Butterflies

Butterfly experts are calling on Britain’s gardeners to help slow the decline in numbers of the country’s most common butterflies. According to wildlife charity Butterfly Conservation, 44 out of the country’s 58 butterfly species have seen a drop in their populations, leaving some species at risk of extinction in the U.K. Common butterflies of the general countryside as well as specialist butterflies that require particular habitats have declined. The charity launched a Garden Butterfly Survey at the beginning of March, asking participants to count the number of butterflies they observe each month, in a bid to raise awareness and monitor butterfly populations. Richard Fox, head of recording at Butterfly Conservation, tells Newsweek that the dramatic decrease in the number of garden butterflies is “severe and statistically significant.”

Immer weniger Schmetterlingsarten sind in Bayern heimisch. Das geht aus einer Arbeit bayerischer Forscher hervor, die für die Zoologische Sammlung München alle Schmetterlingsarten, die in Bayern verbreitet sind oder einmal verbreitet waren, in einer Liste zusammengetragen haben. Danach sind heutzutage in Bayern nur noch 2781 von einstmals 3243 Schmetterlingsarten übrig, die in den vergangenen 250 Jahren in Bayern registriert wurden. „Wir haben einen signifikanten Artenschwund“, sagt Andreas Segerer, Schmetterlingsforscher der Zoologischen Sammlung, der gemeinsam mit dem Fachamateur Alfred Haslberger die Liste zusammengestellt hat. Seit 1971 sei der Rückgang besonders stark. Die Bestände werden immer kleiner, auch die der eigentlich häufigen „Allerweltsschmetterlinge“ wie dem Kohlweißling oder dem Tagpfauenauge. „Wo früher zehn Tagpfauenaugen herumgeschwirrt sind, ist heute noch eines übrig“, sagt Segerer. Die Population sei seit Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts um 90 Prozent zurückgegangen. allem die intensive Landwirtschaft bedroht nach Ansicht der Forscher die Schmetterlinge. „Solange sich daran nichts ändert, wird der Verlust an der Biodiversität der Schmetterlinge zwangsläufig weitergehen“, sagt Segerer.

An international science body tasked with tracking the ecological health of the planet has announced the findings of its first report. The review warns that the ongoing decline in the number of pollinating insects and animals threatens global crop production. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was established in 2012, and is roughly modelled on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The reponse to the pollinator report, announced on 26 February at a meeting in Kuala Lumpur, may be an early sign of whether the body's influence will one day match the IPCC's political and scientific clout. Robert Watson, an environmental scientist at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, who is vice-chairman of the IPBES, says that he is confident that the assessment will have an impact. The IPBES has 124 member governments, and its pollinator assessment went through two rounds of external peer review. And just as with the IPCC’s climate reports, the assessment was debated word for word, Watson says. “The fact that all governments requested this document really bodes well that they will use the results,” he says. But Dave Goulson, a bee researcher at the University of Sussex in Brighton, UK, says: “I would question whether any practical on-the-ground action to help pollinators will happen as a result of this document. We are in the midst of the sixth global mass-extinction event, and we sit around spending thousands of hours writing documents about biodiversity, but we do not take action to address the fundamental issues that are causing this ecological catastrophe.”

The results show that, in the same two areas, sampled in the years 1989 and 2013, there was a dramatic fall in the number of flying insects. Using the same traps, in the same areas, significant reductions of insect populations, of more than 75%, were found. Our data confirms, that in the areas studied, less than 25% of the original number of flying insects collected in 1989, were still present in 2013.

Tagfalter gehören zu den Sorgenkindern der Hamburger Artenschützer. Von den 77 Tagfaltern, Dickkopffaltern und Widderchen, die vor 100 Jahren noch in Hamburg lebten, sind 25 Arten ausgestorben und weitere 20 vom Aussterben bedroht. Nur 15 Arten stehen nicht auf der Roten Liste. "Doch selbst Allerweltsarten wie Kleiner Fuchs und Tagpfauenauge sind immer seltener zu sehen", sagt Günter Schäfers, Artenschutzreferent bei der Umweltbehörde. Nicht immer gehe die Stadt pfleglich mit ihren wilden Bewohnern um, kritisiert Alexander Porschke, Vorsitzender des Hamburger Naturschutzbundes (Nabu). Er nennt als Beispiel die Wiesenvögel, die in Hamburg – wie in ganz Deutschland und in Europa – stark bedroht seien. "Wiesenvögel wie Kiebitz, Uferschnepfe und Braunkehlchen sind vom Hamburger Stadtgebiet fast verschwunden", sagt auch der Ornithologie Alexander Mitschke vom Arbeitskreis Staatliche Vogelschutzwarte Hamburg. Auch bei der Feldlerche gebe es "deutlich spürbare, lang anhaltende Rückgänge", sagt Mitschke. Bei den gefiederten Städtern sorgt sich der Ornithologe vor allem um den Spatzen: "Die Zahl der Haussperlinge halbierte sich seit den späten 1990er Jahren, und auch andere Arten wie der Turmfalke oder der Mauer­segler leiden unter deutlichen Rückgängen." Unter dem Strich sind rund ein Drittel der 185 in Hamburg brütenden Vogelarten gefährdet oder verschwunden (18 Arten).

Like many other area farmers, the Bredeson family in Harvey Township, between Grove City and Litchfield, buys corn and soybeans seeds treated with pesticides. Pesticides are designed to improve crop yields, but they have side effects, and the family has been learning more about these effects from an expert — Mark and Julie Bredeson’s own son, Michael. “He’s kind of on the cutting edge of finding that these pesticides that farmers have been using for many years have become a detrimental thing to not only agriculture but mother nature,” Julie said about Michael’s work. Michael, a 2008 Litchfield High School graduate, is pursuing his Ph.D. at South Dakota State University, where he studies the effects of pesticides on organisms, particularly linked to sunflowers, a common cash crop in South Dakota. In commentary in the Independent Review (see below), Michael writes about pesticides’ effects and the long-term implications for birds, reptiles, mammals, fish and plants. Julie and Michael said they’ve both noticed a reduction in wildlife at and near the family’s Meeker County farm over the years. As he grew older, Michael noticed a decline in good fishing holes, which he attributes to runoff from crop fields. “My life revolved around fishing on all the little lakes. A few of my great fishing spots died off, and that kind of irritated me, of course,” he said. Julie said she’s also witnessed a decline in wildlife since she was a child. “The landscape as far as our wildlife, butterflies and bees, has dramatically changed,” she said. “It’s something we need to think about.”

The first ever Britain-wide assessment of the value of wild flowers as food for pollinators, led by the University of Bristol, shows that decreasing resources mirror the decline of pollinating insects, providing new evidence to support the link between plant and pollinator decline. In recent years, there have been considerable concerns over threats to wild bees and other insect pollinators which are vital to the success of important food crops and wild flowers. Amongst the many pressures facing pollinators, a key factor is likely to be decreasing floral resources in Britain. The study, published today in Nature combines vegetation survey data recorded over the last 80 years with modern day measurements of nectar to provide the most comprehensive assessment ever published. In the study, researchers from the University of Bristol and University of Leeds worked with scientists from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and Fera Science Ltd, to find substantial losses to nectar resources in England and Wales between the 1930s and 1970s – a period closely linked with agricultural intensification.