. 88.Stefanescu C, Aguado LO, Asís JD, Baños-Picón L, Cerdá X, García MAM, et al. Diversidad de insectos polinizadores en la peninsula ibérica. Ecosistemas: Revista Cietifica y Tecnica de Ecologia y Medio Ambiente. 2018;27:9-22
  89. 89.Painter MK, Tennessen KJ, Richardson TD. Effects of repeated applications of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis on the mosquito predator Erythemis simplicicollis (Odonata: Libellulidae) from hatching to final instar. Environmental Entomology. 1996;25(1):184-191
  90. 90.Samways MJ. Diversity and conservation status of South African dragonflies (Odonata). Odonatologica. 1999;28(1):13-62
  91. 91.Allan JD, Flecker AS. Biodiversity conservation in running waters. Bioscience. 1993;43:32-43
  92. 92.Tierno de Figueroa JM, López-Rodríguez MJ, Lorenz A, Graf W, Schmidt-Kloiber A, Hering D. Vulnerable taxa of European Plecoptera (Insecta) in the context of climate change. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2010;19:1269-1277
  93. 93.McCafferty PW, Lenat DR, Jacobus LM, Meyer MD. The mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of the Southeastern United States. Transactions of the American Entomological Society. 2010;136:221-233 (1890-)
  94. 94.Jinguji H, Thuyet D, Ueda T, Watanabe H. Effect of imidacloprid and fipronil pesticide application on Sympetrum infuscatum (Libellulidae: Odonata) larvae and adults. Paddy and Water Environment. 2013;11:277-284
  95. 95.Houghton DC, Holzenthal RW. Historical and contemporary biological diversity of Minnesota caddisflies: A case study of landscape-level species loss and trophic composition shift. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 2010;29:480-495
  96. 96.McGuinness CA. Carabid beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) conservation in New Zealand. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2007;11:31-41
  97. 97.Harmon JP, Stephens E, Losey J. The decline of native coccinellids (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in the United States and Canada. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2007;11:85-94
  98. 98.Wheeler AG, Hoebeke ER. Rise and fall of an immigrant lady beetle: Is Coccinella undecimpunctata L.(Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) still present in North America? Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington. 2008;110(3):817-823
  99. 99.Brown PM, Roy HE. Native ladybird decline caused by the invasive harlequin ladybird Harmonia axyridis: Evidence from a long-term field study. Insect Conservation and Diversity. 2018;3:230-239
  100. 100.Camacho-Cervantes M, Ortega-Iturriaga A, Del-Val E. From effective biocontrol agent to successful invader: the harlequin ladybird (Harmonia axyridis) as an example of good ideas that could go wrong. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3296
  101. 101.Rutledge CE, O’Neil RJ, Fox TB, Landis DA. Soybean aphid predators and their use in Integrated Pest Management. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 2004;97:240-248
  102. 102.Honek A, Martinkova Z, Kindlmann P, Ameixa Olga MCC, Dixon Anthony FG. Long-term trends in the composition of aphidophagous coccinellid communities in Central Europe. Insect Conservation and Diversity. 2014;7:55-63
  103. 103.Lobo JM. Decline of roller dung beetle (Scarabaeinae) populations in the Iberian peninsula during the 20th century. Biological Conservation. 2001;97:43-50
  104. 104.Carpaneto GM, Mazziotta A, Valerio L. Inferring species decline from collection records: roller dung beetles in Italy (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Diversity and Distributions. 2007;13:903-919
  105. 105.Lumaret JP, Galante E, Lumbreras C, Mena J, Bertrand M, Bernal JL, et al. Field effects of ivermectin residues on dung beetles. Journal of Applied Ecology. 1993;30:428-436
  106. 106.Relyea RA, Hoverman JT. Interactive effects of predators and a pesticide on aquatic communities. Oikos. 2008;117:1647-1658
  107. 107.Lumaret J-P. Atlas des Coléoptères Scara-béides Laparosticti de France. Paris, France: Secrétariat Faune Flore/MNHN; 1990
  108. 108.Lobo JM, Lumaret J-P, Jay-Robert P. Diversity, distinctiveness and conservation status of the Mediterranean coastal dung beetle assemblage in the Regional Natural Park of the Camargue (France). Diversity and Distributions. 2001;7:257-270
  109. 109.Nieto A, Alexander KN. The Status and Conservation of Saproxylic Beetles in Europe. 2010
  110. 110.Lindhe A, Jeppsson T, Ehnstrom B. Longhorn beetles in Sweden - changes in distribution and abundance over the last two hundred years. Entomologisk Tidskrift. 2011;131:507
  111. 111.Schuch S, Wesche K, Schaefer M. Long-term decline in the abundance of leafhoppers and planthoppers (Auchenorrhyncha) in Central European protected dry grasslands. Biological Conservation. 2012;149:75-83
  112. 112.Schuch S, Bock J, Leuschner C, Schaefer M, Wesche K. Minor changes in orthopteran assemblages of Central European protected dry grasslands during the last 40 years. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2011;15:811-822
  113. 113.Relyea RA, Hoverman JT. Interactive effects of predators and a pesticide on aquatic communities. Oikos. 2008;117(11):1647-1658
  114. 114.Kalkman VJ, Boudot J-P, Bernard R, Conze K-JR, Knijf GD, Dyatlova E, et al. European Red List of Dragonflies. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2010
  115. 115.DeWalt RE, Favret C, Webb DW. Just how imperiled are aquatic insects? A case study of stoneflies (Plecoptera) in Illinois. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 2005;98:941-950
  116. 116.Clausnitzer V, Kalkman VJ, Ram M, Collen B, Baillie JEM, Bedjanič M, et al. Odonata enter the biodiversity crisis debate: The first global assessment of an insect group. Biological Conservation. 2009;142:1864-1869
  117. 117.Ball-Damerow JE, M’Gonigle LK, Resh VH. Changes in occurrence, richness, and biological traits of dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) in California and Nevada over the past century. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2014;23:2107-2126
  118. 118.Kadoya T, Suda SI, Washitani I. Dragonfly crisis in Japan: A likely consequence of recent agricultural habitat degradation. Biological Conservation. 2009;142(9):1899-1905
  119. 119.Futahashi R. Diversity of UV reflection patterns in Odonata. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 2020;8:201
  120. 120.Nakanishi K, Nishida T, Kon M, Sawada H. Effects of environmental factors on the species composition of aquatic insects in irrigation ponds. Entomological Science. 2014;17:251-261
  121. 121.Zwick P. Stream habitat fragmentation — a threat to biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation. 1992;1:80-97
  122. 122.Zwick P. Phylogenetic system and zoogeography of the Plecoptera. Annual Review of Entomology. 2000;45:709-746
  123. 123.Fochetti R, de Figueroa JMT. Notes on diversity and conservation of the European fauna of Plecoptera (Insecta). Journal of Natural History. 2006;40:2361-2369
  124. 124.Tixier G, Guérold F. Plecoptera response to acidification in several headwater streams in the Vosges Mountains (northeastern France). Biodiversity and Conservation. 2005;14:1525-1539
  125. 125.Bojková J, Komprdová K, Soldán T, Zahrádková S. Species loss of stoneflies (Plecoptera) in the Czech Republic during the 20th century. Freshwater Biology. 2012;57:2550-2567
  126. 126.Bojková J, Rádková V, Soldán T, Zahrádková S. Trends in species diversity of lotic stoneflies (Plecoptera) in the Czech Republic over five decades. Insect Conservation and Diversity. 2014;7:252-262
  127. 127.Nedbalová L, Vrba J, Fott J, Kohout L, Kopáček J, Macek M, et al. Biological recovery of the Bohemian Forest lakes from acidification. Biologia. 2006;61(20):S453-S465
  128. 128.Kury D. Changes in the ephemeroptera and plecol_ftera population s of a swiss j ura stream (roserenbach) between 1935 and 1990
  129. 129.Zahrádková S, Soldán T, Bojková J, Helešic J, Janovská H, Sroka P. Distribution and biology of mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of the Czech Republic: present status and perspectives. Aquatic Insects. 2009;31:629-652
  130. 130.Zedková B, Rádková V, Bojková J, Soldán T, Zahrádková S. Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) as indicators of environmental changes in the past five decades: A case study from the Morava and Odra River Basins (Czech Republic). Aquatic Conservation. 2015;25:622-638
  131. 131.Pescador ML, Lenat DR, Hubbard MD. Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of North Carolina and South Carolina: an update. Florida Entomologist. 1999:316-332
  132. 132.McCafferty PW. Status of some historically unfamiliar American mayflies (Ephemeroptera). Pan-Pacific Entomologist. 2001;77:210-218
  133. 133.Jenderedjian K, Hakobyan S, Stapanian MA. Trends in benthic macroinvertebrate community biomass and energy budgets in Lake Sevan, 1928-2004. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2012;184:6647-6671
  134. 134.Karatayev AY, Burlakova LE, Padilla DK, Mastitsky SE, Olenin S. Invaders are not a random selection of species. Biological Invasions. 2009;11(9)
  135. 135.Chamberlain DE, Fuller RJ, Bunce RG, Duckworth JC, Shrubb M. Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2000;37(5):771-788
  136. 136.Jabbar A, Wu Q, Peng J, Zhang J, Imran A, Yao L. Synergies and determinants of sustainable intensification practices in Pakistan agriculture. Landscape. 2020;9:10. DOI: 10:33390/Land9040110
  137. 137.Haile B, Cox C, Azzarri C, Koo J. Adoption of sustainable intensification practices: Evidence from maize-legume farming system in Tanzania. In: IFFPRI Discussion paer 01696. International Food Policy Research Institute; 2017
  138. 138.Pretty J, Bharucha ZP. Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Annals of Botany. 2014;114:1571-1596. DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcu205
  139. 139.Wyckhuys KA, Hughes AC, Buamas C, Johnson AC, Vasseur L, Reymondin L, et al. Biological control of an agricultural pest protects tropical forests. Communications Biology. 2019;2(1):1-8
  140. 140.van Strien AJ, Meyling AW, Herder JE, Hollander H, Kalkman VJ, Poot MJ, et al. Modest recovery of biodiversity in a western European country: The living planet index for the Netherlands. Biological Conservation. 2016;200:44-50
  141. 141.Arzate S, Sánchez JG, Soriano-Molina P, López JC, Campos-Mañas MC, Agüera A, et al. Effect of residence time on micropollutant removal in WWTP secondary effluents by continuous solar photo-Fenton process in raceway pond reactors. Chemical Engineering Journal. 2017;316:1114-1121
  142. 142.Pascal-Lorber S, Laurent F. Phytoremediation techniques for pesticide contaminations. In: Alternative Farming Systems, Biotechnology, Drought Stress and Ecological Fertilisation. Dordrecht: Springer; 2011. pp. 77-105

Written By

Mumuni Abudulai, Jerry Asalma Nboyine, Peter Quandahor, Ahmed Seidu and Fousséni Traore

Submitted: June 30th, 2021Reviewed: October 22nd, 2021Published: March 25th, 2022