The Red Book and insects

And what makes you think that? This publication is the only one that L. V., for obvious reasons, was then not convenient to organize himself. This is just a moment in Tula and other stories.
And to become an opponent, it is necessary to "get involved in print", and not spoil the air in your sandbox.

This "just a moment" is a summary of documents for a certain period of development of events, and not a one-time note in the "Communard". After your references to the Tula affairs, I was somewhat concerned, but now that I have learned from you that a scientist like L. V. contacted a person like you simply out of necessity, as they say - not from a good life, it's like a mountain has fallen off my shoulders. So for this information - another thank you. As for your know-how about fixing air pollution with a printed slip, it could be useful to some people here, but, as recent events have shown, they have also reached their own mind.

Are you kidding me? Here, the same deer beetle, from Wikipedia (sorry, too lazy to download the article, but there is a link):
20 eggs that will take 5 years to develop - is this rapid reproduction? Yes, any small bird breeds (potentially) faster.

If we approach this empirically, and even count only live adults and do not take into account the piles of bird scraps and thousands of adults crushed on only one illuminated site per season, then it is clear that someone-I will not suspect anyone personally - brings cervuses in trains every year to the habitats I know. However, out of modesty, without notifying us through the newspaper. Or that a species that is dying en masse from a variety of causes, with such impotent fertility for an insect, has managed to accumulate in nature for many years in order to mislead us today. If you approach it theoretically, you will either have to admit that the "new" researchers simply caught stale females or, in the spirit of modern "love of nature", deliberately spread panic rumors (then immediately send them to the authors of the CC, if they are not from there anyway, there is such a linden - it's the most important thing), or assume that "old "researchers" did not notice the nonsense that 30-80 extra eggs for each female cervus were thrown to them by cabbage plants.

And to become an opponent, it is necessary to "get involved in print"...

And to be an atheist, you must first become the pope? And to be an opponent of the Unified State Exam as such, do you need to first create tickets for the Unified State Exam? And to be an opponent of private property, you need to first grab Uralmash? And to be an opponent of theft, you first need to show an example of how to properly open someone else's safe? It has already been repeated a hundred times: do not confuse someone who is ready to give advice on improving dope or even set a personal example, because he believes that you need to worry about dope better, with someone who believes that you do not need to worry about dope at all. I don't know what you read messages with, but you don't understand what you read even a few times. In general, I refuse you any specific position, except for hatred of science and those who are able to reason at its level. It is unlikely that you yourself understand what exactly you are saying and what kind of trouble you need in this topic at all. In Russian, behavior similar to yours is simply called: "the bat is not washed". And the style of your presentation, to put it mildly, is not so academic as to help you understand the content. Everything is all around you, from the stinking substrate to the stink in the sandbox. And most importantly, you don't understand that such expressions just force the audience to attribute them not to the one you would like, but quite the opposite. There was, I remember, a writer who either eats jelly from you-know-what in Chonkin, or passes it by weight (in Moscow 2042). Are you also still stuck in the Freudian anal phase?

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 27.11.2017 03: 10

So big and beautiful beetles are listed in the red books not because they disappear, but because they are attractive to collectors, in the worst sense of the word.

That is, just out of ogloedskoy harmfulness? It is difficult to object; this Red Book motif, among others, has been pointed out here before. But illiteracy also cannot be ignored: after all, any literate person would first look at the price lists, where real market prices are already too high, because in the market, the cervus is complete bullshit, and if at least in the prices and pulls a little more than a broken penny, then only thanks to the QC. As for the possibility of extermination of an insect species by collectors, even CC pushers are ashamed to fantasize today. The most literate and least biased authors of the CC have already removed nonsense about collectors, "collecting", "catching", etc. from their specific articles. It is a pity, however, that, having once abandoned scientific objectivity very quickly, they are now getting smarter at a painfully slow pace, and the environmental cop is getting satanic in the meantime, taking it for granted. the collar of even the author of the CC. But what can you do? As the ancients said, to become a eunuch from a man is just to spit, but to turn back is already opanki...

It seems to me that the problem is that almost everyone here treats the red Book as something serious, scientific, and thorough, forgetting about its true meaning-decorative and administrative. So that, therefore, the head of the province had on his shelf as an achievement and confirmation of his concern not only for the serfs under his control, but also for environmental protection.
P.S. Does anyone know why the aggressive, senseless Tula creature, slandering respected people, throwing direct insults at almost everything that can be reached, hiding behind an impersonal nickname, has not yet earned a ban? And why is he being fed?

Interesting...

Insects that are close to the K-strategy. And Apollo is shown. Very funny.

The Red Book as a decorative element of the interior. Also funny.

On the first point , I have not yet encountered any insect species in nature with population dynamics close to the K-strategy. There are, of course, species with smaller numbers or just local ones, but in their habitats they are not just common - there are many of them. This does not mean that their strategy has suddenly changed from r to k, it means that it is in this clearing that their K-strategy will exist.

Well, the CC is, first of all, a legal document, a bylaw , on the basis of which you can be fined or imprisoned for withdrawing from nature what is recorded there. How it is decorated and how decorative is the tenth thing. That is why I personally am against regional red books in principle - but if you can't get rid of them in any way, then you need to take part in filling them with the right content.

Well, the CC is, first of all, a legal document, a bylaw, on the basis of which you can be fined or imprisoned for withdrawing something from nature
.
Red Book-supplement to the Criminal Code? By-law?
Even more ridiculous.

And for the protection of protected areas, the red Book is very useful. This may not be scientific, but it is useful to speak as a practitioner who encounters this regularly. The territory of nature reserves and natural monuments, of course, is not withdrawn from the owners of the land and the plots do not change their purpose. And most often these are agricultural land. Which many owners dream of transferring to the land of settlements, land of residential housing, etc., or, at least, to create a zone of limited economic use on the territory of protected areas. They are trying to achieve this by proving that there is nothing of value on this site - the grass is trampled, the bushes are broken, and there is shit under the bush. But if experts find representatives of Red Book species on the site, then the probability of meeting such a request drops sharply. Because it is precisely the presence of species from the CC that our state agencies perceive as an indicator of the nature conservation value of the territory. I'm not saying it's right, but it's happening. So I perceive the CC as a tool for protecting protected areas and nothing more...
Yes, I speak on the reality in our region, because now they will start broadcasting to me that everyone doesn't give a fuck about all the Red Book views, etc...

Oh, finally!

Let's continue the logical series:

They are trying to achieve this by proving that there is nothing of value on this site - the grass is trampled, the bushes are broken, and there is shit under the bush...

there are no rare insect species at all,

ага?

Oh, finally!

Let's continue the logical series:
there are no rare insect species at all,

Yeah?

There are no rare ones. There are indicators.

There are no rare ones. There are indicators.

Или extremely local species

Yes, it doesn't even matter if there is or not. Here some actively promote the idea - and let's exclude all insects from the Red List.
And what will happen to your wildlife sanctuaries then? You write it yourself.

And where did I suggest excluding all insects from the CC? The only problem is the selection of candidates for being there.
The rarity of insects is determined not at the individual level, but at the population level. The individual is nothing. But populations can be vulnerable. But this requires a number of prerequisites. Demanding micro-locations and environmental conditions, narrow range, poor ability to settle, destruction of biotopes. But at the same time, locally, in the zone of its optimum, the species will still be numerous.
Accordingly, the protection of individuals does not matter, it requires the protection of the population (or at least part of it). and this is impossible without the protection of biotopes.

This post was edited by Anthrenus - 27.11.2017 11: 55

And where did I suggest excluding all insects from the CC? The only problem is the selection of candidates for being there.
The rarity of insects is determined not at the individual level, but at the population level. The individual is nothing. But populations can be vulnerable. But this requires a number of prerequisites. Demanding micro-locations and environmental conditions, narrow range, poor ability to settle, destruction of biotopes. But at the same time, locally, in the zone of its optimum, the species will still be numerous.
Accordingly, the protection of individuals does not matter, it requires the protection of the population (or at least part of it). and this is impossible without the protection of biotopes.

You didn't suggest it, though

If you have a desire to do something useful for nature, get insects excluded from the Red List of the Penza Region

... this is not part of this forum, where it is recognized that the entomological part of the QC is comprehensively harmful.

In general, I don't see any problem. In the Red Book, not individuals are entered, but species. A species is a collection of populations, and a population is a collection of individuals. How does the Red Book prevent protecting the population?

Well, judging by what is included in the CC of the Penza region, it is possible to remove Shyutka, if chyato.
Because, from my point of view, entering something in the CC that does not require any protection leads to discrediting the CC as such. This leads to such calls. For example, one well-known lepidopterologist from our region, who is widely known in narrow circles, managed to enter Nymphalis xanthomelas in the CC of the region. Because the species had a natural decline in numbers. A few years later, this species exceeded the frequency of urticaria. And this comrade also contributed a lot of other things. And all 1st and rarely 2nd category. That is, put out the light, drain the water. And, as it turned out, it is almost impossible to remove all this from the CC. You can only soften the categories.

What is your understanding of the K-strategy and why do you think that its obligatory consequence should be a special vulnerability of the species? What is the person's strategy? Dying out? Of course, at the present stage of history, people in most regions of the world are well protected by all sorts of" red books", but in the old days (and sometimes still) there was nothing like this, many people" collected " people, including other people. However, the extinction event did not occur in any part of the range.

With K and P strategies, the importance of an individual in the population is different. As I have already written, for species with a P-strategy, an individual is nothing, since the population is programmed for high mortality. For the K-strategy, the individual is more or less important, since usually both the breeding rate and the mortality rate in the population are lower. Therefore, it makes sense to protect K-species at the individual level (which is what is done for vertebrates), but for P-species, protection at the individual level is meaningless. But this is not directly related to the vulnerability.
Although, the question probably wasn't asked to me

 
Red Book-supplement to the Criminal Code? By-law?
Even more ridiculous.

And in your opinion, there is only one law (and codified) - the Criminal Code? Well, since the CC is a bylaw, you have concluded that, based on this statement, the CC is a " supplement to the Criminal Code?" That's really funny.
In general, a bylaw is a normative act that is adopted by the relevant competent authorities and establishes a rule of law based on a law (not necessarily codified), and does not contradict this law.
The Federal law "On Environmental Protection" prescribes the mandatory establishment and maintenance of a CC (see Articles 5, 6, 60 of the Law).: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/901808297
Red books of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are established, respectively, on the basis of federal law by legal acts of the state authority of the subject (for example, in our region - by Decree of the Governor). And yet, yes - any CC (even if the Russian Federation, even if the subject of the federation) is a bylaw.
By the way, there is also a relationship between the CC of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code (only not as a law-by-law, but in a different sense). In the Criminal Code, there are so-called blank norms (containing a reference to the rules established by a separate regulatory act). And some articles of the Criminal Code refer just to the Red Book. For example, Article 226.1 of the , which provides, inter alia, for criminal liability for illegal movement across the customs border of the Customs Union within the framework of the EurAsEC or the State border of the Russian Federation with the member States of the Customs Union within the framework of the EurAsEC of especially valuable wild animals and aquatic biological resources belonging to or article 258.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, according to which illegal extraction, maintenance, acquisition, storage, transportation, transfer and sale of especially valuable wild animals and aquatic biological resources belonging to the species listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation are criminalized.

It seems to me that most people here go to extremes: some "drown" for deer beetles and swallowtails in the CC, others in general for excluding all insects.

I think that there should be insects in the CC, but they should be those species for which there is reliable data that they have significantly reduced their number and range due to the destruction of their biotopes, and they will disappear completely if these biotopes are completely destroyed. First of all, these are steppe species (such as tolstun, steppe bumblebee). However, they should be easily identifiable by the average entomologist (not a specialist in the group).

And to include such species, you don't need an inventory of the entire fauna at all - if there is full-fledged data on a particular species, and this data indicates that "everything is bad", then this is enough to include it. What difference does it make to other species? When they are studied, then we will think. It still makes no sense to include all the endangered species, since the protection of biotopes is important. We need representatives of all threatened biotopes - there won't be many of them. The fauna cadastre is a necessary thing, more necessary than the CC. But if you make it "mandatory", you will get the same "bullshit" as most regional red books. It should be done by specialists, and without" kicks " from officials, that is, separately from the CC.

Of course, in theory, biotopes can be protected without CC, but in our reality and in the near foreseeable future, this is incredible. And it is necessary to protect some biotopes, and often even from the nature conservationists themselves, who are eager to plant a "forest" somewhere in the middle of "inconveniences", instead of restoring the original steppe vegetation there.

I also consider it pointless to include in the CC the rarest species known from individual finds, just because they are the rarest (as well as mathematically identify rare species from the general inventory and enter the rarest of them in the CC). Despite the apparent scientific nature of this approach, it may turn out that these are just random flights. What is important is not the rarity, but the decline in numbers over the foreseeable period (as with the steppe bumblebee).

In short, insects, as well as other invertebrates, should be included in the CC only if they are indicators of some communities that need to be preserved (indicator means strict attachment to these biotopes and simple identification). At the same time, fines should be prescribed specifically for the destruction of communities, and not for "trapping individuals". This is much easier to achieve than protecting these biotopes without CC species in them.

And yes, CC is not a science, since the process of compiling it will still be somewhat creative, since the selection of species will be subjective in any case. But, just for the purposes of protecting biotopes, this is not terrible. However, it is up to experts-scientists, not fans of all sorts of podalirias-to select species and write essays. This is the problem that KK is often written by lamers, and it turns out "kaka".

And one last thing: A. Y. Elez is very convincing, because "he won't go into his pocket for a word," unlike his opponents. This certainly affects the results of the discussion. I don't have much eloquence, and I don't have much free time either. Therefore, I do not intend to defend this point of view, but only want to share it here in case someone suddenly finds it useful.

For example, one well-known lepidopterologist from our region, who is widely known in narrow circles, managed to enter Nymphalis xanthomelas in the CC of the region.

Who is to blame that you have such problems in the region?.. comrades. But on the contrary,

With K and P strategies, the importance of an individual in the population is different. As I have already written, for species with a P-strategy, an individual is nothing, since the population is programmed for high mortality. For the K-strategy, the individual is more or less important, since usually both the breeding rate and the mortality rate in the population are lower. Therefore, it makes sense to protect K-species at the individual level (which is what is done for vertebrates), but for P-species, protection at the individual level is meaningless. But this is not directly related to the vulnerability.
Although, the question probably wasn't asked to me

And if an insect (a single wasp) has an average of 50% of its offspring (laid eggs) surviving to reproductive age, can this be considered a K-strategy? Yes, life expectancy is short and all that, but the mortality rate is low (especially by insect standards). Although then, of course, a lot of people also die at the imago stage.

Nitsche itself, in RFII really laws barbaric, for the fact that I took a swallowtail egg to grow, the article of the Criminal Code can hang
This is much easier for us, and during some discussions we studied these norms of our laws.

As for Apollo, the k-strategy generally implies low plasticity and an inability to adapt to environmental changes. It is enough to compare the ecology and biology of two Red Book species - swallowtail and apollo and think about what strategy someone has, and how it differs)
The vulnerability of Apollo is at least in attachment to stations with a forage plant, in a sedentary lifestyle in climax conditions, in large size, in the peculiarities of wintering. If climate or other conditions change, Apollo becomes vulnerable.
Here they have repeatedly written about the destruction of local populations due to plowing, and since each population of Apollo is essentially a separate "micro-species", the destruction of such a population is extinction, and what to say, it was this feature that gave you the opportunity to breed its subspecies above the roof, to the delight of merchants ))
In the case of the swallowtail, it is difficult to draw the boundaries of its population, it flies wherever it wants, is laid on everything from carrots to rutted haplophyllum, and lives both in the steppe and on deposits in constantly changing weather and other environments, respectively. he is practically invulnerable.

What is your understanding of the K-strategy and why do you think that its obligatory consequence should be a special vulnerability of the species? What is the person's strategy? Dying out? Of course, at the present stage of history, people in most regions of the world are well protected by all sorts of" red books", but in the old days (and sometimes still) there was nothing like this, many people" collected " people, including other people. However, the extinction event did not occur in any part of the range.

By the way, they say that man was once a very rare species, but, nevertheless, survived.

Nitsche itself, in the RFII really laws are barbaric, for taking a swallowtail egg to grow, the article of the Criminal Code can hang
This is much easier for us, and during some discussions we studied these norms of our laws.

No, the swallowtail is not listed as a federally protected species. It remained only in some regional CC's

 
As for Apollo, the k-strategy generally implies low plasticity and an inability to adapt to environmental changes.

Don't, learn matchup. The K-strategy implies a small number of offspring with an increased survival rate.

And if an insect (a single wasp) has an average of 50% of its offspring (laid eggs) surviving to reproductive age, can this be considered a K-strategy? Yes, life expectancy is short and all that, but the mortality rate is low (especially by insect standards). Although then, of course, a lot of people also die at the imago stage.

At the adult stage, many individuals also die. Birds, dragonflies, spiders, fungi, and bacteria.. In principle, in theory, for the stability of the population, it is enough for at least one pair to leave offspring. In reality, more is required-in case of the death of all offspring in a number of individuals.
Although, it is caring for the offspring that is a sign of the K-strategy...

Who is to blame that you have such problems in the region?.. comrades. But on the contrary, Nymphalis xanthomelas was excluded from the Ukrainian CC.

But there is a skutigera, podaliriy and company, as well as (attention!) unicellular algae.
All CC's are not without such shortcomings, both Ukrainian and Russian.
So three types of planktonic crustaceans were introduced to Krymskaya (this was at one of the commission meetings, which I could not attend).

This post was edited by Carcharot - 27.11.2017 14: 26

Don't, learn matchup. The K-strategy implies a small number of offspring with an increased survival rate.

IMHO, but some limited view on k / r strategies
By the way, how then to explain that fact (judging by the publications) that the swallowtail and apollo have the same number of eggs laid (approx. 100 on average), but where the apollo is, you know where, and where the swallowtail is-yes, everywhere! )))

By the way, they say that man was once a very rare species, but, nevertheless, survived.

Yes, it's true. And the explanation is very simple: if he hadn't survived, we wouldn't have discussed it.

Who is to blame that you have such problems in the region?.. comrades. But on the contrary, Nymphalis xanthomelas was excluded from the Ukrainian CC.

By the way, what about the fact that I've only seen these butterflies three times in all my time observing nature?
Moreover, I lived for quite a long time in three different places, including in two regions. So I don't know anything, but it is quite possible to enter our regional CC as a species at the edge of its range, although it seems to me that it is generally brought to us from somewhere by the wind, although again-I found a caterpillar, so they can still live.
And the May beetle to the same place, I personally saw a couple of times

By the way, since it was about carp, what is the strategy of mice and voles, p or k? ) They take care of their offspring quite well. And qtam, does a single individual vole matter to the population, or not?

By the way, since it was about carp, what is the strategy of mice and voles, p or k? ) They take care of their offspring quite well. And qtam, does a single individual vole matter to the population, or not?

They don't take much care of themselves. Compared to other mlecs, of course. And the individual doesn't really matter.

  http://a-j-elez.narod.ru/publicat/index.htm

"I'm sorry, I stepped on your foot.
- Nothing, nothing, I already spat on your back.

IMHO, but some limited view on k / r strategies
By the way, how then to explain that fact (judging by the publications) that the swallowtail and apollo have the same number of eggs laid (approx. 100 on average), but where Apollo is, it is known where, and where the swallowtail is-yes everywhere! )))

This is just very simple (if you take into account the diet of caterpillars, as well as the degree of attachment to a particular place and the ability to settle adults), but the strategy has nothing to do with it.

This is just very simple (if you take into account the diet of caterpillars, as well as the degree of attachment to a particular place and the ability to settle adults), but the strategy has nothing to do with it.

Molek, so it is: "the diet of caterpillars, as well as the degree of attachment to a particular place and the ability to settle imagos" and there is a strategy for the most formal definition of this word

Yes, it has nothing to do with the K-strategy, neither the diet, nor the ability to settle. These are purely reproductive strategies related to the number and survival of offspring. Don't confuse warm with soft.

Wow, it turns out that the number and survival rate of offspring has nothing to do with the characteristics of its offspring, nutrition and settlement
You would have decided for yourself, then for example you have the presence of care for the offspring, then the care of mice is so-so (although, maybe a person has never bred mice)..
In addition to the actual number of offspring hatched, there are other criteria, and many organisms combine criteria for both k and p strategies. Read the Internet, Google chtoli ))

In fact, as we have already noticed, in a stable population, the number and survival of offspring are strictly related - on average, 2 individuals survive out of all offspring.