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

Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 111 posts

Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research

#41

Post by nonethewiser »

whiddershins wrote: post #30

So 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.

> 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.

Maybe before getting emotionally attached to a position (again) you should understand what’s going on.

Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research

#42

Post by nonethewiser »

Maursault wrote: post #23

I hate bug zappers. They should be illegal. All they do is kill moths and beetles. They are entirely ineffective against mosquitoes and other biting flies, and their otherwise indiscriminate killing disrupts pollination and generally throws the local environment completely out of balance.

Interesting. Never had one but I never thought about it. So there aren’t any more pesty bugs that it’s effective against?

Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research

#43

Post by soperj »

Maursault wrote: post #23

I hate bug zappers. They should be illegal. All they do is kill moths and beetles. They are entirely ineffective against mosquitoes and other biting flies, and their otherwise indiscriminate killing disrupts pollination and generally throws the local environment completely out of balance.

Mosquitoes are pollinators, only the females suck blood, and that's only to produce eggs.

Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research

#44

Post by duchenne »

jetunsaure wrote: post #40
boomboomsubban wrote: post #27

The 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".

In French as well: "papillon de nuit"

Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research

#45

Post by JamisonM »

whiddershins wrote: post #30

So 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.

> Or am I missing something.

One of the things you may be missing is that the article is about "efficiency" as opposed to total impact.

"researchers found that 83% of insect visits to bramble flowers were made during the day. While the moths made fewer visits during the shorter summer nights, notching up only 15% of the visits, they were able to pollinate the flowers more quickly."

Moths are doing great work, but they don't have much time to do the work in and they are not doing the bulk of the work. Also it seems that the night pollinators actually may largely work different flowers than the day pollinators so one can't necessarily pick up the load left by the absence of the other.

Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research

#46

Post by sidewndr46 »

tptacek wrote: post #32
whiddershins wrote: post #30

So 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.

So what species are the native pollinators here in North America?

Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research

#47

Post by tptacek »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #46
tptacek wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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.

So what species are the native pollinators here in North America?

There's lots of them, including a huge variety of bees, but many (most?) of those bees are solitary, and aren't battery-farmed the way honey bees are.

Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research

#48

Post by sohkamyung »

64operator wrote: post #33
boomboomsubban wrote: post #27

The 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.

>Moths have mouthparts, butterflies generally don't

I'm not sure where you get that information. Butterflies also feed on nectar from plants, so they do have mouthparts.

On another note, some butterflies (and maybe moths) are cannibals [1] and feed on their own caterpillars:

"Some butterflies don’t only look like horror movie stars, but are horrors in themselves. Milkweed butterflies (Danainae) — the same subfamily that includes the regal monarch — are vampiric cannibals that use clawed feet to tear open their own caterpillars and mercilessly suck the guts out of them. But why devour your own offspring from the inside out? It’s an even stranger phenomenon known as kleptopharmacophagy."

[1] https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/milkweed-butterflies-suck-out...

Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research

#49

Post by mythrwy »

tptacek wrote: post #32
whiddershins wrote: post #30

So 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.

I have wild honey bees in my yard (New Mexico) and have seen them in other places. I believe they are Africanized but just looking I can't tell the difference.

At any rate, in warm areas of the US there are many feral old world bees.

Re: Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research

#50

Post by ianburrell »

zabzonk wrote: post #11

i think we need both, and others

Don’t forget about hummingbirds. In the Americas, a lot of the pollinating job of moths is done by hummingbirds. Hummingbirds in the day, moths at night.

My impression is that bees and moths/hummingbirds mostly work on different kinds of flowers that are evolved for the size and mouths of pollinators,

Post reply on HN