Bird decline 'smoking gun' for pesticide's effects

[piscator]

By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent, BBC News

9 July 2014 Last updated at 18:02

The widespread use of a type of insecticide that has been blamed for honeybee deaths is linked to a marked decline in bird numbers in Europe, a report says.

Imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid chemical, is widely used in agriculture to exterminate pests.

Dutch scientists say their data shows that the chemical is associated with a collapse in common bird species.

But manufacturers argue the evidence of these effects is not substantiated.

Imidacloprid is one of a number of neonicotinoid insecticides introduced in the 1990s as a more environmentally friendly way of dealing with crop pests.

Neonicotinoids have been hugely successful, and now account for about 40% of the global pesticide market.

However, there have been growing concerns about their environmental impacts. A number of studies have linked them to the decline in honeybees.

A recent, wide-ranging review of the scientific literature concluded that the chemicals were causing significant damage to a number of beneficial species.

Now, Dutch scientists have, for the first time, shown an association between the use of imidacloprid and a decline in common birds.

The researchers looked at 15 bird species that depend on insects as their main source of food. The Dutch have kept long-term records on the numbers and health of these warblers, swallows, starlings and thrushes.

The scientists were then able to compare this dataset to surface water quality measurements. They found that higher concentrations of imidacloprid in the water was "consistently associated" with declines in many of the monitored birds.

...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

DDT all over again? "What? Us? Causing nasty things to happen to nice creatures? Surely shome mishtake! There's no evidence!"

Cunts.

[JimC]

From the article, it may not be a case of toxicity, but simply that the total number of insects available as prey, particularly when feeding nestlings, may have significantly declined in agricultural areas.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

From the article, it may not be a case of toxicity, but simply that the total number of insects available as prey, particularly when feeding nestlings, may have significantly declined in agricultural areas.

Doesn't matter the mechanism of the decline. You fuck with an ecosystem, you fuck with the whole ecosystem! There are better ways to limit the impact of pests than spraying chemicals, the long-term effects of which you have no idea about, all over everything. Dare I say it, GMO is a better way to go.

[Tero]

There is a mismatch of insect population and bird nesting for many species. Insects are active following temperatures whereas bird nesting goes by the length of the day (migration, nest building etc)

[JimC]

From the article, it may not be a case of toxicity, but simply that the total number of insects available as prey, particularly when feeding nestlings, may have significantly declined in agricultural areas.

Doesn't matter the mechanism of the decline. You fuck with an ecosystem, you fuck with the whole ecosystem! There are better ways to limit the impact of pests than spraying chemicals, the long-term effects of which you have no idea about, all over everything. Dare I say it, GMO is a better way to go.

Well certainly I agree that, in some ways, the bad effect itself is enough to justify ceasing to spray, if confirmed. But it would also be important to investigate the mechanism, because it toxicity and biological magnification may produce some other effects as well.

[cronus]

Climate is changing things. Pesticides are not responsible.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Climate is changing things. Pesticides are not responsible.

Glib oversimplification is glib.

[JimC]

Climate is changing things. Pesticides are not responsible.

Glib oversimplification is glib.

Observed changes can potentially be caused by many factors. Correctly designed experiments, or judicious gathering of primary data, can delineate the responsible factors, and eliminate others. The power of the scientific method rests largely on this principle.

[cronus]

I'll be proven right.

[piscator]

Appy-olly-ologies for not including this earlier:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28216810



Evidence does continue to mount that a host of negative externalities center on these 'new nicotine-like' systemic pesticides. Convenient scapegoating? Do we know enough to proceed?

[piscator]

From the article, it may not be a case of toxicity, but simply that the total number of insects available as prey, particularly when feeding nestlings, may have significantly declined in agricultural areas.

Doesn't matter the mechanism of the decline. You fuck with an ecosystem, you fuck with the whole ecosystem! There are better ways to limit the impact of pests than spraying chemicals, the long-term effects of which you have no idea about, all over everything. Dare I say it, GMO is a better way to go.

"GMO" meaning selecting* via genetic sequence, without the fuss and bother of having to grow out entire Punnet Squares?
Or, "GMO" meaning ADM and Monsanto patent trolling pollen, or color-corrected Atlantic salmon hybrids farmed in net cages in British Columbia?






*Selection as in the old saying, "God creates, man selects"

[MiM]

Or GMO as in engineering strains that allow the use of more and stronger herbicides?

[Hermit]

Climate is changing things. Pesticides are not responsible.

Glib oversimplification is glib.

Observed changes can potentially be caused by many factors. Correctly designed experiments, or judicious gathering of primary data, can delineate the responsible factors, and eliminate others. The power of the scientific method rests largely on this principle.

There's nothing wrong with simple hypotheses. Here we have one which claims that "higher concentrations of imidacloprid in the water was "consistently associated" with declines in many of the monitored birds." All it takes to demolish the conclusion that the pesticide in question causes declines in many of the monitored birds is to find instances where higher concentrations of imidacloprid in the water has not resulted in declines in many of the monitored birds. This is not really a requirement of whoever postulated the initial hypothesis. It would not surprise me if the manufacturers of imidacloprid were working on demonstrating precisely that sort of thing. That's the beauty of scientific enquiry. It's open.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

From the article, it may not be a case of toxicity, but simply that the total number of insects available as prey, particularly when feeding nestlings, may have significantly declined in agricultural areas.

Doesn't matter the mechanism of the decline. You fuck with an ecosystem, you fuck with the whole ecosystem! There are better ways to limit the impact of pests than spraying chemicals, the long-term effects of which you have no idea about, all over everything. Dare I say it, GMO is a better way to go.

"GMO" meaning selecting* via genetic sequence, without the fuss and bother of having to grow out entire Punnet Squares?
Or, "GMO" meaning ADM and Monsanto patent trolling pollen, or color-corrected Atlantic salmon hybrids farmed in net cages in British Columbia?

GMO to inbuild resistance to the pest organism. The dodgy business practices of Monsanto et al. are a smokescreen (not to mention a matter for legislation.) Dismissing the entire process out of hand because some business cunts have ripped people off (they do that if you let them - get used to it!) or because some ill-infomed greenpeacer has Frankenstein nightmares, is silly. Look at the science without prejudice. It is not the answer to everything, of course not, but it is better than carpet bombing the countryside with chemicals and then lawyering-up to deny deny deny that they are responsible for any ill-effects in the surrounding areas...