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

401–410 of 454 posts

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

#401

Post by Shivetya »

avip wrote: post #3

Yes. This is a case of hard data confirming what we already know. As in - few types of butterflies I used to like, and see yearly as a kid - are gone. I see them now once in 5 years, if lucky. I bring my kids to look because it's a first time for them. On the other hand, some types of beetles, ants, flies, mosquitoes, even wasps - are just new. They were not here 20-30 years ago. Now, what are the consequences of all…

well for few years we had a severe reduction of monarchs and (blue/black variety whose name escapes me) in NW metro Atlanta but they returned this year in large numbers. Also returning, not sure of exact connection, but the tent caterpillars were abundant after seemingly being gone.

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

#402

Post by asddddd »

djsumdog wrote: post #198
slackingoff2017 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It seems like a lot of American logging has pushed to the Pacific Northwest, where it's very wet, doesn't get very hot/cold and new growth is very fast. I was talking to someone in Portland out in the middle of nowhere who said, "Almost everything you see is new growth; less than 60 years old. It grows that fast." The Singapore City gallery had a display where they talked about growing plants sustainability for paper…

Sounds like they may have been referring to the Tillamook Burn. Also, I doubt it was you, but this reminds me of a conversion on Saddle Mtn that happened to be right while the Eagle Creek fire was starting.

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

#403

Post by nolok »

erikbye wrote: post #400
mac01021 wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it. Who cares if there's bugs in your grass? I used to play with bugs in the yard as a kid.

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.

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

#404

Post by musha68k »

christophilus wrote: post #157
avip wrote: post #3

Yes. This is a case of hard data confirming what we already know. As in - few types of butterflies I used to like, and see yearly as a kid - are gone. I see them now once in 5 years, if lucky. I bring my kids to look because it's a first time for them. On the other hand, some types of beetles, ants, flies, mosquitoes, even wasps - are just new. They were not here 20-30 years ago. Now, what are the consequences of all…

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.

I concur, dumb. In addition we also pave over more and more soil everywhere on this planet.

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

#406

Post by erikbye »

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.

No, by that logic, I understand why some people use pesticides to get rid of disease-carrying ticks from the lawn where their children and pets play daily.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25280366

https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/index.html

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

#407

Post by schiffern »

erikbye wrote: post #406
nolok wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, by that logic, I understand why some people use pesticides to get rid of disease-carrying ticks from the lawn where their children and pets play daily. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25280366 https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/index.html

>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 infestations.

A much better, less toxic, and longer-lasting solution would be to provide pest-eating insect predators with habitats. In nature balance is achieved by predator/prey interactions instead of razing the beneficial soil ecosystem[1] with poison.

To take just one example, ticks are naturally eaten by birds (eg chickens), and if productive bird species can be used this has the side effect of producing delicious chicken (vs surface water/aquifer pollution, soil degradation which necessitates fertilizers, and a proliferation of plastic "keep children and pets off this lawn for X hours" signs).

People's instinct to protect themselves from disease-carrying pest species is a good one. The solutions handed to them by the post-war chemical industry are not. Who coulda thunk that redirecting all our WWII chemical weapons output to fighting nature wasn't such a good idea after all?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H60ritjag

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

#408

Post by gbrown »

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…

Not everywhere. Much of the Midwest used to have a fire ecology, leading to prairie and Oak Savannah. Now forests of non-fire-resistant trees crop up on any bit of unused and unmaintained land.

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

#409

Post by erikbye »

schiffern wrote: post #407
erikbye wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, by that logic, I understand why some people use pesticides to get rid of disease-carrying ticks from the lawn where their children and pets play daily. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25280366 https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/index.html

>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.

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

#410

Post by emiliobumachar »

devmunchies wrote: post #352
emiliobumachar wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there was demand for it, every other apartment building rooftop could include a greenhouse.

you would need much more than a rooftop to feed a high rise apt building, no?

Correct, but a rooftop would put a sizeable dent in the building's need to bring in food.
Post reply on HN