The Red Book and insects

Insects in the Red Books is a separate song... Especially in regional ones, which are often written not by professionals in this field, but by teachers of all sorts of peds who lead invertebrate zoology and are able (and proud of it) to distinguish a cabbage from a swallowtail without a determinant.There are a lot of opinions on what types and categories to include in the CC. My deep conviction is that we should include REALLY RARE AND VULNERABLE species, but RELATIVELY LARGE AND EASILY IDENTIFIED IN NATURE. And even better, if they are indicators of UNDISTURBED OR INTACT biotopes. It is pointless to include some moth that can be RELIABLY determined by TWO people on Earth, and then after a long "dismemberment" under binoculars.
by the way, our European counterparts also shoved such a thing into their KK.

Ddaa... Sometimes you just want to spit when platitudes are entered in the red books (more often regional ones), simply because the author has never really collected this species, but in reality it is not only common, but there is nothing to protect it from (it even happens that the climate is called the main limiting factor - so we start to " raise the temperature?!"). By the way, the Red Book of the Chelyabinsk region will soon be published, which includes a beetle species that is not included in its fauna. As for the indicators, I absolutely agree.

Not the Red Book, but still...

Most protected species:
...
Insects
mosquito-squeaker
Fish are bony
...

A source

Not the Red Book, but still...

Most protected species:
...
Insects
mosquito-squeaker
Fish are bony
...

A source

This is strong!

Isn't there a housefly there?"
The Administrative Code of the Moscow Region has also been compiled. There are also sorrel chervonets, and bolshaya perelivnitsa, and other quite common species.

This is a joke not only with insects, but with all animals. In Estonia, we have taken it upon ourselves to protect beavers. Before that, they were already ordinary, and after they were taken under protection, problems began-the beavers became emboldened, ran to eat border posts, and telegraph posts as well)) small soraychiki near reservoirs, they did not want the same. The fact is that so far no one has crossed them out of the red list. Beavers eat everything they see-and harm the beaver who ruined your property - you are also to blame. No, I'm certainly for a careful attitude to nature, but if some beaver my soray gnawed, I would be mildly angry at the animal))
And the insects in the CC also make me cheaper! But it's still up to you to see. Some types of which are allowed in Estonia in bulk, I practically did not get up anywhere in Austria or Italy.... And the CC for the European Union is the same, and for Estonia and for the same Italy, so this is bullshit. Namely, one mnemosyne butterfly was introduced to the Estonian CC from insects, but at least it is really rare here....

Oh, check out the butterflies of Crimea http://babochki-kryma.narod.ru/files/lib.htm. there are several articles about the wise red books. It seems that the sections devoted to insects are generally compiled for show. We started with bison and other game killed by hunters, and added a couple of flies. It is strange that even if there are qualified entomologists at hand, the red lists are full of all sorts of nonsense, for example, the "Red Book of the Leningrad Region". The biology of most species has not been studied at all. Everywhere there is a "ban on trapping". In short, only emotions.

And all the problems in the Red Books are due to the fact that their writing is paid, and sometimes even very good. And who wants to give a PIECE of the pie, even if it is a thrice-knowledgeable person. And really knowledgeable only remains to write caustic reviews or discuss this topic on forums. And - for free!!!
And if we take into account that Red Books should be reprinted EVERY TEN YEARS, then we should have enough" bile " for a long time... Because, I think, it will be very difficult to make a REALLY correct QC!

For example, A. atropos, the famous death's head. On the contrary, it would be good if they caught him (and then reported him later). Not population conservation (which we don't have), but information about flights - that's what's important. Micro-Zapovedniki - what is really needed and healthy-were buried long ago.

And yet, there is a problem of protecting the rarest, but hardly noticeable insects. For example, a unique grylloblattina djakonovi – an endemic species and genus, a remnant of the oldest fauna – lives very sporadically in Primorsky Krai. Extremely rare. What to do with it and how to protect it? And is it even worth guarding?

I wonder how many people here have read the latest edition of the CC RF? It is seriously different from the CC of the USSR (the section on insects, at least). Of course, not without nonsense, but quite plausible estimates of the state in nature and limiting factors are given. The problem is that many species that require no less protection than those listed directly in the CC are placed in the application, which is legal. As you know, it is not a document. All species that were mistakenly placed in the USSR CC (including the same tail-bearing Maak) are excluded from the new edition (although there were a few of them, these species).
Regarding Grylloblattina djakonovi - I think the first question should be " And is it worth protecting at all?". We know almost nothing about this species, it is a completely dark horse. How many instances have been caught since it was opened? And how much has the anthropogenic load on the vicinity of the place of its discovery increased since that time?
The impression is that the list of insect species included in the RF CC is very limited, possibly due to the prejudices of some people who are not very well versed in ecology, but through which the CC still passes. In this case, what is the point of including in the CC species that are known to have disappeared, or species known from individual specimens caught many years ago? And this criterion for invertebrates is 100 years old (if there have been no encounters with the species in 100 years since the last discovery, it is considered extinct) also looks weird...

It is better to preserve really whole biocenoses.
Here, if the swamps were not drained, then the peat pigeon would have flown in Moose Island. What about Parnassius apollo?
If we talk about the European subspecies democratus, which is preserved in the Vladimir region, somewhere between Murom and Kovrov, calmly inhabits pine fires there and dies out when they are overgrown without human intervention. Here is a picture of last summer: a broken-down narrow-gauge railway with a trolley rushing along it every hour and a half, in the middle of several hectares of burning, P. apollo, M. dydima, M. aurelia plus other butterflies, tons of berries and mushrooms in the surrounding forests, plow and Venus ' shoe. 8-10 km away is a village with a drunken population. Correct question: What to protect and from whom?
In addition, the forest is being actively cut down there, opening up new opportunities for the spread of Apollo.

to Dracus: And we were there at 5 in the morning and it was cold, about 5 degrees Celsius. And this is July 9th!

Of course, the biotope from the drunken population. And then let the fallen in these places and...... Apollo and other rarities.

Isn't there a housefly there?"
The Administrative Code of the Moscow Region has also been compiled. There are also sorrel chervonets, and bolshaya perelivnitsa, and other quite common species.

As for the Red Book of the Ministry of Defense, I can answer specifically and definitely-from the words of people who participated in its development.
There is not such idiocy as it seems, or rather-forced idiocy
Our approach to nature protection is standard: there is a red book type, and a protected area is created to protect it. Protection of biocenoses as such is not provided. Here, in order to be able to include in protected areas at least at the regional level an autochthonous forest, or a floodplain meadow, or a steppe, or a swamp, in the Red Book, we included bioindicator species like sorrel chervonets or Euchloe ausonia, which actually expands its range. That is, so that at least one Red Book species can be found on a site that is promising from the point of view of organizing a nature reserve.

This post was edited by Helene - 03.05.2006 14: 45

Of course, the biotope from the drunken population. And then let the fallen in these places and...... Apollo and other rarities.

Well, actually, it depends on what fell... If not very large-scale and not every year... Morozzz has already said that pyrogenic successions for Apollo are no worse than any other, But I agree with the question: the worst enemy of nature is a fake dolt with a cigarette
A few years ago, such local eagles (most likely, cranberry pickers) burned down 70 percent of the unique population of Oeneis jutta in the Sergiev Posad district.You already want to buy a gun, walk through the swamps in the fall and smack a snipe on the ass...

About spring fires: even despite the barbaric "burning" of last year's grass, populations are preserved no matter what. Poor people, and they poison them with dust and burn them with fire and drain meliorators.
But there is no method against scrap - the development of lawns and small woods by all sorts of "elite" cottage villages is a kerdyk to everything!

This, however, is not a reason to turn a blind eye to these burnouts and not try to "teach" at least among familiar children.

Dear Dracus,
Children are not a problem, just!
But some of my "mature, experienced" neighbors in the country, like civilized people, burn dry grass near the dacha pond every spring. One said, two said-useless.
And children should be taught not to throw beer containers and cigarette packs around, to clean up the garbage after themselves.
That's how a single jerk spoils the whole"raspberry".
They say it also happened to the only reliably known population of apollo in the Moscow region in the Prioksko-Terrasny Nature Reserve. One such idiot either mowed down a clearing, or plowed it. That's all.

About spring fires: even despite the barbaric "burning" of last year's grass, populations are preserved no matter what.

A friend told me an amazing story about the Southern Urals: near the village, where "dry grass burning holidays"are practiced for a long time and regularly, practically nothing flies on insects... other than Apollo, it looks like their eggs are quite fire-resistant.
But if the fall passes when they have already hatched - then kirdyk. In addition, the psammophilic fauna is not limited to Apollo, there are many specific things found in such places...
As for development , that's why I understand the Red Book of the Ministry of Defense, because it's SUCH a disaster (building and other destruction of landscapes as such)... The reserve, of course, is not protected, but if it is on paper, then obtaining a permit for the same development is at least very difficult. So it would be better to organize it not by washing so by rolling, even if only through entering the sorrel chervonets into the Red Book

P.S. As far as I know, the population in the PTZ has collapsed after all, not because of a single mowing, but primarily because of the mesophilization of the biotope.

This post was edited by Helene - 05/04/2006 12: 34

Perhaps in the introduction of frequent types and there is a sense. Since the species are spread over large territories, more territories will have to be protected, which means that other rare species will also be protected..

Perhaps in the introduction of frequent types and there is a sense. Since the species are spread over large territories, more territories will have to be protected, which means that other rare species will also be protected..

In a good way, we just need to legalize the protection of biocenoses as such (as opposed to individual species).

In general, even without buildings, fires, and "uncontrolled fishing", some species disappear somewhere. For example, about 15 years ago, in the area of the Razdory platform along the Usovskaya line, there were many moth Odezia atrata. Last year and in the next two years, I didn't see any of them there, although the place didn't change at all - just like the clearing under the power line, it still remains(and this, imagine, along the "elite" Uspenskoe Highway).

In general, even without buildings, fires, and "uncontrolled fishing", some species disappear somewhere. For example, about 15 years ago, in the area of the Razdory platform along the Usovskaya line, there were many moth Odezia atrata. Last year and in the next two years, I didn't see any of them there, although the place didn't change at all - just like the clearing under the power line, it still remains(and this, imagine, along the "elite" Uspenskoe Highway).

Waves of life...

Apparently, O. atrata has a "population calm".

Insects in general are characterized by very significant natural fluctuations in their abundance. This, by the way, is the basis for many of the stupidities of the Red Books. They noted that a certain species has become less common for several years - they conclude that the insect is dying out, and it is urgently necessary to protect it.
In a good way, you need to:
1. A network of points throughout the region (for which the Red List is maintained), where constant monitoring is carried out.
2. Environmental expertise when a species is included in the list of protected areas. In other words, threat analysis: whether it is local, how vulnerable it is to anthropogenic impact (the insect itself, the forage plant, or the entire biocenosis with which it is rigidly connected).
That is, we need to work seriously and on a permanent basis, without campaigning.

In a good way, you need to:
1. A network of points throughout the region (for which the Red List is maintained), where constant monitoring is carried out.
2. Environmental expertise when a species is included in the list of protected areas. In other words, threat analysis: whether it is local, how vulnerable it is to anthropogenic impact (the insect itself, the forage plant, or the entire biocenosis with which it is rigidly connected).
That is, we need to work seriously and on a permanent basis, without campaigning.

"Where's the money, Zin?" (c), meaning Helene
I doubt that there will be funds for such scale work... Even among the bourgeoisie, I haven't heard about this, but here we are, until even on "kilobucks for a single scientist" they can't dial

"Where's the money, Zin?" (c), meaning Helene
I doubt that there will be funds for such scale work... Even among the bourgeoisie, I haven't heard about this, but here we are, so far, even for "kilobucks for a single scientist" they won't get it in any way

So I'm talking about how to get the right Red List, not about funding...
By the way, with monitoring, you can solve the problem this way: attract amateurs. There is also a practice of recording birds by bird watchers. You just need to explain to people exactly what to do in order to collect the necessary data (i.e., give them a methodology).
And the expertise - themselves, themselves... They are also (compilers) as a rule, from ecologists And if their "ecology" is from the field of pseudoscience, then drive such compilers to the neck!

If entomologists and collectors didn't just harass everything beautiful for their own whim, then there would be no need to protect the same butterflies specifically. And adding at least students of the general stream to the CC stops them from killing themselves. We have a water lover listed by the VCC, so his students brought him in a jar, sketched/photographed him and took him back. Only because one of them knew that vodolyub was in the CC. And so - on a pin.

If entomologists and collectors didn't just harass everything beautiful for their own whim, then there would be no need to protect the same butterflies specifically. And adding at least students of the general stream to the CC stops them from killing themselves. We have a water lover listed by the VCC, so his students brought him in a jar, sketched/photographed him and took him back. Only because one of them knew that vodolyub was in the CC. And so - on a pin.

It is necessary to protect the biotopes and areas of the territory. And the fate of unsexy animals is this: they are at the beginning of the food chain and therefore 99% of individuals are eaten.

To Tarxan
Is in what region is vodolyub in KK? And which one?
If we talk about the blackest, then in the Yaroslavl region. in the shallow water of reservoirs, it is not even rare. And since almost 80% of the Rybinsk vdhr. (4500 km.sq.) shallow water, to... And it's not easy to catch, the net comes across randomly and occasionally, and in the delirium of scientific fishing - heaps.

To Tarxan
Is in what region is vodolyub in KK? And which one?
If we talk about the blackest, then in the Yaroslavl region. in the shallow water of reservoirs, it is not even rare. And since almost 80% of the Rybinsk vdhr. (4500 km.sq.) shallow water, to... And it is not easy to catch, the net comes across randomly and singly, and in the delirium of scientific fishing - heaps.

In the Novosibirsk region (Karasukskaya biostation), water lovers (I don't know which ones) flew en masse to the light: there was a typical Barabinsk steppe lake with reeds nearby.
2Tarxan: There is some difference between the beetle population and the zebra population (C). Insects have a huge fecundity, a short life cycle, and they are at the beginning of the food chain, as I said. So your students can't harm water lovers, even if they really need protection in your area. So don't scold me too much if the Red Bookman is suddenly crushed: you don't need to protect insects from hunters.

Tarxan

Compare the number of university students in practice and the number of small vocational schools. Even if all the students are allowed to gather insects... then it is unlikely that they will destroy in a week as much as the birds destroy in a day.

Oh, colleagues, you are biologists after all, and not followers of Dr. Mengele...

It doesn't matter what region the water lover is in in the red List. It doesn't matter at all what rare beetle/insect we are talking about. Forgive me, I'm not an entomologist, but it seems to me that this approach is " Compare the number of university students in practice and the number of small birds. Even if all the students are allowed to gather insects... then it is unlikely that they will destroy in a week as much as birds destroy in a day" - not for a biologist. You took ecology classes, didn't you :- ) After all, what pitts eat is a natural process, and what entomologists catch is anthropogenic. In nature, everything is arranged as it should be, it's not for me to explain it to you. But I read these opinions and think-it means that if you do not kill the Red Book beetle (any other animal) and then its body will be lost for entomology. But something will remain for nature.

Oh, colleagues, you are biologists after all, and not followers of Dr. Mengele...

Tarxan, I went to your profile and I know that you are a biophysicist, and not a crazy Vitavets. So I won't laugh about Dr. Mengele. Go to the next topic "Bioethics in entomology", because the problem you raised is discussed there. Ideally , if you repeat your remark there, and we discuss it By the way, I advise you to read all the posts-maybe something will become clear for you.

Well, I'm not really a biophysicist. I also know the Vitavians. Not in everything, but in many ways I share their views: -) OK, I will do as you said...

Returning to the CC. Another delusional point is the given areas. I judge by the Red Data Book of the Moscow region. A typical example is a large swamp filly. The species is really vulnerable and not very common, although noticeable. Only three habitat points are indicated, while the species is found almost all over the Ramenskoye district (as far as I have traveled it), as well as in two neighboring ones. Interestingly, before compiling such a publication, field events are generally held, or all information is collected from the literature of 10-20 years ago? (by the way, this is also noticeable in the federal tax code - quite often the phrases "there are no up-to-date data", "quantitative accounting was not carried out in the last decade", etc., but the authors of articles cheerfully slip references to the literature of the 70s and 80s).

Information on erect-winged animals in the KKMO is also collected according to the literature of even 120 years ago, so almost everything is undoubtedly outdated. It seems that they are going to reissue it every 10 years. There will definitely be new data, but how to focus on protecting vulnerable habitats rather than species is not technically clear to me yet. I have been reading the topic for a long time, there is a lot of constructive criticism, but alas, there are no concrete proposals yet.