All: please respond to the information in the article rather than just your feelings about moths and bees.
Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research
31–40 of 111 posts
Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research
#32So with all of this talk for years about colony collapse and food shortages yet moths were doing the bulk of the pollinating the whole time? Or am I missing something. Not that colony collapse doesn’t worry me, it does. But if I was being baselessly told to fear agriculture production issues, I am super mad.
(This is a hobbyhorse of mine...)
At least in North America, the "colony collapse" stuff was a livestock phenomenon more than it was a wildlife/ecology issue. Honey bees aren't native to the US; if you see a honey bee in your back yard, there's a pretty good chance that somebody owns it.
Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research
#33The huge difference between moths and butterflies is surprising as I consider moths nocturnal butterflies. I wonder what causes the difference.
Moths have mouthparts, butterflies generally don't. They have a specialized nectar sucking tube type organ with a "tongue" in it.
Moths can rob flowers, which means they cut a small hole inside the bottom of the flower's nectar reservoir and then lap it up. Butterflies can't cut flowers.
Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
So that is why corn syrup is popular in US?
Corn syrup is/was more used as a cheaper alternative for maple syrup and sugar. The relative unpopularity of honey probably has more to do with sugar plantations making sugar somewhat affordable.
people are sensitive on the honey topic, but since I learned how hard it was to distinguish natural honey from fake honey (you need NMR or something), I've just been wondering why don't we all just use cheap fake honey?
Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like it’s the opposite, the amount of energy packed into a single drop of honey makes it very efficient.
The energy taken by the bees and turned into honey is a cost from the flower’s point of view. I think you are looking at the efficiency of honey as a food, while the previous poster is looking at the efficiency of bees as pollinators?
[deleted]
Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research
#36[flagged]
Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research
#37i think we need both, and others
Biology in a nutshell.
Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Been there. Moth balls really work.
Any advice on usage? How many/ what placement do you do? Had you success with the wood ones (Cedar ?) or another type? Sanding any x times or not at all?
I use the ones that I think are naphthalene or something like that. I put them in a jar with a loose lid, and throw the jar into whatever bin I'm storing the clothes in.
However, they are not innocuous:
https://ldh.la.gov/assets/oph/Center-EH/envepi/Pest/Document...
Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research
#39Bees also produce honey in the process, basically for free. Everything in real life is a balancing act!
Honeybees are actually not very good at pollinating plants; they take most of the pollen back to their hive instead of spreading it between plants. Furthermore, they often outcompete (non-honey producing) indigenous bees that are actually good at pollinating plants.
This comment captures the actual efficiency of the bee. The article measures it by time-per-plant.
Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research
#40The huge difference between moths and butterflies is surprising as I consider moths nocturnal butterflies. I wonder what causes the difference.
Indeed, in many languages, even unrelated ones like Finnish, Greek, and Vietnamese, the word for moth is "night butterfly".