A Global Perspective on Firefly Extinction Threats

Authors:

SARA M. LEWIS , CHOONG HAY WONG, AVALON C.S. OWENS , CANDACE FALLON, SARINA JEPSEN, ANCHANA THANCHAROEN, CHIAHSIUNG WU, RAPHAEL DE COCK, MARTIN NOVÁK, TANIA LÓPEZ-PALAFOX, VERONICA KHOO, AND J. MICHAEL REED

Firefly beetles (Coleoptera: Lampyridae) show great diversity in their ecology, behavior and extinction risk factors. (a) Photinus pyralis adults of both sexes are capable of flight, but populations across the eastern United States still show restricted gene flow (photograph: Terry Priest). (b) Dispersal is even more limited in the glowworm fireflies such as Lampyris noctiluca, whose females (right) are flightless (photograph: Zdeněk Chalupa). (c) All firefly larvae are predatory, and many are dietary specialists; L. noctiluca shown attacking Helix aspersa (photograph: Heinz Albers). (d) Massive courtship aggregations and synchronous flashing inspire ecotourism, which can lead to habitat degradation (Pteroptyx malaccae in Thailand, photograph: Radim Schreiber).



Insect declines and their drivers have attracted considerable recent attention. Fireflies and glowworms are iconic insects whose conspicuous bioluminescent courtship displays carry unique cultural significance, giving them economic value as ecotourist attractions. Despite evidence of declines, a comprehensive review of the conservation status and threats facing the approximately 2000 firefly species worldwide is lacking. We conducted a survey of experts from diverse geographic regions to identify the most prominent perceived threats to firefly population and species persistence. Habitat loss, light pollution, and pesticide use were regarded as the most serious threats, although rankings differed substantially across regions. Our survey results accompany a comprehensive review of current evidence concerning the impact of these stressors on firefly populations. We also discuss risk factors likely to increase the vulnerability of certain species to particular threats. Finally, we highlight the need to establish monitoring programs to track long-term population trends for at-risk firefly taxa.

Keywords: Coleoptera, extinction risk, insect conservation, IUCN, Lampyridae

Since their evolutionary origin some 297 million  years ago (Zhang et al. 2018), beetles have been highly successful; they represent 38% of known insect species (Stork 2018). Fireflies (Coleoptera: Lampyridae) rank among the most charismatic beetles, with distinctive bioluminescent courtship displays that make them a potential flagship group for insect conservation. With more than 2000 species worldwide, firefly beetles exhibit surprisingly diverse life history traits (figure 1; Ohba 2004, Lloyd 2008, Lewis 2016), including nonluminous adults with daytime activity periods, glowworm fireflies with flightless females, and lightning bugs that exchange species-specific flash signals. Fireflies also inhabit ecologically diverse habitats, including wetlands (e.g., mangroves, rice paddies, marshes, desert seeps), grasslands, forests, agricultural fields, and urban parks. Their predaceous
larvae, which can be aquatic, semiaquatic, or terrestrial, spend months to years feeding on snails, earthworms, and other soft-bodied prey. In contrast, firefly adults are typically short lived and do not feed. Some taxa are habitat and dietary specialists, whereas others are ecological generalists
(Reed et  al. 2020). Fireflies are economically important in many countries, because they represent a growing ecotourist attraction (Napompeth 2009, Lewis 2016). However, as is true for many invertebrates (Cardoso et  al. 2011), fireflies have been largely neglected in global conservation efforts.

Monitoring studies that provide quantitative data on population trends are lacking for almost all firefly species.

However, surveys have revealed significant recent declines in the mangrove firefly Pteroptyx tener in Malaysia (Jusoh and Hashim 2012, Khoo et al. 2014) and in the glowworm Lampyris noctiluca in England (Gardiner 2011, Atkins et  al. 2017). Anecdotal reports and expert opinion also suggest reductions in both the occurrence and abundance of many firefly species over recent decades (Lewis 2016, Faust 2017, Lloyd 2018).

In 2010, an international group of firefly experts convened in Malaysia and wrote The Selangor
Declaration on the Conservation of Fireflies (Fireflyers International Network 2012), recommending actions to preserve these iconic insects. In 2018, the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Firefly Specialist Group was established to assess the conservation status and extinction risks to fireflies worldwide. As part of this effort, in the present article we discuss perceived threats to firefly biodiversity and persistence on the basis of an opinion survey of experts from different geographic regions. We also review the current evidence for the impact of such threats on firefly
populations. Finally, for each threat, we discuss associated risk factors (sensu Reed et al. 2020)—that is, behaviors and life history traits that make certain species especially vulnerable to particular threats.

Read the full article at Oxford Academic Bioscience A Global Perspective on Firefly Extinction Threat. Free registration to get full access to the write-up as well as other interesting firefly related articles.

New species: Luciola niah

Looks to be our second new species from the Sarawak CFZ holotype collected from Niah:

Luciola niah Jusoh sp. nov.

Figs 284–291

Type.Holotype male. MALAYSIA . SarawakLambir Hill24.ix.2010 , 19.24, Nazeri Abghani (SK0017 | MYFI018-14 ) ( FRIM ) Figs 284, 285, 288–291.

Paratypes . MALAYSIA . Sarawak : Kapit , I Polunin , no date 2 males ( ANIC ). Niah National Park forest track, M. Musbah and colleagues, 2.vii.2010 , 2 males (SK0023 | GenBank: KY572917.1, MF948239.1; SK0064). Long Aton, Ulu Baram, 2.ix.2011 , Musa Musbah 2 males (SK0067 | GenBank: MF063274.1; SK0069 | GenBank: MF063275.1) ( FRIM ) .

Diagnosis. 4.8–6.1 mm long; one of only two Luciolas. str. having dorsal colouration of yellowish brown with black elytral apices; other Luciolas. str. species with pale yellowish or pale brown pronota have dark brown to black elytra. Distinguished from the other similarly coloured species, L. jengaisp. nov. , most obviously by the abdominal colour in jengai , and which also does not have leaf like lobes on the inner margins of the LL.

Description of male. 4.8–6.1 mm long. Colour (Figs 284, 285): (Kapit males preserved in 70% ethanol differ in colour to remainder and are described here in brackets); pronotum yellowish with diffuse median darker markings (retraction of underlying fat body gives impression of darker markings); MN, MS and elytra yellowish brown with elytral apices black (elytra pale yellow with apices quite pale brown); elytra semitransparent and underlying hind wings may confuse interpretation of colour; head black, antennae and palpi dark brown (head reddish brown, antennae and palpi light brown); venter of thorax, basal abdominal ventrites and all abdominal tergites yellowish brown except for narrow dark posterior margin of V5 (all areas yellow except for thin dark marking on posterior margin of V5 ); legs yellowish brown with tibiae and tarsi dark brown (legs yellow, tarsi light brown); LO creamy white. Pronotum: slightly wider across middle (B> A, C); width a little less than humeral width; anterolateral corners angulate obtuse, posterolateral corners angulate. Elytron: subparallel sided. Head: minimal depression between eyes; GHW 11 X SIW; ASD much less than ASW (sockets are almost contiguous). Antennae: longer than GHW but not as long as 2 X GHW; segments elongate slender, scape longer than FS. Mouthparts: apical labial palpomere laterally flattened with inner edge dentate. Abdomen (Fig. 285): LO occupying entire area of V6 , 7; V7 a little longer than wide, posterior margin rounded and no MPP; T8 with anterolateral arms elongate slender slightly longer than entire posterior portion which is rounded and without median emargination. Aedeagal sheath (Figs 288, 289): apical margin of sheath sternite narrowly prolonged and medianly slightly emarginated and hairy; median anterior margin of sheath tergite strongly prolonged and apically pointed.Aedeagus (Figs 290, 291): apices of LL narrow; LL longer than ML and widely divergent.

Female : Jusoh associated the female by DNA barcode (Process ID: MYFI179-14 | GenBank: KY572915.1). Macropterous and capable of flight. Coloured as for male except for white LO restricted to V6 (Figs 286, 287). Bursa with two wide plates on each side.

Etymology . The locality name Niah is used as a noun in apposition.

Remarks . Ballantyne et al. (2016 Table 6 ) listed 30 species with this colour pattern (dorsally pale yellowish or pale brown with or without dark elytral apices) that is common among S. Asian Luciolinae . Many of these species have been assigned to species incertae here. Of the remainder the only species recorded from Sarawak having similar colouration is L. maculipennis Olivier , where the description of the terminal abdominal ventrite suggests a prolongation that could be typical of a Pygoluciola sp.

We have presently little information about shape and numbers of bursa plates in this genus. Paired plates as seen here are characteristic of other non-related genera like Pteroptyx and Colophotia . Luciola italica does not have bursa plates. Jusoh et al. (2018) scored this species as “ Luciola WFA”.

New species: Pteroptix balingiana

It is with greate pleasure for me to announce on behalf of  our CFZ survey team that one specimen collected during the Balingian survey has been given a name, and it's Pteroptyx balingiana in honor of the place it was collected from. It took a while coming from the date of it's collection to today, however the wait is well worthed.

Researcher Wan Faridah and colleagues have helped identify the holotype and given it name fitting of it's origin, we might even call it's birthplace.

I think this clearly shows the value of citizen science; groundwork synthesized, planned and executed by the lay public coupled with the right funding, the correct mix of enthusiasm, commitment and passion does add tremendous value to nature conservation work. 

As a baseline for CFZ population in Northern Sarawak, I think our volunteer survey team lead by Musa Musbah has added a significant body of data and knowledge to the population and distribution of fireflies in Northern Sarawak. It's probably one of the first in Sarawak.

Through the surveys and community awareness events that MNS Miri Branch has organised in relation to this work as part of it's deliverables, more Sarawakians are aware of fireflies, it's habitats and it's role as indicator species of our natural environment. This could provide significant impetus from which further in depth studies can be carried out and steps to formulate conservation initiative can take place.

I am not at all doubtful of the impact this work has on the future of firefly studies and nature conservation in Sarawak.

Please allow me to again thank all of our enthusiastic, committed and passionate volunteers who has made this CFZ Project funded by the MNS Merdeka Fund, and supported by Sarawak Forestry Corporation a success. Many special thanks to Musa Musbah as project lead for CFZ in Miri, without his interest, commitment and drive this project would not have gone as far as it did.

Thank you all!

Sungai Raan Display Trees Revisited 11 Feb 2019

Sungai Raan is 20 kilometers Southwest of Miri. Two kilometer of river was surveyed in 2010 as part of our CFZ project. To make a new fireflies display tree survey at Sungai Raan river is very important. The general feeling is that Miri firefly populations are dwindling. The baseline and first night time assessment of Fireflies at Sungai Raan was done on the 06th Jan 2010.

The finding were the river have a two sections bearing fireflies display trees. Upper section is a long shore river system and going up near the bridge of the main road and lower section is close to the river mouth.

Upper Section the round one done in 2010 the upside down tears 2019 display trees

The 2010 survey showed the lower section having 13 display trees and the lower section having 8 display trees.

Lower Section the round one done in 2010 the upside down tears 2019 display trees

After 8 years since the last survey at this river, there is a need to revisit the river to find out if there are any changes to the display trees discovered in the last survey. The area at the estuary showed some indications of development : shop-houses and a new water front. This is a treat to the first section of the river where the fireflies display trees are located. The middle section is a concentration of housing with jetties for fishing boats some servicing the nearby houses. Now there is also a swift-let house which are becoming more common.

We have an opportunity to come back to the river on the 11 Feb 2019 with students University Kebangsaan Malaysia interested to study Petrotyx tener. I was very pleased to have with me two students and a professor on this trip to Sungai Raan.

The day of choice is very good for a firefly look and see, having a 30% waxing crescent and a neap tide period. A neap tide is a bit risky for the boat to maneuver because of the shallow river bed. We booked a boat a week earlier from Rahman Jemin. We set our meeting at 5 pm so that we could have a day time tree survey taking note of the types of trees that line up the river. It is a surprise to me to see the Bakam river bank being turned into a beautiful waterfront. The boat landing is at Bakam river. Sungai Raan shares the same estuary with Sungai Bakam.

Sungai Bakam waterfront

As we ride along Sungai Bakam towards the estuary we entered  Sungai Raan we saw a huge round building under construction in front of the river mouth. We entered Sungai Raan and took notes of mangroves tree types that line the river bank. Not much changes seen along the river if it was not for the swiftlet farm. We finished the daytime tree survey and returned into Sungai Bakam jetty. We took our dinner at the food stall nearby.

The dinner was good, at around 7:30 pm we went to Bakam jetty and headed into Sungai Raan. I was a bit nervous when I didn't notice the first couple of display trees. However when we crossed under the bridge I saw a twinkling of sporadic flashes of fireflies at the left side of the river just at the end of the bridge. I was very happy to see this first fireflies display tree. Soon we passed six display trees. The population was not many, only between 10 and 20 individuals. The last display tree is the same tree that was recorded in 2010.

We passed the mid section and the area did not bear any fireflies despite a few caseolaris and rhizophora trees. We passed quickly along this section. At the upper section we passed 3 old display tree void of fireflies. The 4th tree having the first display and we went along until we reached a shallow section. This section only bore six display trees. Wind-speed , water ph and salinity and temperature were recorded at all sampling points. We finished our survey at around 9:30 pm and drove back to Miri.

A new structure under construction at Bakam Estuary

Berembang tree still standing seen during day time assessment

New fishstall

Kampong folks lining the water front

Fireflies at day time assessment

One of the sophisticated equipment

Sampling in action

Discussion

Dr Norela Sulaiman and Atika

Wind speed and water temperature and pH reading

Water front andd new structure

Words and images by Musa Musbah.

Miri River Firefly Revisited 6th Jan 2019

Miri Firefly Survey 6th. Jan 2019

Survey of 17Km of Sungai Miri from Taniku Ferry to Piasau Utara

Participants: Jacey Yap, Annis Lee, Brain Parker, Josue bin Bandai, Arpat and Musa Musbah.

Display trees along a section of Sungai Miri.

The first ever firefly reconnaisance at Sungai Miri was carried out between Pujut Corner up until the section where the Bakun Power Line crosses Sungai Miri. I found rows of synchronous fireflies display trees on both sides of the river. I took some samples and several specimens were preserved. At the time, I did not yet know how to conduct a firefly survey, it was my first congregating firefly survey.With me doing this recee were Suria Timon, Nazeri Jaraee and Pak Par the boat man.

This is one of the sample preserved from the area

Sungai Miri WPTs and display trees from 2010.

After attending a firefly symposium and identification course for two weeks in KL, I executed Miri's first (if not Northern Sarawak) proper firefly survey for the main section of Miri river of about 15 kms from Taniku ferry point to Mat Shah Jetty on the 10th July 2010. A good survey record was achieved together with several Curtin students, Faye Othman (MNS Miri member). The students from Curtin were Aju, Salam, Faiz Nasir, and Faiz Djamil. These young students were very observant, we recorded a total of 283 congregating firefly trees along survey’s length.

Sungai Miri survey route.

The second survey was executed by a group of firefly symposium attendees from Kuala Lumpur. They were made up of several firefly experts coming to Miri to see what I have told them about Miri river fireflies during the symposium. They were Lynn Faust from the United States, while Luis Vasconcelos, Maria and Jose were from Portugal. We carried out the survey again on the 10th Aug 2010. At the end of it, we recorded 101 congregating firefly trees along 16 km of Sungai Miri. The number of trees marked were less this time around. This was due to some gps waypoints not being properly logged when overexcitement at seeing so many display trees overcame all of us.

Most of the river bank still contain a good Display trees

Due to many new commitments I have not carried out any firefly surveys since late 2011, it has been almost 8 years now. Recently I felt that I had to do a factfinding firefly boat trip rather than a full survey over the same section of Sungai Miri.

I called Ian of Coco-dive to sponsor a boat, which he kindly agreed to. I was so excited at the prospect of being able to go back to Sungai Miri and seeing the fireflies again. With the help of MNS members, Jacey and Brain, I acquired new batteries for my night vision scope and a new aquarium thermometer to get water temperature readings ready for night out on the river with fireflies.

All was set to take place on the 6th of January 2019, deemed the best day for this which correlated well with the feeding window of fish and other animals. During this dark moon period all faunas are active feeding and fireflies should be in the same state.

New measurement

Tide table for Miri for the day.

Jacey Yap was assigned as a recorder, and I as coordinator. Anis Lee was tasked with logging waypoints, while Achmed was tasked with locating distant firefly trees using the nightvision scope to warn us in advance of any approaching display trees. Brain was given the job of taking sample fireflies within reach of the scoop net that we used for collecting samples. 

Checking our survey gear.

Unfortunately late during the day of the survey Achmed called to cancel his participation due to an unforeseen emergency at his worksite. I called two other interested MNS Members who were on the list for the survey but both individuals were not contactable at the time.

By 5pm, the others and I gathered at the jetty. Jimmy Yong the Coco-dive Boat Manager with his daughter Isabelle came to the jetty to see us depart. We took a group photo and later handed out the instruments to the participants fitting the preassigned tasks. During the trip I discovered that my GPS unit had an issue with problem with unstable battery contact, so it was decided to just leave it on the boat bench. Brain was reassigned to get water samples and pH readings.

Group photo with Jimmy the Coco-dive manager

We left the Piasau Utara jetty at 17:25hrs using a powerful and quiet 140HP four strokes Suzuki outboard engine. We cruised fast towards Taniku ferry point some 17 kilometres away and reached the site at 18:19hrs. While waiting for darkness to fall we took water samples to read pH and specific gravity. Water was light brown having Sg of 1 and pH of 5.

Before set sail to Taniku Ferry

What surprised us while cruising along the river was that there seemed to be no birds flying. Only the sounds made by two frog species and a White Breasted Waterhen were heard.  We did not hear any splashes of fish on the water feeding, we also saw several moths.

 Brain has a beautiful note given to me as follows.

"As an observer invited on last nights evening boat trip with Musa, I found the river devoid of any form of life. Any healthy stretch of water anywhere the size of Miri river, should, at that time in the evening and night should be alive with natural sound, fish jumping, insects and creatures. Any type of reptile surviving in this river would probably be scavenging the stuff thrown away by the human inhabitants living alongside the banks.”

Brain reading pH

At 19:08hrs we started to move. It has been long time since I used the nightvision scope. I mistook sparkles of light in the trees and thought they were fireflies, which later turned out to be stars fleeting between the leaves. After moving some 100 meters, I started to sense that something was not quite right. There were no congregating fireflies observed along the stretch of familiar display trees of several years back.

The first lone firefly seen and first WPT433 was logged. All along the way we only see single firefly fleeting about. Thus I came to the conclusion they are rovers, a single flying firefly. Only after nine WPTs we saw rovers. At this section we saw a single crocodile yearling and logged WPT448.

Jacey getting ready to log and take notes

All the way after WPT 449 we did not see any congregating fireflies though many familiar congregating trees were spotted, not a single firefly was seen.

I readjusted the night vision scope I and looked hard, but not avail. There were no fireflies spotted.
It was clear that the best rows of congregating fireflies at Sonneratia caseolaris and hibiscus bush along the river bank trees were supposed to have very good display of synchronizing firefly of the Pteroptyx tener (Olivier, 1907) specie. As my sample of Miri-13 was taken from this area. This area was well lit by a swift farm security lighting.

You can you imagine trying to hear your partner speaking while someone else is playing very loud music. Firefly needs darkness to communicate, this section was definitely not ideal for them. The water quality in the vicinity could also be another contributing factor.

Where are the fireflies display

I was devastated that I nearly cried. Passing Pujut settlement area, even Pujut 7 bridge area was supposed to have congregation of fireflies.  There were no fireflies on the previously logged display trees.

Passing Kpg Pengkalan, the waterfront was lighted so brightly it seemed like it was daytime. The display trees as well were devoid of fireflies. My hope was another area next of Lutong Bridge where another synchronous group display at a low Sonneratia caseolaris.  It was unfortunately bright there too. A brightly lit disco faces right into the riverfront.

I had high hopes for the area near the old Lutong Airport and the Piasau Nature Reserve on the river side. “Wouldn’t it be great for the PNR to have a stretch of river with congregating fireflies alongside it?”, I wishfully thought. From afar I saw through my night vision the lights of Bayshore and Kpg Piasau Utara residential area dominated the entire area, my high hopes quickly dashed. There were no displaying fireflies.

Where have all the fireflies gone? It is very sad to think that these indicator species have all moved away from their 2010 locations which incidentally could be described as being well within Miri Resort city limits.

Clearly we need to study this section again … it would be the saddest thing if indeed all the fireflies had left Sungai Miri … could their departure be telling us something more ominous?

2019 Survey route and WPTs.

Data collected during the survey

PHYSICAL CONDITION:

a. Moon-phase : New moon

b. Weather: Calm no wind, till the end of survey.

Air temperature 28.3 ° C

Water temperature 28.9 ° C

Water pH : 5 at starting position , end was 5

Specific gravity: is 1.0 at start and End Location.

c. River Condition Current: High tides, not moving, clear tanning water.

Outboard engine used: Suzuki 140 hp

Survey Average Speed 8.2 Km/hr.

Survey length 16.9 km

Survey period 2 hr 11 minutes.

No haze

Fauna seen/heard: White breasted water-hen and frogs croaking

No congregating fireflies display tree seen

Eight roving fireflies seen location logged

Only a single collared kingfisher was seen crossing a river at Taniku

Six Crocodiles yearling sighted

One grown up crocodiles

Location

WPT North East Date Time Side Remarks

437 4.413273 114.0598 6-Jan-19 19:11:00 Left firefly

438 4.412016 114.0563 6-Jan-19 19:15:13 Left firefly

439 4.410466 114.0556 6-Jan-19 19:17:58 Left firefly

441 4.409840 114.0542 6-Jan-19 19:20:48 Left firefly

443 4.408725 114.0528 6-Jan-19 19:24:17 Left firefly

444 4.406509 114.0505 6-Jan-19 19:28:04 Left firefly

445 4.408046 114.0493 6-Jan-19 19:29:56 Left Crocodile yearling

446 4.410071 114.0492 6-Jan-19 19:32:03 Left firefly

447 4.411060 114.0483 6-Jan-19 19:34:09 Left Smoke from farm

448 4.409529 114.0453 6-Jan-19 19:37:34 Left Crocodile yearling

449 4.409565 114.0421 6-Jan-19 19:40:27 Left Firefly

455 4.461589 114.0157 6-Jan-19 20:44:58 Right Crocodile yearling

456 4.461907 114.0155 6-Jan-19 20:45:17 Right Crocodile yearling

459 4.468395 114.0110 6-Jan-19 20:51:29 Left Large crocodile

460 4.465542 114.0091 6-Jan-19 20:54:59 Left Crocodile yearling

461 4.463595 114.0098 6-Jan-19 20:56:24 Left Crocodile yearling


Text and photographs by : Musa Musbah MNS Miri Chairman 2019

Edited by : Mairead Borland
Compiled : Nazeri Ab Ghani