4 ms·

My question is this. Why would pesticides on the farms that wipe out a lot of these moths be causing a problem? The bears were there before the farms. If the f

My question is this. Why would pesticides on the farms that wipe out a lot of these moths be causing a problem? The bears were there before the farms. If the farms are creating a lot of new moths that weren't otherwise there, wouldn't the pesticides be bringing things back into equilibrium? I am really against using pesticides and I try to eat only organic products, but I am just wondering why no one else seems to be talking about this. Those mass quantities of moths being there isn't natural in the first place.

boomlinde 9y ago
Bears' other food sources have been in decline due to climate change, and they have adapted to the new conditions. There is no natural equilibrium to somehow return to when the moths are gone, just the continuation of what is actually a pretty chaotic process that doesn't naturally tend to a particular state.
stinos 9y ago
The bears were there before the farms. If the farms are creating a lot of new moths that weren't otherwise there, Another possibility is the moths were there before the farms as well, and the land they lived on now happens to have been turned into farmland. If that is the case than it's not as likely anymore that pesticides would bring an equilibrium. Maybe there were even more moths before it the land was one huge monoculture. (just spraying ideas here, I don't know what kind of land moths prefer nor if it really is a monoculture there)
boomlinde 9y ago
I'd rather know why people disagree than see my post silently downvoted, so I'll elaborate. The idea of a "natural equilibrium" or some such is mostly a misconception. It's a misleading way of thinking especially in the long term. Conditions change, organisms adapt to the changes, but changing one condition of many back to a previous state (e.g. by getting rid of moths) doesn't mean that organisms that have adapted to that condition will somehow "roll back" their adaptation. Instead, the new change will necessitate a new adaptation. In this case, whitebark pines have been a major source of food for yellowstone bears, but have been in decline due to mountain pine beetles. Their season begins earlier and earlier as the air temperature rises, and their generations grow larger and larger, their life spans longer and longer. This means that if you wipe out the moths, bears won't realistically go back to eating what has historically been their diet. Instead, they will have to adapt in some other way, for example by migrating up the mountains where it is colder (less beetles), start harassing humans, eat some other abundant bug etc. Bears are good at foraging, though, and will seemingly eat whatever they find, so they may just find another source of food near their habitats when the moths are gone. On how bears adapt to the lack of pine seeds (mostly by eating other stuff rather than migrating): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4063492/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4063492/ On how there are more mountain pine beetles (because of temperature increases): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22504550 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22504550

boomlinde 9y ago

Bears' other food sources have been in decline due to climate change, and they have adapted to the new conditions. There is no natural equilibrium to somehow return to when the moths are gone, just the continuation of what is actually a pretty chaotic process that doesn't naturally tend to a particular state.

stinos 9y ago

The bears were there before the farms. If the farms are creating a lot of new moths that weren't otherwise there, Another possibility is the moths were there before the farms as well, and the land they lived on now happens to have been turned into farmland. If that is the case than it's not as likely anymore that pesticides would bring an equilibrium. Maybe there were even more moths before it the land was one huge monoculture. (just spraying ideas here, I don't know what kind of land moths prefer nor if it really is a monoculture there)

boomlinde 9y ago

I'd rather know why people disagree than see my post silently downvoted, so I'll elaborate. The idea of a "natural equilibrium" or some such is mostly a misconception. It's a misleading way of thinking especially in the long term. Conditions change, organisms adapt to the changes, but changing one condition of many back to a previous state (e.g. by getting rid of moths) doesn't mean that organisms that have adapted to that condition will somehow "roll back" their adaptation. Instead, the new change will necessitate a new adaptation. In this case, whitebark pines have been a major source of food for yellowstone bears, but have been in decline due to mountain pine beetles. Their season begins earlier and earlier as the air temperature rises, and their generations grow larger and larger, their life spans longer and longer. This means that if you wipe out the moths, bears won't realistically go back to eating what has historically been their diet. Instead, they will have to adapt in some other way, for example by migrating up the mountains where it is colder (less beetles), start harassing humans, eat some other abundant bug etc. Bears are good at foraging, though, and will seemingly eat whatever they find, so they may just find another source of food near their habitats when the moths are gone. On how bears adapt to the lack of pine seeds (mostly by eating other stuff rather than migrating): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4063492/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4063492/ On how there are more mountain pine beetles (because of temperature increases): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22504550 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22504550