Erratum for the Report "Meta-analysis reveals declines in terrestrial but increases in freshwater insect abundances" by R. Van Klink, D. E. Bowler, K. B. Gongalsky, A. B. Swenge, A. Gentile, J. M. Chase

In the Report, “[Meta-analysis reveals declines in terrestrial but increases in freshwater insect abundances][1],” the following corrections have been made. After publication, some errors in the data underlying the analyses, and the processing of it, were brought to the authors’ attention. The most important was a mistake in the processing of the Environmental Change Network moth data ([ 1 ][2]) from the UK (Datasource_ID 1006). The authors made two errors in processing these data: (i) They neglected to recode abundance counts with error code ‘101’ (indicating no sample taken) as missing data values and they instead entered into the analysis as values of 101, and (ii) they did not sufficiently account for the change in sampling protocol over time; moths were sampled all nights of the year in the first years but only on nights with favorable weather in later years. This led to higher average counts per night in later years because there were fewer data from the nights with low moth counts. These two errors produced a false-positive trend for this dataset. The authors have fixed these issues by removing the error code and retaining only the summer months during which sampling was consistent over time. Furthermore, they revisited all the other datasets in the analysis to check for any other errors in the data, including error codes, missing zeros, duplicate values, outliers, and sampling effort consistency across plots, and corrected these when necessary. They found inconsistencies in the source data of dataset 502 ([ 2 ][3]) and removed all years with missing species. As a result, the authors excluded 8 (out of 30) plots from this dataset because they no longer met the inclusion criteria. Dataset 1424 ([ 3 ][4]) was duplicated in dataset 1347 ([ 4 ][5]) and was thus removed because the latter provided more years of data. The authors retained 165 datasets and 1668 plots. In all, they made changes to 22 of these datasets. All corrections and their effect on the random-effects estimate of each dataset are detailed in the supplementary materials, and all figures and tables in the supplementary materials, as well as in data S1 and S2 and in the repository ([ 5 ][6]), have been replaced. It was also brought to the authors’ attention that they should have been clearer regarding exclusion of non-insects from datasets comprising both insects and non-insect invertebrates, as well as datasets with variable sampling frequencies. They have now added an additional explanation to the methods section of the supplementary materials. In brief, they excluded non-insect invertebrate data as much as possible but not at the cost of also excluding insects. The authors have rerun all models presented in the original paper with the corrected data and found that none of the major qualitative conclusions of the paper changed. The quantitative estimates have changed somewhat, however: The average decline for terrestrial insects across all data are now –1.11% per year (–10.56% per decade) and the increase for freshwater insects is now +1.16% per year (+12.24% per decade), both well within the 95% credible intervals of the previous estimates. In the geographic analysis, Europe now shows weak evidence for a decline of terrestrial insects of –0.76% per year (–7.3% per decade, P = 0.947), which is perpetuated across all time slices of Fig. 3 in the paper (ranging between moderate and strong evidence). Overall, the authors found more strengthening of trends than weakening of trends. For example, there is now weak evidence for a decline of terrestrial biomass and for a positive effect of increasing temperatures on terrestrial insect abundances. They also found weak evidence for a negative effect of last year of sampling on the trend estimates, suggesting that trends are more negative in datasets with more recent data. This matches the progressively more negative trends in the European terrestrial data. All old and new model estimates, presented as the percentage change per year, and a detailed description of the changes to the materials and methods, can be found on Zenodo (). 1. [↵][7]S. Rennie, J. Adamson, R. Anderson, C. Andrews, J. Bater, N. Bayfield, K. Beaton, D. Beaumont, S. Benham, V. Bowmaker, C. Britt, R. Brooker, D. Brooks, J. Brunt, G. Common, R. Cooper, S. Corbett, N. Critchley, P. Dennis, J. Dick, B. Dodd, N. Dodd, N. Donovan, J. Easter, M. Flexen, A. Gardiner, D. Hamilton, P. Hargreaves, M. Hatton-Ellis, M. Howe, J. Kahl, M. Lane, S. Langan, D. Lloyd, B. McCarney, Y. McElarney, C. McKenna, S. McMillan, F. Milne, L. Milne, M. Morecroft, M. Murphy, A. Nelson, H. Nicholson, D. Pallett, D. Parry, I. Pearce, G. Pozsgai, A. Riley, R. Rose, S. Schafer, T. Scott, L. Sherrin, C. Shortall, R. Smith, P. Smith, R. Tait, C. Taylor, M. Taylor, M. Thurlow, A. Turner, K. Tyson, H. Watson, M. Whittaker, I. Woiwod, C. Wood, UK Environmental Change Network (ECN) Moth Data: 1992-2015, NERC Environmental Information Data Centre (2018); . 2. [↵][8]NERC Centre for Population Biology Imperial College, Global population dynamics database, Version 2 (2010); . 3. [↵][9]1. J. M. McCarthy, 2. C. L. Hein, 3. J. D. Olden, 4. M. J. Vander Zanden , Coupling long-term studies with meta-analysis to investigate impacts of non-native crayfish on zoobenthic communities. Freshw. Biol. 51, 224–235 (2006). 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01485.x [OpenUrl][10][CrossRef][11] 4. [↵][12]J. Magnuson, C. S. E. Stanley, North Temperate Lakes LTER: Benthic macroinvertebrates 1981-current, Environmental Data Initiative (2010); . 5. [↵][13]R. van Klink, D. E. Bowler, J. M. Chase, O. Comay, M. M. Driessen, S. K. M. Ernest, A. Gentile, F. Gilbert, K. B. Gongalky, G. Pe’er, I. Pe’er, V. H. Resh, A. B. Swengel, S. R. Swengel, T. J. Valone, R. Vermeulen, T. Wepprich, J. Wiedmann, A global database of long-term changes in insect assemblages, Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity (KNB) (2020); . [1]: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6489/417 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #ref-5 [7]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [9]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [10]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DFreshw.%2BBiol.%26rft.volume%253D51%26rft.spage%253D224%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1111%252Fj.1365-2427.2005.01485.x%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [11]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01485.x&link_type=DOI [12]: #xref-ref-4-1 "View reference 4 in text" [13]: #xref-ref-5-1 "View reference 5 in text"