UK butterfly article

[James Kruse]

on 11/1/01 8:43 PM, Danfosha at aol.com at Danfosha at aol.com wrote:

> Some experts had expected butterflies to be doing well as a
> result of global warming, because milder weather was expected to
> increase the ranges of many species.  But temperature increases in
> the U.K. haven't been enough to compensate for habitat loss.

I will have to look up the article in Nature to find out what it really says
because as written by these popular outlets (and I say this at the risk of
earning wrathful flames for sounding "anti-conservationist" or "Paulesque"
or whatever) the logic seems flawed to me.

Since when is temperature increase supposed to compensate for habitat loss?
(if that were true there wouldn't be much of a problem with deforestation in
the tropics I suppose).

Migrants or range extensions make up for species lost by habitat
destruction?? Maybe in simple numbers of species present - generalists that
thrive in disturbed habitat...

The popular article reports that "Loss of habitat and climate change are
having a devastating effect on British butterflies" but stands up a "straw
man"; in that global warming was supposed to cause butterflies to do well
and increase ranges of butterflies and make up for habitat destruction (!).
Oh, but we found that it is not working the way of the straw man (bad global
warming), because there is no habitat... (duh).

> (snip) ...attributed the diminishing number of
> butterflies to the destruction of meadows, woodlands, and moors, and
> warned that without significant intervention many species would
> become rare or extinct.

It sounds like a typical confirming result and an accurate assessment, that
habitat destruction is the main problem, but with the buzz words "global
warming" worked into the study any way they can to [insert agenda item
here]. Hey, lets face it, current buzzwords help with public awareness and
thus funding (until they are over used and abused to the point of being
ignored). Please just try harder to make it part of meaningful scientific
studies and not so self-confirming.

Again, I will have to read the article, but I am wondering how this got into
a journal that has a reputation like Nature, if this is what the article
_really_ says. I guess what I have written here is akin to attacking a
pre-publication announcement of a book.

James J. Kruse, Ph.D.
Curator of Entomology
University of Alaska Museum
907 Yukon Drive
Fairbanks, AK, USA 99775-6960
tel 907.474.5579
fax 907.474.1987
http://www.uaf.edu/museum/ento



 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl