Science Scientists warn the world's insects are undergoing "death by a thousand cuts" - So... maybe don't eat the bugs



The world's vital insect kingdom is undergoing "death by a thousand cuts," the world's top bug experts said. Climate change, insecticides, herbicides, light pollution, invasive species and changes in agriculture and land use are causing Earth to lose probably 1% to 2% of its insects each year, said University of Connecticut entomologist David Wagner, lead author in the special package of 12 studies in Monday's Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences written by 56 scientists from around the globe.

The problem, sometimes called the insect apocalypse, is like a jigsaw puzzle. And scientists say they still don't have all the pieces, so they have trouble grasping its enormity and complexity and getting the world to notice and do something.

Wagner said scientists need to figure out if the rate of the insect loss is bigger than with other species. "There is some reason to worry more," he added, "because they are the target of attack" with insecticides, herbicides and light pollution.

Co-author and University of Illinois entomologist May Berenbaum, a National Medal of Science winner, said, "Insect decline is kind of comparable to climate change 30 years ago because the methods to assess the extent, the rate (of loss) were difficult."

Making matters worse is that in many cases, people hate bugs, even though they pollinate the world's foods, are crucial to the food chain and get rid of waste, she said.

Insects "are absolutely the fabric by which Mother Nature and the tree of life are built," Wagner said.

Two well known ones — honeybees and Monarch butterflies — best illustrate insect problems and declines, he said. Honeybees have been in dramatic decline because of disease, parasites, insecticides, herbicides and lack of food.

Climate change-driven drier weather in the U.S. West means less milkweed for butterflies to eat, Wagner said. And changes in American agriculture remove weeds and flowers they need for nectar.

"We're creating a giant biological desert except for soybeans and corn in a giant area of the Midwest," he said.

Last month, Trump administration officials announced Tuesday that the Monarch butterfly was a "candidate" for federal designation as a threatened species — but will not receive the designation for several years, as there are other priorities.

The numbers of honeybees are down from the "dangerously low" levels of less than 30,000 monarchs for the past two years, the zoo said. "The incredible migration of western monarchs is a unique yet fragile piece of North America's natural history, and it is on the brink of collapse," said Paige Howorth, director of invertebrate care and conservation at San Diego Zoo Global.

Monday's scientific papers don't provide new data, yet show a big but incomplete picture of a problem starting to get attention. Scientists have identified 1 million insect species, while probably 4 million more are still to be discovered, Berenbaum said.

University of Delaware entomologist Doug Tallamy, who wasn't part of the studies, said they highlight how the world has "spent the last 30 years spending billions of dollars finding new ways to kill insects and mere pennies working to preserve them."

"The good news is, with the exception of climate change, individuals can do much to reverse insect declines," Tallamy said in an email. "This is a global problem with a grassroots solution."
 
Here we go about the honeybees again. All available statistics say the amount of hives in the world is increasing. It's simply decreasing in the US as the demand for a domestic market declines.
 
"Probably"? It seems like something you should be able to confirm. I managed to find the paper and its rather dramatic:

Nature is under siege. In the last 10,000 y the human population has grown from 1 million to 7.8 billion. Much of Earth’s arable lands are already in agriculture (1), millions of acres of tropical forest are cleared each year (2, 3), atmospheric CO2 levels are at their highest concentrations in more than 3 million y (4), and climates are erratically and steadily changing from pole to pole, triggering unprecedented droughts, fires, and floods across continents. Indeed, most biologists agree that the world has entered its sixth mass extinction event, the first since the end of the Cretaceous Period 66 million y ago, when more than 80% of all species, including the nonavian dinosaurs, perished.

By a skim some types of insects are dying a lot, some are growing more, and some are remaining the same. Its not a particularly riveting read.
 
Here we go about the honeybees again. All available statistics say the amount of hives in the world is increasing. It's simply decreasing in the US as the demand for a domestic market declines.
Really odd seeing as how honey is a natural antibiotic.
 
It's not just honeybees, all insect species are being affected. For example, research in Costa Rica showed that elevated summer temperatures there are reducing insect populations, which are in turn impacting populations of insectivorous birds.

The only insects that aren't doing poorly are the ones that can mooch off of us, or thrive in human-made environments: stuff like mosquitoes, roaches, bedbugs, crop pests, etc. The things that keep ecosystems going - decomposers, non-honeybee pollinators, natural insect predators - are adversely affected on a bunch of levels:

1) Insects are cold-blooded, so are more likely to die en masse during overly hot summers or overly cold winters, like those experienced with climate change;
2) Insecticide and herbicide pollution in surface water can kill a lot of aquatic insects, which are often sensitive to water pollution, thus endangering the populations of fish and frogs that feed on them;
3) Many night-flying insects often use the moon to navigate, so light pollution from cities disorients them and draws them away from their food and natural habitat;
4) Developing wilderness into resource-poor and pesticide-drenched urban or suburban housing tracts, or monoculture farmland, means many insects either lack their specific kinds of food, lack their specific kinds of breeding sites, or else face stiff competition from species better adapted to those environments.

We don't have good data on all of this because we didn't have tons of good, quantitative data on what populations looked like before the last hundred years or so. A lot of what we do know is based on monitoring certain high-value species, like the European honey bee, or extrapolating from localized data sets that are maybe ten or twenty years old. That shows us that we have cause to be concerned, but we as of yet we don't know how concerned or how fast things will get bad.
 
And changes in American agriculture remove weeds and flowers they need for nectar.
Ah yes as opposed to non-American agriculture methods where the fields are entirely weeds.
monoculture farmland,
I hate this particular talking point and it is a major tell that the person bringing it up doesn't know what they are talking about. There is no successful farming practice that is done multi-culture. Ever. The three sisters were planted in a rotation.
Growing them all together will see the plants compete against each other and yields fall dramatically. Increasing the land needed to produce the same amount of food. It is worse environmentally.

I fucking hate that the environmental movement has basically been hijacked to dismantle the highly advanced US agriculture sector in favor of some fanciful imagined third-world peasant subsistence ideal. Their methods are worse environmentally in every possible way.
 
I hate this particular talking point and it is a major tell that the person bringing it up doesn't know what they are talking about. There is no successful farming practice that is done multi-culture. Ever. The three sisters were planted in a rotation.
Growing them all together will see the plants compete against each other and yields fall dramatically. Increasing the land needed to produce the same amount of food. It is worse environmentally.

I fucking hate that the environmental movement has basically been hijacked to dismantle the highly advanced US agriculture sector in favor of some fanciful imagined third-world peasant subsistence ideal. Their methods are worse environmentally in every possible way.
But...a field that is all one plant is a no-go zone for insects that don't eat that plant, breed on that plant, or eat or interact with the insects that do. A hundred square miles of nothing but corn and dirt roads is basically a desert as far as insects that don't care about corn are concerned.

It's not that monoculture isn't an efficient way to grow food, it's that ripping up wilderness for giant fields of all one thing is very bad for the bugs that aren't good at dealing with that one thing. You yourself even said that the more land we convert to farms, the worse it is environmentally.

It's the reason why a city will have legions of roaches but very few butterflies: the former thrives in cities and the latter really doesn't. That's not to say we should all move to the countryside and live in ten times the amount of low-density housing (which would be awful for the environment), but rather to point out that as cities expand, butterflies will be hurt and we ought to take steps to preserve their remaining habitat.
 
But...a field that is all one plant is a no-go zone for insects that don't eat that plant, breed on that plant, or eat or interact with the insects that do. A hundred square miles of nothing but corn and dirt roads is basically a desert as far as insects that don't care about corn are concerned.
That isn't how it works. You grow on a rotation. One field is corn. The next canola. The next soybeans. Etc. Then you have scabland, pasture, and CRP ground intermixed on the marginal ground that is to alkaline, rocky, sandy, steep, wet/dry, etc to profitably grow. This has been the standard for over a century everywhere.

"Mono-culture" as you describe doesn't exist. It's just some bullshit made up by city people who think subsistence farming out of a mud hut is ideal.
 
There is a lot in between infinite fields of monocultures and highly inefficient primitive vegetable gardens, though. The highly advanced US agriculture does not take much into account the ecological context, which will probably cause big problems in the near future (or already in the present). Taking into account the surrounding ecology does not necessarily mean hippie dippy commune gardening.
Show me a successful multi-culture.

You take a field. You plow it. You plant one type of seed. This has been the standard since literally forever. If doing that is creating "monocultures" then so be it. It is what agriculture is. Having a bunch of shit growing together does not work. Even if you could get all the plants to play nice, and that is a huge ask, there is no efficient way to harvest them.

You grow on a rotation. Multiple crops cycled every year. This shatters whatever dumb "infinite monoculture" crap people spew. Because it isn't one crop forever. That isn't how it is done.
 
There is a lot in between infinite fields of monocultures and highly inefficient primitive vegetable gardens, though. The highly advanced US agriculture does not take much into account the ecological context, which will probably cause big problems in the near future (or already in the present). Taking into account the surrounding ecology does not necessarily mean hippie dippy commune gardening.
I mean, in Europe we tore down all the trees and replaced them with advanced agriculture. It wrecked the wildlife and turned the continent boring from a nature perspective. But hey, sometimes it's good not having to worry about coyotes out in the wild.
 
By your standards there probably is no successful multi-culture, because nothing can compete with the yields of the current advanced agro-tech, but I would argue that soil depletion may occur at a level that cannot be replenished by rotation, and pests become unmanageable even with synthetic pesticides.
The entire point of the process is to prevent soil depletion. Including fallowing. Soil management is a huge deal.

You would be correct if technology was stuck in the 1800's and they did this. But it is far more advanced. They advanced because of the flaws of the old way of doing things. The unsustainable flaws. Slash and burn. Single-crop monocultures. Primitive pest management. We do not do this anymore.

One major thing you are forgetting here is land use. Greater yields from less land. There have been massive environmental diversity improvements from 100 years ago. Huge parts of the country have regrown as small operations were put out of business by modern techniques. Things are better than they have been in 200 years because of modern agriculture taking marginal land out of cropland use. Not worse.

In other words, to use an expression which you no doubt love hearing, intense standard agriculture is not sustainable in the long term, in its current form.
Says who? I guarantee you the agri-science people strongly disagree. The environmental chicken-littles are the screamers here and they quite frankly have no fucking clue what they are talking about.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo