All of the backlash I've seen over the paper has to do with the precision and effect sizes measured - I haven't seen an argument, let alone a credible argument,

All of the backlash I've seen over the paper has to do with the precision and effect sizes measured - I haven't seen an argument, let alone a credible argument, that the effect itself is not real. Follow-up research has confirmed that the effect is real and significant: Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1684-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1684-3 The follow-up indicates that the effect sizes are greatest for agricultural areas.