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

411–420 of 454 posts

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

#411

Post by [deleted] »

erikbye wrote: post #409
schiffern wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>use pesticides to get rid of disease-carrying ticks Unfortunately this solution is a bit like using a nuclear bomb to get rid of gang violence. It does indeed do that, but at the expense of destroying the entire beneficial insect community as well. Generally pest species recover faster after catastrophe than beneficial species, so by eliminating all of the pest's competitors pesticides are sewing the seeds of future…

By your response it looks like you assumed I thought using pesticides were a good idea. I only said I understood why people might choose to. It wasn't an endorsement.

[deleted]

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

#412

Post by Dylan16807 »

colordrops wrote: post #118
beachy wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think when it comes to climate change, you can end up in one of three buckets: - denier (perhaps the happiest group) - defeatist (I recycle and cycle to work, but what can I do? I'm just one person, its all so bad, I'm depressed) - activist (I'm going to do something about this now, they can't do this to my children) I think one of the biggest problems facing us on climate change is somehow making better use of peo…

Well, don't let my depression lead you to the wrong conclusion. I'm am (somewhat) active - I donate to climate causes, it's my number one issue when voting, I drive a hybrid, only buy organic food, minimize eating meat, minimize consumption, grow some of my own food, bike when I can, minimize electricity use, etc. I do recognize that it's not enough and we all need to basically go back pre-industrial lifestyles to re…

Isn't organic food more costly to make?

> I do recognize that it's not enough and we all need to basically go back pre-industrial lifestyles to really make enough of a change to matter.

Bah. Charge a dollar per kg of carbon released and the problem will almost solve itself. It's much more a problem of political will than it is a problem of technical capability.

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

#413

Post by immutable_ai »

titzer wrote: post #293
moultano wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per acre doesn't seem like the right metric.

This article ( http://scienceline.org/2011/07/lawns-vs-crops-in-the-contine... ) is about water usage, but it states that there is more lawn acreage in the US than the 8 top irrigated crops combined. (Discussed here: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lawn-largest-crop-ameri... ) (original here: http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXVI/8-W27/milesi.pdf )

This article seems very misleading, at least for California.

If you look at aggregate water usage for California agriculture uses 4X "urban" and "urban" includes industrial, golf courses, parks, etc.

So even if lawns are using more area they are much less water intensive than agriculture.

http://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/

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

#414

Post by blurbleblurble »

slackingoff2017 wrote: post #138
kpil wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just speculating wildly and looking at Sweden, for example meadows have more or less disappeared since 30-40 years. I mean flowering meadows, not pastures for grazing. The meadows have been turned into forests and to a lesser extent pastures. It's not a few percent, it's 30% of the land, probably more in Germany where there are much lest forests than in Sweden. The bio-diversity in a meadow strikes me as much higher…

Not sure if this is case in Sweden, but here in the US the reforestation is actually a return to the natural state. Much of the country was logged repeatedly in the last few centuries. Modern sustainable logging and the transition to other energy sources is resulting in the land returning to the endless forest it was before settlers arrived. This is mostly clearly seen on the east coast because most of the Midwest is…

US forest management is definitely more wild than I've seen in Germany, but it's not always necessarily a return to natural state. For example, in many parts of the country, reforestation meant planting pine monocultures where there were previously diverse old-growth forests or savannas. People look at these monoculture forests and think they are "the way things used to be", when in reality they are nothing but a shadow of the kinds of biodiversity that was destroyed.

Something that bothers me is the gristly, meager attitude of a certain type of conservation ecology. I think we are really going to start having to cultivate healthy ecosystems from the ground up, regardless of who's originally "from here" or not. I'm very optimistic about permaculture and wild cultivation techniques. I think they deserve more of a shot than people often give them.

And that "ag-tech" oligopoly has gotta go, along with its foolish, ignorant, exploitative approaches to ecology and economics alike.

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

#415

Post by christophilus »

irrlichthn wrote: post #193
downer71 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren’t there local ordinances in some jurisdictions, requiring an orderly yard about the house? For sure, in many places there are laws regulating tree count and what you can and can’t chop down. I swear I’ve heard of fines for unmowed lawns too.

AFAIK, I can do with my garden whatever I want to do, as long as a I don't turn it into forrest. But that's here in Austria. What you describe sounds terrible. Fines for not mowing? In which country do you live?

If you're in Austria, you should definitely check out Sepp Holzer's farm[0].

Edit: Context: He's a permaculture farmer (one of the first), and has a really compelling solution to modern agriculture, in my opinion.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepp_Holzer

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

#416

Post by panglott »

slackingoff2017 wrote: post #138
kpil wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just speculating wildly and looking at Sweden, for example meadows have more or less disappeared since 30-40 years. I mean flowering meadows, not pastures for grazing. The meadows have been turned into forests and to a lesser extent pastures. It's not a few percent, it's 30% of the land, probably more in Germany where there are much lest forests than in Sweden. The bio-diversity in a meadow strikes me as much higher…

Not sure if this is case in Sweden, but here in the US the reforestation is actually a return to the natural state. Much of the country was logged repeatedly in the last few centuries. Modern sustainable logging and the transition to other energy sources is resulting in the land returning to the endless forest it was before settlers arrived. This is mostly clearly seen on the east coast because most of the Midwest is…

Even in the adgricultural midwest reforestation is notable. One factoid I recall is this: At the beginning of the 19th century, Indiana was about 85% forest and 15% barrens (prairies). By the 20th century it had become 20% forest and 80% open land and farmland. Now it is ore like 25% forest and 75% open land and farmland.

European deforestation was most extreme during the late middle ages and early modern period. When people were using wood for fuel in a growing economy, before switching to coal, major European nations were running out of trees. Coppicing was adopted out of a desperate need for basic resources.

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

#417

Post by radiorental »

njarboe wrote: post #391
radiorental wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's my kids doing their bit to protect the biomass in my back yard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukZA4Y7usQk But in all seriousness, yes.. lawns are evil. Created in Victorian Britain to demonstrate wealth.. "look at me, I can afford to have un-productive land". I try to minimise them as much as possible on my 1.5 acre lot. Veggie gardens, mushroom logs, wetland and lots of dead wood as in the video That all sai…

If you have sheep or cattle grazing, a short cropped "lawn" is just where you get your meat to eat.

Lawns and golf courses don't get rotated. They're permanent dead zones.

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

#418

Post by clort »

nsporillo wrote: post #367
rlonn wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A lot of people don't like having insects in their homes, so it would make sense that they manicure their lawns to reduce the number of insects around their homes.

It might, but how far do insects actually travel? If it was really restricted like that then it would surely be better to concrete over the yard and park their cars there.

I've seen various flying insects more than a hundred miles out to sea but I accept that not all insects fly.

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

#419

Post by autokad »

immutable_ai wrote: post #413
titzer wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article ( http://scienceline.org/2011/07/lawns-vs-crops-in-the-contine... ) is about water usage, but it states that there is more lawn acreage in the US than the 8 top irrigated crops combined. (Discussed here: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lawn-largest-crop-ameri... ) (original here: http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXVI/8-W27/milesi.pdf )

This article seems very misleading, at least for California. If you look at aggregate water usage for California agriculture uses 4X "urban" and "urban" includes industrial, golf courses, parks, etc. So even if lawns are using more area they are much less water intensive than agriculture. http://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/

the majority of usage goes towards power generation (https://water.usgs.gov/edu/wateruse-total.html). urban areas consume the power, but they dont produce it. they hide their water usage in the rural areas.

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

#420

Post by ryguytilidie »

nolok wrote: post #403
erikbye wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, ticks like grass (or at least breed in lawns) and some tickborne diseases are pretty bad.

By that logic we should steralize the planet of all mamalian life, since rats carry some pretty bad disease.

"Some people don't like ticks on their lawn so they use pesticides"

"By that logic we should steralize the planet of all mamalian life, since rats carry some pretty bad disease."

Uhhh, what happened here...? I've heard some atrocious analogies before but this almost seems like a joke.

Post reply on HN