Slashdot Mirror
Insect Die-off: Even Common Species Are Becoming Rare (sciencedaily.com)
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.
... what do you mean it's winter?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
If there are no more butterflies, what will real programmers use? :https://xkcd.com/378/
Since part of this is caused by an increase in agriculture, a big one is to eat less meat. This doesn't mean be a complete vegetarian, but just eat less meat and more non-meat options. The acreage used for meat as a food is much much higher than the same for most vegetarian options https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1097070.pdf and this also helps shrink one's carbon footprint http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet. Given that many meat substitutes are cheap, this can pay off nicely. Moreover, in the US now there are many more genuinely tasty vegetarian options than there used to be both in terms of store-bought items and in terms of available high quality recipes. I remember when I was a little kid and we went to my vegetarian aunt's for Thanksgiving, and it was awful. The situation now is very different.
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.
I guess dinner is gonna be a little late.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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 population growth in third world countries, a one or two child policy in them. First world countries and third world countries should have a fertility rate parity. Birth rates in first world countries are ironically actually too low and to increase them each family would need to have 3 to 4 children (considering some people dont have children). First would country birth rates (where birth rates are actually too low) should be brought up to 2.3 with incentives, tax policy, larger families, etc, and third world down to 2.3. This will create balance rather than the imbalances we have now, it would raise living standards in third world countries by keeping them from going deeper into the malthusian trap and would also protect first world countries from being overrun and losing their distinct identities. People should watch the NumbersUSA gumball video for information on why we have to stop all immigration and why need to help third world populations where they are now and first is they have to stop their runaway population growth or we can never get ahead of helping third world countries out of poverty.
The naked corruption of the Left in the USA who claimed to be so concerned about the environment can also be seen where they claim to be for the environment but then they want to import third world populations that will cause more destruction of the natural environment in the US and place more load on our already finite resources.
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.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I've noticed that during the summers growing up even just 2 decades ago fireflies were all over the place. Now they are a rare sight. Sadly though, whatever has done in the fireflies hasn't done much to the mosquitoes around here.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Mosquitoes. They're real common and I doubt many would shed a tear if they were to die off.
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.
Pat Robertson.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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 downward stairway of insect populations decreasing one step at a time. See entomologist Doug Tallamy on internet videos to find a description of this and other factors that are leading to population loss in insects and wildlife that depends on insects.
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 difference the better the change of being able to handle some other change.
We shouldn't destroy it on purpose / by ignorance just because "well it is what it is." Because the situation is better now than what it would be afterwards. Both in genetic and just "look at the pretty" diversity.
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.
Ezekiel 23:20
Meanwhile in Brazil, Aedes aegypti reproduces exponentially,
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.
Jose T Oliveira Jr.
Cockroaches seems to adapt the new world. Mosquitoes and lice too.
Presumably, before the area was cultivated, it was a wilderness or semi-wilderness region with wild animals which the mosquitoes preyed on.
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 serves a purpose to link to articles we can't read. Thinking of it, this would make a great business model: perform research with alarming outcome; get paywalled article linked on Slashdot... Profit!
my other sig is a 500 page novel
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/
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
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!!!
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 professors who do research are smart enough to realize that the federal funding dollars goes to issues of public concern. This is how we have the AGW mess. The climate researchers figured out how to turn their tiny departments whom no one gave a shit about into massive funding powerhouses by creating the false narrative of AGW, and later CO2 greenhouse warming. At this point AGW has taken on a life of it's own, replete with ignorant politicians and aggressive zealots alike, and I bet when they lie in bed at night many of those original researchers wish they had not been a part of starting that big shitshow.
That is essentially what this article is. It is attempting to create public concern for something that the public is perceived to like (butterflies) and making dire predictions (they are going to die out). The next stage will be to try to get a $20M grant to "further research the issue" just watch. This is nothing more than an attempt to generate research dollars for the entomology departments.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
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 enough to realize that the federal funding dollars goes to issues of public concern.
Well, this proves that you don't know anything about (a) college professors and (b) science funding.
College professors work on areas that interest them. No one in their right mind would work as a professor on a subject they're not interested in since you could get a much easier ride in industry doing that. Tenure track is a very hard road indeed.
Secondly, your "fact" is made up.
This is how we have the AGW mess.
There is no AGM mess in science. The only mess is in politics and moronic denialists with zero qualifications who thing being mindlesly contrarian somehow makes them "logical".
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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/... and appeal to majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...), that in it'self is a flat out lie ( https://www.skepticalscience.c... ) they typically have a very weak position.
And no, the AGW scientists have been caught a number of times falsely manipulating the numbers (FACT)
https://science.house.gov/news...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
http://www.foxnews.com/science...
The AGW "scientists" mathematical models have been wildly inaccurate: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp... (how you can look at that graph and not doubt the quality of their predictions is beyond me) but still you want to treat them like a hard science... Good luck with that.
I have facts and evidence, you have blind faith in "scientists" who are out to make a buck vis a vi federal grant money. Get back to me when you have more facts and less name calling...
As you said, thanks for playing.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like