I don’t think one can make a reasonable argument against killing spotted lanternflies in North America. They’re doing fine in their native lands and they’re not needed here. (So some birds eat them – those same birds would be happy with other bugs, too.)
However, one must always weight ecological costs and benefits, and usually monetary costs, too. Going all out to destroy a new invader is worthwhile, in my opinion, and it’s been done effectively here in Oregon with some plants, e.g. Kudzu. Controlling a well established invader is often not worthwhile, though that depends.
When I read that, I conclude that overdevelopment and sea level rise are more important than phrag.
I don’t think species diversity is important in the long term. Unless they’re reservoirs in a specific environment like thermophiles or succulents, specialists are the end products, not the source material.
In the case of the chestnut, other members of the hard mast guild weren’t wiped out.
How is a subspecies of black rail more important or functional than any other shorebird, and why isn’t it at least as replaceable or inconsequential as the American chestnut?
Niches don’t exist in a vacuum, either. I think invasional meltdown is a good or at least neutral process with a bad name.
Invasives rely on humans and our disturbance for establishment. As long as humans exist, in our society that’s only becoming more globalized, human-associated invasions will continue, presumably until some level of homogenous distribution is reached. We’re dealing with the consequences of our own actions reactively instead of at the source.
It’s like playing tetris. With intense focus, you can control what goes where and keep it organized for a long time, but you eventually get steamrolled. Ultimately, there are better things to do than play tetris.
A true doomer would advocate complete inaction. If we don’t address the house fire/climate change, it doesn’t do any good to clean and organize the living room.
I’d nix ESA entirely if the resources were redirected to meaningful climate action.
I don’t think species diversity is important in the long term. Unless they’re reservoirs in a specific environment like thermophiles or succulents, specialists are the end products, not the source material.
So do you just not value biodiversity then? You scoff at the idea of trying to preserve the species we have because you’re patient enough to wait a few million years for new ones to evolve?
I think the fact that rather than going to fund something that benefits the public, the amount of taxpayer resources (hundreds of millions of dollars, proposed) that are being allocated to controlling something that is effectively a nuisance to private industrial agricultural producers is absolutely absurd.
I’m not going to shed a tear because commercial landowners are losing production producing resource intensive crops such as grapes.
Also, in my opinion, running around catching and killing random insects is a little barbaric.
Well, for one, I actually don’t think it would take that long, especially given advances in technology. It won’t save us, but it can speed up recovery after we save us.
But yeah, I value macro diversity, and I value humanity more. Mine isn’t the traditional exploitative perspective where humanity is somehow separate from the environment and consequences don’t exist, but more like, “Hey, we sit atop the sentience gradient and have unprecedented influence over the entire planet. We’re the ultimate keystone species if ever there was one. If anything has the ability to fix this, outside of nature itself, it’s us.”
When you’re dealing with a long term problem that’s not going anywhere any time soon, like say, climate change, the timeline of the solutions has to encompass the problem. We’re very likely past the point of preventing a mass extinction, so that’s the timeline I operate on.
Even beyond my personal bias (I am a naturalist, as most of us are, and therefore I like when there are more species to observe and learn about) I think this perspective is short-sighted. Yes, generalists are important to preserve, but biodiversity creates more stable environments. If, for example, a food source is removed, populations that rely on it are at risk of extinction. Of course, this applies less to the generalists you’re focused on, but issues like illnesses are still a concern. If we let species die out until only a single species fills a niche, what happens if that species, too, is threatened? It seems short-sighted to advocate against one of our best ecological “back-up plans.”
Honeydew can be used by bees but it isn’t good food for the bees for overwintering – a researcher in the Yukon found that honeydew honey contains more indigestible matter which causes dysentery during the winter and can lead to colony death for high-latitude beekeepers where winters are long. https://www.northof60beekeeping.com/north-of-60-research-projects/honeydew-honey
European Grapevine Moth in California. Similar to SLF, this species is an agricultural pest of grapes. Disclaimer: I’m not really knowledgeable about the specifics outside of what I have read in this article. Early detection and early action were likely the key elements that made eradication possible.
If I may, I’d like to just point out that there is an ocean of difference between a handful of observations of 1 species interacting with another, and said interaction being the norm in the unobserved wilderness
For example, in my city I recently had a stunning observation of a native Sunbird drinking nectar from flowers of a plant that, on closer inspection, caters specifically for endemic bee’s as a foodsource and pollination partner. When scrutinizing the observation a bit further, it can be reasonably concluded that that plant is not one of the focal species that Sunbirds choose to drink nectar from, but rather that this specific specimen bore such an abundance of flowers that the calorific value of tending them outweighed the energy cost of flying between each one. It happened while I was there to observe, and it may well happen again on more than one occassion, but it likely only occurs under a set of aligning circumstances such as how far out of its normal habitat the bird finds itself, and certainly cannot be claimed to be the norm
I’m not basing my story on responses in this forum, though they are helpful. I’ve spoken with researchers and read a lot on the topic and heard rumblings of this other point of view, and I was curious about how pervasive it is.
Agreed! It was not my intention to draw any conclusions beyond the fact that some native birds have been observed eating SLF. I am in no way promoting SLF as a boon to native avifauna.
One potential silver lining of spotted lanternflies is that they’re very different from any native insect, so the chances that some parasitoid from their native range will be host-specific if introduced as biocontrol agents are pretty good (and this is something that’s currently being investigated).
Hello! Thanks for your note. I’m not basing my story on responses in this thread from amateurs like yourself. I just heard of this other perspective and wanted to get a sense of how widely held it is. Obviously, I talked to lanternfly experts. Best, Benji
