Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday August 11 2020, @08:39AM   Printer-friendly

Popular Pesticides are Killing Birds, Too:

Neonicotinoids, a class of insecticides chemically related to nicotine, were first introduced to agriculture in the 1980s. They’re most commonly applied to seeds themselves and spread through the plants as they germinate and grow to protect against insects. But they’ve proven to be so harmful to bees and other insect populations that the EU banned their use in 2018. But in the U.S., thanks at least in part to a misinformation campaign on the part of the pesticide industry, there’s been a shift to use more and more of the dangerous chemicals even as the overall use of insecticides has been declining.

[...] Grassland birds (which rely on grassland habitats for nesting) and insectivorous birds (which eat insects, worms, and other invertebrates) saw the steepest impacts. The authors found that an increase of 220 pounds (100 kilograms) in neonicotinoid usage per county was associated with a 2.2% decline in populations of grassland birds and 1.6% in insectivorous birds. Khanna said this was due to birds feeding on both seeds treated with the pesticide as well as eating insects themselves who may have ingested it.

[...] To make matters worse, impacts of neonicotinoid pesticides accumulate, meaning that exposure over a longer period can have more severe implications. [...] For grassland birds, a 220 pound increase in neonicotinoid use per county in 2008 reduced the population of birds by almost 4% that year and cumulatively by 9.7% from 2008 to 2014.

[...] Birds help maintain sustainable population levels of different species, keeping ecosystems in harmony. Many also play an important [role] in plant reproduction because they serve as pollinators and seed dispersers.

Journal Reference:
Yijia Li, Ruiqing Miao, Madhu Khanna. Neonicotinoids and decline in bird biodiversity in the United States [$], Nature Sustainability (DOI: 10.1038/s41893-020-0582-x)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday August 11 2020, @06:10PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 11 2020, @06:10PM (#1035063) Journal

    The paper does a good job of showing its model over time vs real data over time but seeing −0.08 ± 0.07% in their summary table for describing the local relationship between use of neonicotinoids and species richness(the core relationship the summary brings to our attention) makes me really want to see some scatter plots. Having a margin of error that almost but not quite completely covers the effect size leaves a lot of questions about why.

    Are there outliers on one extreme? Do we see a consistent dose response curve with local variance? Is there some possible underlying time-driven cause that creates a spurious correlation?

    There's not enough raw information in the paper itself. The project's github [github.com] has the raw data, but I'm not sure how to parse what I'm looking for out of it.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3