Slashdot Mirror


Insect Collapse: 'We Are Destroying Our Life Support Systems' (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Scientist Brad Lister returned to Puerto Rican rainforest after 35 years to find 98% of ground insects had vanished. His return to the Luquillo rainforest in Puerto Rico after 35 years was to reveal an appalling discovery. The insect population that once provided plentiful food for birds throughout the mountainous national park had collapsed. On the ground, 98% had gone. Up in the leafy canopy, 80% had vanished. The most likely culprit by far is global warming. "It was just astonishing," Lister said. "Before, both the sticky ground plates and canopy plates would be covered with insects. You'd be there for hours picking them off the plates at night. But now the plates would come down after 12 hours in the tropical forest with a couple of lonely insects trapped or none at all."

"We are essentially destroying the very life support systems that allow us to sustain our existence on the planet, along with all the other life on the planet," Lister said. "It is just horrifying to watch us decimate the natural world like this." Lister calls these impacts a "bottom-up trophic cascade", in which the knock-on effects of the insect collapse surge up through the food chain. "I don't think most people have a systems view of the natural world," he said. "But it's all connected and when the invertebrates are declining the entire food web is going to suffer and degrade. It is a system-wide effect." To understand the global scale of an insect collapse that has so far only been glimpsed, Lister says, there is an urgent need for much more research in many more habitats. "More data, that is my mantra," he said.

21 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. Total agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    5 step plan to fixing this, fast.

    1. Remove 2 billion people from the planet.

    2. HVDC lines built to all major deserts.

    3. All major deserts covered in as much solar power as we can build.

    4. LFTR reactor research funded to pre-Jimmy-Carter levels.

    5. Ban coal power outright.

    Keep in mind that if we want to reverse the damage, we need to build excess power capacity (a lot of it) to pull CO2 out of the air as a feedstock for hydrocarbons or some other sequestration.

  2. Deja Vu by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 5, Informative

    We had this dance already :
    https://it.slashdot.org/story/...

    As I said last time :
    "Water diverted from the forest ranges from 7 to 17 percent of average flow throughout the year, with up to 54 percent of flow diverted from individual watersheds (table 5). A much higher percentage of average flow is diverted when intakes outside of the forest are considered (table 6)."

    https://www.fs.fed.us/global/i...

    That forest isn't as pristine as the researchers pretend it to be.

  3. Re:monocropping annuls & ecosystem destruction by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Brings to mind this quote, possibly by Alanis Obomsawin... "When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that you cannot eat money."

  4. Re:AGW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, really.

    It couldn't be tons of pesticides or hurricanes. It couldn't be invasive species. It couldn't be human tourism trampling the ground.

    The temperature went up 1 degree and that is the REAL OBVIOUS cause. You must not question the church of global warming. Back to re-education camp for you!!

  5. Re:AGW by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really? The most likely culprit?

    Of course not. The most likely culprit is experimental error, and the 2nd most likely is outright fraud.

    So far AGW has warmed the earth by 1.3 C (2 F). That is a serious trend, and a big concern for the future but is unlikely to wipe out 98% of insects today. It is also implausible that nobody has noticed this massive worldwide catastrophe before this lone researcher stumbled onto the evidence of our life support systems "collapsing".

    This sort of shrill hyperbolic alarmism is counterproductive to getting people to take climate change seriously. This is so over-the-top that I suspect this guy is on Exxon-Mobil's payroll as a false flag operation to make scientists look incompetent.

    Anyway, we will soon find out. If he is right, we will all be dead by this time next year.

  6. Re:Deja Propaganda narrative, yours. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 4, Informative

    I proved that the paper said :
    "Given its long-term protected status (59), significant human perturbations have been virtually nonexistent within the Luquillo forest since the 1930s, and thus are an unlikely source of invertebrate declines. "

    I proved that an USDA study said :
    "Water diverted from the forest ranges from 7 to 17 percent of average flow throughout the year, with up to 54 percent of flow diverted from individual watersheds (table 5). A much higher percentage of average flow is diverted when intakes outside of the forest are considered (table 6)."

  7. Re:It's a rainforest without rain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DO you think those things don't migrate? It's impossible to know exactly where the breakdown is without studying intensely for multiple years, they have barely scratched the surface noticing the massive losses. Pay attention.

    None of this is obvious, one study may find GW the #1 culprit, another might find it #2. Either way it's a massive change planetwide that is happening, killing the food web. ALL of these factors adversely affect it at once.

    Picking one to worry about is not going to cut it. We need to stop polluting, stop poisoning, stop clearcutting, stop dumping unclear water, etc. All at once, or we're going to suffer for it. That's how delicate this is.

    Picking one to worry about is why we fail. Pretending the case for only one of them must override our economic paradigm of short term profit, it's all of them, or nothing. The greatest one today may not be tomorrow. All factor in.

  8. Might want to re-read your PDF by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's a rainforest, didn't you even read the summary?

    Pretty amusing coming from someone who did not even read the PDF he posted...

    It seems to have faced a 2.5 F degree rise in sea temperature since 1900 with a loss or rainfall

    We aren't talking about sea insects, now are we? Your OWN PDF states PR has seen a 1*F* (not even C) increase in land temperatures since mid 20th century... vastly less than seasonal variation.

    Furthermore the paper speculated rainfall MIGHT lower, based on... nothing at all.

    In reality rainfall has been cyclical but remained fairly steady (click on "MAX" below the chart).

    This would be obvious to anyone who understands the effect of heat on large bodies of water, which surround PR.... A warmer climate means MORE RAINFALL which I cannot believe how few people, even now, understand.

    Sorry to disturb your manufactured panic with actual real data... carry on.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Might want to re-read your PDF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "A warmer climate means MORE RAINFALL which I cannot believe how few people, even now, understand."

      Hold your horses, this is most definitely not a universal truth. There are plenty of examples across the globe where this clearly isn't the case, geography also plays a major part.

      The Middle East is as hot as it gets, but it's also as dry as it gets. Similarly if you look across island chains such as the Caribbean or Canary Islands you'll see completely different levels of precipitation on even neighbouring islands depending on the geography of those islands. In the Canaries for example Lanzarote is a dry barren landscape resembling Mars in many places, whilst near islands in the Canaries such as Tenerife have trees left and right. In the Caribbean you have islands like Bonaire that are reminiscent of Arizona within visible distance of Venezuela's lushest regions. The reason for this is because those islands don't have peaks that are sufficiently high to cause clouds to gather over the island and drop rain. An island like, say St Lucia, would be a desert island and not a lush tropical rainforest covered island were it not for the two peaks there, the Pitons. In the case of the Middle East, the Sahara etc. rainfall is blocked by weather patterns of hot air caused by the position of the sun around the Earth.

      As such there are vast regions of the globe where increasing temperatures would most certainly cause less rainfall; if you look on a map you'll notice two major bands of desert for example; one south of the equator covering the Atacama in Chile and Argentina, across South Africa, and New Zealand, and one north of the equator spanning Mexico/Southern USA, North Africa including the Sahara, the Middle East, Kazakhstan, Mongolia etc. It doesn't matter how much hotter things get, not only will these regions not become wetter, the area of dryness they cover will actually expand.

      With that in mind it's worth looking at where Puerto Rico is on the map, it's at the Southern end of the northern band. Whilst I agree there's no clear impact yet, it's not impossible that rising temperatures will dry Puerto Rico out somewhat more. It's also worth noting that the effects can be incredibly localised; it's equally possible that Puerto Rico's position as an island with decent sized mountains will increase rainfall around those mountains, whilst, say, drying out it's lower lying areas for example. This is something you see in Peru which is often thought of as a lush rainforest covered wilderness due to images of Machu Pichu and such, but it's coast line is dry as a bone. It can even be seasonal, again depending on the unique geography of a place; more rainfall overall doesn't necessary mean that a place doesn't see dryer summers (or winters) which could cause animal or plants to die out still due to not being able to survive worsened dry seasons, even if more rain falls in the wet seasons.

      So before kicking off and implying people are dumb for not understanding warmer climate means more rainfall, please consider that that's a rather simplistic view, and is most definitely not a universal truth. There will be substantial areas of the Earth's land mass that will see much less rainfall (and typically more and more problematic wildfires as a result; Australia is already seeing this for example). Things aren't even remotely as simple as you're implying.

  9. Most likely cause? by bobstreo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After not being bothered to check on the insect count for 35 years, is it a coincidence this count occurred a little more than a year after Hurricane Maria?

    I'm guessing a category 4 hurricane doesn't do insect populations any favors.

  10. Re:AGW by Can'tNot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article makes a decent case for global warming as the culprit, you have made no case whatsoever. Not even shitty anecdote, you have offered nothing at all and yet here you are disputing this guy's research. You need to do better.

  11. Re: monocropping annuls & ecosystem destructio by cheesybagel · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Soviets had "money". The problem was the whole nation was run by state monopolies. In the USA you have corporate monopolies like P&G. You have a lot of brands, sure, but most of them are part of only a few conglomerates. The more the conglomerates grow, the less real competition there is, prices go up, and salaries go down.

  12. Not just the rain forest by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the UK nsect abundance has fallen by 75% over the last 27 years. I notice in woods where I used to constantly hear bird noise it is now mostly silent

    1. Re:Not just the rain forest by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

      Whoopsie. And I think we were planning on eating all the insects once we ran out of higher mammals. Guess we'll just have to move directly to the soylent green phase.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  13. Re:AGW by lu-darp · · Score: 4, Informative

    > It is also implausible that nobody has noticed this massive worldwide catastrophe before this lone researcher stumbled onto the evidence of our life support systems "collapsing".

    More than merely implausible, you can go and look up the previously found results. :-) Thankfully insect geeks do exist, and guess what...

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/germany-s-insects-are-disappearing ... they found similar declines. What makes this new data-point particularly informing is, aside from the scale, its location and how that was not an area previously expected to be hit so badly.

    > So far AGW has warmed the earth by 1.3 C (2 F).

    That's a world average, but that same level of warming can bring local extremes more like +/- 4 C

    As the article states: “The number of hot spells, temperatures above 29C, have increased tremendously,”

  14. More than a rainforest without rain by budha_burger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's not just the rainforest. In the Catskills and Hudson Valley of New York, the insect population has been devastated. There were practically no crickets or katydids in Kingston in September and October. It was wierd. The zombies living around me scarcely noticed. People are oblivious or in deep denial. There's been no sudden deforestation, uptick in heavy industry...hell we even cleaned up a few Superfund sites. And except for some drought in the late 90's or early 2000's the climate has not been exceptionally hot, cold or dry. Just damn irregular. Something else is going on -- or we reached a global ticking point. Personally I find it hard to imagine that so many species, especially hardy ones with plenty of food like crickets, katydids and moths, suddenly reached a tipping point due to our local climate change. "Chemtrails" perhaps? Who the fuck knows.

    1. Re:More than a rainforest without rain by maestroX · · Score: 4, Informative

      Who the fuck knows.

      Don't know about the rainforest, but here in Europe it's pesticides in agriculture and villages (e.g. removing weed from paved paths).
      Easy to spot, sudden drop of native insectivorous bird population.

      Glyphosate.

  15. Re:It's a rainforest without rain by budha_burger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's not much evidence of that.

    You've been spending too much time indoors for many years, and not enough outside walking around. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or entomologist to see what's going on right under our noses. Drive a car during summer in the last twenty years? Google "insects on windshield" and read the buzz there. The collapse of the insect population is real, planet-wide, and happened in the last fifteen years.

  16. Re:It's a rainforest without rain by stealth_finger · · Score: 4, Funny

    DO you think those things don't migrate?

    Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  17. Re:AGW by Can'tNot · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The middle part of the chain has not been skipped, it just hasn't been explained. The article says:

    tropical insects, having evolved in a very stable climate, would be much more sensitive to climate warming. “If you go a little bit past the thermal optimum for tropical insects, their fitness just plummets,” he said.

    The article does say why insects have declined so much, it just doesn't take the next step to say why their fitness plummets. Higher heat can more more humidity in the air, or less rainfall, or different wind patterns... many possibilities. That is, not doubt, an interesting topic. I share your curiosity, but I'm not going to criticize the author for declining to go off on a barely-related tangent.

    Let's say the article did answer why their fitness plummets. Let's say it went into great detail about a specific insect which requires enough moisture in specific places in order to procreate, and how the decline of that insect effects some others who rely on the first as a food source. And a third group who rely on the structure-building practices of the second group for shelter. And a fourth group who... and on and on down the cascade effect. What would that accomplish? You can always ask another "why" question, there's no end to that.

  18. Re:AGW by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This sort of shrill hyperbolic alarmism is counterproductive to getting people to take climate change seriously.

    I keep saying that.

    If anybody's wondering why folks like me are skeptical, it's because of decades of shrill alarmism.

    If you were trying to make skeptics, you couldn't have done a better job.