Here in the ultra-dense Netherlands, threats to insects are magnified. As such, it's easier to point to specific causes.
Butterflies: 50% reduction in 50 years. Beetles: 75% decline since 1985. Ladybugs: 50% reduction in 20 years. Across the border in Germany: a 75% decline in flying insects since 1989.
It doesn't take much of a scientist to see the trend. I've been hiking the forests here multiple times per week for 20 years. You can clearly see how some groups are disappearing whilst others remain.
There's several root causes but the primary one is a lack of native plant diversity. Since agriculture over here is done in close proximity to forests, the soil becomes acid due to the nitrogen disposition. This benefits the growth of a handful of plants at the expense of all others. In some of our forests, the soil is now so acid that snails no longer develop a case and bird eggs collapse.
In this plant monoculture, insects depending on a specific host plant disappear. Outside (protected) forests, things aren't much better. Even the tiniest of strips of grass that would normally produce wildflowers, are aggressively mowed down. People's gardens are designed to be as hostile to insects as is possible.
Secondary reasons are invasive species and light pollution.
It's a sad state of affairs and one we should be deeply ashamed of. We're not talking about some iconic predator requiring hundreds of acres of wild forest just to survive. We're talking about insects that require little space, healthy soil, a flower, and for it to be left alone. We can't even offer that.
And what's crazy is that everyone thinks it's going to be electric cars that somehow saves us. When the fact of the matter is there is a ton of stuff we can start doing today that would positively impact the environment.
It's pretty easy:
* Restore lawn areas to native plants: small (wildflowers), medium (bushes), big (trees)
* For areas that are kept as lawn, simply mow less. Allow plants to flower. Don't treat clover as evil. Support multiple grass types. Stop using chemical fertilizers and stop trying to feed the grass. Feed the soil with organic fertilizers and compost.
That's it! It reduces maintenance costs and time, reduces the use of gasoline, reduces noise pollution, and vastly improves soil health, insect and wildlife health, and increases pollination of our own food. It's a literal win-win.
And yet, no one does it. They turn their lawns into wastelands and never even use them. I've heard that lawns should be compared to deserts but that even that is disregarding the biodiversity that deserts have over lawns.
It's good to see a comment that recognises that this "bug splatter on the windshield" data is mostly just an easily observed hook to connect the measured declines to people's everyday life experiences.
The topic seems to come up here ever few months, and there's always a significant percentage of the discussion devoted to aerodynamic effects, or changes in insect distribution specific to roadside habitats. Those converstations often feel like "middlebrow dismissal": people who think the fact they can come up with a plausible alternate explaination for the data given a few seconds thought means it's likely that the studies are totally flawed and can be ignored.
Meanwhile if you dig in to the actual evidence, the studies based on vehicle data show a small negative correlation between vehicle age and number of impacted flying insects (i.e. older cars have slightly fewer splats, not more). More importantly, the general trends of declining biomass of (especially, but not only) flying insects reproduce over a wide range of methodologies and habitats. For skeptical readers, there are some links to studies in a previous comment I made on a previous thread on this same general topic [1].
Having said that, I think you've missed one of the big factors that's likely to contribute to the decline: the widespread use of insecticides (especially) and herbicides in industrial agriculture. Studies on bees show that even insects exposed to something much lower than the LD50 of certain insecticides experience behavioural changes that dramatically decrease their survival rates. And because "pest" insects typicaly have short lifecycles and rapid reproduction rates, they're often best placed to evolve tolerances for the insecticides, so there's pressure on farmers to use more and more to get the same effect.
For anyone who's interested in an introduction to this topic aimed at the general public (like me!), but written by a Professor of Entomology, I can recommend Slient Earth [2].
Yup. Visited the US Midwest (Minnesota) recently and driving from the airport city to another smaller city, started going out into farmland.
At first, it seemed like a nice bucolic change. But soon, it took on a far darker aspect - this was a barren monoculture, as far as the eye could see, for dozens of miles. Where to the birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and insects live? The land is not only covered with chemicals to kill or repel any now-unwelcome residents, but there is simply no usable habitat (and a thin row of trees every mile or so doesn't count).
It was a truly dystopian experience, and more so by knowing that this goes on for thousands of square miles. This is not our grandparent's farmland anymore. This is not nature. This is one species becoming a literal plague on the planet. It is not sustainable.
Wow, it's refreshing to see a Dutch person write down the impact of nitrogen as facts. Around me, its seems like slowly everyone is starting to doubt/deny the impact of nitrogen and whether it's something we need to care about. I'm starting to feel less at home in this country by the day because of it (and all the upside down flags consequently).
It’s also sad to see what people are doing to their gardens over here. Fake grass, no plants/just bricks. Not to mention the municipalities mowing nice patches of grass/plants/flowers where insects thrive.
While I don’t disagree with those two points I don’t know if they’re the primary cause.
I also think it’s important to put it into context.
1. These insects weren’t really robust to begin with. Take the monarch butterfly in the North America. They actually needed primarily milkweed to survive. A single point of failure (milkweed) can cause the population to collapse. When we put up houses and converted land to farms, you’re correct we killed many of the native species, but those species were HIGHLY tuned to a particular niche. In 100-200 years it’s likely the insects that survived will re-occupy new niches.
2. Insects typically need a much smaller range to survive, so hikes in the same woods as when you were a kid doesn’t add up. Unless there was another massive environmental issue - such as pesticides or chemicals like DDT which have a secondary impact. Personally, that bird egg analogy sounds exactly like what the US saw with DDT and the collapse of the eagle population.
3. In the 1950s in the Midwest there had already been farmland all over for 50+ years. Same with Ireland (for hundreds). The insect populations have only noticeably declined in the last few decades. Unfortunately, we don’t have enough historical data to confirm what it is exactly. Even in the 1970s you’d have solid layers of bugs on windshields driving between cornfields. Now, nothing.
> some groups are disappearing whilst others remain
Speaking of those that remain, I can say beyond reasonable doubt that there is an insane percentage increase in stinkbug populations in recent years. Fuckers get absolutely everywhere.
This article is pretty characteristic of the chemical industry influence trying to muddle the waters.
I've watched recently a conference[1] by several renowned scientists. They affirm that neonicotinoids / neonics are responsible of at least 80% of the decline.
They also affirm that the "merchants of doubt" are working their best to muddle the evidence with things like "there are multiple factors", "it's complicated", "we need more research" etc.
But just like the overwhelming majority of lung cancer comes from smoking, the overwhelming factor in insects decline (and its consequences like birds decline) is PESTICIDES and neonicotinoids in particular.
To everyone replying “aerodynamics”, I’ve had the same car for about 9 years now and the drive along the 5 from Bay Area to LA feels like there’s fewer bugs on my windshield (granted not recorded diligently for scientific purposes but whereas before I’d need to scrub the windshield at least once halfway these days I can drive all the way and still don’t need a wash at the end)
Same goes for the argument that bugs have evolved to migrate away from the roads - the 5 has been a busy thruway for a long time with lots of cars and trucks.
The article is short but says scientists have clear data that populations have plummeted and the larger vehicle consumer trend + more people on the road means that there’s fewer bugs to encounter per windshield on top of that.
I actually find it rather interesting how many people here, in a forum I generally assume to be better informed than elsewhere, seem wholly unaware of the dramatic decrease in insects over the last few decades.
> Same goes for the argument that bugs have evolved to migrate away from the roads
There are many studies in all kind of environments, even in the middle of the woods, in natural reserves; insects are going down both in term of diversity and numbers everywhere
Same tests have been run on licence plates. As they have remained in a similar position for decades, aerodynamics is clearly not the major contributing factor.
> To everyone replying “aerodynamics”, I’ve had the same car for about 9 years now and the drive along the 5 from Bay Area to LA feels like there’s fewer bugs on my windshield (granted not recorded diligently for scientific purposes but whereas before I’d need to scrub the windshield at least once halfway these days I can drive all the way and still don’t need a wash at the end)
Hasn’t California had extremely climate events over the last decade (wildfires, ongoing drought)? Given that bugs tend to be sensitive to air quality, this would likely local population decline which would then lead to the effect you’ve observed.
I welcome anyone to come to Prince Edward Island and enjoy the many, many mosquitos and midges our Island has to offer. They can be heard as small “pops” while driving.
Also, the "bugs evolve away" would need evolutionary pressure being involved. But the explanation I got was the available biomass for bugs is such that any chunk of bugs killed on the road was easily filled by other bugs eating their lunch and procreating.
What if, with more cars and bigger windshields, we're just grabbing less and less of these bugs due to more of them being killed by other cars / trucks?
The last time this was discussed I found some articles showing that the more boxy and angular windows of older vehicles were less likely to have bugs smashed on them. This is why these studies often use license plate splatters to get a better count -- that really hasn't changed.
"The contemporary rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than the background extinction rate"
"the current rate of extinction is 10 to 100 times higher than in any of the previous mass extinctions in the history of Earth."
"There is widespread consensus among scientists that human activity is accelerating the extinction of many animal species through the destruction of habitats, the consumption of animals as resources, and the elimination of species that humans view as threats or competitors."
I recently went back to my hometown in the USA after a couple of decades away. I was struck by how there we're almost none of the fireflies, grasshoppers and assorted other bugs I'd chased as a kid. I chalked it up to being a nostalgic old man, but I've never shaken that feeling that something is definitely not right.
Sad and frightening to hear. Funny though but here in southern Sweden and Denmark I've had the opposite experience.
Sometime around 2018 I started noticing a lot of fireflies, in a park in the middle of a major city. Which was not normal to me. Since then I've noticed them almost every summer.
And on vacation in Denmark it's the same thing, the air is alive with life. It has its downsides too because there are more ticks than ever too.
A lot of cities here have started leaving grassy areas uncut, they just cut a path through it for people to walk on. Also Copenhagen has started building "walls" of twigs, encased in a wire mesh. These walls act as safe havens for all sorts of insects and small creatures.
Anecdotal, but I was pleased to see fireflies returning after not seeing them post puberty. Not denying general trends at all but it makes me wonder what is the cause of counter examples. Maybe more neighbors not overgrooming their lawns or the local park's native species garden?
Totally anecdotally: I have to scrub a thick layer of bugs off my motorcycle helmet after every single ride but almost never off the windshield of my car. Though this could also be a function of where I’m going (typically rural back roads on the bike and highway/interstate in the car), but even then I’m still not sure, since there is a decent amount of overlap in local routes
Neonicotinoids (pesticide coated seeds) started becoming popular around the same time that bees started mass dying (early 2000s).
AFAIK, the effect of these pesticides on humans is limited, but it's been absolutely devastating for insects.
There is not much profit to be made on insects (aside from bees), so research and bills are getting lobbied into limbo by the big four neonicotinoid companies and agriculture organizations.
I’ve noticed the same with snails. When I was a child in the 90s, the sidewalks were full of snails, and during a 10 minute stroll, I’d often find tens of small snails.
Today I find 1 or 2 snails after rainfall, if at all.
Fireflies for me. I live in Italy and between the vineyards it was full of them. Now I occasionally see one or two. It's a pity not only because it is a concrete sign of habitat degradation, but it was also mesmerizing to walk and have them filing around you. Something my kids won't experience.
You can come here and take away all the snails you want. It's impossible to walk around at night without stepping on them, and they have utterly destroyed my garden. I've never seen a crop of kale or broccoli fail in 30 years until this year.
I'm sure it's a regional impact on different types of creatures. I don't notice windshield bugs but my back patio in the city gets dozens of snails after every rainfall to this day.
Aside from pesticides and land development, yet another cause of decline is our over obsession with landscaping and municipal lights (at least here in the Northeast US).
I have mixed feelings about this: Night lights do add a bit of security, but insects such as moths rely on natural darkness and moonlight to navigate.
> Night lights do add a bit of security, but insects such as moths rely on natural darkness and moonlight to navigate.
We can have a bit of compromise, at least if we had dark sky compliant lights there would be a lot less of an issue. Where I live the streetlights seem to intentionally point upward and it's frustrating that this isn't a priority even when refiting them with LEDs (at least here they put in warm lights instead of cool ones like where I used to live).
> another cause of decline is our over obsession with landscaping and municipal lights
Very much unlike their incandescent and florescent predecessors, LED lights emit practically no ultraviolet wavelengths, and therefore have a drastically reduced attractive effect on insects. Whatever effect outdoor lighting may have on insects, should be showing precipitous declines over the past several years, as LEDs have become the dominant artificial light source.
I bought my first motorcycle in 2004 and my 2nd in 2007. I rode 45k km with the first one over these 3 years (mostly on my island) and 80k km with the 2nd one between 2007-2015. I can confirm that the amount of bugs crashing on my helmet's visor is definitely less. I used to clean it after riding for an hour but now I can do 4-5-6h and still have no real need to clean it.
Regarding all the anecdotes, I would have said the same thing 8 years ago when I moved to my current house in suburban Minneapolis. Then we had some landscaping done and added a bunch of planting beds to the otherwise boring grass-only yard. And my kids threw some milkweed seeds on a slope that is too steep to mow. Now we've got tons of bumblebees, honey bees, monarch butterflies, and other insects. I think the range of most insects is quite small, so maybe people who miss the bugs just need to plant a bit more in their yards :).
Second point: the windshield splats proxy is too confounded to be useful. Use actual measurements or reasonable people will discount the claims (as I have done).
I wonder if it's some introduced wide spectrum insect pathogen. Sort of like that fungus that's devastating amphibians around the world? If so, the part of the world that pathogen came from would not be seeing these declines, since the insects there would have long before evolved to deal with it (as amphibians in SE Asia, I think it was, apparently have done with that fungus.)
I was thinking about this lack of bugs phenomenon when driving to my mom's house a few times over the past 3 or so months. It hasn't been the case for me this year. My car is covered with dead bugs, more than there used to be ~10 years ago. While I was there, I walked around at night (in a small midwestern town), and was constantly assaulted by bugs. Is pesticide use down with fertilizer use?
I remember a drive from Devils Lake, ND to Rugby, ND (~60 miles) less than a decade ago. The bugs were so bad I had to stop and clean my windshield twice because I couldn't see.
Probably a large part is due to the increased frequency of cars inside broadly the same volume of road space. Assuming that you have the same number of bugs per m^3 and the same number of bugs entering per m^3 per minute as before, then bugs splattered per car will change in inverse proportion to cars per minute.
An Occam's razorish answer is that there are fewer bugs nowadays in whatever area this phenomenon is observed. So a better question could be why are there fewer bugs?
I can only comment on my neighborhood in the south SF bay area. Given that the region is a former home to orchards it doesn't surprise me that there is a lack of insects, but given the amount of trees/greenery vs my old SoCal neighborhood I can say that there is a startling lack of bugs here, with the exception of cockroaches(several varieties are disturbingly plentiful on the sidewalks at night), isopods/woodlice/pill bugs, and black widow spiders. Going on hikes in the Santa Cruz mountains, it also seemed like there were a shortage of insect life compared to hikes in SoCal.
[+] [-] fleddr|3 years ago|reply
Butterflies: 50% reduction in 50 years. Beetles: 75% decline since 1985. Ladybugs: 50% reduction in 20 years. Across the border in Germany: a 75% decline in flying insects since 1989.
It doesn't take much of a scientist to see the trend. I've been hiking the forests here multiple times per week for 20 years. You can clearly see how some groups are disappearing whilst others remain.
There's several root causes but the primary one is a lack of native plant diversity. Since agriculture over here is done in close proximity to forests, the soil becomes acid due to the nitrogen disposition. This benefits the growth of a handful of plants at the expense of all others. In some of our forests, the soil is now so acid that snails no longer develop a case and bird eggs collapse.
In this plant monoculture, insects depending on a specific host plant disappear. Outside (protected) forests, things aren't much better. Even the tiniest of strips of grass that would normally produce wildflowers, are aggressively mowed down. People's gardens are designed to be as hostile to insects as is possible.
Secondary reasons are invasive species and light pollution.
It's a sad state of affairs and one we should be deeply ashamed of. We're not talking about some iconic predator requiring hundreds of acres of wild forest just to survive. We're talking about insects that require little space, healthy soil, a flower, and for it to be left alone. We can't even offer that.
[+] [-] bmitc|3 years ago|reply
It's pretty easy:
* Restore lawn areas to native plants: small (wildflowers), medium (bushes), big (trees)
* For areas that are kept as lawn, simply mow less. Allow plants to flower. Don't treat clover as evil. Support multiple grass types. Stop using chemical fertilizers and stop trying to feed the grass. Feed the soil with organic fertilizers and compost.
That's it! It reduces maintenance costs and time, reduces the use of gasoline, reduces noise pollution, and vastly improves soil health, insect and wildlife health, and increases pollination of our own food. It's a literal win-win.
And yet, no one does it. They turn their lawns into wastelands and never even use them. I've heard that lawns should be compared to deserts but that even that is disregarding the biodiversity that deserts have over lawns.
[+] [-] jgraham|3 years ago|reply
The topic seems to come up here ever few months, and there's always a significant percentage of the discussion devoted to aerodynamic effects, or changes in insect distribution specific to roadside habitats. Those converstations often feel like "middlebrow dismissal": people who think the fact they can come up with a plausible alternate explaination for the data given a few seconds thought means it's likely that the studies are totally flawed and can be ignored.
Meanwhile if you dig in to the actual evidence, the studies based on vehicle data show a small negative correlation between vehicle age and number of impacted flying insects (i.e. older cars have slightly fewer splats, not more). More importantly, the general trends of declining biomass of (especially, but not only) flying insects reproduce over a wide range of methodologies and habitats. For skeptical readers, there are some links to studies in a previous comment I made on a previous thread on this same general topic [1].
Having said that, I think you've missed one of the big factors that's likely to contribute to the decline: the widespread use of insecticides (especially) and herbicides in industrial agriculture. Studies on bees show that even insects exposed to something much lower than the LD50 of certain insecticides experience behavioural changes that dramatically decrease their survival rates. And because "pest" insects typicaly have short lifecycles and rapid reproduction rates, they're often best placed to evolve tolerances for the insecticides, so there's pressure on farmers to use more and more to get the same effect.
For anyone who's interested in an introduction to this topic aimed at the general public (like me!), but written by a Professor of Entomology, I can recommend Slient Earth [2].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31278206 [2] https://bookshop.org/p/books/silent-earth-averting-the-insec...
[+] [-] toss1|3 years ago|reply
At first, it seemed like a nice bucolic change. But soon, it took on a far darker aspect - this was a barren monoculture, as far as the eye could see, for dozens of miles. Where to the birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and insects live? The land is not only covered with chemicals to kill or repel any now-unwelcome residents, but there is simply no usable habitat (and a thin row of trees every mile or so doesn't count).
It was a truly dystopian experience, and more so by knowing that this goes on for thousands of square miles. This is not our grandparent's farmland anymore. This is not nature. This is one species becoming a literal plague on the planet. It is not sustainable.
[+] [-] donkeyd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dutchbrit|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lettergram|3 years ago|reply
I also think it’s important to put it into context.
1. These insects weren’t really robust to begin with. Take the monarch butterfly in the North America. They actually needed primarily milkweed to survive. A single point of failure (milkweed) can cause the population to collapse. When we put up houses and converted land to farms, you’re correct we killed many of the native species, but those species were HIGHLY tuned to a particular niche. In 100-200 years it’s likely the insects that survived will re-occupy new niches.
2. Insects typically need a much smaller range to survive, so hikes in the same woods as when you were a kid doesn’t add up. Unless there was another massive environmental issue - such as pesticides or chemicals like DDT which have a secondary impact. Personally, that bird egg analogy sounds exactly like what the US saw with DDT and the collapse of the eagle population.
3. In the 1950s in the Midwest there had already been farmland all over for 50+ years. Same with Ireland (for hundreds). The insect populations have only noticeably declined in the last few decades. Unfortunately, we don’t have enough historical data to confirm what it is exactly. Even in the 1970s you’d have solid layers of bugs on windshields driving between cornfields. Now, nothing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_population...
To me, this indicates a chemical or set there of, as the most likely culprits.
EDIT: DET -> DDT
[+] [-] alexitosrv|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geysersam|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moffkalast|3 years ago|reply
Speaking of those that remain, I can say beyond reasonable doubt that there is an insane percentage increase in stinkbug populations in recent years. Fuckers get absolutely everywhere.
[+] [-] newsclues|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wazoox|3 years ago|reply
I've watched recently a conference[1] by several renowned scientists. They affirm that neonicotinoids / neonics are responsible of at least 80% of the decline.
They also affirm that the "merchants of doubt" are working their best to muddle the evidence with things like "there are multiple factors", "it's complicated", "we need more research" etc.
But just like the overwhelming majority of lung cancer comes from smoking, the overwhelming factor in insects decline (and its consequences like birds decline) is PESTICIDES and neonicotinoids in particular.
[1]: sorry, in French : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FQT7b2ExP4 Another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLQKs1KBw9Y
Other articles:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/neonicoti...
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
[+] [-] vlovich123|3 years ago|reply
Same goes for the argument that bugs have evolved to migrate away from the roads - the 5 has been a busy thruway for a long time with lots of cars and trucks.
The article is short but says scientists have clear data that populations have plummeted and the larger vehicle consumer trend + more people on the road means that there’s fewer bugs to encounter per windshield on top of that.
[+] [-] another_story|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lm28469|3 years ago|reply
There are many studies in all kind of environments, even in the middle of the woods, in natural reserves; insects are going down both in term of diversity and numbers everywhere
They're being evolved away by pollution
[+] [-] oxfordmale|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xattt|3 years ago|reply
Hasn’t California had extremely climate events over the last decade (wildfires, ongoing drought)? Given that bugs tend to be sensitive to air quality, this would likely local population decline which would then lead to the effect you’ve observed.
I welcome anyone to come to Prince Edward Island and enjoy the many, many mosquitos and midges our Island has to offer. They can be heard as small “pops” while driving.
[+] [-] actionfromafar|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] deafpolygon|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fullstop|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tejohnso|3 years ago|reply
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1704949114
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
"The contemporary rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than the background extinction rate"
"the current rate of extinction is 10 to 100 times higher than in any of the previous mass extinctions in the history of Earth."
"There is widespread consensus among scientists that human activity is accelerating the extinction of many animal species through the destruction of habitats, the consumption of animals as resources, and the elimination of species that humans view as threats or competitors."
[+] [-] alangibson|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] INTPenis|3 years ago|reply
Sometime around 2018 I started noticing a lot of fireflies, in a park in the middle of a major city. Which was not normal to me. Since then I've noticed them almost every summer.
And on vacation in Denmark it's the same thing, the air is alive with life. It has its downsides too because there are more ticks than ever too.
A lot of cities here have started leaving grassy areas uncut, they just cut a path through it for people to walk on. Also Copenhagen has started building "walls" of twigs, encased in a wire mesh. These walls act as safe havens for all sorts of insects and small creatures.
[+] [-] nemo44x|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nasrudith|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devmor|3 years ago|reply
I saw very few last year. I saw zero this year. I'm glad I got to experience them before they were all gone, I guess.
[+] [-] dunefox|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] luxuryballs|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] np-|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snwt|3 years ago|reply
AFAIK, the effect of these pesticides on humans is limited, but it's been absolutely devastating for insects.
There is not much profit to be made on insects (aside from bees), so research and bills are getting lobbied into limbo by the big four neonicotinoid companies and agriculture organizations.
[+] [-] lynguist|3 years ago|reply
Today I find 1 or 2 snails after rainfall, if at all.
[+] [-] marcyb5st|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psychphysic|3 years ago|reply
I collect snails from my garden to eat and numbers are fairly similar despite my occasionally trying to control them with pellets some years.
Similarly with the original article I only got half way down but clearly it's more to do with cars than insect numbers.
[+] [-] Gordonjcp|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scld|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unglaublich|3 years ago|reply
When 0.1% of humans dies of a virus, we call it a disaster. When 50% of insects dies, we don't give a damn.
[+] [-] bookofjoe|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jiggawatts|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nobodyandproud|3 years ago|reply
I have mixed feelings about this: Night lights do add a bit of security, but insects such as moths rely on natural darkness and moonlight to navigate.
[+] [-] gs17|3 years ago|reply
We can have a bit of compromise, at least if we had dark sky compliant lights there would be a lot less of an issue. Where I live the streetlights seem to intentionally point upward and it's frustrating that this isn't a priority even when refiting them with LEDs (at least here they put in warm lights instead of cool ones like where I used to live).
[+] [-] axiolite|3 years ago|reply
Very much unlike their incandescent and florescent predecessors, LED lights emit practically no ultraviolet wavelengths, and therefore have a drastically reduced attractive effect on insects. Whatever effect outdoor lighting may have on insects, should be showing precipitous declines over the past several years, as LEDs have become the dominant artificial light source.
[+] [-] nspattak|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrd79|3 years ago|reply
Second point: the windshield splats proxy is too confounded to be useful. Use actual measurements or reasonable people will discount the claims (as I have done).
[+] [-] pfdietz|3 years ago|reply
Possibly some strain of Wolbachia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolbachia
[+] [-] theandrewbailey|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zoklet-enjoyer|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] globalise83|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkl95|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 01100011|3 years ago|reply