[Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch Armageddon
MexicoDoug
mexicodoug at aol.com
Sun Feb 17 22:50:32 EST 2013
In response to my:
"Since this thread began a week ago, US population has increased by
60,000. That is 1.2 million more acres (1,800 square miles) of habitat
disruption: 500,000 acres in the US and 700,000 acres outsourced. The
total area mentioned is double the area of Champaign County, Illinois."
Bob commented:
"It seems to me that this sort of extrapolation is unreasonable."
[given the surprisingly (relatively) small size of our World Bob
Googled up]
Hi Bob
I don't claim to have sharpened my pencil on the figures of the habitat
footprint a.k.a., ecological footprint. That is the work of the
"Global Footprint Network". While none of these things seems free from
clashing views, this particular measure seems to me the best there is
at the moment and seems to be used by quantitative ecologists.
I'm sure you agree that having a measure is very useful, if we are to
make a Pareto diagram of the drains upon our shared natural ecosystem,
both urban and rural, since without such a measure, it is difficult to
monitor any sort of improvement or decline in quality (whether you are
in a business production process or evaluating development pressures on
different habitats) and we get stuck with arm-waving arguments that
remain unresolved).
OK. I understand both your reaction (IMO that the USA inhabitant, per
capita uses 20 acres is shocking to me at least) and your skepticism
which if I understand it, agrees with the general strategy as
monitoring, but questions whether I should have better divided the 20
acres per person into fixed and variable portions, and therefore only
have selected the incremental (i.e., variable) portion rather than the
full 20 acres.
Can you help me, then? I'd love to have a more correct number and if
you could give me any input that could pin it down better I certainly
will use your number. In a prior post I sort of considered this by
arbitrarily saying "even if it is half, in other words, 10 acres" I'm
ok with it.
Let's look at how the number of 19.8 acres per person in the USA was
derived:
Total Ecological Footprint: 19.8 acres
broken down into sub-footprints:
Cropland 2.7 acres
Grazing 0.3 acres
Forest 2.6 acres
Fishing 0.3 acres
Carbon 13.8 acres
Built-up land 0.2 acres
Here's the reference site which has much more detailed information
available:
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/methodology/
And here is the source of the information I referenced:
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/NFA_2010_Results.xls
To directly address your concern about how much of the USA's 20 acres
per person is variable and how much is fixed, I have two observations.
1. In the short term, one net baby or immigrant may not seem to provide
as much drain as the 'average' person. But this seems to me an
incorrect way to view population dynamics. For every baby today, there
is a maturing adult tomorrow; for every poor immigrant there is a
lifetime of hard work to obtain middle class status. It is not the
same as adding another mouth to the dinner table in the long run. Take
highway construction. A new road is not built for each addition.
However, over a sufficiently large population such as the United States
definitely is, it averages out in that for all the places that
congestion increases, one place will actually decide it is time to
build a new road. That is, that over very large populations, many
things we traditionally view as fixed 'costs' may be correctly treated
as purely variable.
2. Cold US Census sourced data available in their website.
a) The average number of inhabitants per house in the USA, decade after
decade, during the same period our population doubled has declined
right to the present day.
b) The average house size steadily increased and has doubled in the
last 50 years and only in the last few has shown signs of a very minor
adjustment back, 10% at most.
c) The average number of vehicles per capita of the USA has steadily
increased and seems to be leveling off around 0.83 per person. (though
fuel efficiency has increased)
d) USDA ERS data suggest that average daily calorie [per capita] intake
increased by 24.5 percent, or about 530 calories, between 1970 and
2000. Of that 24.5-percent increase, grains (mainly refined grain
products) contributed 9.5 percentage points; added fats and oils 9.0%
...etc.
OK, I am not disagreeing with your comments, but rather adding some
additional considerations to the mix that must be reconciled when
negotiating a reasonable number for the habitat footprint per
additional mouth in the USA.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments and if you can help chose a better
number or want to pull some out since it is not applicable to habitat
conservation in your opinion .. please share your thoughts
Best
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: BPatter789 <BPatter789 at aol.com>
To: mexicodoug <mexicodoug at aol.com>; papaipema <papaipema at aol.com>;
dws1108 <dws1108 at msn.com>; leps-l <leps-l at mailman.yale.edu>
Sent: Sun, Feb 17, 2013 7:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch Armageddon
>>>Since this thread began a week ago, US population has
increased by 60,000. That is 1.2 million more acres (1,800 square
miles) of habitat disruption: 500,000 acres in the US and 700,000 acres
outsourced. The total area mentioned is double the area of Champaign
County, Illinois. <<<
It seems to me that this sort of extrapolation is unreasonable.
Some "facts" gleaned from Google searches:
How many acres of land are in the world
The land are of the earth is about 148,940,000 km² , or about
57,491,000 mi2 or about 36,794,240,000 acres.
Population and Arable Land
However, there are only 12 million square miles (7.68 billion acres) of
arable land.
Population and Arable Land
The U.S. has 3.794 million square miles, of which 3.54 million square
miles is land area (for a fast growing U.S. population of 300 million
people as of the end of year 2006).
That is only 8.09 acres per person in the U.S.
However, only about a quarter of that is arable land.
That means there are only about 2.02 acres per person of arable land in
the U.S.
public land acreage in the united states - Google Search
The federal government owns 655 million acres of land in the U.S., 29%
of the total 2.3 billion acres.
I am not sure whether Military lands or Indian lands are included in
the 655 million acres cited above.
It is not reasonable to assume that each new person born into or
arriving in the United States "requires" the average number of acres
attributed per capita at any given time. We will not be adding to the
inventory of government held lands, waste spaces, etc. Nor will we be
doing it anywhere else. The "footprint" of each new person on the
planet or in the United States eats into and decreases the averages.
Bob Patterson
12601 Buckingham Drive
Bowie, Maryland 20715
(301) - 262-2459 pm. hours
Moth Photographers Group Website
My Personal Moths Website
In a message dated 2/17/2013 4:52:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mexicodoug at aol.com writes:
Thanks Jim, Thanks Dennis,
I'm saddened to hear this. I also think a reasonable interpretation
could attribute this to the farming practices, and if everything is
sitting in the middle of the corn varieties bred to have herbicide
tolerance ... it doesn't take a genius to have at least a little
confidence as to the causal relationship with the change in farming
technique.
I don't have the same sensitivity to this issue as you. In my case
it
is simply an empty feeling that accompanies the continued loss of
biodiversity in some place far away while I have my own set of
ecological problems closer to the heart. So it is with the due
respect
of not living with it in my backyard that I ask your indulgence to
think about my comments.
First, the good; I want to congratulate you both on dedicating your
time to insects that in the public perception are probably
insignificant, drab little skippers which get about as much respect
as
moths in musty closet. I personally find miniature skippers
marvelously exquisite and certainly more intellectually challenging
than Monarchs sans the migration phenomenon. You are presenting
first
hand data which when combined with other species statistics gives us
a
more concrete measuring stick of ecological health by not picking
some
"pretty" generalized ecological indicator. Far more useful for
scientific analysis to describe the rate the ecosystem is declining.
Next, the bad: As scientific, the hypothesis that it is Bt corn (or
whatever the hypothesis) needs to be tested rather than conveniently
assumed as I did in my first paragraph, I want to be sure that I am
properly interpreting the loss in its context. Are these species at
the
fringe of their ranges and is there any other explanation we should
rule out? The edge of a USDA type zone which breathes cyclically?
And
was this land the robust natural habitat for these skippers before
the
farmers came on to the scene ... or was their appearance likely
prompted by prior farming techniques which altered the ecosystem and
gave them the cornfield-niche in the first place? There are more
considerations I'm sure you've both though about, and it is a very
healthy discussion to go through them as the due diligence of
presenting unbiased statements.
Finally, the ugly: I hope anyone reading this knows that my question
was not whether the test-tube bred corn was detrimental to habitat.
It
was whether the Bt-Corn pollen, is killing the larvae as the Cornell
study said it would and was used indiscriminately under what would be
pseudoscientific pretences to create anarchy in the agricultural
industry and all of its dependents 12-15 years ago, and was still
kicking and screaming 10 years ago. If it didn't, I'm relieved but
need to re-evaluate the reputation of those who jumped on this
bandwagon and see whether they fudged their research techniques for
the
purpose distorting truth and advancing an agenda. Please don't think
I'm supporting the use of these agricultural techniques. I need
Bt-corn in my zone as much as I want to live next to a garbage dump.
But a balanced approach is imperative where scientific credibility is
not abused by those who prey on the ignorance of the public
perception
because they feel they have a superior moral calling. There is no
room
in science for Popes. In Sagan's words - there are no "scientific
authorities", just a method and to that I would add a scholarly
conduct
which is as old as science itself, when it branched off from
philosophy
and religion.
Epilogue: In a country where less than 2% of the population is
interested in doing commercial farming and land is being gobbled up
at
IMO truly alarming rates due to unfettered population growth which is
transparently demonstrable (I'm an alarmist! ;-) , it is not
surprising
to me that ecological niches are decreasing. I fail to see how a
small
group of elite and affluent find terrorizing technology a moral
calling
rather than utilizing systematic approaches to optimizing what we
have...and going back to the basics of the 1960's ZPG population
growth
models. The current national model of the USA is growth, growth,
growth - for everything from collecting taxes, to growing business
and
government, increasing infrastructure, and just about everything
else.
I would expect to lose niches along the way since these political
pressures for growth require that agriculture becomes more efficient
as
the industry is asked to grow more food with less acreage and
manpower.
The fact that the corn-belt is looking more like a factory is one
visible manifestation of this. If the glass is half empty, I'd just
say, let’s all move to the Sierra foothills of California and Oregon,
and then north to Alaska. But if it is half full, just involve the
community and share the beauty of nature in a positive manner to
support a culture of appreciation instead of finger pointing which
will
only turn people off from scientists and the scientific method in
general. Provide unbiased statistics and have people miss nature
instead of run away from the scientific alarmists, infidels and
priests. Since this thread began a week ago, US population has
increased by 60,000. That is 1.2 million more acres (1,800 square
miles) of habitat disruption: 500,000 acres in the US and 700,000
acres
outsourced. The total area mentioned is double the area of Champaign
County, Illinois. Crap. Now, to till my first vegetable garden and
identify which politicians are ZPG friendly....
Best
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Wiker <papaipema at aol.com>
To: dws1108 <dws1108 at msn.com>; leps-l
<leps-l at mailman.yale.edu>
Sent: Sat, Feb 16, 2013 10:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch Armageddon
Doug,
Same thing A. arogos, H. ottoe, H. metea and H. leonardus here in
Illinois. Most where common to abundant (where they occurred) into
the
mid 1990's. At that point they began a rather rapid decline and now
haven't been seen for a number of years. Ottoe in particular, well
into
the 90's could be found by the hundreds in several sites, I saw the
last one in Illinois with Bob Pyle in 2008. It, nor the others have
been seen since.
Jim Wiker
Greenview, IL
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Schlicht <dws1108 at msn.com>
To: MexicoDoug <mexicodoug at aol.com>
Cc: leps-l <leps-l at mailman.yale.edu>
Sent: Sat, Feb 16, 2013 9:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch Armageddon
Doug,
They were doing Ok through the 80's and most of the 90's but then
were
wiped out by the late 2000's. Poweshiek numbers went from around 100
on
one site to none by 2010. These species were on preserves, not farm
land, but were surrounded by row crops. Gone or nearly so are O.
poweshiek, A. arogos, H. dacotae, H. ottoe and C. inornata. A few
others are not far behind.
Dennis Schlicht
Iowa Lepidoptera Project
----- Original Message -----
From: MexicoDoug
To: dws1108 at msn.com
Cc: leps-l at mailman.yale.edu
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch Armageddon
Dennis,
It would be helpful to know whether these species' disappearances in
your area were doing well before the Bt corn, or already on the
brink
of loss due to the farming practices. Also, whether this loss
you've
documented is due to the larva of the respective species ingesting
amounts toxic to them and dying due to it as was proposed by the
Cornell group. If it wasn't, I'd argue the unfortunate situation
was,
at best, not helped by a raging controversy which IMO served to
divert
and divide attention from these issues, and not present work in
alternate peer reviewed journals - which could be as simple as
computer
models to maintain a greater degree of biodiversity.
Could a more collaborative environment have come up with real
solutions
and perhaps a coordinated crop rotation scheme which maintained some
useful wild area interspersed intelligently (where students at
local
ag
colleges in a supportive roll could participate in the design as
part
of their curriculum)? Perhaps not. But it's not too late to find
out
- I hope.
I'm not trying to be a Monday morning quarterback; and my post was
not
in support of Bt-corn. I'm glad it's not in my backyard, and how
boring it must be to try to go Lepping in such an area. It's seeing
the tactics used by scientists we trust. My favorite butterfly
observing grounds was a unique mountain foothill habitat on
disturbed
ground which had become overgrown and basically wild and teaming
with
over 100 species of butterflies, and at any given time at least 1/3
that amount. Now, the many hectares, without exception, are parking
lots and malls and shopping areas in a series of new sprawled out
commercial centers - and at the boundaries are residential areas with
manicured lawns and the like. The development wiped out everything
except the cockroaches and people and occasional vagrant that ends up
plastered to a radiator grill.
I am sure we all are sensitive to the overpopulation problem. Every
year the US adds 3,000,000 people. In 1965 it was 194 million;
today,
over 315 million. It is difficult for me to fathom how much
equivalent
habit is destroyed for each person for their activities (imagine
3,000,000 dumped concentrated into your state - that is
approximately
the average amount by state since 1965, btw) , "infrastructure
development", and of course the food they require. For some reason
no
one is having any success in controlling this and we are stuck with
these consequences everywhere. We could outsource farming, by
importing more food from Canada, etc., but then we'd only be
exporting
the environmental drain with it to other places...
Very sorry to hear what you reported,
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Schlicht <dws1108 at msn.com>
To: leps-l <leps-l at mailman.yale.edu>; MexicoDoug
<mexicodoug at aol.com>
Sent: Sat, Feb 16, 2013 9:48 am
Subject: Re: [Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch Armageddon
Doug,
The article below says Bt corn was 19% of the crop then. It's 80-90%
now. While all of this Monarch concern has been going on, we have
lost
5 prairie obligate butterflies in the tall-grass prairie/ Bt corn
region (my data in Iowa). Our prairies are surrounded by corn.
Dennis Schlicht
----- Original Message -----
From: MexicoDoug
To: monarch at saber.net ; leps-l at mailman.yale.edu
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 2:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch Armageddon
"Doug, it was Lincoln Brower who first set the precedent
for using the word "Armageddon" in this article and others
like
it:"
Paul,
Huh ;-0 ??? I honestly didn't know and wouldn't expect he was
the
source.
I wonder what the majority of unbiased scientists think of
someone
of
Lincoln Brower's repute throwing out words such as
"Armageddon" to
describe the evolving sciences in agro-biotechnology. This is
really
an insult to science; 'Armageddon' has deeply religious
connotations
and is from the New Testament Bible the destruction of the Devil
an
epic battle when God comes down and unleashes his fury. What
place
do
such religious overtone-statements have in science other than to
polarize/bias, divert and offend researchers and constructive
discussion?
I just Googled, and sadly it seems you are right. I found this
article
in Mother Jones that Brower had written in 2001, which was a
result
of
the GMO scandal that developed at that time:
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/85
It gives me insight, to say the least.
It seems that Brower for some reason couldn't participate in the
USDA
grant for the research into the GMO-larva topic program and
$200,000
grant (which he considered a pittance). Another diverse team of
experts with some of the finest academic credentials in this
country
was selected and a paper resulted published in the most
prestigious
peer reviewed journal in the United States - The Proceedings of
the
National Academy of Sciences:
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/21/11937.abstract?sid=e059121b-ade8-4518-895c-2c10e4c5b113
Brower's political statement printed in Mother Jones strikes me
as
a
scathing, rambling condemnation and conspiracy theory - political
mobilization strategy. Is that an appropriate place to refute a
publication by trashing everyone in government and industry? Or
would
it be better to respond in the same peer review journal which
accepts
contrary/disagreement submissions in a specific format for this
purpose
called "Letters to the PNAS". I couldn't find any retort. Maybe
you'll have better luck:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/collection/letters
In the 1960's time frame Lincoln had the honor to be published
in
thwe
PNAS himself, at least 4 times. He is also an excellent speaker.
Is the "Bt-corn killing monarch larvae" in the field still
objectionable by ecologists anymore, on a scientific basis? Now I
think
it finally hit me why the monarch topic is avoided by some
list
members.
Best
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Cherubini <monarch at saber.net>
To: Leps List <leps-l at mailman.yale.edu>
Sent: Fri, Feb 15, 2013 4:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Leps-l] [leps-talk] Monarch Armageddon
On Feb 15, 2013, at 1:00 PM, MexicoDoug wrote:
> I added the search term "Armageddon" for fun.
Doug, it was Lincoln Brower who first set the precedent
for using the word "Armageddon" in this article and others like
it:
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/july2011/GMcropsmonarchbutterflieshabitat.php
In the article Lincoln said this about Roundup herbicide use
in the GMO crops of the upper Midwest:
“It kills everything. It’s biodiversity Armageddon,"
And Lincoln and Chip Taylor collaborated on a paper
and wrote: "We conclude that, because of the extensive
use of glyphosate herbicide on crops that are genetically
modified to resist the herbicide, milkweeds will disappear
almost completely from croplands."
But the critically important information they don't mention
in their paper is that the field margins of these Roundup
treated GMO crops are teaming with bumblebees, honeybees,
monarchs and butterflies like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZCOJnJU1UE
So those GMO croplands are not hardly a legitimate
example of "Biodiversity Armageddon"
Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.
_______________________________________________
Leps-l mailing list
Leps-l at mailman.yale.edu
http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l
_______________________________________________
Leps-l mailing list
Leps-l at mailman.yale.edu
http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l
_______________________________________________Leps-l mailing
listLeps-l at mailman.yale.eduhttp://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-
l
_______________________________________________
Leps-l mailing list
Leps-l at mailman.yale.edu
http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l
_______________________________________________
Leps-l mailing list
Leps-l at mailman.yale.edu
http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/leps-l
More information about the Leps-l
mailing list