Live data from Hacker News

Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research

phys.org

81–90 of 111 posts

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

#81
post #76
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also move nutrients down the food chain. The larvae and the mosquitoes they produce feed lots of birds and other insects.

Up the foodchain, sorry for beeing a pedant.

Unless the parent was explicitly referring to the nutrients that they get from us, at the top.

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

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 t…

I was talking about nectar robbing by moths, butterflies don't do it. And butterflies only have a tube with a tongue, they don't have opposing jaws or a typical mouthpart. Moths are some of many nectar robbers who will cut a hole or slit in the bottom part of the nectar bearing parts of plants and drink that directly rather than playing by 'the rules' and going down the flower past the reproductive organs. Thus getti…

I wonder what the advantage is in "nectar robbing". Is carrying the pollen a significant additional effort to an insect?

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

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Just be an expert in everything. See easy. And experts never get mislead either, just repeat all research yourself, double plus good. /S

I’m suggesting not to get too emotionally invested in something you don’t understand. It does not fill that you need to be an expert in everything.

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

#84
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, in many languages, even unrelated ones like Finnish, Greek, and Vietnamese, the word for moth is "night butterfly".

In german: Nachtfalter ie nightfolder

The word "Falter" is not in fact etymologically related to "falten" (folding), according to Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmetterlinge#Herkunft_des_Na...

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

#85
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking about nectar robbing by moths, butterflies don't do it. And butterflies only have a tube with a tongue, they don't have opposing jaws or a typical mouthpart. Moths are some of many nectar robbers who will cut a hole or slit in the bottom part of the nectar bearing parts of plants and drink that directly rather than playing by 'the rules' and going down the flower past the reproductive organs. Thus getti…

I wonder what the advantage is in "nectar robbing". Is carrying the pollen a significant additional effort to an insect?

My guess is that some flowers have a thin shape to force the bees to get covered in polen, the butterfly can use the long tube, but the moth are too wide.

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

#86

Earlier 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?

it’s even more efficient for the bees who effortlessly and by their very nature produce enough that an invader can eat and be satisfied and yet still leave them with plenty! a veritable honey pot

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

#87
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a gardener I have noticed that most types of insects tend to visit as many flowers as possible. None seem to show a vast preference. I know that's not what the data shows but it's my experience.

Bees prefer native flowers. Zero snark intended.

what is a "native flower"?

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

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 t…

I was talking about nectar robbing by moths, butterflies don't do it. And butterflies only have a tube with a tongue, they don't have opposing jaws or a typical mouthpart. Moths are some of many nectar robbers who will cut a hole or slit in the bottom part of the nectar bearing parts of plants and drink that directly rather than playing by 'the rules' and going down the flower past the reproductive organs. Thus getti…

Some moths have mandibles, but most sorts don’t. Further, ‘nectar larceny’ behavior is still the subject of study and appears to possibly help pollination or have a neutral effect in many cases. There also seems to be an indication that some plants are perforated by bees and that certain moths reuse those holes for access to nectar.

As another curiosity, I believe the death’s head hawk moth (as ‘made famous’ by The Silence of the Lambs) can disguise itself as a bee via scent and just take honey from a beehive.

Post reply on HN