Insect Die-off: Even Common Species Are Becoming Rare (sciencedaily.com) 127
Scientists at Senckenberg Nature Research Society and Technical University of Munich (TUM) have been able to show that currently widespread insects are threatened with a serious decline in species diversity in the near future. From the report: The research team lists the fragmentation of habitats and the intensification of agriculture as reasons for the decline of these "generalists." According to the study, published today in the scientific journal Biological Conservation, the genetic diversity among the examined butterfly species is also expected to decline sharply in the future -- as a result, the insects will become more sensitive to environmental changes.
Sad news on a beautiful spring day... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm all up in your base, eating all your bugs.
Leroyyyyy Jenkiiiiinnnssss!
Re: (Score:1)
except that winter has been eliminated in our current climate, which may have a big impact on insects... of wait, it IS insightful, hmmm
Re:Sad it's happening to butterflies (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a feeling that one factor is that contributes is the lack of small farms with mixed livestock grazing the land and dropping fresh manure at random.
A number of butterflies are also thriving on plants that we consider weed (not the type you smoke) like nettles. And nettles thrive where the soil is highly fertilized - preferably by natural manure.
But today cattle are often on large farms where the manure handling is strictly regulated.
Overall the problem is that farming is getting highly specialized instead of diversified and that causes a monoculture of plant life with very little other vegetation permitted since it will contaminate the crop.
Re: (Score:2)
But today cattle are often on large farms where the manure handling is strictly regulated.
But that logically raises the question of how it was before agriculture in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sad it's happening to butterflies (Score:5, Insightful)
No danger there. The mosquito species that commonly bite humans are the ones that are adapted to living in proximity of humans. What is habitat destruction for other species is habitat creation for them.
For example Culex pipiens is so well adapted to coexiting with humans its common name is "house mosquito". Clearly it didn't evolve to live around humans. In its natural habitat it laid its eggs in mucky forest puddles and fed on birds. Wipe out the forest and replace it with a suburban subdivision and you actually increase its egg laying habitat: ditches, poorly draining gutters, catch basins and so on. Populations have developed a taste for human blood too -- evolution in action -- and because it still bites birds is a perfect vector for many viral disease that cross from avian to human populations.
Something like this always happens when there is widespread habitat disruption: most species populations are harmed but a small number of them hit the jackpot: what biologists call "weedy species". Mice, voles and pikas are all very similar small woodland creatures, but its ability to adapt to human activities transforms the mouse in some situation into a nightmarish plague [youtube.com].
Then what will real programmers use? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Neutrino rays, of course.
Re: (Score:1)
If there are no more butterflies, what will real programmers use? :https://xkcd.com/378/
Well, obviously, if you had RTFA: EMACS. ;-)
Great reference by the way. xkcd is ever relevant.
What can you do to help? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What can you do to help? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Is acreage used for meat all that detrimental to insects? I would have thought that growing food crops is worse, what with all the pesticides.
Exactly, we're not spraying cows with chemicals that kill bees and such.
Re: (Score:2)
You're spraying their food with it though...
Re: (Score:1)
No. I live in cow country. Grass stocks are not sprayed. You're ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I live in cow country. Grass stocks are not sprayed. You're ignorant.
Cattle eat other things than grass. Alfalfa, corn, soybeans, ect...
Re: (Score:1)
They probably shouldn't though, grain fed meat is not healthy. Grass fed is the way to go. Grass fed uses vastly less resources to produce too. In Australia, most beef is grass fed, some is finished on grain, I mush prefer the grass-fed for flavour, health benefits and the very low water and resource footprint.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I live in cow country. Grass stocks are not sprayed. You're ignorant.
Cattle eat other things than grass. Alfalfa, corn, soybeans, ect...
When they are factory farmed, cardboard and bits of other cows...
Re:What can you do to help? (Score:4, Insightful)
The overwhelming majority of livestock are raised on said crops themselves.
Re: (Score:1)
All those animals which are slaughtered for meat need food crops too, just food crops for animals: corn, soy, etc. They are getting the exact same pesticides as "your" food.
Re: (Score:3)
They shouldn't be eating any "crops" except what they can graze. If you feed animals corn, soy, etc. they will become just as unhealthy as people who eat that kind of food.
Re:What can you do to help? (Score:4, Informative)
Most corn harvested in the US goes to feed for animals, actually. Free range animals graze and are often "grass fed", but the vast majority of meat is at factory farms where the cows don't graze but are fed troughs of corn to fatten them up quickly and slaughter.
The demand for meat is high enough that free range beef will not satisfy demand and would case prices to spike (not that beef is cheap these days - it's still hitting all time high prices)
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that a human goal is for people to die of old age and not in their youth at the abattoirs?
Hey if it is good for the poor than it is good for the rich. One in, all in. I have no problem with compulsory vegetarianism via economic extortion but lets make the rich pay a price that impacts them as well.
The idea that the rich can consume and waste resources like insane freaks and generate pollution at thousands of times of the average user has to stop. Want more vegetarianism, then make meat c
Re: (Score:1)
If they eat (basically just one kind of) grass in the Brazil or soy beans and corn in the US then it of course is.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, you should eat more meat. Insecticide goes on corn, not cows.
If you stop eating meat, that ranchland will be converted to plant-ag farmland, and will be bathed in herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides before you know it. Then there's that many more tons of poison crap in the soil, water, and air. No, it's far better to let the land lie fallow and let the cows roam free, mooing and shitting and eating grass.
Re: (Score:2)
Errr... what do you think (farm) cows eat?
Re: (Score:2)
Errr... what do you think (farm) cows eat?
Grass. That's what they *should* eat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"As a result, a large percentage of grains grown in the US are used in animal feed, with 47% of soy and 60% of corn produced in the US being consumed by livestock."
http://www.sustainabletable.or... [sustainabletable.org]
The corn and soy would feed humans more if consumed directly by humans rather than put into a cow first to then eat the cow.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly likely to be less agriculture, maybe some surplus to export or more likely a little less import.
farmers like to plant one crop in a field and not have anything else grow cover it in weed killer and bug spray. Cows sheep pigs don't really care too much whats growing in a field they eat it.
Which fields will be more bio diverse?
Re: (Score:1)
Neither cows, sheep or pigs are raised on land valuable enough for agriculture. However they are raised on crops from those fields, crops that have been sprayed with the exact same pesticides and the exact same amount of pesticides as food destined for humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Although nearly all American cattle finish their growth in the feedlot, eating mostly grain that is not the whole story [beefrunner.com]. The cows are slaughtered at about 10.5 months, after having spent 7 months eating forage (alfalfa, hay) and the 3.5 months eating high energy feeds based on grain.
OTOH some of that forage is stuff like "wheat hay" which is a byproduct of growing grain (in this case wheat).
Re: (Score:3)
Although nearly all American cattle finish their growth in the feedlot, eating mostly grain that is not the whole story [beefrunner.com]. The cows are slaughtered at about 10.5 months, after having spent 7 months eating forage (alfalfa, hay) and the 3.5 months eating high energy feeds based on grain.
After which, they "graduate" from Bovine University!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually quite wrong. (See the instructive but revolting book "Farmageddon", passim).
What is wrong is the attempt to apply industrial methods to farming, This results in vast monocultures and the feeding of artificial mixtures and even artificial "foods" to livestock kept indoors so they never see the sun.
There is no reason to reduce production of meat. On the contrary, livestock for meat should be raised on land that is suitable for grass but not crops. That way the animals live in natural conditions, eati
Re: (Score:2)
For reference the feed conversion ratios (amount feed energy going, over the amount coming out) for common animals are 6 for cattle, 4 for pigs, 2 for egg production, and 1.6 for poultry broilers. Eating vegetarian is obviously 1 - although the animals raised for meat and eggs also eat waste products like wheat hay, and alfalfa, that humans cannot eat in addition to grains that compete with humans for food.
Re: (Score:2)
I think those FCR values are for dry weight of food divided by gross (wet, including bones and intestine) weight of the animal. It's a bit apples-oranges between different animals with different diets and different body composition. I don't think it has a meaning for vegetarians, unless you count the weight gain of the vegetarian human. Alternatively, the equivalent FCR would be greater than one since you'dd add water to dry grains until it's nutritional value is comparable to that of meat.
Re: (Score:2)
Recipe 1: Cheese-Tomato Pasta (serves 2-4)
8-10 ounces of pasta (I recommend rotini but other pastas will work well also). 2 ounces of mozzarella 2 medium tomatoes Granulated garlic Chopped dried onions Olive oil
Instructions: While pasta water is boiling Chop tomatoes and mozzarella. The mozzarella should be chopped so t
Re: What can you do to help? (Score:2)
Food is not happiness
Re: (Score:2)
Pat Robertson.
Where do they live? (Score:4, Funny)
Not in Middle Georgia at least. I'm inundated by bugs of all types. My car is covered in them from driving at night, they fly all around my yard, they eat the fruit on my trees, my vegetables. They need to come here and collect all they want, free of charge. For a fee I'll box a swarm up and ship it to them.
Re: (Score:2)
The bugs may be why homeless tend to move to California. There was a political debate about why there are so many homeless in CA. The typical conservative answer is that CA is "too socialistic". But other left-leaning states don't have as many homeless.
Some argued that if it were mostly the weather, then many homeless would cluster around the South East also, such as Georgia and Florida. But that place has a big down-side for homeless: bugs galore. If you don't have health-insurance, that's a big worry, in
Re: (Score:2)
If I was homeless I'd want to live in Hawaii. I spent 4 months there on a job once and I hated to leave. The weather was perfect.
Re: (Score:1)
If you are homeless, it's probably hard to buy a plane or boat ticket to HI. Being on the continent, you can also more easily move to different states as jobs become available. More options.
Re: (Score:2)
Reasons homeless move to and stay in California:
1. Nice climate, it's a sunny 78F outside right now. The odds of getting frostbite outside or freezing to death year round are almost zero in most of coastal California.
2. Great benefits, free clinics, all manner of social welfare freebies given out by the state on top of federal aid.
3. Legal pot
4. The beaches
5. Mild weather year round. No hurricanes, tornadoes etc. Earthquakes are essential not a threat at all if you are standing/living outside.
6. Generou
No more bugs? Oh well (Score:1)
I guess dinner is gonna be a little late.
population growth parity and sustainability (Score:1)
The fact is the USA produces far more food as it is than it needs to feed its own population. Almost all increases in agicultural intensity are to feed unsustainable population growth in third world countries which already cannot feed themselves yet have fertility rates 5 or 6. The only way out of this mess is that continued importation of food to these countries has to be contingent on them adopting family planning measures including widespread use of contraception and birth control pills to reduce populat
Re: (Score:1)
That doesn't mean that everything living now is useless and that the world will be a better place once it's all gone. .. also eventually humans may be one of those gone things too. Some insects will likely out-survive us.
Re: (Score:2)
It definitely is.
That doesn't change the fact that I think a world which get to keep all the amazing animals and plants it have had is much more interesting than one with much less variation of them.
I'd much rather than 20 different types of cat animals than 1.
I'd much rather than 5000 different butterflies than 2.
Maybe the later would be the case of man induced changes and evolution but that doesn't mean I think it's better. Also I think the diversity pool is a strength for evolution by itself.
The more dif
Fireflies (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fireflies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or yeah. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1393 [sciencemag.org]
Country-specific effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on honey bees and wild bees
Science 30 Jun 2017:
Vol. 356, Issue 6345, pp. 1393-1395
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa1190
Damage confirmed
Early studies of the impacts of neonicotinoid insecticides on insect pollinators indicated considerable harm. However, lingering criticism was that the studies did not represent field-realistic levels of the chemicals or prevailing environmental conditions. Two studies, conducted on different crops and on two continents, now substantiate that neonicotinoids diminish bee health (see the Perspective by Kerr). Tsvetkov et al. find that bees near corn crops are exposed to neonicotinoids for 3 to 4 months via nontarget pollen, resulting in decreased survival and immune responses, especially when coexposed to a commonly used agrochemical fungicide. Woodcock et al., in a multicounty experiment on rapeseed in Europe, find that neonicotinoid exposure from several nontarget sources reduces overwintering success and colony reproduction in both honeybees and wild bees. These field results confirm that neonicotinoids negatively affect pollinator health under realistic agricultural conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I was growing up fireflies were common in the summer, but not in swarms. When we captured fireflies it was one at a time as we moved around the yard. Then I moved into less rural areas and did not notice them much. A couple years ago I visited a friend of mine who lived on a property similar to the one I grew up on. There were so many fireflies that I could have filled up a jar without moving much at all
Re: (Score:2)
You got the wrong insects! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But what would all the trout eat if you killed off the skeeters? I love me some tasty pan fried brook trout.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just increase, intensification (Score:1)
Current farming methods differ from traditional methods. Traditionally, there was a swath of wild growing weeds on roadsides next to fields. Now, these swaths are gone. There is maybe a bit of mown grass or likely nothing at all. This removes direct insect corridors from one oasis of natural area to another. So if insects crash in one oasis, there is no longer a ready pressure of new insects to repopulate. Because there are population fluctuations, these crashes in small areas will occur. This leads to a do
Junk Science (Score:1)
It is amazing to me the level of speculative trash that passes as "science" these days. The article is full of such speculation and rank fantasy... Species are always in flux depending on a myriad of conditions, to say otherwise is irrational and betrays a basic lack of historical knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of interest is it your left coast thinking that leads to such mind blowing arrogance?
It appears that any field outside of your expertise su summarized entirely by the couple of random facts you happen ot know about it. Are you a physicist by any chance?
https://xkcd.com/793/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
When a "scientist" starts using words like "expected to" red alarms should go off in the logic centers of your brain. If they used the phrase "projected to" and their paper backs it up with actual population projections based on historical hard data, then they are probably actual scientists (or they have met someone like me who called BS on their environmental sensationalism/alarmist attempts to generate research funding...)
It is high time that the public in general realize that nearly all of the college p
Re: (Score:2)
When a "scientist" starts using words like "expected to" red alarms should go off in the logic centers of your brain.
Shitting yourself over colloquial use of english (expected to [according to the predictions]) in a summary when that doesn't appear in the actual research paper isn't "logical" it's trying to use mindless pedantry as a substitute for actual skills.
Thanks for playig though.
It is high time that the public in general realize that nearly all of the college professors who do research are smart en
Re: (Score:2)
I love your post. Zero facts, zero logic, but somehow I'm the "moronic denier". Since you clearly failed debate (or never had to take it), here's a tip: when a side reverts to name calling and logical fallacies (Ad hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and appeal to majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]), that in it'self is a flat out lie ( https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com] ) they typically have a very weak position.
And no, the AGW scientists have been caught a number of times falsely manipulatin
Come to Brasil and meet Aedes aegypti (Score:1)
spreading Dengue (hemorragic fever), Yellow Fever (Killing 9 out of 10 infected) and Zika Virus (Inducing Birth Defect).
Only the fittest survives. The insects will outlive brazilians at least.
Cockroaches are fine (Score:2)
Debunked? (Score:2)
As this links to a paid publication by Elsevier, I can't say anything about it. I can, however, link to another article, only months ago, and it's debunking (latter in Dutch, sorry) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-of-ecological-armageddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers and https://www.nemokennislink.nl/publicaties/ernstige-zwakheden-in-alarmerend-onderzoek-naar-vliegende-insecten/
As said, I can't say anything about the Elsevier article and frankly, I don't think it serve
One can not simply... (Score:3)
Spray insecticides and herbicides with abandon, and not simply turn the land into Mordor.
It is not global warming, it is partly habitat destruction and mainly the fact that we dump a crap ton of toxins designed to kill these creatures into the environment EVERY DAY!!!
Re:The planet is dying (Score:4, Insightful)
The planet is not in a death dive. It may be that human civilization is and we may take a lot of species with us but after we're gone give the planet a couple million years of evolution and it will be just as alive as it was before humans arrived on the scene.