New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Habitat Loss a Real Buzzkill for Invertebrates

The number of invertebrates has fallen by nearly half over the past 35 years—the same period of time in which the human population has doubled. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Based on the sheer number of ants that have invaded my home this summer, it seems hard to believe. But a new study finds that the number of invertebrates—which include any animal without a spine—has fallen by nearly half over the past 35 years—the same period of time in which the human population has doubled. The estimate appears in the journal Science. [Rodolfo Dirzo et al: Defaunation in the Anthropocene]

When we think of extinction, we usually picture large, charismatic creatures, like the saber-toothed tiger, the wooly mammoth or the even the dodo bird. Over the past 500 years, more than 300 species of vertebrates like these have disappeared. 

But what about critters that fly…or crawl…under our radar? Butterflies, beetles, spiders, slugs and worms are all in the midst of decline. Much of that die-off is due to habitat loss. In the U.K., for example, scientists have recorded a 30 to 60 percent decrease in areas inhabited by common insects, including bees and wasps.

While fewer flying pests might seem a plus, insects also perform functions that are key to human survival, like pollinating crops and recycling nutrients. So crowding out our invertebrate allies could turn out to be a real buzzkill.   

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe