From the CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY & HYDROLOGY and the Edith’s Checkerspot Club comes this tale of possible bug disaster we’ve all heard before. Except, Nature often finds a way, and scientific claims of extinction sometimes end up being proven wrong by nature itself.
—
Widespread drought-sensitive butterfly population extinctions could occur in the UK as early as 2050 according to a new study published today in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change.
However, the authors conclude that substantial greenhouse gas emission reductions combined with better management of landscapes, in particular reducing habitat fragmentation, will greatly improve the chances of drought-sensitive butterflies flying until at least 2100.
The study was led by Dr Tom Oliver from the UK’s Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH) in collaboration with colleagues from CEH, the charity Butterfly Conservation, Natural England and the University of Exeter.
Lead author Dr Tom Oliver from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology said, “The results are worrying. Until I started this research, I hadn’t quite realised the magnitude and potential impacts from climate change. For drought-sensitive butterflies, and potentially other taxa, widespread population extinctions are expected by 2050. To limit these loses, both habitat restoration and reducing CO2 emissions have a role. In fact, a combination of both is necessary.”
The team identified six species of drought-sensitive butterfly – ringlet, speckled wood, large skipper, large white, small white and green-veined white – as having a low probability of persistence by 2050 even under most favourable emissions scenario. Butterflies were chosen for this study as they are amongst the best studied groups of species with good records of year-to-year changes in abundance, but there are many other drought sensitive groups which may be similarly affected.
Dr Oliver adds, “We consider the average response across Great Britain. Losses are likely to be more severe in drier areas with more intensive land use, whilst wetter areas with less fragmented habitat will provide refugia. We assume that butterflies won’t have time to evolve to become more drought-tolerant, because their populations are already small, and evolution would need to be very rapid. The study looked at butterflies but the conclusions are potentially valid for other species such as birds, beetles, moths and dragonflies.”
The study combined data from data from 129 sites for 28 species monitored as part of UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme, with historic climate data from the Central England Temperature and the England and Wales Rainfall monthly series, habitat data from UK Land Cover Map, and climate model projections from 17 global circulation models in the CMIP5 database. Impacts of four Representative Concentration Pathways (different global CO2 emission trajectories) were investigated.
Co-author Mike Morecroft from Natural England said, “There’s good news and bad news here. The good news is that we can increase the resilience of species to climate change by improving our natural environment, particularly increasing areas of habitat and we are working hard at this. However, this approach will only work if climate change is limited by effective controls on greenhouse gas emissions.”
Co-author Tom Brereton from Butterfly Conservation said, “The study highlights the pressing need to investigate local conservation measures that may help drought-sensitive butterflies to adapt and persist in our changing countryside.”
Co-author Dr Chris Huntingford also from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology said, “Many climate projections indicate rapid increases in the frequency of severe drought events under all scenarios, but especially under the steepest rise in CO2 emissions. There is uncertainty in these projections, which we captured by considering outputs from seventeen different climate models. The overall results suggest that drought-sensitive butterflies are only likely to avoid widespread extinctions if CO2 emission levels are reduced below business-as-usual and, furthermore, this in combination with habitat restoration measures”
Co-author Dr Christel Prudhomme from the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology said, ‘This study highlights the benefits of much tighter discussion between researchers from physical and environmental science disciplines- between those who develop simulations of expected levels of future climate change, and those who can translate those projections into local impacts and potential adaptation strategies’
###
This study relates to the UK. From the information that is not pay-walled, it appears that the study relates to information available up to 2010. From the Met Office website, on the subject of droughts entitled “England and Wales drought 2010 to 2012” (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/interesting/2012-drought).
“April 2012 onwards
From April 2012 there was a decisive change in weather patterns across the UK. Rainfall totals for April to July 2012 were the highest on record across England and Wales bringing the drought to an abrupt and dramatic termination. Instead, the focus rapidly turned to flooding problems. This exceptionally wet spell is described as a separate weather event linked from the index page.”
I hope the “threatened ” butterflies learned how to swim!
You really couldn’t make this up. Within hours of WUWT posting this latest, risible, unscientific drivel, and the UK media is full of reports of how Scotland is having a washout summer. Rainfall since May in some areas is around double the long term seasonal average, temperatures are correspondingly low and some farmers have had to bring their cattle into the wintering sheds months early due to the fields becoming swamps.
What does this mean for butterflies? Well, ask anyone who actually watches butterflies (these “scientists” clearly don’t) and they will tell you that washout summers are disastrous for British butterflies, most of which only fly, and mate,when it’s dry and, preferably, sunny. They like the sun, not the rain – honest!!! Again, ask anyone who has actually watched British butterflies over many years and they will tell you that the individual species populations swing significantly from year to year and the ranges change over time for many (although by no means all) species. Global warming nutters seem desperate to impute climate change (even if it did exist) as the cause for these fluctuations but I for one have never seen any hard evidence that this is the case except on a very short-term basis (as is no doubt occurring in Scotland at the moment). As ever with global wildlife, habitat destruction and its direct effect on life-cycle food sources, has a much more easily demonstrated effect on long term population changes. If these “scientists” concentrated their efforts on this area, they might actually produce some work of value on which we could act, rather than chasing this illusory warming nonsense.
Scotland has, indeed, had a washout summer and commensurately low temperatures. Which is also impacting our own weather-dependent mating habits.
– Warm and dry leads the Scottish male to put on his shorts and take off his shirt. This reduces his likelihood of attracting a mate to approximately zero.
– Too wet will lead to him uttering the phrase “hell, it’s pishing doon again, I’m off the the boozer”. After a decent session, his ability to mate will have reduced to approximately zero.
– Only in cold weather, when the call “god, it’s baltic, come here hen and coury in” can be heard, is there the realistic prospect of mating.
Thankfully the Met Office were wrong with their “we’ll never see snow again” prognostications, or we’d be facing a population crisis.
Excellent post!
…and just as scientific as the original paper…
Last year in W.Mids (UK) I witnessed the largest swarm of red admiral type lepi’s I had ever seen in my life (age = 70). All around two shrubs nearby. I thought they were both Buddleia. I discovered one this year is a Lilac and to date has not flowered. Or maybe, might, could flower after the insects have diminished/gone? All I see now is a single Cabbage White trying to cause destruction at a later date.
I note that too many plants purchased for UK gardens are mainly from DIY centres/supermarkets. Most sold there are for bling (same old same old) rather than wildlife. It means that its difficult to measure the behaviour/quality/quantity of flying insects….its going to vary dramatically. I am on the edge of a town in Worcestershire.
I have a bee hotel for the 1st time with something like 170 leaf cutter bee grubs in. Thats a solitary bee that likely does more local pollinating than the commercially sensitive honey bee. The solitary bee is of over 250 species in UK/USA/Canada. Mind you the leaf cutter bee cuts neat chunks out of rose leaves. I think the rose in general is not useful in terms of pollen/nectar? Not that I have noticed anyway?
Hi, Colin
Red Admirals are very largely migrants to UK (some will survive a mild winter) so numbers vary hugely from year to year. You probably won’t have seen Buddleia and Lilac flowering together, as there is no overlap with their seasons. Lilacs are not great butterfly attractions and flower before most species are on the wing.
All butterflies undergo huge population changes from year to year. To such an extent, in fact, that we can say that the numbers one year are extremely poor predictors of the numbers the following year. But, when some species are down, others are up. Unfortunately, few parts of the West Midlands are good for butterflies (or most wildlife, for that matter..?)
butterfly population extinctions “could ” occur – binned.
BBC this morning, ski resort which started in 1956 sees snow on the ground every day this year, not seen this since 1956, a harbinger of doom? Has the big freeze started? No, it’s only the Jet Stream playing around.
Should have said they were talking about Scottish ski resort
I was willing to listen to their theory and look at their data until I read the above statement.
It has been shown again and again that the CMIP5 GCMs are wrong. Their output does not match reality. Using the output of invalid models destroys ANY scientific conclusion from their research.
They might as well have said that models of Venus’ climate show that if the Earth’s climate was like Venus’ all the butterflies would be dead. A true statement, but completely irrelevant because the Earth’s climate ISN’T like Venus’. Just like the Earth’s climate ISN’T shown by the CMIP5 GCMs, so any results based on the CMIP5 models is irrelevant as it isn’t reality.
I’m very worried about those 6 species of butterflies: if they die out there’ll only be 15,000 species of them left!
sorry if this one is an old one
Correlations, Causes and Dis-proofs
“We have concluded that the crowing rooster causes the sun to rise.” – Viv Forbes
“Every morning just before dawn our rooster crows and soon afterwards the sun comes up. We have observed no exceptions over three months – clear evidence of perfect correlation. Therefore we have concluded that the crowing rooster causes the sun to rise.
My wife Flora (who believes that the Cooee birds bring the rain) said: “I knew that ages ago – Professor Percival told me.”
So I consulted Professor Percival, our neighbour. He is Professor Emeritus in the “Science in Society” Department at Top-Line University. He specialises in the effect of sound waves on atmospheric transmissivity. He says that some roosters produce sound waves of just the right frequency to affect the dawn visibility through the thick morning atmosphere. He has written peer-reviewed papers on the subject which has been named “The Percival Effect”. In all the hallowed halls, it is regarded as “settled science”.
However, we decided that our rooster was not doing his day job, so he ended up as roast dinner last night.
Flora was very concerned – “what if the sun does not appear at alltomorrow?” she wailed.
But the sun rose as normal.
Flora was relieved but a concerned Professor Percival went off to check his calculations “for feedback loops”. He is still checking.
One thing was proved conclusively in just one day – roosters crowing do not make the sun appear. Something else causes the sun to rise. Our ninety-two correlations did not prove causation. But just one disproof was needed to kill the Percival Effect.
So it is with the Greenhouse Effect. For about 20 years now, carbon dioxide levels have risen steadily but global temperatures are trending level. Therefore CO2 does not control global temperature.
One disproof is all that is needed”
thanks to iceagenow
My brussel sprout plants may be mightily relieved if one of the possible futures described in this paper comes to pass.
Just search and replace “may” and “could” with “might not” if you really want to see what the paper is saying.
Fact: Monarch butterfly population in the US is declining rapidly, caused largely by the use of neonicotinoid pesticides inserted into GMO corn. You know, the same corn that is used to make ethanol, a very green product.
As long as we don’t lose the elusive Pussycat Swallowtail…
all i remember is caterpillars eating my plants. Good riddance butterflies, their predators will adapt
Always thought Bees and Butterflies have a similar diet.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/starving-scottish-bees-threatened-by-bad-weather-1-3846581
By bad weather they mean cold and wet.
Butterflies are a recent cause-du-jour of eco-activists like David Suzuki.
His pitch is blaming GMO corn for decline of Monarch butterfly populations, as it tolerates weedkillers thus there will be no milkweed for the Monarchs. (Milkweed makes the Monarchs distasteful to birds.)
Jus a min’ I say:
– corn was not widespread way back, as it was developed from a plant that only grew in the southern US and Central America, tribal people bred it to what we know as corn then it was widely adopted.
– mechanical cultivating was well organized, clever devices planted corn seeds aa regular intervals so that there was space for a mechanical cultivator in both directions. How much milkweed was there then?
Seems to me that any abundance of milkweed was the result of human activities, so a decline is just returning to normal.
One fool butterfly enthusiast in the Victoria BC claimed that a small brown butterfly was critically dependent on a marshy area – but a small amount of research would have shown him that the butterfly lives in shrubs in the transition area between open spaces and forest, that marsh just provides a wet open space.
Widespread drought-sensitive butterfly population extinctions could occur in the UK as early as 2050 according to a new study published today in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change…..
By my definition half as much rain again as there is on average does not qualify as drought. What is actually causing them problems is the very cold nights which I gather only the cabbage whites are able to cope with well.
So far I have yet to see a single field round here being watered. Yes a tiny part of the south east including London is hot and dry but that still leaves over 95% of the UK being soaked.
Discounting the top and bottom 10% of temperatures we have had a Summer range of 16 to 22 degrees which is just too cold for butterflies.
Are these guys really trained in anything but bovine excrement? Clearly not.
Thought some of the readers might just find this amusing…..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3194111/It-summer-MONTH-S-rain-sweep-Britain-two-days-Thursday-Friday-floods-thunderstorms-way.html
Of course droughts will have an effect, perhaps disproportionate on some species but, as an overall component in the ecology of these species, the very randomness of its occurrence makes modelling nearly impossible.
It is just one of thousands of component factors that affect all species in a very fragmented landscape.
I think this paper’s publication is more about gaining fund raising publicity than scientific acceptance. Yes there is a case, but its not a strong or particularly measured one.
I wonder, if they run the model backwards, would they discover that butterflies couldn’t survive the temperature 100 years in the past?
If only we could sequence the genome and never have to worry abouyt extinctiob- oh wait!
1) What is the probability of a widespread drought in the UK – is there any data – once in a hundred years? Well take your warming estimates and see if you can determine a probability of it occurring at this higher temperature. Did the 1930s-40s hot period cause some drought in UK? Lets say you triple the probability of droughts in 100 years, then the probability of a drought by 2050 would be about 1% since it will take time for the temp to reach the worrisome figure, but let’s be cautious and give you the whole 3%.
2) What is the probability of drought actually killing off the species you are worried about (you have COULD, which if you actually had some vague idea that it is worrisome, would be say 10% chance)
3) Now multiply: 0.03* x 0.1 and the probability of this coming to pass is about 0.003. Go for habitat amelioration! I haven’t even added in the uncertainty of the CO2 sensitivity you used (undoubtedly the highest of the range, since you are only a biologist with no clue about climate physics – the lowest in the official reckoning is even looking too high these days. Multiply 0.003 by 0.5 for a conservative over estimate.
4) can the species and their comfort food move north or upslope, can they adapt to other similar vegetation (I suspect the cabbage butterfly was extant in many places before cabbage was cultivated in them). If so cut the probability in half again. Long before this point, the study would be deemed a brainless folly.
A suggestion:
– today’s normal condition in eastern Ontario would be thought to be a drought in UK. Possibly a population of some of these species, with their comfort plants could be transplanted to the federal agricultural research station in Ottawa where they can be isolated – you would get some numbers and COULD, may shift to 5-10% – nothing like empirical data (google it up if you are familiar with the idea).
Butterflys, who needs them?! They are just moths with pretty wings!