4 ms·

This links to Janet Fang's article in Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html

This links to Janet Fang's article in Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html The thesis of that article is that nothing of ecological significance would happen without mosquitos, but the examples given don't seem even close to conclusive. We know many species of fish and birds that eat mosquitos and mosquito larvae. From a few minutes of internet surfing, it doesn't seem like anyone knows whether other insects would take their place or and how quickly that would happen. IANA biologist, but maybe fish and birds can survive a couple months while something takes the place of the comparatively short-lived mosquito? In any case this whole idea seems totally under-researched.

esturk 12y ago
From the first article, it mentioned that we have eradicated similar disease vectors like screwworm and melon fly before, so what have been the environmental impact of that so far?
- jacquesm 12y ago
  What percentage of the next level up on the food chain lives off mosquitoes? What percentage lives of screwworms and Melon flies? I have no idea about the answers, but if there is a significant difference there then that might be where trouble could come from. The problems really start at the reservoir hosts, the mosquitoes are just the transmitters. Controlling the reservoir hosts might be more feasible than eradicating 40 species of mosquito, it sounds like a very ambitious plan to me. Panama had only 2 problematic species around the (prospective) canal zone. Eradicating those mosquitoes to allow construction of the canal to proceed without the crews succumbing to Malaria or Yellow Fever was a huge success: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_measures_during_the_construction_of_the_Panama_Canal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_measures_during_the_cons...
  - mapt 12y ago
    Does the fact that we have done this thousands of times now, accidentally, without any knowledge of the species being affected, make it any better? Does the fact that essentially all of the interspecific dependencies in the temperate and Arctic zones have shifted completely in response to simple climate change since the last glaciation, make it any better?
    - coldtea 12y ago
      >Does the fact that we have done this thousands of times now, accidentally, without any knowledge of the species being affected, make it any better? It sure does not. After all, tens of thousands of species have gone extinct in our watch. Who knows how many of those were due to having done "this". >Does the fact that essentially all of the interspecific dependencies in the temperate and Arctic zones have shifted completely in response to simple climate change since the last glaciation, make it any better? Nope. And I seriously doubt they have shifted "completely".
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    The malarias that infect humans pretty much only infect humans. I guess it isn't strictly true, but infected humans are certainly the primary reservoir for most of them (maybe you meant humans when you said reservoir hosts, I'm not sure). The last time I saw something about sterile male mosquitoes it was in the context of releasing them in regions with high rates of malaria, to cut down on the spread, not in the context of eradication.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
tritium 12y ago
maybe couple months something Good luck with that. Hope you didn't need those "bird" and "fish" things.
sliverstorm 12y ago
I hate that article. I swear it spends its entire length illustrating one thing, and then draws as the conclusion the exact opposite. Taken all together, then, mosquitoes would be missed in the Arctic — but is the same true elsewhere? Many species of insect, spider, salamander, lizard and frog would also lose a primary food source. Without mosquitoes, thousands of plant species would lose a group of pollinators. Yet the summary: Eradicating any organism would have serious consequences for ecosystems — wouldn't it? Not when it comes to mosquitoes, finds Janet Fang
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

esturk 12y ago

From the first article, it mentioned that we have eradicated similar disease vectors like screwworm and melon fly before, so what have been the environmental impact of that so far?

jacquesm 12y ago
What percentage of the next level up on the food chain lives off mosquitoes? What percentage lives of screwworms and Melon flies? I have no idea about the answers, but if there is a significant difference there then that might be where trouble could come from. The problems really start at the reservoir hosts, the mosquitoes are just the transmitters. Controlling the reservoir hosts might be more feasible than eradicating 40 species of mosquito, it sounds like a very ambitious plan to me. Panama had only 2 problematic species around the (prospective) canal zone. Eradicating those mosquitoes to allow construction of the canal to proceed without the crews succumbing to Malaria or Yellow Fever was a huge success: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_measures_during_the_construction_of_the_Panama_Canal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_measures_during_the_cons...
- mapt 12y ago
  Does the fact that we have done this thousands of times now, accidentally, without any knowledge of the species being affected, make it any better? Does the fact that essentially all of the interspecific dependencies in the temperate and Arctic zones have shifted completely in response to simple climate change since the last glaciation, make it any better?
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >Does the fact that we have done this thousands of times now, accidentally, without any knowledge of the species being affected, make it any better? It sure does not. After all, tens of thousands of species have gone extinct in our watch. Who knows how many of those were due to having done "this". >Does the fact that essentially all of the interspecific dependencies in the temperate and Arctic zones have shifted completely in response to simple climate change since the last glaciation, make it any better? Nope. And I seriously doubt they have shifted "completely".
- maxerickson 12y ago
  The malarias that infect humans pretty much only infect humans. I guess it isn't strictly true, but infected humans are certainly the primary reservoir for most of them (maybe you meant humans when you said reservoir hosts, I'm not sure). The last time I saw something about sterile male mosquitoes it was in the context of releasing them in regions with high rates of malaria, to cut down on the spread, not in the context of eradication.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

tritium 12y ago

maybe couple months something Good luck with that. Hope you didn't need those "bird" and "fish" things.

sliverstorm 12y ago

I hate that article. I swear it spends its entire length illustrating one thing, and then draws as the conclusion the exact opposite. Taken all together, then, mosquitoes would be missed in the Arctic — but is the same true elsewhere? Many species of insect, spider, salamander, lizard and frog would also lose a primary food source. Without mosquitoes, thousands of plant species would lose a group of pollinators. Yet the summary: Eradicating any organism would have serious consequences for ecosystems — wouldn't it? Not when it comes to mosquitoes, finds Janet Fang

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]