Climate change is speeding up insect breeding

Orange-sulphur butterfly, photo by Alan Kneidel

This post now appearing on the DailyMe

Those of us concerned about greenhouse gases and climate change have a new study to ponder. This study, from Dr. Florian Altermatt at UC Davis, documents once again the biological effects of global warming.

Altermatt examined insect data from Central Europe. Temperatures have been increasing there for decades, but particularly since 1980. This European warming trend is increasing the number of generations per year for some insects.

Altermatt discovered this by analyzing climate records and population data for 263 butterfly and moth species in Central Europe. He included only species that are known to have more than one generation per year, at least occasionally.

Because the warming trend in Central Europe has been more dramatic since 1980, he compared insect-breeding data before 1980 to insect-breeding data after 1980.

He found that, for 190 of the 263 species examined (=72%), the second or subsequent generation became more pronounced after 1980 compared with before 1980.  In other words, for most of the species he examined, there were more generations per year after 1980.

So what?
What difference does that make to the ecology of our planet?  There are a number of potential repercussions, few of them good.

For one thing, many crop pests are larvae of moths or butterflies, such as the cabbage white and the tomato hornworm - to name just a couple from my own garden.  A population that is having more generations per year will grow in number faster than a population with fewer generations per year, all other things being equal. So global warming could mean faster-proliferating insect pests, hence higher numbers of insect pests on crops.

In addition to that, higher numbers of a particular insect species can lead that species to deplete its food source, or outcompete and eliminate its competitors for limited resources such as food or breeding sites.

Ecosystems can be altered if just one species goes awry
Another potential result of an overblown insect population could be increases in the predators of this insect species. Predators of butterflies, moths, and their larvae include birds, lizards, mice, toads, parasitic wasps, and many more. If these predator populations increase, this could have a dampening effect on the other prey of these predators, prey that could have economic value - or could be significant species in their respective ecosystems.  As ecologists have demonstrated repeatedly, eliminating any species from an ecosystem, or even just changing the density of one species, can have profound effects on the stability of the ecosystem as a whole.  Ecosystems are highly complex systems whose parts are intricately interdependent. 

The principle that Altermatt demonstrated is far more significant than the particulars he reported.  Specifically, he showed that 72% of the moths and butterflies he looked at in Central Europe have more generations per year now that the climate is warmer.  But his data suggest something far more sinister....that any or all terrestrial invertebrates may have their breeding disrupted in some fashion by climate change.

Most animal species are invertebrates
The vast majority of animal species on this planet are invertebrates, which are much more directly susceptible to temperature changes, since their body temperature fluctuates with the air or water around them. When invertebrates are warmer, all of their physiological processes are speeded up.  This is unlike warm-blooded mammals and birds (including humans), whose body temperatures remain the same regardless of ambient temperatures (disregarding accidents such as a plunge into frigid waters).

Are negative consequences inevitable?
We don't really know. Animals that have more generations can adapt faster to changing conditions. Or maybe more insects could mean more prey for birds that are declining.  It's conceivable that there could be benefits to having insects breed faster.  Is that the most likely outcome?  I don't know.  But I don't think so.  The few stable ecosystems we have remaining are the result of millions of years of co-evolution.  It's hard to think that a few years of random interference is going to improve millions of years of fine-tuning.

What can be done?
Reduce your own carbon footprint.  Residents of the United States generate more greenhouse gases per person than residents of any other country in the world.

The easiest thing you can do, every day,  is to eat fewer animal products (see "Livestock and Climate Change" by Worldwatch Institute).  The Worldwatch Institute, a prominent environmental think-tank, reports that the livestock sector generates 51% of greenhouse gases worldwide.

Find ways to drive less. Carpool, ride your bike, take public transportation.  If you do drive, use a fuel-efficient car.

Choose a passive-solar home, which can reduce your heating and cooling needs to almost nothing.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has reported that our diets, our transportation, and the way we heat and cool our homes are the biggest consumer contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and pollution in general.

Take the Environmental Footprint quiz and learn more about how to reduce your own carbon footprint.

We have only a short window of opportunity over the next few years to have any hope of slowing global climate change.  Once the ice sheets are all melted, the loss of all that white ice reflecting solar radiation away from the planet will accelerate the process of global warming.

For more practical suggestions about how to reduce your carbon footprint, see our book Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. The book offers strategies regarding diet, housing, transportation, clothing, and other consumer choices that we all make every day.

Sources:
Florian Altermatt.  12/22/2009. "Climatic warming increases voltinism in European butterflies and moths." Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Sally Kneidel, PhD, and Sadie Kneidel. 2008. Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. Fulcrum Books.

Some of my recent posts about climate change:
North Carolina's vital coastal breeding grounds vulnerable to climate change

Tree deaths have doubled due to climate change

Livestock account for 51% of annual global climate change.

Famous ice caps of Kilamanjaro gone by 2022

Copenhagen data: 10% of Florida underwater by the end of the century 

One-tenth of Louisiana to be submerged by 2010 

Irvine CA schools go solar; most comprehensive solar school plan in the U.S.

Less meat.....smaller footprint

Most earth-friendly mass transit

Green tip #1: Annex the outdoors and save energy and materials

How to buy a used, fuel-efficient, and green car 

Keywords:: climate change greenhouse gases global warming carbon footprint Florian Altermatt increase number of generations in butterflies Central Europe voltinism Proceedings of Royal Society B UC Davis

Natural daylight may improve youngsters' eyesight

Photo by Sally Kneidel, Phd

This post now a Google News Link and on wwwbasilandspice.com

In the last 30 years, the number of nearsighted Americans has increased dramatically, by 66%.  Nearsightedness, or myopia, is the inability  to focus on distant objects. In the early 1970s, 25% of Americans were nearsighted. Now, says epidemiologist Dr. Susan Vitale of the National Eye Institute, 42% of Americans are nearsighted.

Why?

Does too much reading cause nearsightedness?
Scientists have believed for decades that nearsightedness is caused by genetics (family history) and the amount of "near-work" that a person does, such as reading. For Americans, that could include watching TV and playing video games. Dr. Don Mutti, an optometrist at Ohio State, says, "Kepler wrote...400 years ago, that he thought his nearsightedness was due to his intense study of astronomical tables and so forth."

Dr. Mutti has been researching the causes of myopia.  For the past 20 years, Dr. Mutti has followed a group from childhood to adulthood, tracking their habits to see who develops myopia.  Heredity does, to a large degree, influence who will become myopic later on.  But Dr. Mutti has discovered something else, something surprising and unexpected.

In his study, the amount of "near-work" such as reading and watching TV did not predict who would be nearsighted later. Said Dr. Mutti about his most current research, "near-work had no influence at all".

Dr. Mutti found an unexpected cause...
What did predict nearsightedness was the amount of time spent indoors vs. outdoors during childhood.

Said Dr. Mutti: "If you have two nearsighted parents and you engage in a low level of outdoor activity, your chances of becoming myopic by the 8th grade are about 60%. If children engaged in over 14 hours per week of outdoor activity, their chances of becoming nearsighted were now only 20%.  So it was quite a dramatic reduction in the risk of becoming myopic."

This could seem to support the "near-work" theory - if you're not outside, then you must be inside reading or watching TV. But Mutti looked at that possibility, and ruled it out. Mutti looked at exercise too, and ruled that out as well.  Children exercising indoors did not get the same benefit of better vision as children spending time outdoors.

Outdoor light may benefit the eye
Mutti is now conducting a study to test his suspicion that outdoor light levels may be responsible, that outdoor light may have a beneficial effect on the eye. He suspects that outdoor light may change some aspects of retinal physiology.

Let's use natural lighting in all our schools
Sounds good to me. Daylight can save energy, as well as possibly preserving our vision.  In fact, one of the most cost-effective changes a school can make toward saving energy is using natural daylight to illuminate classrooms.  See Jeff Barrie's award-winning documentary "Kilowatt Ours" or the article on Treehugger to learn more about schools that have made the move to natural daylight, and have saved money and reduced their carbon footprint by doing so. Could these progressive schools be protecting eyes and protecting the planet at the same time?

Sources:
Susan Vitale, PhD, et al. December 2009. "Increased Prevalence of Myopia in the United States Between 1971-1972 and 1999-2004." Archives of Ophthalmology 127(12):1632-1639.

Deborah Amos. January 11, 2010. "Medical detectives focus on myopia". Morning Edition, National Public Radio.

Nathan Seppa. January 16, 2010. "Nearsightedness increasing." Science News. www.sciencenews.org

Jeff Barrie. "Kilowatt Ours".

Jasmin Malik Chua. "Natural light gives you smartypants". August 28, 2007. www.treehugger.com

I took the photo of the child above in the village of Welverdiend, South Africa. A few of my previous posts about Welverdiend are "An African village seeking solutions" and "African village of Welverdiend believes in the power of good" and "My visit to a traditional healer".  Enter the word Welverdiend in this blog's search window to find more about visiting the village.

North Carolina's vital coastal breeding grounds vulnerable to rising seas

This post now on Google News and on wwwbasilandspice.com

 Map of coastal NC with barrier islands,  

courtesy of www.cop.noaa.gov

I've written posts about Florida and Louisana losing ground to rising seas. Both states are projected to lose at least 10% of their land mass this century.

North Carolina hasn't gotten has much press as Louisiana and Florida, but NC is among the states most vulnerable to rising seas, reports the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Coastal inundation in North Carolina would affect industries and wildlife far beyond the state's borders.

The Outer Banks protect the mainland
North Carolina's mainland coast is at present protected by a continuous arc of barrier islands known as the Outer Banks. The Outer Banks take the full brunt of the hurricanes and tropical storms that often strike the Atlantic coast of the southern U.S. Over the past few decades, the Outer Banks have become increasingly developed with expensive vacation real estate as well as year-round communities.

One undeveloped area on the Outer Banks is the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, which remains a breeding ground for sea turtles and for thousands of shore birds, including endangered species such as the Piping Plover.

The people and the wildlife of the Outer Banks are extremely vulnerable to rising seas.

NC seas could rise 4.6 feet, says panel on January 16
A panel of scientists and engineers reported on January 15, 2010, that the sea level on the NC coast may rise as much as 4.6 feet this century. Even a rise of 3 feet, they report, would wipe out the Outer Banks. If or when that happens, the repercussions will be far flung.


Rising seas likely to wipe out vital breeding grounds
Between the Outer Banks and North Carolina's mainland are brackish wetlands and the calm waters of the Pamlico Sound, an area of fewer predators than the open ocean. The Pamlico Sound serves as a nursery for much of the young sea life of the entire East Coast. But if the Banks are submerged, the Sound and 2300 square miles of low-lying marshland will be flooded with saltier sea water, which will destroy the brackish ecosystem, as well as the fishes that are adapted to the less salty water of the Pamlico Sound as youngsters.

This is not just a nightmare for naturalists and ecologists. The commercial fishing industry would also be devastated by the loss of this important breeding ground.

Although scientists cannot predict with certainty how much sea levels will rise this century, estimates by climate scientists are leaning toward higher numbers. Ice sheets in Greenland are are shifting faster than expected, and indications of unstable ice are appearing in Antarctica, reports Gordon Hamilton of the University of Maine. Writes Bruce Henderson of the Charlotte Observer, "Ice sheets in Greenland alone could raise global seas some 20 feet."  This is a generally accepted approximate figure. The question is, how long will it take?  And will we be able to stop or slow the process?

What can you do?
We can work to slow the process by reducing our own greenhouse gas emissions. As residents of the United States, we have the highest per capita generation of GG in the world. We can reduce our output by
eating fewer animal products (see "Livestock and Climate Change" by Worldwatch Institute), by driving less, carpooling, driving fuel-efficient cars, choosing passive-solar homes, and in general burning fewer fossil fuels. Take the Environmental Footprint quiz and learn more how to reduce your own carbon footprint. We all have to participate, if we are to reduce global climate change during the short window of opportunity we have over the next few years.

For more practical suggestions about how to reduce your carbon footprint, see our book Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. The book offers strategies regarding diet, housing, transportation, clothing, and other consumer choices that we all make every day.

Sources:
Bruce Henderson. "Sea rising along N.C., but how quickly? Accelerating upward creep could reshape the coast and endanger Outer Banks, scientists say." The Charlotte Observer. January 16, 2010.

Sally Kneidel, PhD, and Sadie Kneidel. 2008. Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. Fulcrum Books.

Some of my recent posts about climate change:

Tree deaths have doubled due to climate change

Livestock account for 51% of annual global climate change.

Famous ice caps of Kilamanjaro gone by 2022

Copenhagen data: 10% of Florida underwater by the end of the century 

One-tenth of Louisiana to be submerged by 2010 

Irvine CA schools go solar; most comprehensive solar school plan in the U.S.

Less meat.....smaller footprint

Most earth-friendly mass transit

Green tip #1: Annex the outdoors and save energy and materials

How to buy a used, fuel-efficient, and green car


Keywords: rising sea levels climate change Outer Banks North Carolina fisheries devastated endangered birds

Trees deaths have doubled due to climate change

This post now on www.basilandspice.com

Climate change is killing our trees.  This is an unfortunate irony, because we rely on living trees to remove and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Dead trees do the opposite - their decomposition releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas primarily responsible for global climate change. 

This tree data comes from a study published recently in the prestigious journal Science. The authors examined records of tree deaths from 76 plots of healthy old-growth temperate forests in the western U.S. and Canada, ranging from British Columbia to Arizona.  The scientists reported that trees are falling twice as fast as they were 50 years ago.

The study included only trees that died for "noncatastrophic" reasons.  That is, they were not victims of wildfires or huge outbreaks of pine beetles, but were routine deaths.  Overall, more than 58,000 trees were monitored for the study.

Little numbers add up to a big number
The number of routine deaths were relatively small, said co-author Mark Harmon of Oregon State University in Corvallis, but "a lot of little numbers can add up to a big number."

If this trend continues, forests of the future may be composed of younger and thinner trees that store less carbon than the larger trees of today.  Such an effect, in addition to increased decomposition, would speed the rate of global warming.

Warm temps have changed water dynamics
The scientists concluded that the deaths were not due to air pollution such as ozone because many of the trees were in national forests with relatively clean air.  The more likely explanation, they wrote, is that the deaths are occurring as a result of climate change.  Warming temperatures have changed water dynamics in the West, with more precipitation falling as rain than snow, with earlier snow melts and longer droughts. Trees are getting less water.  Also, climate change is giving a boost to tree pathogens that prosper in warmer temperatures.

Scientists in tropical forests have not found the same effect.  In the tropics, the growth of new trees is keeping pace with the death of old ones.

What can be done?  
Author Simon Lewis of Leeds University concluded that "systemic long-term monitoring of forests is essential as a warning system to potentially more dramatic changes."  Yes, monitoring could be useful.

In addition to that, we can all try to reduce our own carbon production: by eating fewer animal products (see "Livestock and Climate Change" by Worldwatch Institute), by driving less, carpooling, driving fuel-efficient cars, building passive-solar homes, and in general burning fewer fossil fuels. Take the Environmental Footprint quiz and see how to reduce your own carbon footprint. We all have to participate, if we are to reduce global climate change during the short window of opportunity we have over the next few years.

For more practical suggestions about how to reduce your carbon footprint, see our book Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. The book offers strategies regarding diet, housing, transportation, clothing, and other consumer choices that we all make every day.

Sources:   
Phillip J. Van Mantgem et al.  "Widespread Increase of Tree Mortality Rates in the Western United States." Science 23.  January 2009.

Susan Milius. "Everyday tree deaths have doubled". Science News. Feb 14. 2009

Sally Kneidel, PhD, and Sadie Kneidel. Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet: Fulcrum Publishing. 2008.

A few of my recent posts about climate change:

Livestock account for 51% of annual global climate change.

Famous ice caps of Kilamanjaro gone by 2022

Copenhagen data: 10% of Florida underwater by the end of the century 

One-tenth of Louisiana to be submerged by 2010 

Irvine CA schools go solar; most comprehensive solar school plan in the U.S.

Less meat.....smaller footprint

Most earth-friendly mass transit

Green tip #1: Annex the outdoors and save energy and materials

How to buy a used, fuel-efficient, and green car

Keywords: trees dying climate change carbon footprint greenhousee gases environmental footprint

H1N1 weekly deaths increase, but spread of virus decreases

This post now a Google News Link and on www.basilandspice.com.

Wonder what's going on with the H1N1 virus?  If there's going to be a third wave of the epidemic this flu season, we should know soon.  But the CDC is still not sure what lies in store for the rest of this winter.

The Centers for Disease Control closely monitor and analyze all data on H1N1, and do their best to make predictions. On their very thorough website, they posted their most recent H1N1 reports on January 4. As you can see, the report has mixed indicators of future trends for H1N1.  It also has a lot of information about what you can do to protect yourself.

Number of deaths has increased
The Jan 4 report says that, for the most recent week analyzed (Dec 20-26), the number of flu deaths increased over the preceding week. The number of deaths is now back above the "epidemic" threshold, after dipping below it for the first time in 11 weeks. Almost all of the influenza viruses identified this winter in the U.S. continue to be 2009 H1N1 influenza A virus, which is susceptible to the H1N1 vaccine now being widely offered to the public.

Doctor visits up; hospitalization rates steady
For the week Dec 20-26, visits to doctors for flu-like symptoms increased over the previous week. Overall hospitalization rates for flu and its most dangerous complication (pneumonia) were unchanged from the previous week.

Antivirals still effective
For persons very sick with H1N1 and pneumonia, the currently circulating H1N1 virus remains susceptible to the antiviral drugs oseltamivir and zanamivir "with rare exception."

Is the virus in decline?
The number of states reporting widespread influenza activity decreased for the last week analyzed (Dec 20-26).  In addition, the number of pediatric deaths has decreased, even though the total number of deaths increased.

Get the shot!
The CDC continues to urge the public to get inoculated against H1N1. The shot or mist is offered widely at county health departments and doctors' offices. When I went to get a shot at my local county health department, the vaccine was free. There was a $15 administration fee, which is covered by insurance. The CDC has said repeatedly that widespread vaccination of the public can be a major factor in preventing a third wave of the disease. The vaccine will continue to be widely available through January.

Vulnerable groups
On January 2, Science News ran an online story saying sickle-cell increases vulnerability to H1N1 in children, although I didn't see that on the CDC website.

According to the CDC, the persons most vulnerable to complications from H1N1 are:
People 65 and older
Children under 5
Pregnant women
African Americans
People with these health conditions:
HIV/AIDS, severe immunosuppresssion, diabetes, disabilities, cardiovascular disease, asthma, arthritis, cancer patients and survivors, chronic pulmonary obstructive disease.

People who interact a lot with the public in their jobs may be more likely to contract H1N1 than others.

See Source #4. below for more info about vulnerable groups.

Symptoms
According to the CDC, you may have the flu if you have some or all of these symptoms:
fever (may or may not be present)
cough
sore throat
runny or stuffy nose
body aches
headache
chills
fatigue
sometimes diarrhea and vomiting

Prevention
To prevent infection in yourself and your children: get the vaccine, wash your hands frequently with soap or alcohol gel, avoid contact with those who are ill, avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth when out in public.  And if you have flu-like symptoms, call or see your health care provider. Stay home at least 24 hours after your fever is gone.  

Sources:
1. Centers for Disease Control. 2009 H1N1 Flu: Situation Update January 4, 2009
2. CDC. 2009 H1N1 Flu: Situation Update - Key Flu Indicators January 4, 2009
3. CDC. General Information about 2009 H1N1 Vaccines (and where to find a vaccine)
4. CDC. People at High Risk of Developing Flu-Related Complications. November 10, 2009
5. CDC. Flu View. (a map of state-by-state influenza activity). For week ending Dec 26, 2009
6. Nathan Seppa.  "H1N1 Hits Sickle Cell Kids Hard". Science News. January 2, 2009

My previous posts about H1N1:
H1N1 shot made my son vomit, but GO GET THAT SHOT  12/24/2009

H1N1 widespread but declining. Experts disagree about a third wave of H1N1 this winter. 12/02/2009

Second wave of H1N1 declining in numbers but not severity. Third wave may be the worst 11/18/09

The most dangerous cases of H1N1  11/12/2009

My daughter says elderberry got rid of her H1N1 10/22/2009

Why is swine flu likely to return in winter? It's not because we're cooped up together in winter 5/8/2009

H1N1 is a swine flu and has its roots NC, the land of Smithfield 5/2/2009

Smithfield blamed for swine flu by Mexican press   4/29/2009

Keywords: CDC H1N1 vaccine influenza swine flu vulnerable groups epidemic

Exposure to a widely used chemical in utero leads to less masculine play in male children

Boys exposed in the womb to chemicals called phthalates are less likely to engage in masculine play during childhood.  So says a study soon to be published in the International Journal of Andrology.  Masculine play was defined as playing with guns, cars, trucks and other toys typically favored by boys.  The greater the exposure during pregnancy, the more dramatic was the behavioral effect later. Girls' play was not affected.

Hormones program the fetal brain
According to Heather Patisaul, a neuroendocrinologist at NC State, male sex hormones program fetal brain development, and this programming explains why boys like trucks and girls tend to prefer dolls. Anything that interferes with this hormonal influence can subtly reduce masculinization of a male's brain.

Phthalates have previously been reported to affect male hormones, but it was not known how this affected behavior.  The current study began several years ago when researchers measured phthalates during mid-pregnancy in a group of women across four states.  Three to six years later, the researchers asked the mothers to rate their children's play using the Pre-school Activities Inventory.  Each mother recorded how often in the past month her child had engaged in activities such as playing house, playing with dolls, dressing up in girls' clothes, playing with toy cars and trucks or guns, or play-fighting.  The study included 71 girls and 74 boys.

Less masculine play; more gender neutral play
The behavioral assessment revealed that boys with the highest exposure to phthalates in the womb had the lowest incidence of typically male play and a higher incidence of gender-neutral play. The phthalate-exposed boys did not have higher scores for typically female play. The lead researcher, Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry, said "We'd describe their play as less masculine," but not more feminine.

These findings are thought to be particularly significant because exposure to phthalates is so widespread and includes virtually everyone in the U.S.  Phthalates are industrial chemicals widely used as solvents, including use in cosmetics such as nail polish and hair spray. They are also widely used in plastic tubing involved in food processing.

The summary I read of the study, in Science News, did not offer any suggestions about how to avoid ingesting phthalates.  If I do find any information about that, I'll post it on http://veggierevolution.blogspot.com and on http://sallykneidel.com.  I'll keep an eye out for the report of the study that will soon be published in the academic journal mentioned above.

by Sally Kneidel, PhD

Source: 
Janet Raloff. "Chemicals from plastics show effects in boys: Fetal exposure to phthalates linked to less masculine play." Science News. December 19, 2009.

My previous post on behavioral effects of chemical exposure in womb:  

BPA exposure in womb linked to childhood behavioral changes  Dec 26, 2009.