From the University of Michigan and the department of Mothra studies, comes this big let down. Even though moths are supposedly affected by climate change, “90 percent of them were either stable or increasing” while the climate where they lived warmed. But wait! Moth scientists know there MUST be an effect, so in contradiction to their observations, the moth scientists claim the climate change effects are now apparently “hidden”. Hopefully, those moths thriving under global warming doesn’t lead to giant moths.
Moth study suggests hidden climate change impacts
ANN ARBOR—A 32-year study of subarctic forest moths in Finnish Lapland suggests that scientists may be underestimating the impacts of climate change on animals and plants because much of the harm is hidden from view.
The study analyzed populations of 80 moth species and found that 90 percent of them were either stable or increasing throughout the study period, from 1978 to 2009. During that time, average annual temperatures at the study site rose 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit, and winter precipitation increased as well.
“You see it getting warmer, you see it getting wetter and you see that the moth populations are either staying the same or going up. So you might think, ‘Great. The moths like this warmer, wetter climate.’ But that’s not what’s happening,” said ecologist Mark Hunter of the University of Michigan.
Hunter used advanced statistical techniques to examine the roles of different ecological forces affecting the moth populations and found that warmer temperatures and increased precipitation reduced the rates of population growth.
“Every time the weather was particularly warm or particularly wet, it had a negative impact on the rates at which the populations grew,” said Hunter, the Henry A. Gleason Collegiate Professor in the U-M Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.
“Yet, overall, most of these moth populations are either stable or increasing, so the only possibility is that something else other than climate change—some other factor that we did not measure—is buffering the moths from substantial population reductions and masking the negative effects of climate change.”
The findings have implications that reach beyond moths in Lapland.
If unknown ecological forces are helping to counteract the harmful effects of climate change on these moths, it’s conceivable that a similar masking of impacts is happening elsewhere. If that’s the case, then scientists are likely underestimating the harmful effects of climate change on animals and plants, Hunter said.
“We could be underestimating the number of species for which climate change has negative impacts because those effects are masked by other forces,” he said.
Hunter and six Finnish colleagues report their findings in a paper scheduled for online publication April 15 in the journal Global Change Biology.
The study was conducted at the Värriö Strict Nature Reserve, 155 miles north of the Arctic Circle and less than four miles from the Finnish-Russian border. The nearest major road is more than 60 miles away.
Between 1978 and 2009, Finnish scientists used light traps at night to catch 388,779 moths from 456 species. Eighty of the most abundant species were then analyzed.
Hunter used a statistical technique called time series analysis to examine how various ecological forces, including climate, affected per capita population growth.
Scientists want to know how climate change will impact insects because the six-legged creatures play key roles as agricultural pests, pollinators, food sources for vertebrates, vectors of human disease, and drivers of various ecosystem processes.
Researchers believe that butterflies and moths may be particularly susceptible to population fluctuations in response to climate change—especially at high latitudes and high elevations.
Most recent studies of moth abundance have shown population declines. So Hunter and his colleagues were surprised to find that 90 percent of the moth species in the Lapland study were either stable or increasing.
On one level, the results can be viewed as a good news climate story: In the face of a rapid environmental change, these moths appear to be thriving, suggesting that they are more resilient than scientists had expected, Hunter said.
But the other side of that coin is that unknown ecological forces appear to be buffering the harmful effects of climate change and hiding those impacts from view. The results also demonstrate that “simple temporal changes in population abundance cannot always be used to estimate effects of climate change on the dynamics of organisms,” the authors conclude.
“The big unknown is how long this buffering effect will last,” Hunter said. “Will it keep going indefinitely, or will the negative effects of climate change eventually just override these buffers, causing the moth populations to collapse?”
Another big unknown: What ecological forces are currently buffering the Lapland moths from the negative effects of a warming climate?
Finnish team members who’ve been collecting moths at the Värriö reserve for decades say they have noticed a gradual increase in tree and shrub density, increased rates of tree growth, and a rise in the altitude of the tree line.
Trees provide food and shelter for moths, and leaf litter offers overwintering sites and resting areas away from predators. Perhaps the observed vegetation changes are helping to offset the negative effects of warmer temperatures and increased precipitation. That possibility was not analyzed in the current study.
Hunter’s co-authors on the Global Change Biology paper are Finnish researchers Mikhail Kozlov, Juhani Itämies, Erkki Pulliainen, Jaana Bäck, Ella-Maria Kyrö and Pekka Niemelä.
The work was supported by a Strategic Research Grant from the University of Turku and the Nordic Centre of Excellence Tundra, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Academy of Finland Center of Excellence and the Nordic Center of Excellence CRAICC.
I meant disruptive not distributive… auto spell check transformed it.
“The big unknown is how long this buffering effect will last,” Hunter said. “Will it keep going indefinitely, or will the negative effects of climate change eventually just override these buffers, causing the moth populations to collapse?”
And on a slightly different topic:
The big unknown is how long this pause will last. Will it keep going indefinitely, or will the heat in the oceans eventually just override this pause, causing the temperatures to sky rocket?
Why is it that Climastrologists persistently look for something bad to say about obvious good news? Why couldn’t they just publish their results instead of torturing the data with ‘advanced statistical techniques’ to find something they never found ie ‘ warmer temperatures and increased precipitation reduced the rates of population growth.’?
They are discovering the other magical powers of co2. These nutcases really can’t see the wood for the trees. Pun intended.
Because they assumed they were going to find a decline. Garbage in and out.
DirkH thanks for the good laugh 🙂
Three decades of research and they still can’t quantify optimal conditions for the subarctic forest moths?
It took all of about 2 minutes the find another paper “Massive moth outbreaks cause large-scale damage in subarctic mountain birch forests….”
Read More: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/12-0917.1 (Revised: September 13, 2012)
-Finnish Forest Institute
Thanks, Anthony. The headline and illustration caption were hysterical. I’m still smiling.
BREAKING NEWS: Increasing CO2 causes an increase in vegetation. This increase creates more habitat and allows moths and other organisms to thrive. But this is bad news because… because humans produce it, so we know CO2 is evil and incapable of doing good. Therefore, we know that something bad is going on. We just can’t figure out what it is. Besides, if we don’t provide politicians with an emergency that requires new taxes, our grant money will dry up.
“…Finnish scientists used light traps at night to catch 388,779 moths from 456 species…”
Climate change caused the death of those 388,779 moths, did it not?
[If unknown ecological forces are helping to counteract the harmful effects of climate change on these moths, it’s conceivable that a similar masking of impacts is happening elsewhere.]
Climate science has degenerated into a search for the unicorn.
JimS says exactly what I am thinking. This sort of mentality runs throughout Climastrology Voodoo studies.
If this paper had made the deadline, would it have been selected by the IPCC scientists? The IPCC is a cherry picking organisation – it has to be bad news (most of the time). They are fit for the purpose, picking the finest cherries that money cannot buy.
Somewhere a dead parrot is cawing.
True, or not, I’m pleased that the moth populations are reported as stable or increasing. I think they are soft and fluffy and, almost, cute. I don’t mind them fluttering about the room when I’m going to sleep. There, I said it. I like moths.
If there’s no smoke, there’s still fire!
We are now the moths….
Hide the incline!
Moths and related butterflies are indeed among the important pollinators. Many moth species’ populations ebb and flow depending on environmental factors including suitable habitat for their host plants where caterpillars feed before pupating. Many moths and butterflies require very specific host plants whereas others are generalists. The health of moth and butterfly populations is intimately related to the health of the host plants. It is therefore the host plants that are the primary marker for the health of moth and butterfly populations. Temperature fluctuation of several degrees F are unlikely to directly affect moths; host plants are more likely to be affected with some host plants migrating northward or to higher elevations. Darwin described this as have numerous studies since. Temperatures have fallen and risen by several degrees F in the northern latitudes a number of times during recorded history, and virtually all moth and butterfly species have survived these temperature fluctuations.
As with other species, habitat destruction, not climate change or global warming, is the primary threat. One recent major and increasing threat for moths, butterflies and other insects is the use of herbicides to control plant life along power line right of ways, roads, and even trails. This poisoning of important “edge habitat” by herbicides where both host plants and nectar plants are located is far more of a threat than any global warming that has occurred or is predicted. Insects, of course, are the primary food of many species including birds, not only insectivores, but all bird species which feed high protein insects to their fledglings.
Another major and growing threat is the increasing use of genetically modified crops which are resistant to insecticides and herbicides. This allows broadcasting of insecticide and herbicide sprays that decimate insects and their host plants over very large areas. Studies are now suggesting that migrating butterflies such as Monarchs (and thousands of other butterfly, moth, and insect species that migrate) can not find their required host plants because of the edge habitat destruction and the host plant destruction described above. Of course, this is also true for the non-migrating permanent resident insects. Those species higher up in the food chain are obviously also affected.
As a life long conservationist, my number one quarrel with the global warming/climate change hype is that it promotes a minor problem at the expense of understanding and addressing real environmental problems. When climate wars engage the passion and shape the concerns of so many, we likely address and fund the wrong problems. I have watched this happen during my lifetime- a very, very sad experience for this old conservationist and environmental educator.
What happened after 2009? Brrrrrrr.
And so on……………..This is climate change you can believe in.
Come on folks, if they’d said the “climate change” either hadn’t impacted or – heaven forbid – had been beneficial to the moths, they would have doubtless lost their funding and been expunged from the fraternity of scientific research in perpetuity.
Even totally irrelevant climate McScience researchers have to earn a crust somehow!
So instead of concluding, based on the evidence, that the moths are adapting well to changes in their environment, the authors, thanks to climate obsession syndrome, conclude the moths are in trouble.
AGW is a pernicious social disorder that destroys the intelligence of those who believe in climate doom.
Doug Allen, I too am a life long conservationist and, incidentally, butterfly appreciator. As such, I keep a close eye on (specifically to your post) Monarch host plants, wherever I travel, mostly locally. My personal observations are at odds with your statement “Monarchs … can not find their required host plants because of the edge habitat destruction and the host plant destruction… ) I am sorry, but I see milkweed everywhere, both when I drive and I am on foot or pedaling. Because I am a geek for these things, I always examine the plants for Monarch larva, and I find far more milkweed than I do larva. FAR more. I find milkweed in the ‘edges’ of roadways and fields and even golf courses, as well as peppering natural-growing meadow landscapes and yes, even crop fields. While we can agree on ‘climate change’ and its lack of credibility, your sweeping pesticide and gmo statements must come under some scrutiny vis-a-vis the monarch.
BTW, Doug, your photos on Flicker are wonderful. Though this fellow kills his moths, I am thinking you may appreciate his work nevertheless. To see one of his reproduced scans up close is astounding. http://old.moths.ca/index.html
Let’s see. We found absolutely no evidence that climate change is causing a problem for the moth population. But the problem might be “hidden” and we think the problem is most likely a lot worse than we thought.
This is science? Seriously? Arghhhhhhhhhhhhh!
My 8th Grade kid would be very lucky to earn a D for scientific reasoning like this nonsense.
Paraphrasing the reports conclusions: “There are more moths than ever and that’s bad because ‘climate change’ has reduced their population growth rates.”
Could it be the continuing marginally warmer and wetter Holocene interglacial ‘climate change’ has improved their preferred food sources… and their predators populations also? It’s only natural……
heysuess
I said studies “suggest.” I read on the National Butterfly Asso and other lep lists about the host plant problems which you might find by googling? Case not closed. Fair enough. Do you live in the northern states where milkweeds are still abundant? My wife is from nothern NY where that is true. We visit every summer. How about the bread basket midwest, the main northward migration flyway for Monarchs where gmo crops cover square mile after square mile? Here in upstate SC where I retired, most milkweek species don’t survive. Not for my lack of my trying! We have very few northward Monarch migrants and not many southward migrants. Some are planting milkweek here and in other states where it is uncommon. Maybe it will help?
I can give an interesting anecdotal example of herbicide spraying which is very common where I live. Four springs ago, I discovered a colony of Baltimore Checkerspots, a beautiful butterfly species which is common to our north, incuding northern NY. It had not been found in SC (or nearby) for over 20 years. I posted the sighting and some pictures to a regional leps list. Several wanted to visit and see the Baltimore Checkerspots. I returned to the wetland location, which is under some powerlines, two days later. The entire area had been sprayed with herbicides. All the vegetation was turning brown, and there were no butterflies of any kind. If this were repeated everywhere, every year it would create major habitat destruction for many species. I read that that is already happening, but can not confirm it.
My thesis is not really that Monarchs or any other species is presently endagerered, but that real environmental problems are neglected because of the tunnel vision of seeing all environmental problems as a subset of global warming/climate change.
LOL! This is great! DO not believe the data! What next? Put your faith in your new god?