Kill your lawn

Mary and I were fussing over our “lawn” yesterday. We are required by the city to mow our yard and keep it presentable, as defined by bourgeois expectations, but we’re subverting that. We don’t use any chemicals on it, and we’ve been sowing clover to replace the turf grass. Mary has been most dedicated to replacing the boring stuff with more interesting stuff: she’s got pots of milkweed and other native flora, and yesterday she put me to work tearing up the ‘bad’ grass so she could spend the day transplanting. She’s at work today, and left me with orders to water the new plants.

We have a fenced backyard that would probably be judged criminal, because it’s covered with ‘weeds’ that are a foot or two tall. It’s also full of berry plants. We’re all about feeding the pollinators and birds. This past fall we managed to avoid raking up most of the leaves — leaf litter is an important habitat for overwintering invertebrates.

This video expresses sentiments I share.

You do realize that a thriving population of invertebrates is a necessary prerequisite for vigorous and diverse population of spiders, right? Spiders don’t flourish on endless beds of turf grass.

The nefarious prickly pear

I’ve always taken cactuses for granted — I’ve lived in deserts before, and they’re just there, growing all over the place, and familiar part of the landscape. I didn’t think about the fact that they’re an entirely American clade, or that they could be a destructive invasive species elsewhere. I didn’t know that they were a major pest in Australia, along with rabbits and cane toads (Australians keep bringing in alien species that devastate their ecologies, in desperate attempts to counter the previous wave of invaders). So this was an informative video for me.

It’s also an example of where bringing in yet-another-foreign species, in this case moths and scale insects, defeated the problematic invasive species. For now.

Are insect populations declining or not?

I am so confused…but then science is often confusing. I was reading this article in Science magazine that went against my impressions and biases.

For years, scientists have been warning of a precipitous drop in insect numbers worldwide, driven largely by deforestation, pesticide use, and other human activities. But the first study to survey insect populations on a continental scale—based on radar data typically used to study weather patterns—finds no evidence of widespread decline, at least over a recent 10-year period. Instead, the research—published this week in Global Change Biology—suggests bug numbers tend to be sensitive to the severity of winter weather, with warmer winters posing a problem.

What, no decline? But I’ve seen a dramatic decline here in western Minnesota! Could I be wrong? Maybe. My perspective is narrow and local, and I’ve been looking at a small number of species, just spiders, that I’ve assumed would be a good proxy for overall insect number. I could be totally off, misled by a local variation that fit what I expected to see.

So I read the source paper. First surprise: the title doesn’t say there is no evidence of decline, but rather “Systematic Continental Scale Monitoring by Weather Surveillance Radar Shows Fewer Insects Above Warming Landscapes in the United States“. So there is evidence of decline in areas that show signs of warming. The abstract complicates matters further.

Anthropogenic change is predicted to result in widespread declines in insect abundance, but assessing long-term trends is challenging due to the scarcity of systematically collected time series measurements across large spatial scales. We develop a novel continental-scale dataset using a nationwide network of radars in the United States to generate a 10-year time series of daily aerial insect density and assess temporal trends. We do not find evidence of a continental-scale net decline in insect density over the 10-year period included in this study; instead we find a mosaic of increasing and declining trends at the landscape scale. This spatial variation in density trends is associated with climatic drivers, where areas with warmer winters experience greater declines in insect density and areas with cooling winter trends see increases in density. Winter warming has a stronger negative effect on density at higher latitudes. After assessing temporal trends, we also use the 10-year dataset and atmospheric variables to model insect aerial abundance, finding that on a typical summer day approximately a hundred trillion (1014) flying insects are present in the airspace, representing millions of tons of aerial biomass. Our results provide the first continental-scale quantification of insect density and its response to anthropogenic warming and demonstrate the utility of weather surveillance radar to provide large-scale monitoring of insect abundance.

Right away, I have reservations. If my observations are insufficient because I’m looking at too few species in one locale, this study is using one technique with low resolution on a continent wide scale and one could argue that it could be equally insufficient and misleading. It is data, though, and should be part of any analysis of the problem. Let’s not pretend that their sampling method doesn’t incorporate its own systematic biases. It’s only going to detect flying insects that exhibit swarming behavior, and they’re only looking at daytime numbers. It’s a correlational study that associates declines with only temperatures, but I’d suggest that those other factors (deforestation, pesticide use, and other human activities) are so ubiquitous and difficult to measure discretely that they’d disappear in the analysis.

Also, their own data does show evidence of a decline…in latitudes above 40°.

Temporal pattern of change in insect density as a function of change in winter temperature. (a) 10-year trend in day-flying insect density as a function of the change in local mean winter temperature, colored by site latitude. (b) Temporal trend as a function of winter temperature at latitudes ≤ 40°. (c) Temporal trend as a function of winter temperature at latitudes > 40°. Fitted lines are derived from a least-squares linear regression on percentage change in insect density. Linear model with change in mean winter temperature, interaction with latitude, and longitude explains 18% of variation in insect declines.

They also see some interesting variations, like the effect of land development on the sensitivity of populations to change.

Temporal pattern of change in insect density as a function of developed land cover. (a) 10-year trend in day-flying insect density as a function of the fraction developed land cover in the landscape, colored by the change in mean winter temperature. Line is given by LM. (b) Change in mean winter temperature as a function of the fraction developed land cover. Line is given by LM, correlation coefficient = 0.37 p <  0.0001. (c) Change in mean winter temperature as a function of the fraction grassland in the landscape. Line is given by LM, correlation coefficient = −0.54, p < 0.0001.

Insect populations are actually increasing over developed areas? I’d like to know the baselines on that — this is a study over a short timescale of ten years, and who knows, minor fluctuations over areas where the population has already been decimated by development might appear as a larger percentage change. I also wonder if we might be seeing the effect of adaptation or invasive species on those areas.

I’d also be concerned that native grasslands are hurting.

They do argue that anthropogenic stressors are having a serious effect.

Although we do not observe continental scale declines, the spatial patterns of abundance trends identified in this study can pinpoint potential stressors or drivers of insect declines. Declines in aerial insect density were stronger in regions that experienced increasing winter temperatures. During overwintering, warming can decrease fitness by releasing organisms from cold-induced dormancy, thereby increasing metabolic rates, and depleting energy reserves. Winter warming may also result in increased mortality due to phenological mismatches with resources, and may extend the activity period for natural enemies and reduce pathogen die-off during the winter season. Negative effects of winter warming on insect abundance in temperate regions have been shown in local surveys of beetles, butterflies, and arthropods generally, indicating that winter is a particularly sensitive season for temperate ectotherms.

Sensitivity to winter warming varies across populations and is likely more common in cooler climates where thermal seasonality is strong. Our results show a negative effect of winter warming at high latitudes, with no effect at latitudes below 40°. This latitudinal interaction between winter warming and aerial insect density aligns with theory suggesting that climate warming will have the strongest effect on cool-adapted arthropods. For example, metabolic costs are greater at high latitudes, affecting organisms’ cold tolerance and resulting in greater risks of energy depletion if winters become warmer under global change. Experimental warming has shown that high elevation gall wasp species experience greater decreases in survival and fecundity than those from lower latitudes. These stronger responses from high latitude insects to winter warming are particularly concerning because the magnitude of warming under climate change also increases with latitude.

I definitely live in an area with harsh winters, which would explain how I have a strong impression of declines on the basis of local observations. I don’t understand, though, how the work in this paper can be used to minimize the changes in insect populations. I’m also a little concerned that it’s being used to endorse a hands-off analysis of relatively coarse radar data over expecting entomologists to get their hands dirty and get up close with the organisms.

Spider apocalypse

Last year, I would go outside in the early morning, when the dew was on the grass, and see my yard dappled with grass spider webs. Dozens of them!

My yard was a village full of these little tent-like structures.They would appear in July through August, and I’d also see the grass spiders steadily taking over other micro-environments, creeping up the walls of my house and displacing the Parasteatoda who had been living there in early summer. I wasn’t thrilled about that — grass spiders were ubiquitous and so common that I would rather see more interesting spiders.

But this year…I went outside around 6:30am on a humid (but cool) summer day, and could see all the grass and clover dotted dew. What I didn’t see was grass spiders. Zero spiders. No webs. It’s August! This is prime spider population time, and my familiar little friends are gone. This is the first time in my 25 years here that they’ve been absent.

I missed an opportunity. If I’d been tracking these things all along, I’d have an easy metric to tally a sample of the spider numbers — if I’d counted last year, I’d guess the daily numbers in August would have been between 20 and 30 grass spider webs in my lawn, but I didn’t because I assumed they’d always be there. So I’ll have to start tracking now. The number is…ZERO.

On the bright side, the number can only go up from here. Or stay dead forever.

Maybe it’s just a weird seasonal fluctuation? Why would all the spiders disappear from a lawn with a diverse plant population, never in all these years years treated with pesticides of any kind? WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS PLANET?

Birds are OK, I guess

After all, one of the virtues of bird is that they can be used to motivate research into insects. That’s nice. We couldn’t possibly get the general public interested in arthropods when there are charismatic warm-blooded flying things to save.

Juncos are known as seed-eating birds. They spend their days rummaging through the undergrowth searching for fallen seeds. At feeders, they prefer smaller grains, like millet. But seeds don’t provide the protein juncos, or any songbirds, need to grow a new set of feathers while they molt. And the protein this baby junco needs to molt its blotchy juvenile feathers and to grow sleek stone-gray feathers on top and white ones below would come only from bugs. In fact, 90 percent of the more than 10,700 known bird species rely on insects for food during at least part of their life cycle. Even the most dedicated seed-eating songbirds must eat insects and other arthropods, that many-legged group of creatures that includes spiders and millipedes, to produce eggs, to grow new feathers and to feed their young. Without insects, in other words, they wouldn’t survive.

So, yes, we should care about the health of insects because they are bird food, and birds are dependent on insects for protein. That’s why we should care about this next terrifying statistic.

Unfortunately, insects are disappearing at a rate of about 1 to 2 percent a year. And the decline is not limited to just one species nor just one group of insects. The data suggests that the decline is widespread, even global. These findings have been confirmed in hundreds of rigorous, peer-reviewed studies, says David L. Wagner, a University of Connecticut entomologist and the lead scientist of a program known as the Status of Insects, which coordinates pertinent research on insect populations from around the world. “The weight of the evidence is clear,” Wagner says. “I feel like it would stand up in a court of law.”

That 1 to 2 percent is a mean. I think from what I’ve seen here, in this rural agricultural region, is that it is much higher — the population of visible, obvious insects is less than half of what it was when I moved here 25 years ago. Less dense clouds of insects clustered around street lights. Car grills that are no longer choked with splattered bugs. Fewer reports of clouds of mayflies rising off lakes.

I think it’s scary without even considering bird populations. We’re wiping out a key component of the food web here. Do we have to wait for birds to drop out of the sky or bird song to fade from the dawn symphony before we will care?

Besides, as we all know, insects are spider food. Getting the public to care about spiders is probably an even harder sell.

You may want to avoid produce from Texas

I wonder what RFK Jr and the MAHA gang think of this:

This topic is all coming to a head right now because the great state of Texas has just passed legislation that allows recycled fracking wastewater to be used to irrigate crops in the Lone Star state. According to WFAA News in Texas, proponents argue the recycled water could supplement the state’s supply of fresh water and incentify the oil and gas industries to clean up their messes. Critics say it could contaminate the very land Texans depend on for food and survival.

Yum. Mystery chemicals, greasy surfactants, petrochemical contaminants, all the stuff we love to find in our salads. And that’s not all!

Farmers in Johnson County, Texas, are already fighting toxic sewage-based fertilizer biosolids. They are outraged by the new legislation that approves using wastewater from fracking to irrigate crops despite the fact that it contains many of the same carcinogenic chemicals found in those fertilizers,

“There was another bill that was put forth that would allow fracking water to be land applied. They’re going to… treat it and then it’s gonna be safe for land application,” Dana Ames, who lives in Johnson County, told WFAA News. “Contaminated with all kinds of chemicals from oil and gas fracking. We don’t even know all the chemicals because they’re proprietary.”

Mystery chemicals and sewage based fertilizer biosolids? Squeeee! Fortunately, they’re deporting all of their immigrant farm workers, so I think a lot of them will be rotting on the ground. Or not rotting, if this cocktail of toxic slime has miraculous preservative powers.

But don’t worry, the Texas Agriculture Commissioner is quick to reassure us that it’s been purified.

Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller believes the concept has potential if done right. “Well, we need water. We don’t really care what the source is as long as it’s good, clean water that we can grow crops with. Fracking water would be fine,” he said. He added that first all harmful substances like heavy metals would need to be removed. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality would be responsible for regulating the process. “As long as this water meets those strict guidelines, I don’t have a problem with it,” Miller added.

Miller said technological advancements are bringing the state closer to being able to fully clean and reuse produced water. “I don’t know that we’re all the way there yet, but with the technology and AI and everything that we’ve got available to us now, we’re in the technology age, so it’s certainly doable and it’s, you know, probably doable pretty quick, I would think.”

I note that he’s not saying that heavy metals are removed — they would need to be removed. And some other Texas commissioner, of environmental quality (I bet that commission is well funded and active!) would be responsible. But he doesn’t know that “we’re all the there yet,” but sure what with AI and all that, he thinks it is doable. He’s a moron.

You might be entertained by his campaign ad for Agriculture Commissioner, in which he brags about being a Christian, a cattleman (he runs a nursery business that grows decorative shrubs), and he supports the second amendment, all irrelevant to the job. At the end he mentions that Ted Nugent is his campaign treasurer. Yeah, that Ted Nugent. He’s also notorious for his embrace of every right-wing conspiracy theory (except those involving Big Oil) and corruption.

But he does own a big cowboy hat.

Texans will, apparently, elect anyone with a big enough hat, even if they’re planning to poison everyone.

Making the whole world ring like a bell

And it tolled for 9 days!

Climate change is increasingly predisposing polar regions to large landslides. Tsunamigenic landslides have occurred recently in Greenland (Kalaallit Nunaat), but none have been reported from the eastern fjords. In September 2023, we detected the start of a 9-day-long, global 10.88-millihertz (92-second) monochromatic very-long-period (VLP) seismic signal, originating from East Greenland. In this study, we demonstrate how this event started with a glacial thinning–induced rock-ice avalanche of 25 × 106 cubic meters plunging into Dickson Fjord, triggering a 200-meter-high tsunami. Simulations show that the tsunami stabilized into a 7-meter-high long-duration seiche with a frequency (11.45 millihertz) and slow amplitude decay that were nearly identical to the seismic signal. An oscillating, fjord-transverse single force with a maximum amplitude of 5 × 1011 newtons reproduced the seismic amplitudes and their radiation pattern relative to the fjord, demonstrating how a seiche directly caused the 9-day-long seismic signal. Our findings highlight how climate change is causing cascading, hazardous feedbacks between the cryosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere.

Shorter summary: a glacier in Greenland collapsed catastrophically in a fjord, setting the water sloshing back and forth with enough force that seismologists all around the world could detect the clock-like movement.

Better summary: Someone who knows the geology explains the event and all the terms on Bluesky.

The thinning ice sheets in Greenland led to oscillating waves, 100 meters tall, bouncing between the rock walls of a fjord. Fortunately, no one was there to witness it. Or if they were, they didn’t survive it.

Recreational boating not recommended here. Surfing is right out.

Isn’t it exciting, just waiting for another unexpected side effect of our slow destruction of the planet? As if the predictable disasters aren’t enough!

Let’s chop the Endangered Species Act to bits, shall we?

Uh-oh. The lawyers have been deployed. They’re trying to parse the wording of the Endangered Species Act to legalize habitat destruction, narrowing its meaning to apply only to the direct killing of organisms, but killing the environment? That does not apply.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits the “take” of endangered species. (1) Under the ESA, “[t]he term `take’ means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”  (2) This makes sense in light of the well-established, centuries-old understanding of “take” as meaning to kill or capture a wild animal. (3) Regulations previously promulgated by FWS expanded the ESA’s reach in ways that do not reflect the best reading of the statute, to prohibit actions that impair the habitat of protected species: “Harm in the definition of `take’ in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.”  (4) NMFS’ definition is materially identical: “Harm in the definition of `take’ in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including, breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding or sheltering.”  (5)

Then follows many paragraphs of Latin and reiteration of case law, but the intent is clear: the law simply says you can’t “take” wildlife, but we have laws that also say you can’t “harm” wildlife. Those all need to be reinterpreted, because “take” means literally kill individual animals, and that’s the only definition they’re going to use.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively referred to as the Services or we) are proposing to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” in our Endangered Species Act (ESA or the Act) regulations. The existing regulatory definition of “harm,” which includes habitat modification, runs contrary to the best meaning of the statutory term “take.” We are undertaking this change to adhere to the single, best meaning of the ESA.

Habitat modification shall not be policed anymore. You want to extract oil from a watershed? Go right ahead, poisoning the communities downstream is fine, since you’re not using a shotgun to kill the ducks and fish. Oops, you ‘accidentally’ dumped phosphates into the streams in Tennessee, and all the snail darters died? As long as you didn’t “take” the fish, you’re cool. Environmental law doesn’t apply to the environment, but only to individual animals that live in that environment you want to wreck.

Don’t worry! Our government is accepting comments on the changes to the interpretation of existing legislation. Go ahead, tell them that this is ridiculous, enabling habitat destruction is far more lethal than literally killing individual animals.

They won’t care. They’ve got lawyers who are willing to warp the law to enable more short-term profiteering and more long-term annihilation of the landscape. It’s America the Beautiful, don’t you know?

Visited by an alien

I got a new toy! It’s a $30 trail cam that will probably cost $300 once the tariffs take effect, but I got it because I was curious about what has been going on in my back yard. There is a burrow under my deck, and every year we’re surprised by who takes up residence. Groundhogs are common, but one year we had a skunk under there.

I set the camera up to point directly at the hole, but you can’t see the burrow itself because of all the grass in the way. As expected, I knew there’d be squirrels and maybe rabbits hopping around, although the rabbits are currently in their shy phase, hiding with their litters of kits somewhere. We did spot a squirrel in the early evening (time stamp is correct, but I failed to set the date on the camera.)

All was quiet for most of the night, but then around 3AM something was popping it’s head up, multiple times, like they were repeatedly trying to figure out what that thing outside their front door was.

I’m not sure what that is. Maybe a skunk? Maybe an alien. I’d rather it were an alien visitor, because if it is a skunk I’ll need to set up a trap (a humane one, of course!) and relocate it later this summer.

Hmmm, I suppose if it is a small alien, I could also trap it. What kind of bait should I use? I think the last time we had a skunk, they were partial to cantaloupe.