Evaluating firefly extinction risk: Initial red list assessments for North America.

Fireflies are a family of charismatic beetles known for their bioluminescent signals. Recent anecdotal reports suggest that firefly populations in North America may be in decline. However, prior to this work, no studies have undertaken a systematic compilation of geographic distribution, habitat specificity, and threats facing North American fireflies. To better understand their extinction risks, we conducted baseline assessments according to the categories and criteria of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List for 132 species from the United States and Canada (approximately 79% of described species in the region). We found at least 18 species (14%) are threatened with extinction (e.g. categorized as Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable) due to various pressures, including habitat loss, light pollution, and climate change (sea level rise and drought). In addition, more than half of the species (53%) could not be evaluated against the assessment criteria due to insufficient data, highlighting the need for further study. Future research and conservation efforts should prioritize monitoring and protecting populations of at-risk species, preserving and restoring habitat, gathering data on population trends, and filling critical information gaps for data deficient species suspected to be at risk.

Introduction

Effective conservation planning and action depends on identifying the most at-risk species based on their estimated probability of extinction. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species is considered the global standard for estimating the risk of species extinction and can be used as a first step in conservation efforts [1,2]. First established in 1964, major gains have been made in adding new assessments to the Red List in recent years, moving ever closer to the group’s goal of 160,000 assessed species. Currently, the Red List comprehensively covers charismatic vertebrates, including mammals (91% of all species assessed) and birds (100% of species assessed) [3]. Invertebrates, in contrast, are profoundly underrepresented on the Red List, with just 2% of described species (24,219 out of an estimated 1,478,938) assessed as of 2020 [3]. This gap is even wider for insects: although they represent an estimated 53% of described animal and plant species, only 1% have been assessed [3].

Beetles, a hyper-diverse group of insects with an estimated 386,500 described extant species worldwide [4] have been identified as a priority group for Red Listing due to their species richness, assessment practicality (e.g., relatively stable taxonomy, adequate information available), and economic value [5]. The firefly beetles (family Lampyridae), which contain some 2,200 species globally [4], represent an ideal group for Red List assessments because these charismatic and cosmopolitan insects have the potential to serve as flagship species for invertebrate conservation. They possess diverse life history traits and behaviors and have been the subject of active evolutionary, behavioral, and genetic research [6-10]. Through biomedical research, firefly luciferase has facilitated numerous scientific advances [e.g., 11]. Furthermore, fireflies are culturally, ecologically, and economically important, and because of their sensitivity to light pollution and other environmental degradation, they may be important bioindicators of ecosystem health [12-17]. Some species have been used as biological control agents of unwanted land snails [18].

Long-term surveys have revealed local population declines of the glow-worm Lampyris noctiluca in the U.K. [19,20] and the congregating mangrove firefly Pteroptyx tener in Malaysia [21,22]. In North America, population declines have been anecdotally reported [16], but IUCN Red List assessments had yet to be conducted for any firefly species. A recent review of global threats to firefly persistence revealed habitat degradation and loss, light pollution, pesticide use, poor water quality, climate change, and invasive species to be among the major suspected drivers of decline [23]. Firefly tourism, which has increased rapidly in recent years and has been identified as a potential threat, offers an opportunity to examine how human activities can affect fireflies and their habitats, while determining how these activities can continue without causing local extirpations [17]. With emerging evidence for widespread declines in insect populations [24-26], there is an urgent need for formal assessments to inform the conservation status of firefly species and estimate their extinction risk.

This study summarizes global IUCN Red List assessments for fireflies in the U.S. and Canada, presenting the first formal estimates of extinction risk conducted for any member of this beetle family. We compiled available information on distributions, habitats, life history traits, behaviors, and threats for most (79%) of the currently described firefly species in the U.S. and Canada. Our goal in compiling this baseline data was to identify species at greatest risk of extinction, propose strategies for conserving threatened species, and highlight targets for future research.

Methods

Study organism

Fireflies (Coleoptera: Lampyridae) are holometabolous insects that spend the majority of their lives as larvae–sometimes up to 2 years or more–whereas adults may live only a few weeks [27]. Generation time and seasonality vary considerably depending on latitude, elevation, degree day range, and sex and species-specific emergence timing, in addition to weather and climate [28]. In general, generation time increases with higher latitudes and elevations. Southern fireflies may have one-year life cycles, whereas northern populations could have two to three-year life cycles [28]. However, because fireflies are facultative in their development time, this period may increase in response to environmental variables such as drought [28] or increases in elevation (L. Buschman pers. comm. 2020). Similarly, the breeding season may be longer (year-round for some species) at southern latitudes, while it will be much shorter at higher latitudes or elevations (lasting only a week to a few months) [28].

As larvae, fireflies are voracious predators of soft-bodied invertebrates including snails, slugs, and worms [9], but may also be scavengers of dead insects and berries [29]. They are typically subterranean or found on or near the soil surface, in leaf litter, or in rotting logs, depending on the genera and/or species [16,28,30]. Adults of most species are not known to feed, although some species have been observed nectaring on flowers, mouthing leaves, and feeding on sap [28,31-34], and the females of some Photuris species are predatory mimics of other fireflies [35,36].

Although fireflies are known for bioluminescence, the actual bioluminescent capabilities of the group as a whole are these: the larvae of all known firefly species are luminescent [9], yet not all adults are capable of producing light. In the U.S. and Canada, fireflies can thus be organized into groups based on their bioluminescent capabilities: those that use flashing or glowing courtship signals (flashing fireflies and glow-worms), and those that do not (daytime dark species; in this context, ‘dark’ refers to non-luminescent or faintly luminescent diurnal species). Flashing fireflies, also known as lightningbugs, are typically crepuscular or nocturnally active; male and female adults use precisely timed flashes or flickers to communicate with potential mates [9]. Glow-worms are active during a similar time period but differ in that adult female glow-worms are typically flightless because their wings are short or even absent [9]. Furthermore, it is primarily the adult females that are luminescent, glowing to attract often non-luminescent males that fly overhead in search of a mate (there are some exceptions to this, e.g. Phausis reticulata) [9,37]. Daytime dark fireflies are diurnally active and are known [38] or suspected to use pheromones to locate potential mates [6,8].

Fireflies require moist conditions to prevent desiccation of larvae and their prey [9,16]. In general, fireflies are found in diverse habitats, including riparian woodlands, desert canyons, and coastal salt marshes. While some species are strict habitat specialists, others utilize a variety of habitats. Certain species opportunistically occupy urban and rural areas such as residential lawns, crop fields, and overgrown lots.

Species checklist

We compiled a checklist of all native described species and subspecies of Lampyridae found in the U.S. and Canada based on Lloyd [39], which we updated to include recent species descriptions [30,40-42]. This yielded 167 species in 20 genera (S1 Table). Thirty-nine of these species were described in just the last 15 years [30,40-42], supporting speculation that as many as 225 species could occur in the U.S. and Canada [9]. One introduced European species, Phosphaenus hemipterus, reported from Nova Scotia [43], was not included. Synonymy was addressed using ITIS [44], Cicero [45], and other taxonomic references, where relevant. The updated checklist was reviewed by firefly experts (S2 Table). Thirty-five Photuris species that were described in 2018 [30] were excluded, as such recent description led to a paucity of data and lack of knowledgeable taxonomic experts, yielding a total of 132 taxa that were assessed.

Literature review and data compilation

At the outset of the assessment process, we reviewed published literature and unpublished reports and solicited input from taxonomic experts. For 130 species and two subspecies, we compiled information on taxonomy, distribution, population size, ecology, behavior, threats, and any known conservation measures. We searched for relevant literature using Web of Science, Google Scholar, the world Lampyridae literature database [45], and Fireflyers International Network’s list of scientific and popular literature [46] using key words such as Lampyridae and individual species and genus names. Occurrence records were obtained from online biodiversity databases and museum collections (e.g., GBIF, SCAN, California Academy of Sciences), scientific literature, and species experts. Data were screened for anomalous records, which were vetted and removed if questionable. Unless pertaining to widespread or common species, observations from iNaturalist and BugGuide community science sites were only used if they had been verified by a taxonomic expert (Role = Determiner, see S2 Table). In some cases, records from the published literature were georeferenced in order to draft more detailed distribution maps.

IUCN Red List methodology

We evaluated extinction risk for each species using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1 [47]. Each species was assessed against five criteria with quantitative thresholds, which are based on standard biological indicators that render populations more vulnerable to extinction: A (past, present, or future population size reduction), B (geographical range size with evidence of decline, fragmentation, or fluctuation), C (small population size with decline, fragmentation, or fluctuation), D (very small or restricted population size), and E (quantitative analysis of extinction risk).

Depending on which criteria thresholds were met, each taxon was assigned to one of the following IUCN Red List categories: Extinct (EX), Extinct in the Wild (EW), Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), Near Threatened (NT), Least Concern (LC) or Data Deficient (DD). Species assigned to the categories CR, EN, or VU are considered threatened because they are facing extremely high, very high, or high risk of extinction in the wild, respectively. Species assessed as Near Threatened are close to qualifying for a threatened category and therefore may qualify as threatened in the near future. Species assessed as Least Concern are generally widespread and abundant and do not qualify for a threatened category under any of the criteria. A taxon is considered Data Deficient when there is not enough information on the distribution or population size to make a direct or indirect assessment of its extinction risk. Species are assessed as Extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died, and species are assessed as Extinct in the Wild when they are known to survive only in captivity [48]. Like many invertebrates, none of the species assessed had sufficient information on population size or rates of population size reduction to be evaluated against the thresholds for Criteria A, C, D and E. Therefore, all species assessed as threatened were done so under Criterion B, which is based on restricted ranges with evidence of decline, severe fragmentation, or extreme fluctuation in distribution or population size. Further details on the Red List methodology can be found in S1 File and the IUCN Red List Guidelines [48].

Synthesis and review

Throughout the process, species experts (S2 Table) were consulted to verify that each species assessment and distribution map included accurate and up-to-date information. The majority of assessments (128 species) were published on the IUCN Red List in March 2021 [49], while the remaining four species are awaiting publication.

Results and discussion

Extinction risk and threats

Our assessments suggest that at least 14% of evaluated North American firefly species (18 species) are threatened, classified as either Critically Endangered (CR, n = 1), Endangered (EN, n = 10), or Vulnerable (VU, n = 7) (Fig 1). In addition, 2% were categorized as Near Threatened (NT, n = 2) while 32% were classified as Least Concern (LC, n = 42). Over half (53%) of assessed firefly species were categorized as Data Deficient (DD, n = 70), which means there remains considerable uncertainty in the proportion of North American fireflies that may be at risk of extinction. Our estimate of 14% threatened likely represents a lower limit, with an upper limit of 67% should all DD species turn out to be threatened. Following methods used in other Red List assessments [50,51], if we assume that our Data Deficient species follow a pattern similar to those with sufficient data, we estimate that 29% (a “mid-estimate”) of North American firefly species may eventually be classified as threatened (Table 1).

Fig 1

IUCN Red List categories for 132 North American firefly species.

Table 1

IUCN Red List summary information for 132 North American firefly species.

Summary information	Count	Percentage
Total species evaluated	132
Total species with sufficient data (CR+EN+VU+NT+LC)	62	47%
Total Threatened—lower limit estimate (CR+EN+VU)	18	14%
Total Threatened–mid estimate ((CR+EN+VU)/(total—DD)*total)	38	29%
Total Threatened—upper limit estimate (CR+EN+VU+DD)	88	67%

Invertebrate extinction risk has been linked to several different factors, including narrow geographical ranges, habitat specialization, and body size [52-54]. For fireflies, Reed et al. [55] identified risk factors expected to make species more susceptible to threats, including courtship activity period (nocturnal vs. diurnal), poor dispersal ability (due in part to adult female brachyptery or aptery), and habitat specialization. In our assessments, these risk factors were found to be prevalent among firefly species with heightened extinction risk (Table 2).

Table 2

Ecology and life history characteristics of 18 threatened firefly species in the U.S. and Canada.

Species name	Common name	Category	Criteria	Range	EOO (km2)	Courtship signal	Courtship activity period	Females	Habitat association	Habitat description
Bicellonycha wickershamorum	Southwest spring firefly	VU	B1ab(iii)	Arizona	2,113–15,941	Flash	Crepuscular	Winged	Possible specialist	Montane seeps and marshes along permanent streams
Bicellonycha wickershamorum piceum	Gila Southwest spring firefly	EN	B2ab(iii)	Arizona	Unknown	Flash	Crepuscular	Winged	Possible specialist	Montane seeps along permanent streams
Bicellonycha wickershamorum wickershamorum	Southwest spring firefly	VU	B1ab(iii)	Arizona	2,113–9,636	Flash	Crepuscular	Winged	Possible specialist	Montane seeps and marshes along permanent streams
Lucidota luteicollis	Florida scrub dark firefly	VU	B1ab(iii)	Florida	13,035	None	Diurnal	Flightless	Specialist	Upland ridges within scrub, sandhill, and pine savannah
Micronaspis floridana	Florida intertidal firefly	EN	B2ab(i,ii,iii)	Florida, Bahamas	109,494	Flash	Nocturnal	Winged	Specialist	Salt marshes, mudflats, and mangroves in coastal areas
Photinus acuminatus	Pointy-lobed firefly	EN	B2ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v)	Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio	Unknown	Flash	Nocturnal	Winged	Specialist	Bogs and marshes
Photinus knulli †	Southwest synchronous firefly	VU	B1ab(iii)	Arizona, Mexico	8,329	Flash	Nocturnal	Winged	Specialist	Marshes along permanent streams
Photuris bethaniensis	Bethany Beach firefly	CR	B1ab(i,ii,iii,v)	Delaware	33	Flash	Nocturnal	Winged	Specialist	Interdunal freshwater swales
Photuris cinctipennis	Belted firefly	EN	B1ab(ii,iii)+2ab(ii,iii)	Delaware, Maryland	4,643	Flash	Nocturnal	Winged	Possible specialist	Moist lowland areas within hardwood forests
Photuris flavicollis	Sky island firefly	VU	B1ab(iii)	New Mexico, Texas	8,497	Flash	Nocturnal	Winged	Possible specialist	Montane seeps and springs
Photuris forresti †	Loopy five firefly	EN	B1ab(i,ii,iii,iv)+2ab(i,ii,iii,iv)	South Carolina, Tennessee	3,349	Flash	Nocturnal	Winged	Specialist	Marshes
Photuris mysticalampas	Mysterious lantern firefly	EN	B1B2ab(ii,iii)	Delaware	1,050	Flash	Nocturnal	Winged	Specialist	Forested peatland floodplains
Photuris pensylvanica	Dot-dash firefly	VU	B2ab(iii)	Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania	14,023–86,276	Flash	Nocturnal	Winged	Specialist	Tidal and non-tidal freshwater wetlands
Photuris pyralomima	None	EN	B1ab(i,ii,iii)+B2ab(i,ii,iii)	Delaware, New York	2,285	Flash	Nocturnal	Winged	Possible specialist	Moist grassland or shrubland
Photuris walldoxeyi	Cypress firefly	VU	B2ab(iii)	Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Tennessee	69,962	Flash	Nocturnal	Winged	Specialist	Cypress swamps
Pleotomodes needhami †	Ant-loving scrub firefly	EN	B1ab(iii)	Florida	1,616	Glow	Nocturnal	Flightless	Specialist	Upland ridges within xeric pine and oak scrub forests
Pyractomena ecostata	Keel-necked firefly	EN	B2ab(i,ii,iii)	Alabama, Delaware, Florida, New Jersey	955,697	Flash	Nocturnal	Winged	Specialist	Brackish tidal marshes
Pyractomena vexillaria †	Amber comet	EN	B2ab(i,iii)	Texas, Mexico	32,716	Flash	Nocturnal	Winged	Specialist	River basins within semi-arid shrubland

† Indicates species that have been submitted to the IUCN Red List but have not yet been published. Categories and criteria for these species are thus considered pending until formal publication.

For species with sufficient information to identify known and suspected threats to their persistence (88 species total), the primary threats included habitat loss and degradation, light pollution, and climate change and severe weather. Habitat loss has been identified as the biggest perceived threat to fireflies worldwide [23], rendering habitat specialists particularly vulnerable. All 18 species categorized as threatened are known or suspected to be restricted to specialized habitats like freshwater interdunal swales or cypress swamps (Fig 2), which makes them more vulnerable to habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. These threats are caused by a variety of human activities, including commercial and residential development, agricultural conversion, water pollution, groundwater pumping, waterway modifications, cattle grazing, and recreational activities such as off-road vehicle (ORV) use. Habitat loss and degradation can be particularly devastating for species with flightless females, which are more vulnerable to trampling or habitat destruction due to their limited dispersal capacity. Two of the species categorized as threatened, the Florida scrub dark firefly (Lucidota luteicollis) and the ant-loving scrub firefly (Pleotomodes needhami), have flightless adult females. Approximately a quarter of firefly species in the U.S. and Canada are known or expected to have flightless females, and 23 (68%) of such species were categorized as DD; thus, additional species are likely to eventually be categorized as threatened.

Fig 2

Threatened fireflies tend to be restricted to specialized habitats.

(a) Lucidota luteicollis. Printed with permission from Brandon Woo, CC BY 4.0. (b) Characteristic upland sand scrub habitat of L. luteicollis in Florida. Reprinted from Leo Miranda/USFWS [56], CC BY 2.0. (c) Photuris walldoxeyi. Printed with permission from Luiz Silveira, CC BY 4.0. (d) Cypress swamp characteristic of P. walldoxeyi habitat. Reprinted from capt_tain Tom [57], CC BY 2.0. (e) Micronaspis floridana. Printed with permission from Lynn Faust, CC BY 4.0. (f) Coastal salt marsh typical of M. floridana in Cedar Key, Florida. Reprinted from Karen Kleis [58], CC BY 2.0. (g) Pyractomena ecostata. Printed with permission from Oliver Keller, CC BY 4.0. (h) Atlantic tidal marsh characteristic of P. ecostata habitat in Delaware. Reprinted from Andy Atzert [59], CC BY 2.0. (i) Photuris bethaniensis. Printed with permission from Christopher M. Heckscher, CC BY 4.0. (j) Interdunal swale habitat characteristic of P. bethaniensis in Delaware. Printed with permission from Emily May, CC BY 4.0. (k) Pyractomena vexillaria. Printed with permission from Mike Quinn, CC BY 4.0. (l) P. vexillaria habitat along the Devils River, Texas. Printed with permission from Ben Pfeiffer, CC BY 4.0.

In general, moisture is critically important during all firefly life stages to prevent desiccation [9]; eggs, soft-bodied larvae, and flightless females may be particularly susceptible [60]. Thus, loss of moisture due to habitat manipulation, drought, or mismanagement of water resources can negatively impact fireflies. Because firefly larvae are predatory on soft-bodied invertebrates that are also susceptible to desiccation, loss of moisture can impact prey populations as well. Climate change is likely to be a major concern for many species. For example, in the arid American West, droughts are becoming more widespread, frequent, and severe due to a changing climate [61]. As a result of this, combined with changing precipitation patterns and increasing human demands, water tables are dropping [62,63], which can cause ephemeral aquatic habitats to go dry, interrupt flow regimes, and stress local plant communities [64]. Some western firefly habitats have completely disappeared due to water table reductions [65], and continuing declines in plant communities along riparian corridors in Texas are causing reduced moisture retention in the soil, which contributes to lower quality habitat for firefly larvae and diminishes the amount of water available to recharge aquifers (B. Pfeiffer pers. obs.).

Wetland habitats overall are in decline across the U.S., primarily from development; over a 200-year period from the 1780s to 1980s, the contiguous U.S. lost an estimated 53% of original wetlands [66]. More recently, although the pace of loss appears to have slowed [67], wetland loss continues to occur at a high rate in certain regions. For example, the northeast and southeast regions of the U.S., where firefly species richness is highest (Fig 3A), both saw downward trends in wetlands acreage from 1992 to 2010 [68]. Coastal regions are particularly at risk; an estimated 80,000 acres of coastal wetlands in the contiguous U.S. are lost each year due to development, drainage, storms, and sea level rise [67]. Loss of wetland habitat due to sea level rise was identified as a major threat to coastal firefly species like Photuris bethaniensis and Micronaspis floridana. Because these are habitat specialists and occupy small areas threatened by intense coastal development, their opportunity to disperse to other sites is limited [69].

Fig 3

Species distributions and status summaries.

(A) Overall species richness of fireflies in the U.S. and Canada. Gray lines indicate Level III Ecoregion boundaries. Ecoregions with the highest species richness are labeled; all others are unlabeled. (B) Geographic summary of threatened (CR, EN, or VU) firefly species. Note that one of the taxa indicated in Arizona consists of 2 subspecies that are also threatened. (C) Geographic summary of Data Deficient firefly species, shown as a percent of the total number of species reported from each state. The maps were created by the authors based on our Red List assessment results using ArcMap by Esri [70]. Public domain administrative boundary layers were obtained from Natural Earth [71]. The Fig 3A Level III Ecoregions layer was obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [72].

Development is also linked to light pollution, or artificial light at night (ALAN), a threat affecting 17 out of the 18 threatened species in this study. ALAN is comprised of skyglow (the diffuse glowing haze over populated areas), glare (excessive amounts of lighting), and light trespass (light that spills out beyond its intended target). It can be caused by a number of different sources, from commercial and residential development to vehicle headlights and gas flares. All sources of ALAN have the potential to drive firefly population declines. More than 75% of firefly species in the United States and Canada are nocturnally active or crepuscular species that utilize bioluminescent courtship signals that are sensitive to environmental light conditions. A growing body of research suggests that artificial light from street lamps, residences, and other sources may impede the ability of males to locate female mates [23,73]. For example, experimental studies have shown that artificial light can interfere with the production and reception of courtship signals [74,75] and inhibit larval dispersal [76], which could affect reproductive fitness and have cascading impacts for firefly populations.

Species distributions

Fireflies were recorded in every U.S. state except for Hawaii and every Canadian province and territory except Nunavut (Fig 3A; S1 Table). Thirty species (23%) were thought to be endemic to a single state or province (27% of such species were categorized as threatened). States that support the highest numbers of endemic species include Arizona (eight species), Florida (eight species), California (five species), and Texas (four species) (S1 Table). In general, species richness increases moving from west to east; when we overlaid Level III Ecoregion [72] boundaries on the map, the major hotspots of species richness (defined here as areas with more than 30 species across most of the ecoregion) were in the North Central Appalachians, Northern Allegheny Plateau, Northern Piedmont, and Blue Ridge ecoregions (Fig 3A). The Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain and Southeastern Plains also support more than 30 species each, but only across a small part of the ecoregion. Threatened species are concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast regions (Fig 3B), while DD species are scattered throughout the two countries (Fig 3C). All 18 threatened species have narrow geographic ranges, with 10 thought to be endemic to a single state. It is likely that these distributions are heavily influenced by sampling bias and geographic concentrations of species experts; for example, West Virginia likely has higher species richness than is currently reported (12 species) given the high number of species found in surrounding states, but sampling efforts are not yet as comprehensive in this state.

Moving forward: Conservation actions

The results of our assessments have made it clear that additional conservation actions are needed for fireflies in the U.S. and Canada (S3 Table). More specifically, this includes identifying and protecting populations of at-risk species, preserving and restoring firefly habitat, gathering data on population trends, and filling critical information gaps for those Data Deficient species suspected to be at risk. Science communication is also important: conducting education and outreach can help ensure that fireflies and their needs are taken into consideration. In the following sections, we expand on these recommended next steps to prevent firefly species extinctions.

Protect at-risk species

These assessments identified 18 taxa at risk of extinction and two others that may be at risk in the near future (Near Threatened). Currently, very few conservation measures are in place to protect North American fireflies. Species-specific conservation actions should focus on prioritizing these threatened species. The Critically Endangered Bethany Beach firefly, Photuris bethaniensis, which is listed as State Endangered in Delaware, is currently under consideration for Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing—the first firefly to be petitioned [77]. No other fireflies are included in endangered species lists for any state or province, and no regulatory mechanisms are in place to protect at-risk species. However, several states, including Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, and South Carolina, do include at-risk firefly species as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in their State Wildlife Action Plans. These plans are intended to inform conservation priorities and actions at the state level, with a particular focus on strategies for managing and protecting SGCN. We recommend that state wildlife agencies include threatened firefly species as SGCN, if they are not already included. Furthermore, we suggest that Data Deficient species that we suspect to be threatened also be considered as SGCN (S4 Table).

Preserve and restore habitat

Because habitat loss is a key threat to fireflies, preserving and restoring habitat for threatened firefly species will be an integral part of any conservation efforts. This can be accomplished in several ways:

Protect and restore occupied and adjacent habitat to support threatened species, such as coastal salt marshes and cypress swamps (see Table 2)

Work with local conservation organizations and land trusts to establish Firefly Sanctuaries in areas with threatened or endemic species or high species diversity

Work with tourism sites to establish and implement clear guidelines for managers, tour operators, and visitors to ensure that fireflies are protected from tourism-related threats [e.g., 17]

Mitigate light pollution close to firefly habitat through educational outreach programs, Dark Sky Initiatives [78], and updates to city lighting ordinances

Refrain from using pesticides, particularly insecticides and molluscicides, in areas used by fireflies, as these can kill fireflies and their prey, and may have other unintended consequences

Survey and monitor populations

Surveys and monitoring were identified as key conservation actions for all 18 threatened species and all of the Data Deficient species. A shortage of survey efforts and population monitoring for the majority of species—due in no small part to a lack of standardized methodology for tracking them, short species activity windows, difficulty in reaching survey sites, difficulty in identification at the species level, the hazards posed by nocturnal fieldwork, and a general lack of funding—severely limits our ability to track firefly populations over time. Baseline inventories to determine species distributions are needed to better understand the conservation status and needs of individual species. In particular, randomized grid surveys over large geographic areas, coupled with targeted surveys for known threatened species, could help reduce survey bias and increase the scope of survey efforts. Even with temporal and spatial biases, however, it is possible to extract meaningful results that can inform conservation efforts [e.g., 79–81].

While such surveys at the local, state, and federal levels are recommended, successful survey programs may rest on integrating these efforts with large-scale initiatives across wide geographic areas. Community (“citizen”) science projects have a long and illustrious history of engaging public interest while benefiting conservation efforts, and many have effectively incorporated web-based tools [e.g., 82] to increase participation and dissemination of data. For many insects, incorporating species-level identifications in such projects can be challenging due to insects’ hyper diversity, small size, often abstruse taxonomy, and difficulty of field identification. In the face of recent insect declines, however, community science has the potential to fulfill a critical need in documenting species distributions and population trends [26,83,84]. For fireflies in particular, Firefly Watch [85] has engaged thousands of community scientists across North America since it started in 2008, and additional resources are now available to aid field-based species identifications [28]. Regional projects such as the Western Firefly Project [86] are also filling data gaps. To gather additional occurrence data for species not typically covered by these programs, volunteers who are trained to identify their local threatened and Data Deficient species could contribute high-quality, geotagged photographs and details of flash pattern behavior, when applicable, to iNaturalist [87].

Given the apparent rarity or limited abundance of some firefly populations, large-scale collecting should be avoided. Lethal sampling is generally not recommended other than for the purposes of collecting voucher specimens for museums to verify species occurrence. When possible, geotagged voucher photos with corresponding habitat and behavior information should be used in lieu of physical vouchers.

Fill data gaps

More than half (53%) of the North American firefly species assessed were Data Deficient, indicating that more information is needed to estimate these species’ extinction risks. Data Deficient species tended to be characterized by cryptic life histories, non-flashing communication behavior, or flightless adult females. For example, a large portion of glow-worm species (79%) and diurnal fireflies (68%) are categorized as Data Deficient, as opposed to 38% of flashing species (S5 Table). The comparatively high rate of data deficiency in glow-worm species is likely due in part to the difficulty in detecting these less conspicuous species. Glow-worm species have flightless females, adult males in most of these species do not produce light. Combined with their nocturnal activity period, diminutive body size, and inconspicuous female light signals, many of these are easily overlooked. This underscores the need for specialized survey protocols and additional research into firefly species that do not use flash signals in courtship, particularly basic life history studies that examine habitat associations and microhabitat needs, larval and adult diets, activity periods, and threats. Details about priority Data Deficient species can be found in S1 File.

Engage and educate

Effective science communication can play an important role in achieving conservation goals by garnering public support, attracting funding, driving policy changes, and promoting informed decision making [88-93]. For small yet charismatic animals like fireflies, building up communication efforts may lead to increased support for not only fireflies and their habitats, but invertebrate conservation more broadly. In tandem with the conservation actions discussed here, we recommend increasing outreach and education efforts to share new findings and facilitate collaboration. In addition to community science initiatives, which can be an effective means for increasing engagement with conservation [94,95], creative use of workshops, social and popular media, school fieldtrips, and museum exhibits, among others, may help to build support for firefly conservation. Development and distribution of science-based conservation guidelines [e.g., 96] and other educational resources can also be helpful in outreach efforts.

Conclusions

This paper summarizes the first global IUCN Red List assessments for fireflies. While it does not include all described species in the U.S. and Canada, it represents a substantial step forward in understanding extinction risk for North American species. We now have a foundation from which we can work, which spans the setting of conservation priorities to the establishment of a baseline against which future findings can be compared. We hope the results and implications discussed in this paper will catalyze action to study and conserve fireflies, not just in the U.S. and Canada but everywhere fireflies are found.

Firefly species distributions in the U.S. and Canada.

Species name: †: Awaiting publication on the IUCN Red List. RL category: DD*: Potentially threatened DD species. Occurrence and Distribution: Extant (E): Species has been reported since 2000; Presence uncertain (U): Species reported prior to 2000; Possibly Extant (PE): No known records but habitat or locality is appropriate and species may occur here; Possibly Extinct (PX): Species has not been seen in many years despite comprehensive survey efforts.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Firefly taxonomic experts consulted in this project.

Contributor: Contributed information to Red List assessments; Assessor: Co-authored Red List assessments; Reviewer: Reviewed Red List assessments; Determiner: Verified species IDs.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Recommended conservation actions for threatened firefly species in the U.S. and Canada.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Potentially threatened DD firefly species.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

North American firefly genera with total number of species assessed, percentage of threatened and data deficient species, and behavioral type.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

4 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-17592

Evaluating firefly extinction risk: Initial Red List assessments for North America

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fallon,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 18 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Daniel de Paiva Silva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [Individual species information is published on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (https://www.iucnredlist.org/).] Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

4. We note that Figures #1A, 1B and 1C in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures #1A, 1B and 1C to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. We note that Figure #2 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure #2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Fallon et al.,

After the first review round, I am pleased to inform to you that your study received two "minor reviews" status by two different reviewers. Therefore, your manuscript is practically there concerning its acceptance in PLoS One. As you will see that the amount of improvements to be done are few, please consider resubmitting your study by September 5th, 2021. Do not hesitate to resubmit earlier if you are able to. In case you need more time, please let me know. Finally, by the time you resubmit, do not forget to prepare a rebuttal letter, where you will explain all the performed changes and justify to the reviewers the reason why any given change was not done.

Once again, congratulations!

Sincerely,

Daniel Silva, Ph.D.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comments and reviewer recommendation for manuscript number PONE-D-21-17592 “Evaluating firefly extinction risk: Initial Red List assessments for North America” by Fallon et al.

This manuscript deals with an interesting topic, namely the assessement of fireflies against the IUCN criteria in order to compile the first Red List of this charismatic beetle group globally. Despite a number of drawbacks (relatively few data on trends and distribution), the authors managed to compile an initial list of most threatened fireflies in North America. This resulted in the use of only one out of five possible IUCN criteria (i.e. geographical range) to classify species in the different Red List categories. Since this criterion does not only use rarity as such, but demands at least two out of three subcriteria to be fulfilled (e.g. fragmentation, decline), it is not clear how the authors evaluated these additional criteria. This should be explained in a more detailed way so that future Red Lists of this or other less well-known insect groups can learn from and repeat the method used in this exercise. Apart from that, the manuscript is well written and reads easily, with clear figures and ample and appropriate references. I would replace Table 1 with a graph and mention the numbers in the text itself, because a graph is much more informative than numbers in a table. Some additional comments are given in the attached pdf. Nice manuscript!

Reviewer #2: Insect declines are a high conservation priority, but poorly understood, particularly outside of some butterfly species. Consequently, it is very exciting to see this extensive foray into firefly extinction risk using the IUCN criteria.

Great justification for the work, excellent data, strong support from taxonomic experts, and effective application of IUCN criteria. Well-presented results and focused discussion. The paper ends with an excellent road map of proposed actions for conservation.

Results

- Table 2 – Since most people are not conversant with the nuances of the IUCN sub-criteria, and it would be time-consuming for folks to walk through IUCN documents to figure it out, it would be helpful for readers if a column was added that used text to explain the criteria; or, since there is a lot of overlap across species and few sub-criteria used in the listing, add multiple columns listing the sub-criteria, with checkmarks for each species where they apply.

- Also, the text includes common names along with the scientific names – consider adding them to Table 2.

Minor comments

- Line 26 ‘threat of extinction from threats’ is awkward

- Lines 25-26 – by ‘under threat’, do you mean in categories CR, EN, and VU? Better to be specific with categories – this is clarified on line 140

- Line 27 – are the unevaluated additional 21% of the firefly species in the U.S. & Canada also DD, and that was why they weren’t evaluated? Seems to be suggested on line 117. If yes, do you want to increase this value, or are there IUCN rules restricting use of the term?

- Lines 120-125 – any information on databases searched and search terms used would help readers evaluate/understand the thoroughness of the search

- Line 245 – instead of ‘capacity’, it might be more accurate to say ‘opportunity’ (they might be capable of dispersing, but there is nowhere to go)

- Line 247 ’17 of 18 of the at-risk species in our study’ – not a generic frequency across all firefly species

- Line 269 ‘currently, currently’

- Line 281 – I’m not sure what ‘converting the assessments’ means

- Line 296 – please provide a citation for ‘Dark Sky Initiatives’

- Line 327 – it might be worth adding ‘for museums’ to ‘voucher specimens’

- Section starting line 343 – I’m not sure all engagement and education leads to action – it would be good to include a few citations in this section of examples where it has been shown to be effective.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-17592_reviewer1.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

3 Sep 2021

[Please note that our response has also been uploaded (with better formatting) with the other revision files.]

Response to Reviewers

Below, you will find our responses to the editorial and reviewer comments, including point-by-point descriptions of changes made.

________________________________________

Reviewer #1: Comments and reviewer recommendation for manuscript number PONE-D-21-17592 “Evaluating firefly extinction risk: Initial Red List assessments for North America” by Fallon et al.

This manuscript deals with an interesting topic, namely the assessment of fireflies against the IUCN criteria in order to compile the first Red List of this charismatic beetle group globally. Despite a number of drawbacks (relatively few data on trends and distribution), the authors managed to compile an initial list of most threatened fireflies in North America. This resulted in the use of only one out of five possible IUCN criteria (i.e. geographical range) to classify species in the different Red List categories. Since this criterion does not only use rarity as such, but demands at least two out of three subcriteria to be fulfilled (e.g. fragmentation, decline), it is not clear how the authors evaluated these additional criteria. This should be explained in a more detailed way so that future Red Lists of this or other less well-known insect groups can learn from and repeat the method used in this exercise. Apart from that, the manuscript is well written and reads easily, with clear figures and ample and appropriate references. I would replace Table 1 with a graph and mention the numbers in the text itself, because a graph is much more informative than numbers in a table. Some additional comments are given in the attached pdf. Nice manuscript!

Response: Thank you! Regarding the comment on evaluation of subcriteria, we have:

1. Added a reference to the IUCN Red List Guidelines (line 158), which provide more background on the application of subcriteria during the Red List process, and

2. Added details to the S1 Supporting Information regarding how the Criterion B subcriteria were evaluated and applied in this particular study. These changes can be viewed in the ‘Revised S1 Supporting Information with Tracked Changes.’

In addition, per the reviewer’s suggestion, we shortened Table 1 to show only the summary information, created a new graph (Fig 1) depicting percentage of species in each Red List category, and added the numbers in the text itself.

________________________________________

Comments provided in PONE-D-21-17592_reviewer1:

Line 118: Replaced ‘species’ with ‘taxa’

Line 148: Changed ‘survive only captivity’ to ‘survive only in captivity’

Comment line 151: Discuss maybe how the availability of additional criteria (beyond criterion B) might have affected the Red list assessment. More or less species in threatened categories?

Response: We debated adding this but were not sure that it added much to the discussion. The availability of additional criteria would not reduce the number of species in threatened categories, but if we had additional data on population size and trend, DD species could be assessed against the criteria and some would likely come out as threatened. In addition, some threatened species might fall into higher threat categories with more data. This is probably true of many invertebrate species, which lack population data.

Comment line 181: This paragraph should come first in the results section! In what is now the first paragraph, you mention that 18 species are threatened, but the reader does not know that yet ... This is also the main subject of this manuscript so it is good to start the Results section.

Response: We agree. We have rearranged the order of the Results and Discussion so that Extinction Risk and Threats comes before the Species Distributions subsection.

Lines 183-185: Added number of species for each Red List category

Line 189: Capitalized ‘Data Deficient’

Comment line 192 regarding Table 1: I would suggest to turn this table into a graph and to add the numbers to the text itself. Visualising proportions is much clearer than numbers in a table, in my opinion.

Response: We replaced the first part of Table 1 with a graph (Figure 1) but kept the second part of the table that provides the summary information.

Line 269: Deleted repeated word ‘currently’

Line 280: Changed ‘DD’ to “Data Deficient’

Comment line 282: This last sentence is only known to American readers but foreign scientists do not have any idea what the NatureServe ranking en de NatureServe Network is. The authors should either omit this or give some explanation about it ...

Response: We deleted this, in part because these assessments are now underway, and so this recommendation is in the process of being met.

Line 302: Changed ‘DD’ to “Data Deficient’

Comment line 309: At present, quite some statistical techniques allow to correct for both temporal and spatial biases in survey effort (e.g. Isaac et al. (2014) Statistics for citizen science: extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5 (10): 1052-1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12254).

Response: We added a sentence acknowledging these statistical techniques, citing this paper and two others in support.

Lines 322, 331, and 342: Capitalized ‘Data Deficient’

________________________________________

Reviewer #2:

Insect declines are a high conservation priority, but poorly understood, particularly outside of some butterfly species. Consequently, it is very exciting to see this extensive foray into firefly extinction risk using the IUCN criteria. Great justification for the work, excellent data, strong support from taxonomic experts, and effective application of IUCN criteria. Well-presented results and focused discussion. The paper ends with an excellent road map of proposed actions for conservation.

Response: Thank you!

Results

- Table 2 – Since most people are not conversant with the nuances of the IUCN sub-criteria, and it would be time-consuming for folks to walk through IUCN documents to figure it out, it would be helpful for readers if a column was added that used text to explain the criteria; or, since there is a lot of overlap across species and few sub-criteria used in the listing, add multiple columns listing the sub-criteria, with checkmarks for each species where they apply.

Response: We agree that more information explaining the subcriteria would be helpful. Based on this comment and another comment from Reviewer #1, we have added definitions and more details about the application of subcriteria to the S1 Supporting Information. We decided this would keep the table clean while allowing those with interest to take a deeper dive into the supplemental materials.

- Also, the text includes common names along with the scientific names – consider adding them to Table 2.

Response: Common names are provided in the second column of Table 2.

Minor comments

- Line 26 ‘threat of extinction from threats’ is awkward

Response: Changed to “…threatened with extinction (e.g. categorized as Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable) due to various pressures…”

- Lines 25-26 – by ‘under threat’, do you mean in categories CR, EN, and VU? Better to be specific with categories – this is clarified on line 140

Response: Yes, that is what we meant. We have clarified this by adding the specific categories in parentheses.

- Line 27 – are the unevaluated additional 21% of the firefly species in the U.S. & Canada also DD, and that was why they weren’t evaluated? Seems to be suggested on line 117. If yes, do you want to increase this value, or are there IUCN rules restricting use of the term?

Response: No, the remaining 21% of species in the U.S. and Canada were not assessed, and so they have not been assigned an IUCN Red List category. We have clarified this in the manuscript (lines 118-120). We have also corrected the language in lines 28-30 to reflect the fact that the DD species were in fact assessed, but could not be fully evaluated given the lack of data (hence the DD categorization).

- Lines 120-125 – any information on databases searched and search terms used would help readers evaluate/understand the thoroughness of the search

Response: Added details about source databases and search terms.

- Line 245 – instead of ‘capacity’, it might be more accurate to say ‘opportunity’ (they might be capable of dispersing, but there is nowhere to go)

Response: Good point. Replaced ‘capacity’ with ‘opportunity.’

- Line 247 ’17 of 18 of the at-risk species in our study’ – not a generic frequency across all firefly species

Response: Clarified this statement to read “Development is also linked to light pollution, or artificial light at night (ALAN), a threat affecting 17 out of the 18 threatened species in this study.”

- Line 269 ‘currently, currently’

Response: Removed second use of ‘currently’

- Line 281 – I’m not sure what ‘converting the assessments’ means

Response: We removed the two sentences referencing NatureServe per Reviewer #1’s comment and because this process of assessing species according to NatureServe criteria is now underway.

- Line 296 – please provide a citation for ‘Dark Sky Initiatives’

Response: A citation for the Dark-Sky Association has been added as an example

- Line 327 – it might be worth adding ‘for museums’ to ‘voucher specimens’

Response: Added ‘for museums’

- Section starting line 343 – I’m not sure all engagement and education leads to action – it would be good to include a few citations in this section of examples where it has been shown to be effective

Response: Added several citations to support the statements in this section

________________________________________

Journal requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: We have gone through the style requirements and applied any necessary changes, including updating the file names. All figures were processed through PACE to ensure formatting fits PLOS ONE requirements.

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Response: There are no grant numbers associated with our funding sources. We have provided websites for funders that have them and updated the grant information to the following:

CEF and SJ were funded by the Samuel Freeman Charitable Trust, the Edward Gorey Charitable Trust https://edwardgorey.org/, the New-Land Foundation (http://newlandfoundation.org/), Morningstar Foundation (http://morningstarfoundation.com/), and Xerces Society members. ACW was funded by the New Mexico BioPark Society (https://bioparksociety.org/main/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

3. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [Individual species information is published on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (https://www.iucnredlist.org/).] Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

Response: This work does not constitute dual publication and it should be included in the current manuscript. As stated in the above cover letter, this study, if published in PLOS ONE, would be the first peer-reviewed journal article summarizing and interpreting the results of 132 North American firefly species assessed for the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. While the assessments themselves are peer-reviewed, each assessment represents a standalone single-species summary. Therefore, this paper constitutes a new publication broadly focused on the status of the North American firefly fauna.

4. We note that Figures #1A, 1B and 1C in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures #1A, 1B and 1C to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Response: We revised Figures #1A, 1B and 1C (now labeled 3A, 3B, and 3C) and have provided replacement figures that comply with the CC BY 4.0 license. We have also updated the figure captions with new source information.

5. We note that Figure #2 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure #2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

Response: We revised Figure #2 and have provided a replacement figure with an updated figure caption that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. In addition, we have secured Content Permission Forms for all copyrighted images and uploaded them as “Other” files with our submission. For photos that are publicly available with CC BY licenses (i.e., the photos we sourced from Flickr), we did not obtain Content Permission Forms but do note in the caption that the images are licensed under CC BY.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: We reviewed the reference list for completion and accuracy. We also added the following citations to support revisions elsewhere in the paper:

[46] Scientific Literature. In: Fireflyers International Network [Internet]. [cited 9 Aug 2021]. Available: https://fireflyersinternational.net/scientific-literature.

[56] Leo Miranda USF and WSS. Longleaf pine habitat. 2017. Available: https://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwssoutheast/33748135511/

[57] capt_tain Tom. DSC_1795. 2017. Available: https://www.flickr.com/photos/87744089@N08/38521089802/

[58] Kleis K. Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 2014. Available: https://www.flickr.com/photos/hollykl/12811838533/

[59] Atzert A. I heard the buzz of insects, the wind in my ears, and a far off car approaching. 2017. Available: https://www.flickr.com/photos/andyatzert/36761693093/

[75] Esri Inc. ArcGIS Desktop 10.8.1. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute; 2020.

[76] Natural Earth - Free vector and raster map data at 1:10m, 1:50m, and 1:110m scales. [cited 18 Aug 2021]. Available: https://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[78] International Dark Sky Association. In: International Dark-Sky Association [Internet]. [cited 9 Aug 2021]. Available: https://www.darksky.org/

[79] Bird TJ, Bates AE, Lefcheck JS, Hill NA, Thomson RJ, Edgar GJ, et al. Statistical solutions for error and bias in global citizen science datasets. Biological Conservation. 2014;173: 144–154. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.037

[80] Isaac NJB, Strien AJ van, August TA, Zeeuw MP de, Roy DB. Statistics for citizen science: extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2014;5: 1052–1060. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12254

[81] August T, Fox R, Roy DB, Pocock MJO. Data-derived metrics describing the behaviour of field-based citizen scientists provide insights for project design and modelling bias. Sci Rep. 2020;10: 11009. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-67658-3

[87] iNaturalist. In: iNaturalist [Internet]. [cited 25 May 2021]. Available: https://www.inaturalist.org/

[88] Bickford D, Posa MRC, Qie L, Campos-Arceiz A, Kudavidanage EP. Science communication for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation. 2012;151: 74–76. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.016

[89] Scheufele DA. Science communication as political communication. PNAS. 2014;111: 13585–13592. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317516111

[90] Hall DM, Steiner R. Insect pollinator conservation policy innovations at subnational levels: Lessons for lawmakers. Environmental Science & Policy. 2019;93: 118–128. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.026

[91] Samways MJ, Barton PS, Birkhofer K, Chichorro F, Deacon C, Fartmann T, et al. Solutions for humanity on how to conserve insects. Biological Conservation. 2020;242: 108427. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108427

[92] Saunders ME, Janes JK, O’Hanlon JC. Moving on from the insect apocalypse narrative: Engaging with evidence-based insect conservation. BioScience. 2020;70: 80–89. doi:10.1093/biosci/biz143

[93] Monarch Butterfly and Pollinators Conservation Fund. In: NFWF [Internet]. 2021 [cited 20 Aug 2021]. Available: https://www.nfwf.org/programs/monarch-butterfly-and-pollinators-conservation-fund

[94] Dickinson JL, Shirk J, Bonter D, Bonney R, Crain RL, Martin J, et al. The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2012;10: 291–297. doi:10.1890/110236

[95] Lewandowski EJ, Oberhauser KS. Butterfly citizen scientists in the United States increase their engagement in conservation. Biological Conservation. 2017;208: 106–112. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.029

[96] Fallon C, Hoyle S, Lewis S, Owens A, Lee-Mäder E, Black SH, et al. Conserving the jewels of the night: Guidelines for protecting fireflies in the United States and Canada. Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation; 2019 p. 56.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

19 Oct 2021

Evaluating firefly extinction risk: Initial Red List assessments for North America

PONE-D-21-17592R1

Dear Dr. Fallon,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Daniel de Paiva Silva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comments and reviewer recommendation for manuscript number PONE-D-21-17592R1 “Evaluating firefly extinction risk: Initial Red List assessments for North America” by Fallon et al.

First of all, I would like to apologise for the delay in reviewing this manuscript.

The revised version of this manuscript has carefully incorporated, most, if not all comments of the reviewers. I have no further comments and congratulate the authors with this inspiring manuscript that will, hopefully, incite more people to assess the threat status of lesser-known invertebrate taxa.

In my opinion, this manuscript is now publishable in PLoS ONE.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

21 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-17592R1

Evaluating firefly extinction risk: Initial Red List assessments for North America

Dear Dr. Fallon:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Daniel de Paiva Silva

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE