Abstract
Emerging evidence suggests that insect populations may be declining at local and global scales, threatening the sustainability of the ecosystem services that insects provide. Insect declines are of particular concern in the Neotropics, which holds several of the world’s hotspots of insect endemism and diversity. Conservation policies are one way to prevent and mitigate insect declines, yet these policies are usually biased toward vertebrate species. Here, we outline some key policy instruments for biodiversity conservation in the Neotropics and discuss their potential contribution and shortcomings for insect biodiversity conservation. These include species-specific action policies, protected areas and Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs), sectoral policies, biodiversity offsetting, market-based mechanisms, and the international policy instruments that underpin these efforts. We highlight that although these policies can potentially benefit insect biodiversity indirectly, there are avenues in which we could better incorporate the specific needs of insects into policy to mitigate the declines mentioned above. We propose several areas of improvement. Firstly, evaluating the extinction risk of more Neotropical insects to better target at-risk species with species-specific policies and conserve their habitats within area-based interventions. Secondly, alternative pest control methods and enhanced monitoring of insects in a range of land-based production sectors. Thirdly, incorporating measurable and achievable insect conservation targets into international policies and conventions. Finally, we emphasise the important roles of community engagement and enhanced public awareness in achieving these improvements to insect conservation policies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Insects are responsible for a wide range of functional roles within the ecosystem, contributing to the ecosystem service framework (Metcalfe et al. 2014; Noriega et al. 2018; Ollerton 2021; Seibold et al. 2021). These include conventional services such as pollination (Klein et al. 2007; Gallai et al. 2009; Klatt et al. 2014) and dung degradation which maintains soil fertility and controls pests (Nichols et al. 2008). Furthermore, insects provide a range of unconventional ecosystem services (Morimoto 2020), including plastic degradation (Bombelli et al. 2017) and numerous contributions to human culture and tourism (Duffus et al. 2021 and Jacinto-Padilla et al. 2021). These insect ecosystem services are critical for achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals and long-term global sustainability (Dangles and Casas 2019). However, at present, anthropogenic modification of global landscapes is contributing to insect population decline (Seibold et al. 2019; Bowler 2021; Boyes et al. 2021), with reduced diversity posing a threat to the sustainability of ecosystem services provided by insects (Soliveres et al. 2016; Newbold et al. 2019; Noriega et al. 2021). Additionally, these declines compromise the Sustainable Development Goal 15, which sets out to conserve natural populations of species and prevent extinctions (United Nations 2015).
Changes to the diversity and abundance of insect populations have been identified in areas of the Northern Hemisphere, mainly in Europe, leading to concerns of similar patterns being observed on a global scale (Dirzo et al. 2014; Bell et al. 2020; Cardoso et al. 2020; Wagner 2020). In the Neotropics, however, there is very little data on the status of insect biodiversity, even though the region hosts essential habitats that are considered global biodiversity hotspots, including Brazil’s Cerrado and Atlantic forests, the Caribbean, Central Chile, and the Mesoamerican hotspot (Myers et al. 2000). One reason for the general lack of data on insect decline in the Neotropics is that biodiversity databases such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) exhibit biases toward the Northern Hemisphere, with significant taxonomic and geographic gaps for the Southern Hemisphere, including the Neotropics (Rocha-Ortega et al. 2021).
In GBIF, only 5752 insect species from South America are included, as opposed to 25,050 insect species from North America (Rocha-Ortega et al. 2021). While taxonomic coverage can be reduced by incorporating more data from other sources, this can increase the prevalence of other biases, including temporal bias (Boyd et al. 2022). The lack of data in the region can obscure patterns of insect extinction that remain undetected and, thus, unmanageable from the perspective of conservation policies (Janzen and Hallwachs 2019, 2021). Existing data has indeed identified declines in the abundance and diversity of several insect taxa in the Neotropics, including Hymenopterans (Frankie et al. 2009; Nemésio 2013), Lepidopterans (Salcido et al. 2020), Hemipterans (Pinedo-Escatel et al. 2021), and aquatic insects (Romero et al. 2021). This includes, for example, a 53% decline in sap-sucking Hemiptera (tribe: Athysanini) over 75 years in Mexican dry forests (Pinedo-Escatel et al. 2021). Modelling efforts also indicate the potential for further losses in the face of climatic changes (Fonseca 2009; Giannini et al. 2012; Gonzalez et al. 2021), which may pose a threat to ecosystem services in the area, including pollination, with up to US$22 billion of crops in Latin America attributed to insect pollinators (Basualdo et al. 2022). Therefore, it is critical to address such declines, not just for the intrinsic value of insect species, but for the functions underpinning ecosystem stability to ensure the continuity of ecosystem services essential to society.
To undertake conservation action, priorities are often determined by tools such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List. However, despite the Neotropics being estimated to hold a large proportion of global insect biodiversity (Stork 2018), only 2277 insect species feature on the IUCN Red List for the Neotropical biogeographical realm (IUCN 2022), of which 1.8% are experiencing population decline, 0.3% population growth, 8.6% are stable and the majority (87.5%) has an unknown population trend. However, even these trends are unlikely to represent the overall trends for insect biodiversity of the region, given that 79% of the Neotropical insects in the IUCN Red List belong to the group Odonata. In comparison, species-rich orders such as Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, and Diptera account for only 12.2%, 2.1%, and 0.04% of the insects listed.
Since the IUCN Red List is an easily recognisable tool for the public and policymakers, and can play a critical role in informing conservation decision-making (Rodrigues et al. 2006; Betts et al. 2020), species must be identified, described and monitored to determine long-term trends. The taxonomic skew in the IUCN Red List may reflect the lack of resources for taxonomy in the region and the small number of established specialist taxonomists for diverse, lesser-studied taxa in the Neotropics (Brown 2005; New and Samways 2014). This has knock-on effects on the inclusion of species in the IUCN Red List and the design of conservation policies. Undescribed and data-scarce insect species are not included, with the undesirable effect of underestimating the resources needed for insect conservation as opposed to vertebrate conservation (Donaldson et al. 2017; Davies et al. 2018; Mammola et al. 2020). This has biased policies toward vertebrates and well-studied insect groups (Cardoso 2012; Leandro et al. 2017; Duffus and Morimoto 2022).
With such limited data, there is a burgeoning need for frameworks, initiatives and policies that protect insect biodiversity and reduce extinction risks of insect biodiversity in the Neotropical region (Forister et al. 2019; Cardoso et al. 2020). Furthermore, there exists enough evidence of insect population decline (Frankie et al. 2009; Nemésio 2013; Salcido et al. 2020; Pinedo-Escatel et al. 2021; Romero et al. 2021; Lewinsohn et al. 2022) to warrant action now, to prevent further such declines, and ensure the continuity of essential ecosystem functions and services that insects perform. Here, we discuss existing policy instruments for conservation in the Neotropics, their potential to conserve insect populations indirectly, and future steps to enable more direct protection of insect populations.
The Neotropical biodiversity conservation policy mix
There are many known threats to biodiversity globally, which include habitat loss and fragmentation (Newbold et al. 2015; Maxwell et al. 2016; Fletcher et al. 2018), pesticide use (Goulson 2013; Sluijs et al. 2013; Sánchez-Bayo 2014; Marques et al. 2020), invasive species (Englund 2008; Wagner and Driesche 2010; Tallamy et al. 2021), pollution (Grubisic et al. 2018; Feldhaar and Otti 2020; Boyes et al. 2021), and climate change (Halsch et al. 2021). These factors interact and reduce the quantity and quality of available habitat for insect populations, which ultimately contribute to subsequent insect decline and extinction (Côté et al. 2016; Ito et al. 2020; Raven and Wagner 2021; Bowler 2021). For example, the Calliphoridae (blowfly) species Neta chilensis (Walker, 1836) which may be extinct due to the interaction of multiple stressors (Mulieri et al. 2022). Therefore, policies that mitigate the synergistic effect of threats to biodiversity are essential for effective insect conservation. Below, we outline some examples of biodiversity conservation policies currently implemented in the Neotropical region, discuss their relevance to insect conservation goals, and areas where more directive steps could be taken.
Traditional conservation policies
Species protection and prioritisation
One of the earliest nature conservation approaches to be developed was protected species laws, which were typically created to preserve mammal populations that were overexploited by hunters (Epstein 2006). Regulations for the conservation of listed species continue to be common in places such as Europe, albeit with a persistent bias toward vertebrates to the detriment of invertebrate groups (Cardoso 2012; Leandro et al. 2017; Duffus and Morimoto 2022), a bias that cannot be justified by differences in extinction risk (Moser et al. 2016). One such example from the Neotropics is the Environmental Management Act 2000 in Trinidad and Tobago (Ministry of Legal Affairs 2009). This act denotes “Environmentally Sensitive Species” (ESSs), which are resident in Trinidad and Tobago, and is in danger of extinction. The act can prohibit the killing, collecting or disturbance of the ESSs. However, only ten species are listed as ESSs, all of which are vertebrate species (Government of Trinidad and Tobago 2022). Another instance is the General Wildlife Law in Mexico which sets out species at risk of extinction, for which the Secretariat will promote their conservation and protection (The General Congress of the United Mexican States 2021). The current version of the list details 46 invertebrate species, of which just three are insects, versus 292 mammal species (The General Congress of the United Mexican States 2010).
A broader initiative exists in Brazil, in the creation of PAN’s (Plano de Ação Nacional), which seek to increase conservation action for threatened species, habitats and ecosystems (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation 2022). Two of these plans have specifically targeted insects—the first being the “Plano de Ação Nacional para Conservação de Lepidópteros” which ran from 2010 to 2015 (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation 2022). This plan included 8 goals and 76 actions to benefit Lepidopterans nationally (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation 2011). These actions ranged from finding remnant populations of critically endangered species, to standardizing methods for monitoring, and even increasing resources for taxonomy, parataxonomy and publishing updated species lists (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation 2011). Though this plan has expired, from 2023 the Plano de Ação Nacional para a Conservação dos Insetos Polinizadores is in effect, outlining 71 actions for the conservation of 56 pollinating bee and Lepidoptera species (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation 2022). This focus on Lepidopterans follows the bias in policies in the UK (Duffus and Morimoto 2022), suggesting that Lepidopterans, and pollinating insects more broadly, potentially have higher perceived value for policymakers. Having said that, the efforts to protect insects (in Brazil and elsewhere) should ideally be extended to other functional groups, such as decomposers, parasitoid and saxoprylic insects, which fulfil key roles in the ecosystem but are less well studied (Nichols et al. 2008; Ramos et al. 2020; Seibold et al. 2021; Shaw and Hochberg 2001).
There is an argument that the designation of a handful of species as a conservation priority can offer conservation to other species with similar habitat requirements. These species act as “umbrella” species for others (Spitzer et al. 2009; Branton and Richardson 2011). For example, the umbrella utility of the Jaguar (Panthera onca (L., 1758)) conservation network from Mexico to Argentina for other mammals has been demonstrated (Thornton et al. 2016). However, concerns about the broader effectiveness of the umbrella species approach (Simberloff 1998; Roberge and Angelstam 2004) must be considered when designing conservation efforts in the Neotropics. For instance, the conservation of representatives from higher taxa (e.g., mammals) does not necessarily ensure the preservation of other taxa (Roberge and Angelstam 2004). This is particularly true where species umbrellas do not directly address the specific threats to a group, such as tourism in cave microhabitats (Pacheco et al. 2021) or pesticide use (Sánchez-Bayo 2014). It also must be recognised that insects themselves can work as umbrella species (Pérez-Espona 2021; Fierro and Vergara 2019; Whiteman and Sites 2008), although in practice this may not occur owing to their lack of “flagship” characteristics (Simberloff 1998). Nonetheless, the utility of insects as umbrella species cannot be overlooked, particularly where insects do not co-occur with charismatic vertebrate umbrellas (Whiteman and Sites 2008).
To fully ascertain the efficacy of policies targeting species, we should identify species that may be endangered by using long-term standardised population monitoring data and adequate estimation of population size to generate a robust evaluation of extinction risk (Hambler and Henderson 2019; Montgomery et al. 2020; Didham et al. 2020). This robustness is vital because IUCN Red List criteria for species status assessments can produce inconsistent insect assessments (Fox et al. 2019) and thus require increased objectivity and standardisation (Cardoso et al. 2011b; Collen et al. 2016). In addition, using new and emerging technologies could present a cost-effective way to generate baseline data in the Neotropics, including acoustic monitoring techniques (Aide et al. 2013; Deichmann et al. 2018).
Moreover, when considering extinction risk assessments for conservation, it must be recognised that the Neotropical region possesses high levels of insect endemism (Löwenberg-Neto and Carvalho 2009). The extinction risks of endemic insects are more readily recognised by country-specific local red lists, rather than the global IUCN Red List, with 3.4 × more endemic insect assessments on local red lists than the IUCN Red List (Barahona-Segovia and Zúñiga-Reinoso 2021). Integrating local red list assessments into the overarching IUCN Red List could increase recognition of the conservation need of such endemic insects, fuelling increased funding for research to inform species-specific policies (Barahona-Segovia and Zúñiga-Reinoso 2021). This would raise the plight of insect species in need of conservation to policymakers, increasing their representation on policies, such as those denoting species of conservation priority in Trinidad and Tobago and Mexico.
Area-based interventions: protected areas and Indigenous Community Conserved Areas
Land protection has been considered a more effective use of resources than species protection laws, given the significant taxonomic gaps in our data for Neotropical insects (Lewinsohn et al. 2005). Areas designated as protected are set aside for biodiversity conservation, education or tourism, with reduced (or no) scope for economic activities such as agriculture and forestry. Such areas include national parks, wilderness areas and strict nature reserves as defined by the IUCN, all with differing levels of anthropogenic impact permitted (Dudley 2013). Thus, protected areas have benefits for society by reducing poverty, securing employment opportunities and providing many health benefits (Naidoo et al. 2019; Ma et al. 2020), and have been regarded as one of the most important use of funds for insect conservation globally (Miličić et al. 2021).
The planning of protected areas typically employs modelling to determine sites of high species diversity, or sites considered vulnerable and irreplaceable (Margules et al. 2002; Mokany et al. 2014). However, policies that create protected areas can fail to encapsulate areas of vital insect habitat (Powell et al. 2000; Rodriguex-Cabal et al. 2008; Megna et al. 2021). For example, models of existing networks have been shown to exclude endemic species, such as three endemic Dytiscidae beetles in Cuba’s National Protected Area’s System (Megna et al. 2021). Additionally, some of the diverse ecoregions found in the Neotropics can be underrepresented by protected area networks (Hazen and Anthamatten 2004; Soutullo and Gudynas 2006; Cantú-Salazar and Gaston 2010; Durán et al. 2013). This includes temperate grasslands, deserts and xeric shrublands, the latter of which can hold unique insect faunas, such as in the Atacama (Zúñiga-Reinoso and Predel 2019; Pizarro-Araya et al. 2021). The exclusion of these biomes from protected area networks leave their biodiversity vulnerable to anthropogenic pressures. The underrepresentation of ecoregions in protected area networks could be driven by sampling biases, with areas including the Caatinga and Pantanal being less intensively sampled than other biomes, such as forest (Lewinsohm et al. 2005; Oliveira et al. 2016; Ramos et al. 2020; Silva et al. 2017). Moreover, even protected areas can even be misplaced within biodiversity hotspots. For instance, in the Tropical Andes, an area of high endemism (Löwenberg-Neto and Carvalho 2009; Särkinen et al. 2012), 77% of protected areas fall in areas of low conservation priority (Bax and Francesconi 2019). Moving forward, this highlights the need to ensure protected area networks represent all ecoregions and conservation priorities.
Alongside protected areas, there are many Indigenous and ethnic territories in the Neotropics, which provide a different area for the conservation of insect biodiversity. These Indigenous and Community Conservation Areas (ICCAs) are highly effective in preventing encroaching land expansion (Schwartzman and Zimmerman 2005; Carranza et al. 2014; Paiva et al. 2015). Many Indigenous People’s and Local Communities (IPLCs) have the right to free, prior and informed consent on all administrative and legislative measures, as well as public and private projects, which involve their territories (Bonilla-Mejía and Higuera-Mendieta 2019). Thus, working with IPLCs on insect conservation projects is essential to guarantee the persistence of many insect species. These efforts should be prioritised for several reasons. Firstly, ICCAs comprise a large portion of the land across the Neotropics, home to many endemic insect species (Fletcher et al. 2021). In some instances, ICCAs can hold similar—or greater—levels of animal diversity than comparable protected areas (Schuster et al. 2019). Secondly, these areas can be more effective than state-designated protected areas at conserving biodiversity and preventing deforestation under certain circumstances (Jonas 2017; Bonilla-Mejía and Higuera-Mendieta 2019). Thirdly, Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) of different IPLCs can aid the conservation of declining species. In India, engaging with farmers has provided evidence of declines in pollinating insects, for which no data was previously available (Smith et al. 2017). Another example of utilising TEK could be working with IPLCs in Latin America, where several species of Orthoptera constitute part of the diet, from this we can learn local knowledge on species habitats and behaviour that could aid in their conservation (Melo-Ruiz et al. 2011). These intercultural approaches that focus on co-creating knowledge and conservation practices between IPLCs and conservation biologists, and in some cases, Indigenous biologists, inside ICCAs can be augmented by enhancing insect distribution modelling to identify areas of priority insect habitat.
Sectoral policies
Agriculture
Agriculture and cattle ranching are key drivers of insect decline in the Neotropics through habitat loss, degradation and agrochemical use (Fearnside 2005; Klink and Machado 2005; Freitas et al. 2009; Kehoe et al. 2017). These threats have been mainly addressed by sectoral policies that support more sustainable agricultural production by deterring agricultural land conversion and promoting wildlife-friendly management practices. In addition, agroecological systems like shade-grown coffee, silvopasture and other diversified farming systems support insect diversity by enhancing habitat connectivity and creating corridors for the movement of species between protected areas and ICCAs in the landscape (Wangchuk 2007; McDermott and Rodewald 2014; Gutiérrez-Chacón et al. 2020; Samways et al. 2020). These policies are numerous and varied (Kremen and Merenlender 2018), but primarily rely on voluntary standards and market-based strategies that target the trade of commodities like sugar cane, coffee, cacao, oil palm and dairy (Englund and Berndes 2015; Furumo and Lambin 2020).
Many sustainability standards regulate the use of certain agrochemicals and GMO crops, promote integrated pest management strategies and require management plans for endangered species found within production areas (Englund and Berndes 2015). This can potentially benefit insects in the Neotropics, given that many are at risk from pesticide and herbicide use (Abraham et al. 2018; Padilha et al. 2020; Battisti et al. 2021; Smith et al. 2021; Almeida et al. 2021). Nonetheless, some harmful pesticides are still permitted under such standards. For example, Rainforest Alliance-certified banana farms in Costa Rica have been found to have similar pesticide application practices to non-certified farms, and less insect community diversity than non-certified and organic farms (Bellamy et al. 2016; Beekman et al. 2019). The ecological pillar of certification standards typically prioritises the monitoring of habitat and vertebrates on farms, leaving gaps for insect conservation. Given the economic importance of the agricultural sector in Latin America, government regulations also fail to limit harmful pesticide use effectively. For instance, 9.6% of approved pesticides in Chile are banned in Europe for their detrimental effects on wildlife (Henríquez-Piskulich et al. 2021).
This presents the importance of policies in the agricultural sector that take more directive steps to reduce the use of pesticides which are significantly detrimental to native insect populations (Abraham et al. 2018; Padilha et al. 2020; Battisti et al. 2021; Smith et al. 2021; Almeida et al. 2021). Such steps are already being taken, for example, in Brazil, where the number of biocontrol-based solutions has greatly increased (Togni et al. 2019). However, further work needs to ensure that these products are compatible with organic agriculture (Togni et al., 2019) and that instruments such as the Nagoya Protocol do not slow the development of such solutions (Lenteren 2020). Furthermore, consumer countries continue to import food from this region, thus contributing to biodiversity loss within these biodiversity hotspots, outside of their borders (Wilting et al. 2017). Therefore, voluntary certifications targeting consumers aiming to make sustainable choices also have a role to play in ensuring certified farms minimise harmful pesticide use, but the agrochemicals permitted under these programmes should be revised to ensure that standards also protect insect communities (Bellamy et al. 2016; Beekman et al. 2019). Additionally, in Europe, there have been steps to ensure products in the EU market do not contribute to deforestation and degradation (European Commission 2022), representing a step forward in preventing consumerism outside the Neotropics from adversely affecting biodiversity there.
Forestry
Many Neotropical countries are highly forested and these ecosystems are experiencing rapid land conversion that threatens insect populations (Banerjee et al. 2021) (de Lima et al. 2020). Neotropical forests are governed by policies in three domains: national and subnational government policies, international REDD + (reducing emissions due to deforestation and forest degradation) financial mechanisms, and sustainable supply chain initiatives (Furumo and Lambin 2020). In compliance with the Paris Agreement, many Latin American and Caribbean countries leverage REDD + finance to halt domestic deforestation (Hein et al. 2018). While biodiversity conservation does not currently fall under REDD + , the initiatives have the potential to indirectly impact insect species by protecting their habitat. This is especially pertinent in light of evidence that particular practices such as low-impact selective logging can prevent irreplaceable impacts upon insect communities, such as dung beetles (de Moura et al. 2021).
The forestry sector’s primary sustainable supply chain initiative has been the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification, a voluntary standard that large companies also use to demonstrate compliance under sustainable timber procurement pledges (e.g., IKEA). As in the case of agricultural standards, forestry standards like FSC forbid natural habitat conversion, request endangered species management plans in plantation areas and promote biodiversity-friendly practices including intercropping (Englund and Berndes 2015). Yet, the forestry sector still negatively impacts many insects (including natural predators) because of pesticide spraying to control timber pests such as leaf-cutting ants and termites (Zanuncio et al. 2016). While the FSC principles and criteria have a pesticide policy that requires the prevention of using highly hazardous pesticides, and promoting non-chemical methods for pest control, many plantation managers spray with chemical pesticides as early pest infestations can damage entire plantations (Zanuncio et al. 2016). Additionally, groups such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) provide little guidance, suggesting that agrochemical use should be “minimised” (Furumo et al. 2019). More stringent pesticide regulation in forestry policy could prevent detrimental impacts on Neotropical insects, for instance, by banning pesticides which have been demonstrated to be harmful in other regions, such as Europe (Henríquez-Piskulich et al. 2021) or using the World Health Organisation classification of hazardous chemicals (WHO 2019).
Biodiversity offsetting and ecological restoration
Biodiversity offsetting policies typically aim to ensure no net loss of biodiversity under development projects, by avoiding and minimising losses and harms, and offsetting any unavoidable losses (Arlidge et al. 2018). Biodiversity offsetting can be achieved by government policies or voluntary obligations from private corporations and lenders, with areas from the latter tending to be larger (Bull and Strange 2018). However, the voluntary nature of some schemes and increased flexibility in strategies have put the offsetting approach under scrutiny (Gordon et al. 2015; Guillet and Semal 2018; zu Ermgassen et al. 2020). Despite this, in 2018, Central and South America contain a very large area of offset projects, with 45% of the world’s offset area (Bull and Strange 2018). This is in addition to other restoration projects being undertaken, such as the Bonn Challenge, in which many Neotropical countries including Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, and Honduras, have each pledged to restore millions of hectares of degraded landscapes (Bonn Challenge 2022). Therefore, insect biodiversity has great potential to benefit from biodiversity offsetting and the restoration of degraded habitats, particularly through the restoration and management of habitats that are otherwise not included by protected area networks (e.g., temperate grasslands).
It is vital to ensure that biodiversity offsets do not assume functional equivalence of species and maintain the diversity of insect species which ensures the long-term provisioning of ecosystem services (Clavel et al. 2011; Plas et al. 2016). The strengths and weaknesses of individual offsetting and restoration policies and initiatives should be weighted before assuming their conservation value for insect biodiversity (McKenney and Kiesecker 2010; Grimm and Köppel 2019; Pope et al. 2021). Moreover, biodiversity assessments need to be undertaken in a way that values insect species, alongside other features of the habitat, such as vegetation.
Market-based mechanisms
Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) is another strategy that addresses the economic externalities of resource extraction and commodity production to improve social and ecological outcomes (Chan et al. 2017). They act as environmental incentive programmes, which involve users of ecosystem services paying for actions that protect those services (Chaplin-Kramer et al. 2019). PES programmes for aquatic habitats, known as water funds (Brauman et al. 2019), offer a policy instrument to protect aquatic insect biodiversity in addition to protected areas. Since 2006, more than 40 water funds have been established in Latin America (Guerry et al. 2015). These funds, established by cities, work as payments from downstream water consumers to upstream communities that can alter land management practices to improve water quality and quantity (Guerry et al. 2015). Despite the purpose of most PES schemes being to pay for services such as carbon storage and water provision, PES water schemes can protect aquatic insect biodiversity indirectly by funding land stewards to preserve natural habitats in private lands (Brauman et al. 2019). PES schemes can protect critical natural areas that serve as habitats for many species (Chan et al. 2017). Nonetheless, some critical ecosystems, including arid shrublands and deserts, are underrepresented by PES schemes (Wunder 2007). These ecosystems contain unique climate-sensitive insect communities (Tirado et al. 2018) that could benefit indirectly from such market-based incentives.
International policy instruments
Finally, an essential facet of the policy mix to consider is international policy instruments for biodiversity conservation. This includes the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), a key purpose of this legally binding convention being biodiversity conservation (United Nations 1992). Recognising that countries in the Neotropics are parties of this convention, many of their domestic policies outlined above will be based upon the goals and objectives of the convention. The international-level interest in biodiversity stems from the challenges associated with the fact that many countries with the highest levels of biodiversity also have the fewest resources available to conserve it, e.g. in the Neotropics (Swanson 1999). However, targets set under this convention have largely been unachieved (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2020), owing to low resource input, and a lack of measurability to ensure compliance (Green et al. 2019; Xu et al. 2021).
Conventions such as the CBD also exhibit more specific limitations for insects. For example, reporting on progress toward the Aichi targets did not feature evaluations of changes in extinction risk of insect species (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2020). Moreover, current preparations of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework—which affect the agriculture, forestry, tourism, manufacturing, fisheries and oil and gas sectors—have a broad-scale focus on habitat loss and regulating living modified organisms, with little attention being paid to Neotropical insects (Convention on Biological Diversity 2020). This could be attributable to the fact that reporting on target progress focuses on trends from the IUCN Red List, data from which is limited to a number of insect taxa (IUCN 2022). The IUCN Red List tends to exclude species with small body sizes, narrow distribution ranges and low dispersal abilities, which constitute the vast majority of the Neotropical insects (Cardoso et al. 2011a). Therefore, a concentrated effort to evaluate the extinction risk of insect species in the Neotropics is required.
Additionally, another legally binding convention, the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) forms a large part of countries’ efforts toward reducing species extinction (CITES 1973). This convention focuses on species threatened by trade, with only 79 insects currently included, from the orders Lepidoptera and Coleoptera (CITES 1973). This includes just six insects from the Neotropics (CITES 1973), despite the illegal trafficking of butterflies bringing around US$200 million a year to the global economy (Speart 2012). Not only does the trade of insects increase their extinction risk (Crespin and Barahona-Sergovia, 2021), but it also can facilitate the spread of disease and invasive species (Carvalho 2022). This low representativity of insects on CITES means that if countries base their biodiversity policy upon CITES, they may be biased toward vertebrate species and fail to curb the trafficking of at-risk insects. Explicit incorporation of achievable and measurable insect population conservation targets into international policy instruments such as the CBD and CITES would ensure that countries recognise species’ conservation needs beyond vertebrates. Assessment of more insect species extinction risk on the IUCN Red List would underpin this, providing a resource for policymakers to base policy upon (see Sect. 2.1).
Governance complexity
A common factor that dictates the success of direct and indirect policies is the socio-political landscape in which the policies are designed and implemented. A fundamental challenge for conservationists is garnering support for insect conservation when society can frequently be unaware of the diversity and importance of insects (Cardoso et al. 2011b). This challenge is amplified in the tropics where the immediate need for economic development opportunities may overshadow the less conspicuous threats of insect extinction. The success of the policies mentioned above hinges upon funding, appropriate law enforcement and political support, which are susceptible to political ideologies and corruption (Smith and Walpole 2005).
For example, broadly across the Neotropics, the downgrading and downsizing of protected areas to allow industrial activities means that protected areas cannot be relied upon as permanent entities for conservation (Mascia and Pailler 2011; Mascia et al. 2014; Watson et al. 2014). In most cases, downgrading and downsizing of protected areas are carried out in opposition to conservation objectives to accelerate economically profitable industrial activities. This jeopardises the ability of a state-designated protected area to safeguard insect habitats and thus conserve their populations (Mascia et al. 2014).
Firm governance can be linked to environmental concern, with political stability, accountability and transparency being important to favourable outcomes from conservation projects (Smith and Walpole 2005; Baynham-Herd et al. 2018). Unfortunately, areas of the Neotropics have lower levels of governance stability tied to lower levels of environmental concern and higher corruption (Baynham-Herd et al. 2018; Inter-American Development Bank 2020; Pinheiro et al. 2020). Furthermore, political ideologies also influence the ecological concern of governments. This is exemplified in Brazil, where existing environmental legislation is currently being dismantled, presenting a threat to biodiversity conservation (Abessa et al. 2019; Ferrante and Fearnside 2019).
Environmental concerns can be raised among the general population, which can be a tool to influence policymakers to incorporate insects into policy. This begins with creating more positive perceptions of insects by increasing public knowledge of insects and “marketing” their value (Wilson et al. 2004; Hart and Sumner 2020). The IUCN Red List is one such tool for this (Rodrigues et al. 2006), and given the general public preference for endemism (Meuser et al. 2009), national red lists present an opportunity to educate people on the plight of endangered endemic species in Neotropical countries (Barahona-Segovia and Zúñiga-Reinoso 2021). Museums and natural history collections also offer an opportunity for education; however, these are subject to a lack of funding and support (Suarez and Tsutsui 2004; Norris 2017).
Additionally, community engagement is an effective tool and examples of policies that foster greater environmental awareness through conservation engagement already exist. For instance, in the Colombian Amazon, beekeeping of native stingless bees is encouraged (Gonzalez et al. 2021). With over 28% of Colombia’s stingless bee species being used in beekeeping (Nates-Parra and Rosso-Londono 2013), this is an opportunity for increased environmental awareness and conservation as well as improvements to human-well-being and poverty alleviation (Chanthayod et al. 2017). However, these policies must be implemented along with controls to prevent the spread of species and diseases out of their native range, which is currently lacking (Gonzalez et al. 2021). This could be akin to the Beekeeping and Bee Products Act from Trinidad and Tobago, which protects native stingless Meliponini bee species from mismanaged honeybees (Apis mellifera (L.,1758)) (Ministry of Legal Affairs 2013). Another tool which can successfully raise awareness of insects (and invertebrates more widely) and promote their conservation is community science. By engaging the public in data collection, the dual benefits of developing ecological literacy and furthering science can be realised (Adler et al. 2020; Grez et al. 2016; Fraisl et al. 2022). For example, in Chile, where community science allowed for the conservation status of a vulnerable trap door spider to be identified, while also educating the public on spider conservation (Barahona-Segovia et al. 2021).
Conclusions
Here, we outlined some of the key policies for biodiversity conservation in the Neotropics. Many policies assume that they will “indirectly” conserve insect populations, either by conserving larger vertebrate species with wide home ranges or by broad habitat conservation measures. This is concerning, given that insect conservation differs from general biodiversity conservation in several ways. For example, insect conservation operates with less spatial and temporal data than many vertebrate conservation efforts, presenting challenges in identifying the conservation status of insects, and thus the true efficacy of conservation actions (Cardoso et al. 2011b; Eisenhauer et al. 2019). Insects are also smaller and less conspicuous than vertebrates, sometimes requiring a high level of taxonomic expertise to distinguish species from each other, and expertise is lacking in areas of the Neotropics for hyperdiverse groups (Brown 2005; New and Samways 2014). Finally, a lack of appreciation for insects creates challenges in building motivation for their conservation (Cardoso et al. 2011b; Sumner et al. 2018; Samways et al. 2020). In conjunction with gaps in critical policies (e.g. pesticide regulation), these challenges can potentially leave insect populations vulnerable to extinction.
We outlined several recommendations specific to insects summarised in Fig. 1, which will aid in delivering policies that better incorporate the conservation needs of insects: firstly, the development of more insect species-specific action policies which set out explicit goals for the conservation and further research of threatened insect groups, for example as in the recently developed Plano de Ação Nacional para a Conservação dos Insetos Polinizadores in Brazil. These initiatives should extend beyond just pollinating insects, however, in order to promote the data collection and conservation of less studied groups of insects. Such data would also aid in the designation of area-based interventions to ensure they encapsulate areas of high insect biodiversity. Additionally, further work should ensure that all ecoregions are represented in these networks, to protect the Neotropical insect endemism. This includes better representation of non-forest biomes, such as temperate grasslands, deserts and xeric shrublands. This leads to our second recommendation that working with IPLCs in ICCAs could lead to insect species persistence, through the utilisation of TEK, and the recognition of the conservation efficacy of ICCAs. Thirdly, sectors such as forestry and agriculture can provide insect habitat on the landscape scale by adopting agroecological systems and low-intensity logging, but the strengthening of pesticide regulations is urgently required. In addition, the incorporation of insect monitoring as a facet of eco-certification standards would allow for the evaluation of species recovery. However, this also extends to other sectors that impact insects, including mining, infrastructure and even tourism (Noriega et al. 2020; Silva et al. 2020; Pachecho et al. 2021). Fourthly, appropriate recognition of the non-fungible value of insect biodiversity in offsetting and restoration schemes, and protection of insect-critical habitats by PES strategies also holds excellent conservation potential. Finally, international policy instruments have a pivotal role to play in coordinating conservation efforts on the global level, but require measurable targets for the conservation of insect populations. Importantly, these recommendations are underpinned by increasing awareness of insect conservation needs and strengthening the governance of biodiversity conservation policies.
Data and code availability
This paper does not present new data.
References
Abessa D, Famá A, Buruaem L (2019) The systematic dismantling of Brazilian environmental laws risks losses on all fronts. Nat Ecol Evol 3:510–511. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0855-9
Abraham J, Benhotons GS, Krampah I et al (2018) Commercially formulated glyphosate can kill non-target pollinator bees under laboratory conditions. Entomol Exp Appl 166:695–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12694
Adler FR, Green AM, Şekercioğlu ÇH (2020) Citizen science in ecology: a place for humans in nature. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1469:52–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14340
Aide TM, Corrada-Bravo C, Campos-Cerqueira M et al (2013) Real-time bioacoustics monitoring and automated species identification. PeerJ. 1
Almeida CHS, Haddi K, Toledo PFS et al (2021) Sublethal agrochemical exposures can alter honey bees’ and Neotropical stingless bees’ color preferences, respiration rates, and locomotory responses. Sci Total Environ 779:146432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146432
Arlidge WNS, Bull JW, Addison PFE et al (2018) A global mitigation hierarchy for nature conservation. Bioscience 68:336–347. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy029
Banerjee O, Cicowiez M, Vargas R et al (2021) Gross domestic product alone provides misleading policy guidance for post-conflict land use trajectories in Colombia. Ecol Econ 182:106929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106929
Barahona-Segovia RM, Zúñiga-Reinoso Á (2021) An overview of Neotropical arthropod conservation efforts using risk assessment lists. J Insect Conserv 25:361–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-021-00306-x
Barahona-Segovia RM, Montenegro R, González GR (2021) Environmental variables and distribution data support the preliminary conservation status of a trapdoor spider in a transformed coastal ecosystem. Journal for Nature Conservation 61:125985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2021.125985
Basualdo M, Cavigliasso P, de Avila RS et al (2022) Current status and economic value of insect-pollinated dependent crops in Latin America. Ecol Econ 196:107395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107395
Battisti L, Potrich M, Sampaio AR et al (2021) Is glyphosate toxic to bees? A meta-analytical review. Sci Total Environ 767:145397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145397
Bax V, Francesconi W (2019) Conservation gaps and priorities in the Tropical Andes biodiversity hotspot: implications for the expansion of protected areas. J Environ Manage 232:387–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.086
Baynham-Herd Z, Amano T, Sutherland WJ, Donald PF (2018) Governance explains variation in national responses to the biodiversity crisis. Environ Conserv 45:407–418. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291700056X
Beekman G, Dekkers M, Koster T (2019) Towards a sustainable banana supply chain in Colombia: rainforest Alliance Certification and economic, social and environment conditions on small-scale banana plantations in Magdalena, Colombia
Bell JR, Blumgart D, Shortall CR (2020) Are insects declining and at what rate? An analysis of standardised, systematic catches of aphid and moth abundances across Great Britain. Insect Conserv Divers 13:115–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12412
Bellamy AS, Svensson O, van den Brink PJ, Tedengren M (2016) What is in a label? Rainforest-Alliance certified banana production versus non-certified conventional banana production. Glob Ecol Conserv 7:39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2016.05.002
Betts J, Young RP, Hilton-Taylor C et al (2020) A framework for evaluating the impact of the IUCN Red List of threatened species. Conserv Biol 34:632–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13454
Bombelli P, Howe CJ, Bertocchini F (2017) Polyethylene bio-degradation by caterpillars of the wax moth Galleria mellonella. Curr Biol 27:292–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.02.060
Carranza T, Balmford A, Kapos V, Manica A (2014) Protected area effectiveness in reducing conversion in a rapidly vanishing ecosystem: the Brazilian Cerrado. Conserv Lett 7:216–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12049
Bonn Challenge (2022) Current pledges | Bonnchallenge. https://www.bonnchallenge.org/pledges. Accessed 21 Mar 2022
Bonilla-Mejía L, Higuera-Mendieta I (2019) Protected areas under weak institutions: evidence from Colombia. World Dev 122:585–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.019
Bowler DE (2021) Complex causes of insect declines. Nat Ecol Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01508-x
Boyd RJ, Aizen MA, Barahona-Segovia RM et al (2022) Inferring trends in pollinator distributions across the Neotropics from publicly available data remains challenging despite mobilization efforts. Divers Distrib 28:1404–1415. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13551
Boyes DH, Evans DM, Fox R et al (2021) Street lighting has detrimental impacts on local insect populations. Sci Adv 7:eabi8322. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abi8322
Branton M, Richardson JS (2011) Assessing the value of the umbrella-species concept for conservation planning with meta-analysis: value of the umbrella-species concept. Conserv Biol 25:9–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01606.x
Brauman KA, Benner R, Benitez S et al (2019) Water funds. In: Mandle L, Ouyang Z, Salzman JE, Daily G (eds) Green growth that works: natural capital policy and finance mechanisms from around the world. Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, Washington, DC, pp 118–140
Brown BV (2005) Malaise trap catches and the crisis in Neotropical dipterology. Am Entomol 51:180–183. https://doi.org/10.1093/ae/51.3.180
Bull JW, Strange N (2018) The global extent of biodiversity offset implementation under no net loss policies. Nat Sustain 1:790–798. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0176-z
Cantú-Salazar L, Gaston KJ (2010) Very large protected areas and their contribution to terrestrial biological conservation. Bioscience 60:808–818. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.10.7
Cardoso P (2012) Habitats directive species lists: urgent need of revision. Insect Conserv Divers 5:169–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00140.x
Cardoso P, Borges PAV, Triantis KA et al (2011a) Adapting the IUCN Red List criteria for invertebrates. Biol Conserv 144:2432–2440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.020
Cardoso P, Erwin TL, Borges PAV, New TR (2011b) The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biol Conserv 144:2647–2655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.024
Cardoso P, Barton PS, Birkhofer K et al (2020) Scientists’ warning to humanity on insect extinctions. Biol Conserv 242:108427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108426
Carvalho AF (2022) Illegalities in the online trade of stingless bees in Brazil. Insect Conservation and Diversity 15( 6):673– 681. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12590
Chan KMA, Anderson E, Chapman M et al (2017) Payments for ecosystem services: rife with problems and potential—for transformation towards sustainability. Ecol Econ 140:110–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.029
Chanthayod S, Zhang W, Chen J (2017) People’s perceptions of the benefits of natural beekeeping and its positive outcomes for forest conservation: a case study in northern Lao PDR. Trop Conserv Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082917697260
Chaplin-Kramer R, Mandle L, Ferstandig L (2019) Market-based mechanisms. In: Mandle L, Ouyang Z, Salzman JE, Daily G (eds) Green growth that works: natural capital policy and finance mechanisms from around the world. Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, Washington, DC, pp 141–164
Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (2011) Plano de Ação Nacional para Conservação de Lepidópteros. https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade/pan/pan-lepidopteros. Accessed 3rd December 2022
Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (2022) National Action Plans for the Conservation of Endangered Species. https://www.gov.br/icmbio/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade/pan. Accessed 3rd December 2022
CITES (1973) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Washington, DC
Clavel J, Julliard R, Devictor V (2011) Worldwide decline of specialist species: toward a global functional homogenisation? Front Ecol Environ 9:222–228. https://doi.org/10.1890/080216
Collen B, Dulvy NK, Gaston KJ, et al (2016) Clarifying misconceptions of extinction risk assessment with the IUCN Red List. Biol Lett 12:. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0843
European Commission (2022). Law to fight global deforestation and forest degradation. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_7444. Accessed 21 Jan 2023
Convention on Biological Diversity (2020) Recommendation adopted by the open-ended working group on the post 2020 global biodiversity framework. Rome
Côté IM, Darling ES, Brown CJ (2016) Interactions among ecosystem stressors and their importance in conservation. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 283:20152592. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2592
da Silva JMC, Barbosa LCF, Leal IR, Tabarelli M (2017) The Caatinga: understanding the challenges. In: da Silva JMC, Leal IR, Tabarelli M (eds) Caatinga: the largest tropical dry forest region in South America. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 3–19
Dangles O, Casas J (2019) Ecosystem services provided by insects for achieving sustainable development goals. Ecosyst Serv 35:109–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.12.002
Davies T, Cowley A, Bennie J et al (2018) Popular interest in vertebrates does not reflect extinction risk and is associated with bias in conservation investment. PLOS ONE 13:e0203694. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203694
de Lima RAF, Oliveira AA, Pitta GR et al (2020) The erosion of biodiversity and biomass in the Atlantic Forest biodiversity hotspot. Nat Commun 11:6347. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20217-w
de Moura RS, Noriega JA, Cerboncini RAS et al (2021) Dung beetles in a tight-spot, but not so much: quick recovery of dung beetles assemblages after low-impact selective logging in Central Brazilian Amazon. For Ecol Manag 494:119301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119301
Deichmann JL, Acevedo-Charry O, Barclay L et al (2018) It’s time to listen: there is much to be learned from the sounds of tropical ecosystems. Biotropica 50:713–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12593
der Sluijs JP, Simon-Delso N, Goulson D et al (2013) Neonicotinoids, bee disorders and the sustainability of pollinator services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:293–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.05.007
Didham RK, Basset Y, Collins CM et al (2020) Interpreting insect declines: seven challenges and a way forward. Insect Conserv Divers 13:103–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12408
Dirzo R, Young HS, Galetti M et al (2014) Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345:401–406. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251817
Donaldson MR, Burnett NJ, Braun DC et al (2017) Taxonomic bias and international biodiversity conservation research. FACETS 1:105–113. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2016-0011
Dudley N (2013) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories including IUCN WCPA best practice guidance on recognising protected areas and assigning management categories and governance types. IUCN
Duffus NE, Morimoto J (2022) Current conservation policies in the UK and Ireland overlook endangered insects and are taxonomically biased towards Lepidoptera. Biol Conserv 266:109464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109464
Duffus NE, Christie CR, Morimoto J (2021) Insect cultural services: how insects have changed our lives and how can we do better for them. Insects 12:377. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12050377
Durán AP, Casalegno S, Marquet PA, Gaston KJ (2013) Representation of ecosystem services by terrestrial protected areas: Chile as a case study. PLoS ONE 8:e82643. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.008264
Eisenhauer N, Bonn A, A. Guerra C, (2019) Recognising the quiet extinction of invertebrates. Nat Commun 10:50. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07916-1
Englund RA (2008) Invasive species threats to native aquatic insect biodiversity and conservation measures in Hawai’i and French Polynesia. J Insect Conserv 12:415–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-008-9168-z
Englund O, Berndes G (2015) How do sustainability standards consider biodiversity? Wires Energy Environ 4:26–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.118
Epstein C (2006) The making of global environmental norms: endangered species protection. Glob Environ Polit 6:32–54. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2006.6.2.32
Fearnside PM (2005) Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: history, rates, and consequences. Conserv Biol 19:680–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00697.x
Feldhaar H, Otti O (2020) Pollutants and their interaction with diseases of social Hymenoptera. Insects 11:153. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11030153
Ferrante L, Fearnside PM (2019) Brazil’s new president and ‘ruralists’ threaten Amazonia’s environment, traditional peoples and the global climate. Environ Conserv 46:261–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892919000213
Fierro A, Vergara PM (2019) A native long horned beetle promotes the saproxylic diversity in exotic plantations of Monterrey pine. Ecol Ind 96:532–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.09.018
Fletcher RJ, Didham RK, Banks-Leite C et al (2018) Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity? Biol Conserv 226:9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.022
Fletcher M-S, Hamilton R, Dressler W, Palmer L (2021) Indigenous knowledge and the shackles of wilderness. Proc Natl Acad Sci 118:e2022218118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022218118
Fonseca CR (2009) The silent mass extinction of insect herbivores in biodiversity hotspots. Conserv Biol 23:1507–1515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01327.x
Forister ML, Pelton EM, Black SH (2019) Declines in insect abundance and diversity: we know enough to act now. Conserv Sci Pract 1:e80. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.80
Fox R, Harrower CA, Bell JR et al (2019) Insect population trends and the IUCN Red List process. J Insect Conserv 23:269–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-018-0117-1
Fraisl D, Hager G, Bedessem B et al (2022) Citizen science in environmental and ecological sciences. Nat Rev Methods Primers 2:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00144-4
Frankie GW, Rizzardi M, Vinson SB, Griswold TL (2009) 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. J Kans Entomol Soc 82:1–20. https://doi.org/10.2317/JKES708.23.1
Freitas BM, Imperatriz-Fonseca VL, Medina LM et al (2009) Diversity, threats and conservation of native bees in the Neotropics. Apidologie 40:332–346. https://doi.org/10.1051/apido/2009012
Furumo PR, Lambin EF (2020) Scaling up zero-deforestation initiatives through public-private partnerships: a look inside post-conflict Colombia. Glob Environ Change 62:102055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102055
Furumo PR, Rueda X, Rodríguez JS, Parés Ramos IK (2019) Field evidence for positive certification outcomes on oil palm smallholder management practices in Colombia. J Clean Prod 245:118891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118891
Gallai N, Salles JM, Settele J, Vaissière BE (2009) Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecol Econ 68:810–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.014
Giannini TC, Acosta AL, Garófalo CA et al (2012) Pollination services at risk: bee habitats will decrease owing to climate change in Brazil. Ecol Model 244:127–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.06.035
Gonzalez VH, Cobos ME, Jaramillo J, Ospina R (2021) Climate change will reduce the potential distribution ranges of Colombia’s most valuable pollinators. Perspect Ecol Conserv 19:195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2021.02.010
Gordon A, Bull JW, Wilcox C, Maron M (2015) FORUM: perverse incentives risk undermining biodiversity offset policies. J Appl Ecol 52:532–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12398
Goulson D (2013) REVIEW: an overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides. J Appl Ecol 50:977–987. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12111
Government of Trinidad and Tobago (2022) Environmentally Sensitive Species (ESSs). http://www.biodiversity.gov.tt/home/protected-areas-and-species/environmentally-sensitive-species-ess.html. Accessed 16 Mar 2022
Green EJ, Buchanan GM, Butchart SHM et al (2019) Relating characteristics of global biodiversity targets to reported progress. Conserv Biol 33:1360–1369. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13322
Grez AA, Zaviezo T, Roy HE et al (2016) Rapid spread of Harmonia axyridis in Chile and its effects on local coccinellid biodiversity. Divers Distrib 22:982–994. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12455
Grimm M, Köppel J (2019) Biodiversity offset program design and implementation. Sustainability 11:6903. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246903
Grubisic M, van Grunsven RHA, Kyba CCM et al (2018) Insect declines and agroecosystems: does light pollution matter? Ann Appl Biol 173:180–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/aab.12440
Guerry AD, Polasky S, Lubchenco J et al (2015) Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:7348–7355. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503751112
Guillet F, Semal L (2018) Policy flaws of biodiversity offsetting as a conservation strategy. Biol Conserv 221:86–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.03.001
Gutiérrez-Chacón C, Valderrama-A C, Klein A-M (2020) Biological corridors as important habitat structures for maintaining bees in a tropical fragmented landscape. J Insect Conserv 24:187–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-019-00205-2
Halsch CA, Shapiro AM, Fordyce JA et al (2021) Insects and recent climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci 118:e2002543117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002543117
Hambler C, Henderson PA (2019) Challenges in measuring global insect decline. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3347055
Hart AG, Sumner S (2020) Marketing insects: can exploiting a commercial framework help promote undervalued insect species? Insect Conserv Divers 13:214–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12405
Hazen HD, Anthamatten PJ (2004) Representation of ecological regions by protected areas at the global scale. Phys Geogr 25:499–512. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3646.25.6.499
Hein J, Guarin A, Frommé E, Pauw P (2018) Deforestation and the Paris climate agreement: an assessment of REDD+ in the national climate action plans. For Policy Econ 90:7–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.005
Henríquez-Piskulich PA, Schapheer C, Vereecken NJ, Villagra C (2021) Agroecological strategies to safeguard insect pollinators in biodiversity hotspots: Chile as a case study. Sustainability 13:6728. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126728
Inter-American Development Bank (2020) Environmental governance indicators for Latin America & the Caribbean. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Environmental-Governance-Indicators-for-Latin-America--the-Caribbean.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2022
Ito HC, Shiraishi H, Nakagawa M, Takamura N (2020) Combined impact of pesticides and other environmental stressors on animal diversity in irrigation ponds. PLOS ONE 15:e0229052. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229052
IUCN (2022) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. In: IUCN Red List Threat. Species. https://www.iucnredlist.org/en. Accessed 15 Mar 2022
Jacinto-Padilla J, Lopez-Collado J, Garcia-Garcia CG, Lopez-Collado CJ (2021) Spatial and economic assessment of butterfly-based handicrafts as a tourism service provided by rural populations. Cuadernos de Desarrollo Rural 18:. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.cdr18.seab
Janzen DH, Hallwachs W (2019) Perspective: where might be many tropical insects? Biol Conserv 233:102–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.02.030
Janzen DH, Hallwachs W (2021) To us insectometers, it is clear that insect decline in our Costa Rican tropics is real, so let’s be kind to the survivors. Proc Natl Acad Sci 118:e2002546117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002546117
Jonas HC (2017) Indigenous peoples’ and community conserved territories and areas (ICCAs): evolution in international biodiversity law. In: Biodiversity and Nature Protection Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 145–160
Kehoe L, Romero-Muñoz A, Polaina E et al (2017) Biodiversity at risk under future cropland expansion and intensification. Nat Ecol Evol 1:1129–1135. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0234-3
Klatt BK, Holzschuh A, Westphal C et al (2014) Bee pollination improves crop quality, shelf life and commercial value. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 281:20132440. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2440
Klein AM, Vaissière BE, Cane JH, et al (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 274:. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721
Klink CA, Machado RB (2005) Conservation of the Brazilian Cerrado. Conserv Biol 19:707–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00702.x
Kremen C, Merenlender AM (2018) Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science 362:eaau6020. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau6020
Leandro C, Jay-Robert P, Vergnes A (2017) Bias and perspectives in insect conservation: a European scale analysis. Biol Conserv 215:213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.07.033
Lenteren JCV (2020) Will the “Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing” put an end to biological control? In: Area-wide integrated pest management. CRC Press
Lewinsohn TM, Freitas AVL, Prado PI (2005) Conservation of terrestrial invertebrates and their habitats in Brazil. Conserv Biol 19:640–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00682.x
Lewinsohn TM, Agostini K, Lucci Freitas AV, Melo AS (2022) Insect decline in Brazil: an appraisal of current evidence. Biol Let 18:20220219. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2022.0219
Löwenberg-Neto P, de Carvalho CJB (2009) Areas of endemism and spatial diversification of the Muscidae (Insecta: Diptera) in the Andean and Neotropical regions. J Biogeogr 36:1750–1759. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02112.x
Ma B, Zhang Y, Hou Y, Wen Y (2020) Do protected areas matter? A Ssystematic review of the social and ecological impacts of the establishment of protected areas. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17:7259. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197259
Mammola S, Riccardi N, Prié V et al (2020) Towards a taxonomically unbiased European Union biodiversity strategy for 2030. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 287:20202166. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.2166
Margules CR, Pressey RL, Williams PH (2002) Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation. J Biosci 27:309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02704962
Marques RD, Lima MAP, Marques RD, Bernardes RC (2020) A spinosad-based formulation reduces the survival and alters the behavior of the stingless bee Plebeia lucii. Neotrop Entomol 49:578–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-020-00766-x
Mascia MB, Pailler S (2011) Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications. Conserv Lett 4:9–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00147.x
Mascia MB, Pailler S, Krithivasan R et al (2014) Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean, 1900–2010. Biol Conserv 169:355–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.021
Maxwell SL, Fuller RA, Brooks TM, Watson JEM (2016) Biodiversity: the ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536:143–145. https://doi.org/10.1038/536143a
McDermott ME, Rodewald AD (2014) Conservation value of silvopastures to Neotropical migrants in Andean forest flocks. Biol Conserv 175:140–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.04.027
McKenney BA, Kiesecker JM (2010) Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environ Manage 45:165–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9396-3
Megna YS, Pallarés S, Sánchez-Fernández D (2021) Conservation of aquatic insects in Neotropical regions: a gap analysis using potential distributions of diving beetles in Cuba. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 31:2714–2725. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3664
Melo-Ruiz V, Garcia M, Sandoval H et al (2011) Quality proteins from edible indigenous insect food of Latin America and Asia. Emir J Food Agric 23:283–289
Metcalfe DB, Asner GP, Martin RE et al (2014) Herbivory makes major contributions to ecosystem carbon and nutrient cycling in tropical forests. Ecol Lett 17:324–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12233
Meuser E, Harshaw HW, Mooers AØ (2009) Public preference for endemism over other conservation-related species attributes. Conserv Biol 23:1041–1046. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01257.x
Miličić M, Popov S, Branco VV, Cardoso P (2021) Insect threats and conservation through the lens of global experts. Conserv Lett e12814. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12814
Ministry of Legal Affairs (2009) Environmental Sensitive Species Rules, 2001 (Cap. 35:05)
Ministry of Legal Affairs (2013) Beekeeping and Bee Products Act. Laws of Trinidad and Tobago
Mokany K, Westcott DA, Prasad S et al (2014) Identifying priority areas for conservation and management in diverse tropical forests. PLoS ONE 9:e89084. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089084
Montgomery GA, Dunn RR, Fox R et al (2020) Is the insect apocalypse upon us? How to find out. Biol Conserv 241:108327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108327
Morimoto J (2020) Addressing global challenges with unconventional insect ecosystem services: why should humanity care about insect larvae? People Nat 2:582–595. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10115
Moser D, Ellmauer T, Evans D et al (2016) Weak agreement between the species conservation status assessments of the European Habitats Directive and Red Lists. Biol Conserv 198:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.024
Mulieri PR, Migale S, Patitucci LD, et al (2022) Improving geographic distribution data for a putatively extinct species, a test case with a disappeared fly Improving geographic distribution data for a putatively extinct species, a test case with a disappeared fly. An Acad Bras Ciênc 94:. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202220201439
Myers N, Mittermeler RA, Mittermeler CG et al (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501
Naidoo R, Gerkey D, Hole D et al (2019) Evaluating the impacts of protected areas on human well-being across the developing world. Sci Adv 5:eaav3006. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav3006
Nates-Parra G, Rosso-Londono JM (2013) Diversity of stingless bees (Hymenoptera:Meliponini) used in Meliponiculture in Colombia. Acta Biológica Colomb 18:415–426
Nemésio A (2013) Are orchid bees at risk? First comparative survey suggests declining populations of forest-dependent species. Braz J Biol 73:367–374. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842013000200017
New TR, Samways MJ (2014) Insect conservation in the southern temperate zones: an overview. Austral Entomol 53:26–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/aen.12071
Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SLL et al (2015) Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520:45–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14324
Newbold T, Adams GL, Robles GA et al (2019) Climate and land-use change homogenise terrestrial biodiversity, with consequences for ecosystem functioning and human well-being. Emerg Top Life Sci 3:207–219. https://doi.org/10.1042/ETLS20180135
Nichols E, Spector S, Louzada J, Larsen T, Amezquita S, Favila ME (2008) Ecological functions and ecosystem services provided by Scarabaeinae dung beetles. Biol Conserv 141:1461–1474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.04.011
Noriega JA, Hortal J, Azcárate FM et al (2018) Research trends in ecosystem services provided by insects. Basic Appl Ecol 26:8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2017.09.006
Noriega JA, Zapata-Prisco C, García H et al (2020) Does ecotourism impact biodiversity? An assessment using dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) as bioindicators in a tropical dry forest natural park. Ecol Indic 117:106580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106580
Noriega JA, March-Salas M, Castillo S et al (2021) Human perturbations reduce dung beetle diversity and dung removal ecosystem function. Biotropica 53:753–766. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12953
Norris CA (2017) The future of natural history collections. In: The future of natural history museums. Routledge
Oliveira U, Paglia AP, Brescovit AD et al (2016) The strong influence of collection bias on biodiversity knowledge shortfalls of Brazilian terrestrial biodiversity. Divers Distrib 22:1232–1244. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12489
Ollerton J (2021) Pollinators and pollination: nature and society, 1st edn. Pelagic Publishing
Pacheco GSM, de Oliveira MPA, Cano E et al (2021) Tourism effects on the subterranean fauna in a Central American cave. Insect Conservation and Diversity 14:294–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12451
Padilha AC, Piovesan B, Morais MC et al (2020) Toxicity of insecticides on Neotropical stingless bees Plebeia emerina (Friese) and Tetragonisca fiebrigi (Schwarz) (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponini). Ecotoxicology 29:119–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-019-02150-x
Paiva RJO, Brites RS, Machado RB (2015) The role of protected areas in the avoidance of anthropogenic conversion in a high pressure region: a matching method analysis in the core region of the Brazilian Cerrado. PLOS ONE 10:e0132582. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132582
Pérez-Espona S (2021) Eciton Army Ants—Umbrella Species for Conservation in Neotropical Forests. Diversity 13:136. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13030136
Pinedo-Escatel JA, Moya-Raygoza G, Dietrich CH et al (2021) Threatened Neotropical seasonally dry tropical forest: evidence of biodiversity loss in sap-sucking herbivores over 75 years. R Soc Open Sci 8:201370. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201370
Pinheiro MV, Sánchez LR, Long SC, Ponce A (2020) Environmental governance indicators for Latin America & the Caribbean. Inter-American Development Bank and World Justice Project
Pizarro-Araya J, Alfaro FM, Ojanguren-Affilastro AA, Moreira-Muñoz A (2021) A fine-scale hotspot at the edge: epigean arthropods from the Atacama Coast (Paposo-Taltal, Antofagasta Region, Chile). Insects 12:916. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12100916
Plas FVD, Manning P, Soliveres S et al (2016) Biotic homogenisation can decrease landscape-scale forest multifunctionality. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:3557–3562. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517903113
Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, Bond A, Retief F (2021) When is an offset not an offset? A framework of necessary conditions for biodiversity offsets. Environ Manage 67:424–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01415-0
Powell GVN, Barborak J, Rodriguez M (2000) Assessing representativeness of protected natural areas in Costa Rica for conserving biodiversity. Biol Conserv 93:35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00115-9
Ramos D, Cunha W, Evangelista J, et al (2020) Ecosystem services provided by insects in Brazil: what do we really know? Neotropical entomology 49:. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-020-00781-y
Raven PH, Wagner DL (2021) Agricultural intensification and climate change are rapidly decreasing insect biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 118:e2002548117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002548117
Roberge J-M, Angelstam P (2004) Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv Biol 18:76–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00450.x
Rocha-Ortega M, Rodriguez P, Córdoba-Aguilar A (2021) Geographical, temporal and taxonomic biases in insect data on biodiversity and extinction. Ecol Entomol 46:718–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.13027
Rodrigues ASL, Pilgrim JD, Lamoreux JF et al (2006) The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:71–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.010
Rodriguex-Cabal MA, Nunez MA, Martínez AS (2008) Quantity versus quality: endemism and protected areas in the temperate forest of South America. Austral Ecol 33:730–736. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2008.01841.x
Romero GQ, Moi DA, Nash LN et al (2021) Pervasive decline of subtropical aquatic insects over 20 years driven by water transparency, non-native fish and stoichiometric imbalance. Biol Lett 17:20210137. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2021.0137
Salcido DM, Forister ML, Lopez HG, Dyer LA (2020) Loss of dominant caterpillar genera in a protected tropical forest. Sci Rep 10:422. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-57226-9
Samways MJ, Barton PS, Birkhofer K et al (2020) Solutions for humanity on how to conserve insects. Biol Conserv 242:108427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108427
Sánchez-Bayo F (2014) The trouble with neonicotinoids. Science 346:806–807. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259159
Särkinen T, Pennington RT, Lavin M et al (2012) Evolutionary islands in the Andes: persistence and isolation explain high endemism in Andean dry tropical forests. J Biogeogr 39:884–900. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02644.x
Schuster R, Germain RR, Bennett JR et al (2019) Vertebrate biodiversity on indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada equals that in protected areas. Environ Sci Policy 101:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.002
Schwartzman S, Zimmerman B (2005) Conservation alliances with Indigenous Peoples of the Amazon. Conserv Biol 19:721–727. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00695.x
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2020) Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Montreal
Seibold S, Gossner MM, Simons NK et al (2019) Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1684-3
Seibold S, Rammer W, Hothorn T et al (2021) The contribution of insects to global forest deadwood decomposition. Nature 597:77–81. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03740-8
Shaw MR, Hochberg ME (2001) The neglect of parasitic Hymenoptera in insect conservation strategies: the British fauna as a prime example. J Insect Conserv 5:253–263
Silva MS, Iniesta LFM, Ferreira RL (2020) Invertebrates diversity in mountain Neotropical quartzite caves: which factors can influence the composition, richness, and distribution of the cave communities? Subterranean Biology 33:23–43. https://doi.org/10.3897/subtbiol.33.46444
Simberloff D (1998) Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species management passé in the landscape era? Biol Conserv 83:247–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00081-5
Smith RJ, Walpole MJ (2005) Should conservationists pay more attention to corruption? Oryx 39:251–256. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605305000608
Smith BM, Chakrabarti P, Chatterjee A et al (2017) Collating and validating indigenous and local knowledge to apply multiple knowledge systems to an environmental challenge: a case-study of pollinators in India. Biol Cons 211:20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.04.032
Smith DFQ, Camacho E, Thakur R et al (2021) Glyphosate inhibits melanisation and increases susceptibility to infection in insects. PLOS Biol 19:e3001182
Soliveres S, Plas FVD, Manning P et al (2016) Biodiversity at multiple trophic levels is needed for ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 536:456–459. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19092
Soutullo A, Gudynas E (2006) How effective is the MERCOSUR’s network of protected areas in representing South America’s ecoregions? Oryx 40:112–116. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605306000020
Speart J (2012) Winged obsession: the pursuit of the world’s most notorious butterfly smuggler. William Morrow, New York
Spitzer L, Benes J, Dandova J et al (2009) The large blue butterfly, Phengaris [Maculinea] arion, as a conservation umbrella on a landscape scale: the case of the Czech Carpathians. Ecol Indic 9:1056–1063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.12.006
Stork NE (2018) How many species of insects and other terrestrial arthropods are there on Earth? Annu Rev Entomol 63:31–45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-020117-043348
Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND (2004) The value of museum collections for research and society. Bioscience 54:66–74. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0066:TVOMCF]2.0.CO;2
Sumner S, Law G, Cini A (2018) Why we love bees and hate wasps. Ecol Entomol 43:836–845. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12676
Swanson T (1999) Why is there a biodiversity convention? The international interest in centralised development planning. Int Aff R Inst Int Aff 1944–75:307–331
Tallamy D, Narango D, Mitchell A (2021) Do non-native plants contribute to insect declines? Ecol Entomol 46:729–742. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12973
The General Congress of the United Mexican States (2010) NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección ambiental-Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. https://www.dof.gob.mx/normasOficiales/4254/semarnat/semarnat.htm. Accessed 16 May 2022
The General Congress of the United Mexican States (2021) Ley General de Vida Silvestre. In: Congr. Unión Cámara Diput. https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/146_200521.pdf. Accessed 16 May 2022
Thornton D, Zeller K, Rondinini C et al (2016) Assessing the umbrella value of a range-wide conservation network for jaguars ( Panthera onca ). Ecol Appl 26:1112–1124. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0602
Tirado C, Trujillo D, Pizarro-Araya J et al (2018) Ecophysiological traits and activity patterns of coleopterans from Atacama Desert provide clues to the functional responses of small ectotherms to climate change. J Arid Environ 150:21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2017.11.016
Togni PHB, Venzon M, Lagôa ACG, Sujii ER (2019) Brazilian legislation leaning towards fast registration of biological control agents to benefit organic agriculture. Neotrop Entomol 48:175–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-019-00675-8
United Nations (1992) Convention on biological diversity
United Nations (2015) THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/goals. Accessed 3 Mar 2022
Wagner DL (2020) Insect declines in the Anthropocene. Annu Rev Entomol 65:457–480. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011019-025151
Wagner DL, Driesche RGV (2010) Threats posed to rare or endangered insects by invasions of nonnative species. Annu Rev Entomol 55:547–568. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-112408-085516
Wangchuk S (2007) Maintaining ecological resilience by linking protected areas through biological corridors in Bhutan. Trop Ecol 48:176–187
Watson JEM, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M (2014) The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515:67–73. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13947
Whiteman NK, Sites RW (2008) Aquatic insects as umbrella species for ecosystem protection in Death Valley National Park. J Insect Conserv 12:499–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-007-9090-9
WHO (2019) The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition. In: World Health Organ. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240005662. Accessed 17 May 2022
Wilson C, Tisdell CA, Wilson C, Tisdell CA (2004) What role does knowledge of wildlife play in providing support for species’ conservation. https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.51417
Wilting HC, Schipper AM, Bakkenes M et al (2017) Quantifying biodiversity losses due to human consumption: a global-scale footprint analysis. Environ Sci Technol 51:3298–3306. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05296
Wunder S (2007) The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conserv Biol J Soc Conserv Biol 21:48–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00559.x
Xu H, Cao Y, Yu D et al (2021) Ensuring effective implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity targets. Nat Ecol Evol 5:411–418. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01375-y
Zanuncio JC, Mourão SA, Martínez LC et al (2016) Toxic effects of the neem oil (Azadirachta indica) formulation on the stink bug predator, Podisus nigrispinus (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). Sci Rep 6:30261. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep30261
zu Ermgassen SOSE, Maron M, Corlet Walker CM, et al (2020) The hidden biodiversity risks of increasing flexibility in biodiversity offset trades. Biol Conserv 252:108861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108861
Zúñiga-Reinoso A, Predel R (2019) Past climatic changes and their effects on the phylogenetic pattern of the Gondwanan relict Maindronia (Insecta: Zygentoma) in the Chilean Atacama Desert. Glob Planet Change 182:103007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2019.103007
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge members of the Natural Capital Project, the Land Change lab, and the Daily lab for insightful feedback. Additionally, we thank the reviewers for their helpful feedback on the manuscript.
Funding
N. E. D. is funded by the Natural Environment Research Council NE/S007474/1, Oxford-NERC Doctoral Training Partnership in Environmental Research and an Oxford-Reuben Scholarship. A. E. was funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
J. M. supervised and N. E. D. conceptualised the paper and wrote the first draft. N. E. D., J. M., A. E., J. A. N., L. D. and P. F. contributed to subsequent drafts and then all authors approved the final draft for submission to the journal.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Edited by Pedro Togni – University of Brasília
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Duffus, N.E., Echeverri, A., Dempewolf, L. et al. The Present and Future of Insect Biodiversity Conservation in the Neotropics: Policy Gaps and Recommendations. Neotrop Entomol 52, 407–421 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-023-01031-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-023-01031-7