Climate change and shifting of the insect habitats

I myself have been b. m. observing the weather in detail for six years now. Recent years are characterized by sharp temperature changes, anomalies in both positive and negative directions, especially this year has distinguished itself(cold winters and hot summers). So in my opinion, there is a tendency for such changes, but what it is is not yet clear.

I've read more than one article, but I still don't understand the contribution of anthropogenic pressure to climate change. In general, there is definitely a contribution, but it is more local than global, although...
Nevertheless, it is known that the climate has always changed(the ice age and warming after it).

I can't say anything about the migration of insects.

For more on global warming, see this:
http://meteocenter.net/meteoclub/index.php...rum=4&topic=458
http://meteocenter.net/meteoclub/index.php...rum=4&topic=133

1. In your opinion, is there a trend towards climate change (or is it a short-term up to 10-year spike)?
2. What is the reason for this: anthropogenic impact, land molecules, or other factors.
3. Do you notice a shift in insect habitats to the north?

Good questions! I have been working on this topic for the last few years, especially in relation to insects (especially bedbugs). There is a lot of literature (English, abstracts, pdfs can be sent).

1. There is a trend. Even the Americans recently admitted that these are the warmest years in the last 400 years (although this tma is politicized...). No one would seriously talk about 10 years, because the CLIMATE starts with 30-year averages. All that's shorter is weather trends...

2. Apparently, both are superimposed. The bottom line is that models that take only natural causes into account cannot satisfactorily describe what is happening. And when you include data on emissions and so on, the results are much closer to what we have. The anthropogenic factor has significantly accelerated warming. It partly manifests itself in the aggravation of highs - hotter summers, colder winters.

3. There are several typical insect reactions: shifting ranges, changing phenology, voltinism, occurrence, physiology, behavior, and community structure. I work with the Japanese bug Nezara viridula (Pentatomidae) (or rather, it has a huge expanding range, but I work in Japan), so it is moving north and this is very likely due to warming.

I have an article and now there are 2 reviews on this topic (warming and bedbugs) - in English. If you are interested, I can send you a pdf.

Russia (and the CIS) lags far behind in terms of publications on this topic, although there are certainly data - both in nature reserves and among amateur phenologists. Stunningly beautiful data is published - how the phenology is shifting... If anyone has anything, let's discuss it! I'm willing to help in any way I can...

Dmitry (musolin@gmail.com)

Recent years are characterized by sharp temperature changes, anomalies in both positive and negative directions, especially this year has distinguished itself (cold winters and hot summers).

that's what I wrote about - it's typical.

 
In general, there is definitely a contribution, but it is more local than global,

it is observed a lot of places, which makes it global. But I must say that not everywhere. There is an article by M. Kozlov from sovt. on the fact that in the North of Russia, the phenological summer is getting shorter in duration...

 
I've read more than one article, but I still don't understand the contribution of anthropogenic pressure to climate change.

pollution-greenhouse gases-heat transfer of the planet is difficult - and much more (forests, accumulation of CO2 by the ocean) ...

Anthropogenic impact on nature in general, of course, is negative and present, all the Kyoto protocols and so on. - a useful and absolutely necessary thing. But it is difficult to talk about the degree of human impact on the climate. Where is the purity of the experiment? And if we take into account the fact that the methods and tools have changed enormously over the past century... I've also been keeping weather records for about a decade now. Based on my observations for the middle zone, there is no need to talk about significant changes - in my memory, both winters were colder and summers were hotter, and I do not remember snow in July, as in the annals. One of the most noticeable things on the territory of the CIS, IMHO , is the drying up of Central Asia.

to Nilson:

Right. But you can measure the CO2 content in air bubbles in million-year-old glaciers, you can measure the rings of 100+ - year-old trees. All this is quite strongly correlated. There are data on phenology for dozens and even more than 100 years. There are data on areas on a grid of 10*10 km in Europe. Most of the work is on butterflies and aphids.

Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ at al., eds (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 881 pp. -- доступен on-line:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/index.htm

(and their other reports)

to Musolin
All this is true, but how to distinguish from the whole complex the influence of a person? It's like in medicine - 99% of the dead ate cucumbers
In general, I support the restless environmentalists - in most cases, frightening prospects have a positive effect.
But it looks like we've strayed from the subject. Are there any facts that support any noticeable migration of species, and is it possible, again, to determine the cause of this migration as climate change?

to Musolin
All this is true, but how to distinguish from the whole complex the influence of a person? It's like in medicine - 99% of the dead ate cucumbers

absolutely not select it. I don't really believe in models, but when they are built seriously and take into account various factors, it turns out that the current temperature increase can not be explained by anything other than additional human influence. After all, the temperature can not grow just like that. Everything has its reasons and calculated trends. So they have changed in recent decades not as they should. Such a high rate of warming has not been seen for tens of thousands of years.

When I approached this topic (it happened by chance - from research on seasonal adaptations) I read a lot and critically and found it quite convincing. Too many things coincide and are logically explained.

to Musolin
But it seems that we have deviated from the topic. Are there any facts that support any noticeable migration of species, and is it possible, again, to determine the cause of this migration as climate change?

Again, you can't tie insects by the leg. But I collected my bug where it wasn't there 40 years ago. OK, it's only 70 km further north. But it is known that the advance to the north of the January +5 isotherm was limited. Now in Osaka, it is above 5 and there is a bug, it was lower and it was not (simplified). I couldn't find any other explanation.

There are works for both individual types and groups. Yes, very often areas are moving towards the poles, and this is clear and obvious. And this is happening against the background of gradual warming. The connection seems logical. Areas and phenology are the easiest and most likely to be proven.

If you are interested, I can send you both my own works and a small database (Word file) with abstracts of works on this topic (there is also a PDF of many of them).

"There has not been such a high rate of warming in tens of thousands of years. "
And what happened at the end of the last ice age about 10-12 thousand years ago? Of course, no one can say for sure...
I once read (quarreled for off) that for some time they believed that the temperature of Antarctica was rising and, of course, they began to write all sorts of horror movies - they say it's growing right now, it will flood everyone... but it turned out that when measurements were made over most of the territory, it didn't matter - it fell by 0.6 degrees in ten years. Yes, and in Europe, there were already three consecutive winters in 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 that were cold - even here, on molbiol, we looked at topics about cold weather. And I also remember-in 2003, there was winter weather in Israel in March - elderly locals said that they did not remember this. And now they say about Baku that before the war there was almost no snow there - and in my time - almost every year it fell. True, they say that winters in Siberia seem to have become warmer, but still, in my opinion, it is impossible to say unequivocally here, and the conclusions about the greenhouse effect are greatly, IMHO, exaggerated. Well, the areas of insects - so everything flows everything changes (c). In my opinion, it is difficult to say with one eye, because of what the area has decreased or vice versa.

"There has not been such a high rate of warming in tens of thousands of years. "
And what happened at the end of the last ice age about 10-12 thousand years ago?

Since the late 19th century the global mean surface temperature has warmed by a mean of approximately 0.6 °C. The 1990s were the warmest decade during the whole period of precise recording [IPCC, 2001a] and the year 2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s followed by 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004 [Gutro, 2006]. From 1976 onwards, the Earth has been warming at a rate faster than it has done in the last 1 000 years [IPCC, 2001b]. Further warming is predicted with an estimated increase of 1.4–5.8C by 2100 [IPCC, 2001a].
--- текст мой, рефс.:

Gutro R. 2006. 2005 warmest year in over a century // National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Homepage [http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html; accessed on Feb, 02, 2006]

IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2001a. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton J.T., Ding Y., Griggs D.J., Noguer M., van der Linden P.J., Dai X., Maskell K., Johnson C.A., eds.]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 881 pp.

IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2001b. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Watson R.T. & the Core Writing Team, eds.]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 398 pp.

 
Yes, and in Europe, there were already three consecutive winters in 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 that were cold

I wrote about it. And summer? talk about averages. I have a schedule for Osaka for 50 years in front of me. There is a trend (another thing is that there is also a contribution from "heat island"

 
Well, the areas of insects - so everything flows, everything changes (c). In my opinion, it is difficult to say with one mind why the area has decreased or vice versa.

we are not talking about cuts, but about shifting the northern border to the north, and (often) the southern border to the north as well. And in many species.
Parmesan C. & other 12 authors. 1999. Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming // Nature. Vol.399. P.579–583.

Hill J.K., Thomas C.D. & Huntley B. 2001. Climate and recent range changes in butterflies. In: “Fingerprints” of Climate Change: Adapted Behaviour and Shifting Species Ranges (Walter G.-R., Burga C.A. & Edwards P.J., eds). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. P. 77–88.

Reemer M., van Helsdingen P.J. & Kleukers R.M.J.C., eds. 2003. Changes in Ranges: Invertebrates on the Move. Leiden: European Invertebrate Survey. 137 pp. (Proceedings of the 13th International Colloquium of the European Invertebrate Survey. Leiden, 2–5 September 2001)

Woiwood I.P. 1997. Detecting the effects of climate change on Lepidoptera // Journal of Insect Conservation. Vol.1. P.149-158.

Hickling R, Roy DB, Hill JK, Thomas CD (2005) A northward shift of range margins in British Odonata. Global Change Biology, 11, 502–506.

and especially this one is indicative and representative:
Hickling R, Roy DB, Hill JK, Fox R, Thomas CD (2006) The distributions of a wide range of taxonomic groups are expanding polewards. Global Change Biology, 12, 450-455.
-- there is a pdf.

"There has not been such a high rate of warming in tens of thousands of years. "
And what happened at the end of the last ice age about 10-12 thousand years ago? Of course, no one can say for sure...
I once read (quarreled for off) that for some time they believed that the temperature of Antarctica was rising and, of course, they began to write all sorts of horror movies - they say it's growing right now, it will flood everyone... but it turned out that when measurements were made over most of the territory, it didn't matter - it fell by 0.6 degrees in ten years. Yes, and in Europe, there were already three consecutive winters in 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 that were cold - even here, on molbiol, we looked at topics about cold weather. And I also remember-in 2003, there was winter weather in Israel in March - elderly locals said that they did not remember this. And now they say about Baku that before the war there was almost no snow there - and in my time - almost every year it fell. True, they say that winters in Siberia seem to have become warmer, but still, in my opinion, it is impossible to say unequivocally here, and the conclusions about the greenhouse effect are greatly, IMHO, exaggerated. Well, the areas of insects - so everything flows, everything changes (c). In my opinion, it is difficult to say with one mind why the area has decreased or vice versa.

I strongly support it! People in a fit of epiphany are even already drawing up a plan for raising the temperature to 2200 (I can then throw a link, a Ukrainian paper magazine on plant protection) with fluctuations. The reverse point of view is not welcome. It's like the impact hypothesis of the extinction of dinosaurs - fashionable!
But Alvarez's followers occupied almost all the entrances and exits. In Ukraine, laudatory articles on impact theory with attacks on its critics are published in the central journal of the National Academy of Sciences. And there are no articles of opposing views - at least write them yourself...
About solar cycles, for example, in 80 years or more, years of severe winters, etc. I have never read in the opuses of "warmers" at all. Maybe I'll meet you again.

What is the "impact hypothesis of dinosaur extinction"? Once I threw a topic about this, so in one of the links I read that there was really no extinction - there was a stop in speciation, and they were old species that both died out and continued to die out.
The topic of warming, it is generally highly politicized.
I'm wondering - how can you make a plan for warming up to 2200 if the global dynamics of the Earth's atmosphere remains sealed?
PS By the way, in my opinion, it is very difficult to accurately determine the average annual temperature on the whole Earth for one year-it is oh so difficult and the results can be ambiguous.

What is the "impact hypothesis of dinosaur extinction"? Once I threw a topic about this, so in one of the links I read that there was really no extinction - there was a stop in speciation, and they were old species that both died out and continued to die out.
The topic of warming, it is generally highly politicized.
I'm wondering - how can you make a plan for warming up to 2200 if the global dynamics of the Earth's atmosphere remains sealed?
PS By the way, in my opinion, it is very difficult to accurately determine the average annual temperature on the whole Earth for one year-it is oh so difficult and the results can be ambiguous.

This is a fashionable name for the meteor theory ("impact" - from the English "impact"). It's cool to write like this even here, apparently, it makes it more scientific
I also read in our paleontological literature that the point, of course, is not extinction, but the suspension of speciation. The rate of extinction was the same. Initially, Alvarez, the author of the hypothesis, or rather, the reincarnation of old (untrustworthy, which is typical) hypotheses about extinction due to various extraterrestrial factors, associated the presence of the famous iridium anomaly with the "extinction". Subsequently, it turned out that, firstly, there is no correlation of iridium accumulations with extinctions, and, secondly, even funnier, there is no correlation of meteorite falls and extinctions. Although the meteorite could have been the trigger that knocked down the other dominoes, the cause and trigger are two different things. But if a person watched "Armageddon", they can't prove anything
As for the chart , I was particularly struck by the intricate dynamics there - some continuous and disorderly declines and rises in the average annual temperature up to 2200 g. It's strange that there is nothing further, I even started to worry

It's strange that there is nothing further, I even started to worry

And then, for those who watched Kina "The Day After Tomorrow"

What's interesting about this metaphor is that often "popular science" explanations of extinction often talk about it as a fact. (However, it is not clear why the meteorite spared the crocodiles - were they too short?) By the way, I once heard about the temperature that there are certain cycles that overlap one another, and the greenhouse effect is not as trivial as journalists and politicians try to imagine (Well, what can you take from them?)

 
As for the schedule , I was particularly struck by the intricate dynamics there - some kind of continuous and disorderly declines and rises in the average annual temperature up to 2200 g.

so maybe this is the 80-year solar cycles taken into account, which the "previous speaker" mentioned, and other factors that overlap? maybe not only we are smart here, but they are also smart there . Politicians, the media-all right. But scientists write articles with graphs. maybe not all of them are corrupt descendants of imperialism?

I read here (though in Russian news) that a super computer will soon be launched in Japan, which will calculate the weather for 30 years ahead with a high resolution on the terrain! It's hard to believe... But I think it's easier to calculate climate averages, but it's important to take into account as many factors as possible...

I don't know... I will have to read a lot about it, and if you remove the politicization, then a lot of things look decent and convincing. Biological effects are harder to predict...

so maybe this is the 80-year solar cycles taken into account, which the "previous speaker" mentioned, and other factors that overlap? maybe not only we are smart here, but they are also smart there . Politicians, the media-all right. But scientists write articles with graphs. maybe not all of them are corrupt descendants of imperialism?

I don't know, I don't know much about climate science and climate scientists. I think there are still some of the latter who would now dot the "I". But I think there are quite a few people in the near-climatological circles who believe that the more facts that support a theory, the more realistic and better it is. Clearly, this is not the case. Where is caution? Where is falsifiability?

But I think there are quite a few people in the near-climatological circles who believe that the more facts that support a theory, the more realistic and better it is. Clearly, this is not the case. Where is caution? Where is falsifiability?

mom dear, you can't do this in the morning.... But in fact-the fewer facts, the better the theory? And super theory-so it is desirable to have no facts at all, so that everything is in order with falsifiability? But if you're lying, then be careful? Yes... All my years in science are wasted... I'm not going to work at uni today!

No, well, why do that - they might get kicked out of work (well, I really don't know what morals are there in Japan), just some facts are not enough - you can pick them up.

Actually, I thought that facts are stubborn things, and if there are a lot of them and they confirm a theory, then this is more likely to indicate that the theory is correct than vice versa... But at the same time, we need to talk about the FACTS. And a falsified "fact" is not a fact (this is probably what was meant).

Actually, I thought that facts are stubborn things, and if there are a lot of them and they confirm a theory, then this is more likely to indicate that the theory is correct than vice versa... But at the same time, we need to talk about the FACTS. And a falsified "fact" is not a fact (this is probably what was meant).

Yes, I'm not talking about "falsified" facts (how is that, by the way?)! I'm talking about something else altogether!
Chromocenter is right - facts can be picked up so that their stubborn pile will confirm the theory, or rather the hypothesis. Do you often see searches for "inconvenient" facts? There is, in fact, an opinion that such searches are an essential element of the scientific approach. I think we just didn't understand each other

One of the facts of the expansion of the range of beetles-smelly bronze beetle in recent years sharply "broke" to the north, reaching the Arkhangelsk region. Learn more - www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/rus/vlasov04.htm. and its associated pages. The cause is unknown, but nothing other than a warming climate can be explained. The view is noticeable, but it wasn't caught reliably before. He doesn't look like a relic. The larva lives in the soil, eats humus and wood. Deliberate or unintentional delivery is unlikely. Anthropogenic changes in biotopes also do not explain their appearance. forest cover in the Yar region has not changed significantly for the last 300-400 years. Opponents of global warming! Suggest another theory of the appearance of the species...

changes in habitats, predators, and competitors?.. After all, the distribution of a species is not limited to abiotic factors alone - Darwin knew that... Maybe the density of the beetle in the" source populations " has increased due to a change in the number of, say, a predator or some disease, so it has moved north, albeit in less favorable conditions, but there is less competition, diseases associated with high density... After all, people 35-40 thousand years ago moved from Africa. And why? Because it's getting warmer?..

One of the facts of the expansion of the range of beetles-smelly bronze beetle in recent years sharply "broke" to the north, reaching the Arkhangelsk region. Learn more - www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/rus/vlasov04.htm. and its associated pages. The cause is unknown, but nothing other than a warming climate can be explained.

interesting stuff, thank you! However, it would look more convincing if data on temperature dynamics were provided...

changes in habitats, predators, and competitors?.. After all, the distribution of a species is not limited to abiotic factors alone - Darwin knew that... Maybe the density of the beetle in the" source populations " has increased due to a change in the number of, say, a predator or some disease, so it has moved north, albeit in less favorable conditions, but there is less competition, diseases associated with high density... After all, people 35-40 thousand years ago moved from Africa. And why? Because it's getting warmer?..

The important question here is what exactly limits the northern border of the species? If you know this, many things become clearer. I dare say that the press of predators, parasites, diseases is lower to the north... Of course, not only abiotic factors influence, but they act as a basis, biotic - as a setting. Well, really, if the species is dying out in winter, then what are the parasites-predators?

In papers that describe the reactions of groups of species (e.g., butterflies), a simple stat is usually made. analysis - - - if the movement of the range boundary in the north-south direction were random, the ratio of species whose southern and/or northern range boundaries shifted to the north and south would be close to 50: 50. It's logical, after all... And this is not the case. And this was checked not once.

The trouble is that it's easier to say that everything is bullshit and chasing a fashionable topic than to understand...

About human settlement. How many centuries did it go on? Was there no influence of social factors that made it possible to solve the problem of winter temperatures (life in a shelter, fire)? And just on what climatic background did it go?

The important question here is what exactly limits the northern border of the species? If you know this, many things become clearer. I dare say that the press of predators, parasites, diseases is lower to the north... Of course, not only abiotic factors influence, but they act as a basis, biotic - as a setting. Well, really, if the species is dying out in winter, then what are the parasites-predators?

In papers that describe the reactions of groups of species (e.g., butterflies), a simple stat is usually made. analysis - - - if the movement of the range boundary in the north-south direction were random, the ratio of species whose southern and/or northern range boundaries shifted to the north and south would be close to 50: 50. It's logical, after all... And this is not the case. And this was checked not once.

The trouble is that it's easier to say that everything is bullshit and chasing a fashionable topic than to understand...

About human settlement. How many centuries did it go on? Was there no influence of social factors that made it possible to solve the problem of winter temperatures (life in a shelter, fire)? And just on what climatic background did it go?

Well, here, recorded in tupokonechniki And the essence of my claims was after all this:

1) I wasn't talking about the number of supporting facts — I just didn't see a particular desire to talk about what attempts were made to refute the theory of GP (read K. Popper about falsifiability and don't be offended), so the mockery was not at the right place;

2) I do not doubt warming or "unbalancing", but that this is a unique phenomenon caused solely by the greenhouse effect.

And the trouble is not that someone does not see shifts in areas (these are obvious and trivial things), but that the topic is really fashionable, so you should not turn a blind eye to the negative consequences of this fashion.

No need to invent it, I didn't personally invite anyone anywhere, especially when I didn't comment on your message. It was like a general observation of a typical reaction.

About refuting the theory. I do not know if this can be called a theory... And yes, the attempts are somehow weak - they simply write that everything is garbage, without even understanding the data and arguments...

I won't say anything about "unbalancing", I don't really understand what it's about. And about warming - the phrase "a unique phenomenon caused exclusively by the greenhouse effect" shows that you are also not very aware of what it is about... This is not approved. It is argued that the temperature dynamics of recent decades cannot be explained if only natural factors are taken into account. Taking into account the anthropogenic contribution allows us to describe what we have much more precisely. The contribution of this latter factor is quite large. Hence the application: it is almost impossible to change the natural dynamics; it is more realistic to limit the anthorp contribution.

I think I have already given links to IPCC reports - both on the web and even in Russian.

"the temperature dynamics of recent decades cannot be explained if only natural factors are taken into account. Taking into account the anthropogenic contribution allows us to describe what we have much more precisely. "
However, I once read that it is not yet possible to mathematically model the atmosphere, so it is not clear how the anthropogenic factor is taken into account - is it just the difference between the existing temperatures and the calculated ones?
And "natural" factors are well - known, and you can tell us for sure that only all this is so well-known that you can say the same thing?
"The trouble is that it's easier to say that everything is garbage and the pursuit of a fashionable topic than to understand... "
The trouble is also that it's easier to say - the greenhouse anthropogenic effect and all that, than to understand...
"About human settlement. How many centuries did it go on? Was there no influence of social factors that made it possible to solve the problem of winter temperatures (life in a shelter, fire)? And just on what climatic background did it go? "
And you have conducted appropriate analyses of the adaptation of species moving north at least at the level of resistance of individuals to low temperatures, not to mention such a thing as certain genes and their polymorphism associated with this?

 
... I read it once...

the point is, you've read it once and somewhere... and argue... a kind of scientific approach

 
Also, the trouble is that it's easier to say - the greenhouse anthropogenic effect and all that, than to understand...

It's like in det.2 -- an argument like "The fool himself"

 
Have you carried out appropriate analyses of the adaptation of northward-spreading species at least at the level of their resistance to low temperatures, not to mention such things as certain genes and their associated polymorphism?

here you are, young man... to the point, it even seems to me that I wrote about this above. That's what I'm doing here. Can I send you my articles?

"that's just the thing, you read it once and somewhere..."
Yes, that's the thing, I've come across this thought many times. Articles-yes, it would be interesting, if possible, plz...

I would like the climate here in Primorsky Krai to correspond to the Crimean latitude, and not the Kolyma longitude. But, alas, the winters are cold, and there are no signs of warming. And there are no unexpected and growing flights of new subtropical species for our fauna from Korea and China. Fish from the subtropics come in, but even in the 20-30s. tuna was caught here and sea turtles were seen. Then stick insects were found in the masses, and then they became extremely rare.

You mean they went south?" Or is it just that the population has declined everywhere? By the way, about the climate - always occupied with the fact that Venice-like a completely warm, almost snowless city, and at the same latitude as the center of Primorsky Krai...

in addition to latitude, many things are important, for example, continentality.

The fact of the matter is that the Primorsky Territory is exactly Primorsky. You move away from Vladivostok a few degrees to the south and there is already no ice forming on the sea in winter. And we have frozen bays, the water in which warms up to +25 in the summer (at a depth of more than 10 m). There are no signs of a collapse or even weakening of the Asian maximum, which dictates cold winters throughout Siberia, the Far East and northern China. But over the past 7 thousand years, the southern Primorye region has experienced 4 times an increase in temperature that is not comparable to the current global warming, when the sea level rose by a meter or higher.

But I wonder how things are going with the Colorado potato beetle, because it is slowly but surely moving north and has already reached the Yenisei. In the last couple of years, he has appeared in the vicinity of Krasnoyarsk, and he feels great here.

2bukashechnik
So north or east? In the European part of Russia, "coloradets" is also found in the south of the Arkhangelsk region (north of the 60th parallel), which is north of Krasnoyarsk (approximately the 56th parallel). And it "crawls" rather not because of warming, but "solid" potato cultivation. In Central Asia, where potatoes are not planted everywhere. it lives in "dots"...
And it comes from the Rocky Mountains, where the climate is quite harsh. So "Coloradets" is an example of human activity-related settlement rather than global warming.

But in the Far East (south), where potatoes are the main crop, the Colorado potato beetle is very rare.

So is there a "coloradets" on the DV or not? It doesn't seem to be listed in the literature. If there is, then it probably appeared recently and has not yet settled. Yes, you have enough and potato ladybug...

It is not yet included in the Index of Insects of the Far Eastern Federal District of the Russian Federation. But I've heard that it's been found several times. The climate here is not suitable for him: the winters are long, cold, with little snow, and the summers are wet. I remember another delivery of cabbage in Primorye: at first it was terrible, and then a couple of harsh winters and strong typhoons, and it stopped being so massive.

"The climate here is not suitable for him: the winters are long, cold, with little snow, and the summers are wet."
That's probably why there were no Colorado potato beetles in Baku!
"But over the past 7 thousand years, the southern Primorye region has experienced 4 times an increase in temperature that is not comparable to the current global warming, when the sea level rose by a meter or more. "
And this... how? I mean, I mean sea level rise. It's also like the world Ocean