3 ms·
As I understand the situation with mosquito eradication, there are highly specific places where mosquitos are a critical source of biomass (I think the Arctic t
by zamalek 2y ago
As I understand the situation with mosquito eradication, there are highly specific places where mosquitos are a critical source of biomass (I think the Arctic tundra was one example). In all other places they are completely and utterly worthless. Blood-eating (never mind species that are parasite vectors) are also a tiny percentage of the overall biodiversity, the nectar species could easily fill the gap.
- soperj 2y agoFemale mosquitoes bite to produce eggs, male mosquitoes feed on nectar and pollinate plants. Some orchids can only be pollinated by mosquitoes.
- jvanderbot 2y agoFair trade.
- Modified3019 2y agoSo no one misunderstands, there are over 3000 species of mosquitos, but most biting species of mosquitos only go after birds/amphibians. Only a small number of species (single digit percentage) go after mammals. And even less than have been found to be vectors for disease. The basic point is that yes, we can wipe out selected mosquito species via eradication programs (like sterile mate release) with zero consequence outside of healthier people, because human hazardous mosquitos aren’t unique to the ecological niche they fill.
- smegger001 2y agobetter than sterile male we could release fertile ones genetically modified to only have male offspring that in turn only have male offspring inside handful of generations there are no female mosquitos left. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10795774/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10795774/
- Modified3019 2y agoOh that’s interesting, thanks.
- chpatrick 2y agoThe problem is that you might only find out they're important after you wipe them out, at which point it will be too late.
- jvanderbot 2y agoWill it be too late? We could move region by region and give a few years to see any changes. It's a two-way door that way.
- chpatrick 2y agoI think collapsing the ecosystem of one region is already bad enough.
- satvikpendem 2y agoThe point is that if an ecosystem needs to be "collapsed" to effect beneficial change for the humans living there in order to not die of illnesses, then so be it. Even referring to removing mosquitoes as "collapse" is not understanding the core argument, because not all collapse is bad and not all preservation is good; there is no value judgment in saying collapse but you are adding one there inherently.
- chpatrick 2y agoIf the foodchain collapses it's much worse for humans living there than malaria.
- satvikpendem 2y agoSure, but it's unknown whether it will or not, that is what is being discussed.
- jvanderbot 2y agoWhat part of the food chain is foundational on mosquitos? These are hypotheticals not rooted in any concrete argument. I realize this is a dumb starting point, but ... Cows don't eat mosquitos, Feed corn is not pollinated by mosquitos, Orange groves do not require mosquitos. What, specifically, are we afraid of?
- Steven420 2y agoMosquitos are an extremely important food source for countless animals especially aquatic species. The gap won't be filled. The animals that rely on them for food will just die off