Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

journals.plos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 454 posts

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#321

Post by christophilus »

rlonn wrote: post #251
christophilus wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This year, I left a portion of my lawn unmowed. I seeded it with a $10 bag of wildflower seeds. It's given me 4 months of beautiful flowers, loads of polinators, many butterflies, and it's given me less yard to mow. I now think that lawns of neatly trimmed grass are about as dumb as it gets.

Yes, a big problem for insects in suburban areas is humans tendency to want "manicured" nature. Just walk around anywhere in e.g. silicon valley, where lawns are kept short and there are less than a dozen types of trees and bushes (also often trimmed) and you'll note there are very few insects, which has resulted in even fewer types of birds and practically no small animals. Insects need old, decomposing tree trunks…

Yeah. I have a stack of fallen tree limbs / logs in one relatively hidden corner of my lawn. It turns into super good soil. It's got a bunch of insect life there, as well as good fungal life. And my neighbor's chickens love it.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#322

Post by giardini »

titzer wrote: post #284
giardini wrote: post #239

This study appears to be an alarmist rehash of what was previously discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14323533 Here's one of the original papers: https://www.farmlandbirds.net/sites/default/files/Orbrioch%2... The 75% decline number appears to be from two data points from a 220-acre plot. From that paper: "What follows is a description of measured Insect-Biomasses from samples collected in the Orbr…

> So alarmists are extrapolating from two data points (years 1989 and 2013) for a 220-hectare plot of German farmland to the entire world. Actually the study is couched in a lot of careful caveats and they _don't_ extrapolate to the rest of the world. I didn't see any extrapolation. And, if you read the actual article that you linked above, a decline of 2/3 from 1970 was measured in Scotland. That's corroborating evi…

titzer sez: "Actually the study is couched in a lot of careful caveats and they _don't_ extrapolate to the rest of the world. I didn't see any extrapolation."

Others are using the article as support for far-fetched claims. AFAICT a 220-acre study in the hinterlands of Germany with two data points (two samples, one in 1989 and one in 2013) is causing worldwide headlines claiming a collapse of bug population:

https://www.google.com/search?&q=75%25+decline+over+27+years

titzer sez: " You don't even trust them to be able to properly factor out the weight of alcohol?"

You missed my point: My point was that they measure the weight of a mass of unclassified insects + alcohol + whatever else was in the trapping fluid and that they weren't presenting statistics based on insect count or insect species or insect age, health, etc. Beetles weight more than mosquitoes for example but we aren't being presented statistics for specific insect species/age/health/etc, we're being presented statistics for a mass of unclassified insects + absorbed alcohol + whatever else. Any gross measure of insect biomass is highly variable depending on bug species, population, location, predation, food supply, season, disease, etc. If you do your harvesting immediately after , say, the cicadas emerge, you'll get lots of insect biomass. Do it a six weeks later and the biomass will plummet precipitously. So you must design your experiments to take such possibilities into account.

titzer sez: "That's not being critical, that's just disbelief."

And that is a poor attempt at use of a broad brush to tar someone.

I _am_ skeptical of the studies, as any scientist should be. You may, like others, read confirmation from your car's front bumper, but I prefer experiments with proper controls and measurements when we're speaking of good science. And, of course, I am always wary of field experiments that may involve the use of ethyl (drinking) alcohol:

Hans: Sorry, Hauser, I yust panicked and ran. Does it hurt much? Hauser, Hauser, are you drunk???

Hauser: My hands are on fire. Zat's the last time I try to throw a hornets nest! Good thing we have a handy pain-killer available! Zis bug juice is hardly working though; zese stings are killing me! Pass me zat other bottle.

Hans: Scheiss, Hauser, you're drinking ze bugs from ze data collection!! Vat the hell we gonna use for data?

Hauser: Zis trip is a catastrophe! Scheiss! I know what! Ve can give the data to Schneider. He said he can prove anything with almost any data. Once he told me, Schneider told me, "ze less data, ze better!" He says no one pays attention to real statistics anymore.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#323

Post by okreallywtf »

christophilus wrote: post #159
okreallywtf wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It frustrates me that even though I am not in a HOA area, I cannot do this without getting letters from the city and fines. They will come mow my lawn for me and then charge me if I don't keep them mowed. Even my back yard which is almost 100% enclosed. I rent, otherwise I would build a wall right against my neighbors property so they wouldn't call the city on me for being able to see through a 5 foot gap into the ba…

Where the heck do you live? I'm in a small town in the south east coast of the US. I'm pretty sure our city crew would get fired (or shot) here for trying to forcibly mow someone's yard without their consent.

A decent sized city in the south east, its a common complaint around here but other people have done more to fight it. Since I don't own I haven't really pushed it but if I did I think I would. My guess is that it all has to do with property values, if I built a nice garden in the front lawn and it looked great it would be fine. Letting it just grow up not so much which is why I limit it to the back yard but my uptight neighbors don't want to be next to wildlife.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#324

Post by okreallywtf »

buttcoinslol wrote: post #230
christophilus wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where the heck do you live? I'm in a small town in the south east coast of the US. I'm pretty sure our city crew would get fired (or shot) here for trying to forcibly mow someone's yard without their consent.

The key word is 'I rent'. Rental properties can be subject to more restrictions than owner-occupied properties and people who care enough to complain to the city (generally homeowners calling on rental properties) know when the laws of a jurisdiction is in their favor. Where I live, the city has the power to abate nuisances, which involves notifying the property owner with a period of time given to bring the cited is…

I'm not sure that it makes that much of a difference, the city doesn't seem to care who reads the letter or who pays the fine but it does affect how much I fight it and what I can do to get around it.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#325

Post by saiya-jin »

lossolo wrote: post #121
colordrops wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm starting to think that as well. As a father it hits me much harder, and I think I'm at stage four of the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. The human race may just not be special and will be erased, sooner rather than later.

Human race will survive. When extinction level event will be certain then 20-30 underground mini cities will be created and biggest minds will create solution for humans to survive there for 100+ years. Of course only privileged will be chosen to live there. 7 billions of people will die but human race will survive.

think about the type of people that would be in those hypothetical cities - top politicians, billionaires, army generals and more politicians.

simply the biggest scum the mankind contains. do you feel ok if that would be the new start of human race and the only surviving genes (think Trump type, and think hard about it)? I might be more OK if we would just die off and give earth-bound life another 4-6 billions of years.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#327

Post by hycaria »

beambot wrote: post #98
carbonmachine wrote: post #75

Being an earth dwelling human, this seems pretty bad. Aside from buying ammo or survival rations, what's something proactive that I can do? Is there an organization that is trying to rid the world of pesticides (assuming that's the cause)? If I opt to call my representatives, what am I calling in support of/against? Over the last year, reading the news had made me more passive and worried. I want to dedicate a slice…

> I want to dedicate a slice of time to doing something to solve the problem Eat less meat (huge environmental impact!), bike more, don't consume as much non-local food, etc.

Why does everyone seem to forget the essential "have less kids" one ?

This is what puts me into the defeatist group. As long as people won't even put their reproductive urges in question (and rather discuss how flying is bad), how are we even supposed to achieve anything ? This should be one of the first logical moves, yet it's so frowned upon it's never brought up. Depressing.

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#328

Post by nickbauman »

peacetreefrog wrote: post #131
nickbauman wrote: post #83

I live in Minneapolis. The city fumigates regularly in the summer by aircraft and ground-based methods both, which is why I can go running around the lakes in mid July and get maybe one mosquito bite. I think most US cities are like this. It's a policy that should be scrapped in spite of the risk of West Nile and Lyme Disease.

They're not fumigating, they're spreading a bacteria that kills (only supposedly) mosquito larva. http://www.mmcd.org/mosquito-control/larva-control/

So that's what they're doing? Are you sure that's all?

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#329

Post by alien_at_work »

titzer wrote: post #286
deelowe wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And ticks.

Put a small amount of tick repellant _on yourself_ and check yourself for ticks after being out. Contrast that defensive strategy with an offensive strategy, which seems to be a tick apocalypse.

What do we need ticks for?

Re: 75% decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas

#330

Post by nickbauman »

monochromatic wrote: post #190
nickbauman wrote: post #83

I live in Minneapolis. The city fumigates regularly in the summer by aircraft and ground-based methods both, which is why I can go running around the lakes in mid July and get maybe one mosquito bite. I think most US cities are like this. It's a policy that should be scrapped in spite of the risk of West Nile and Lyme Disease.

> It's a policy that should be scrapped Why? They're not spraying some broad-spectrum pesticide.

But it's a policy that eliminates a food source for some other animal. Especially when we have very effective and safe insect repellants already, like Picaridin and Lemon Eucalyptus.
Post reply on HN