Deliberate dispersal of insects

why did you want to move it? Is it known WHAT the range is limited by (what factors) ?

Migrating and releasing is a risky business... Although, I think, there are no legal restrictions inside Russia...

Related literature:

Saulich A. H. Seasonal development of insects and the possibility of their dispersal. university. 1999.

Saulich, A. H., Significance of abiotic factors in the formation of secondary habitats in adventitious insect species, Entomol. obozr. 1994. Vol. 73, issue no. 3. pp. 591-605.

- although it's mostly about interzonal settlement.

If you can't find the books, you can try to ask the author - write in PM-I'll give you an email.

Д.

I don't know the laws, but I wouldn't do it. You felt it correctly and didn't dare.

why did you want to move it? Is it known WHAT the range is limited by (what factors) ?

This species has a wide range of body sizes within the same population, in addition, these sizes correlate with the development of the appendages of the mandibles in males, etc. I once asked Yu. G. Arzanov about the small Lethrusapterua, and he said that these beetles " did not eat enough porridge as a child." So I wanted to select the smaller ones and relocate them. Then observe whether the direction of variability will be changed.

The range is limited (as far as I know) in the south, by the fact that it cannot fly over the Don and the floodplains of the Don are sandy, and it needs dense soil to build burrows.

Helene
Permanent member
Moscow



24.04.2006 13:59 URL #11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizar, respect!
Golden words!
I will add my own five kopecks for amateur collectors: label everything that is taken from nature! Because it often happens that an amateur collection suddenly turns out to be, for example, an interesting faunal find. And the specifics (the exact place and time of collection) a person simply can not remember. Even if you put them in frames-write on the back of the frame!

And here is another problem of responsibility, which few people think about-concerns breeders, including insectarium lovers. In no case should we allow an escape from the culture. There are plenty of examples of the negative consequences of not caring - from the unpaired silkworm in North America to the rattan fish in Europe. Even tropical species can sometimes turn out to be unexpectedly hardy and take root. In the north of the United States, some kind of (I don't remember exactly) saturnia - however, everything turned out quite innocuously there, it did not become a malicious pest.
And the introduction or purposeful introduction of insects of local species, but from non-native populations, is irreparable harm to science. Now the genetic direction in entomology is developing. One day geneticists will want to study a certain species - and the gene pool of the subject of study is disrupted, because twenty years ago some "green" do-gooder supported the population of a rare species by releasing insects brought from the other end of the country.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank YOU (2): Nilson, omar

I don't know the laws, but I wouldn't do it. You felt it correctly and didn't dare.

Human distribution of various species (not just insects) on the territory of Russia occurs constantly (more precisely, periodically). In this case, at least it would have been known which beetles (and where they came from) were released and how they developed in the first years after the migration. That is, the case would have been in the field of view of specialists, almost from the very beginning.

By the way, in this case, the view is transferred only 100 km.
In general, I myself doubt that it was not transferred naturally to favorable conditions on the other side. For example, a tornado.

This post was edited by Adamov - 12.11.2007 12: 41

Here's the ambush. In the Moscow region, for example, there are no representatives of the genus Gnorimus. And in Tula, for example, there is. The regions closely border each other. Conditions for living in the Moscow region are there. The introduction of this species may well be successful. But what consequences this can lead to, very few people know. Maybe he'll keep going fast north. Maybe he will master other stations and change his lifestyle. In any case, it would be wrong to treat a species as a unit of biological diversity.

The species usually do not move south by themselves, although if it is true that the range is limited to the river, then it may be so... But this is a very dangerous experiment.

And you can not try to breed izh artificially and in the lab. experiment to test what you want?

It seems to me that ARMIN MOCZEK did some of this - at least he worked with the dimorphic beetle Onthophagus taurus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) and published a lot of things. Search the Internet or write to us.

Here's the ambush. In the Moscow region, for example, there are no representatives of the genus Gnorimus. And in Tula, for example, there is. The regions closely border each other. Conditions for living in the Moscow region are there. The introduction of this species may well be successful. But what consequences this can lead to, very few people know. Maybe he'll keep going fast north. Maybe he will master other stations and change his lifestyle. In any case, it would be wrong to treat a species as a unit of biological diversity.

And if we consider another case: transfer and isolation of a certain amount of soil.

For example, transfer a couple of hundred kg of soil in which this species can reproduce to a sandy massif, form a platform there, where the beetles can be relocated. Only in this case, the experiment will concern many other types of organisms living in this soil.

How would you feel about such an experiment?

And if we consider another case: transfer and isolation of a certain amount of soil.

For example, transfer a couple of hundred kg of soil in which this species can reproduce to a sandy massif, form a platform there, where the beetles can be relocated. Only in this case, the experiment will concern many other types of organisms living in this soil.

How would you feel about such an experiment?

this is many times worse! so you transfer a LOT of views and this is not justified in any way....

The species usually do not move south by themselves, although if it is true that the range is limited to the river, then it may be so... But this is a very dangerous experiment.

And you can not try to breed izh artificially and in the lab. experiment to test what you want?

It seems to me that ARMIN MOCZEK did some of this - at least he worked with the dimorphic beetle Onthophagus taurus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) and published a lot of things. Search the Internet or write to us.

In the laboratory, of course, it is possible, but here the effect of the environment changes and the cause of changes in morphology will be difficult to differentiate. And in a field experiment, the conditions for it practically do not change.
But of course you are right... for a start, you can do it in the laboratory, and in the end, in cages in the indigenous area.

In the laboratory, of course, it is possible, but here the effect of the environment changes and the cause of changes in morphology will be difficult to differentiate. And in a field experiment, the conditions for it practically do not change.
But of course you are right... for a start, you can do it in the laboratory, and in the end, in cages in the indigenous area.

just during the transfer . but in nature, a lot of things change and are not controlled! In the lab. You can control many factors, including food availability.

If it is possible in cages in the indigenous area - chorus option.

What do they eat? Why can some people "eat poorly"? Pica is limited?

this is many times worse! so you transfer a LOT of species and this is not justified in any way....

Yes, of course. If you don't know what this will lead to, then it's not justified.

Well, the soil can be sterilized, and local sand organisms will master it due to their ecological "abilities". Then it turns out that there will be a completely new environment for native species (just like in the movie "Probably the gods have gone mad") .

  

What do they eat? Why can some people "eat poorly"? Pica is limited?

I didn't really look for literature on this type. But I know that it lays eggs in its burrows and makes silage (they probably feed on it, and they don't get cold from it). I usually observed (in the spring) beetles picking yarrow leaves, most likely for silage.
They could be malnourished due to non-compliance with the number of silage, the number of larvae in the burrow.

Human distribution of various species (not just insects) on the territory of Russia occurs constantly (more precisely, periodically). In this case, at least it would have been known which beetles (and where they came from) were released and how they developed in the first years after the migration. That is, the case would have been in the field of view of specialists, almost from the very beginning.

There are hundreds of such examples. Here, for example, about the lamellar whiskers brought to Australia: http://www.amonline.net.au/factsheets/dung-beetles.htm
And here http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/danoff-bu...abripennis.html
about how many thousands of trees were cut down in two American cities in order to somehow stop the spread of barbel brought from Eastern China.

This post was edited by amara - 11/12/2007 15: 03

who do you guys think you are? Gods, perhaps? are you afraid that there will be nothing to eat? so do not be afraid sooner or later insects will settle everywhere, whether you want it or not. if they eat the whole crop, then we will eat the insects themselves. don't you think it's rather selfish to fight the migration of insect species from the perspective of a person who fears for their own well - being? even these pathetic words about the harm to science stem from the interests of only one species - homo sapiens, which, by the way, settled all over the globe and did a hell of a lot of things all over the planet

I believe that you should not blindly fixate on one of the positions (whether it is the position of "complete non-interference" or vice versa). Everything needs to be discussed and thought about...

I, for one, don't know how to relate to this problem. In the topic, he took the position of "interventions" only in order to create a discussion, because he was sure of a mass protest against such experiments.

But it is true that a person constantly interferes with natural phenomena, and this is normal, at least from the point of view that he himself is a part of this nature, and all its parts exist in constant interference with each other's "life phenomena".

even these pathetic words about the harm to science stem from the interests of only one species - homo sapiens, which, by the way, has spread all over the globe and done a hell of a lot of things all over the planet

So what? We are this species, and we must be responsible for ourselves, other species must be responsible for themselves, otherwise what kind of independent organisms will they be if they need to be dusted off for their existence. Those who dare will eat it, but if you hesitate, others will eat it...
Regarding the beetle on the northern bank of the Don, I think that since it does not live on the southern bank, then there probably someone has occupied the niche that it occupies on the serny (that is, it is not necessarily one species, maybe several others have wider food bases, say, they prefer a slightly different food), so maybe it may be that he will not be able to settle there, or it may happen otherwise - he will be able to push them out and then I don't know... may cause trouble.

Guest wrote nonsense (that's why it hides the name).

I spoke out about it, but in fact, I did something similar. BUT: before doing it, everything was thought out and there was a goal - a clear hypothesis to test. And I made an effort to avoid unintentional introductions.

Very few people care about sapiens here. Rather, it's about nature. And you can easily harm such experiments. And most importantly-why? The experiment will be impure. Think about what you want to explore and how to control the conditions. If you do science, then do nao well.

In my opinion, here, as elsewhere, the rule "measure seven times,..." does not hurt.

and Guest is me. there's not much to hide, especially since any guest is visible to moderators. of all the existing species, man, with the most developed intelligence, causes the greatest harm; in fact, he is the most dangerous enemy for all other species. as a result of economic activity, not just individual specimens are destroyed, but entire populations, and some species disappear and have already disappeared completely. if the goal is to preserve nature, then first of all it is necessary to change and limit human economic activity, which, most likely, is impossible. the danger of introducing a couple of beetle species compared to the catastrophic consequences of scientific and technological progress is simply ridiculous. of course, if you do science for the sake of science, then yes, there is no doubt - you need to monitor the "purity of the experiment", let everything go by itself. by the way, why not also ban the cultivation of plants in non-typical latitudes? but what kind of "purity" can we talk about if southern species are increasingly spreading north due to global warming, and with the modern development of transport, random migrations are becoming natural? yes, and in the experiments, despite the complete thoughtfulness, there can always be some kind of mess; -)

It is possible to import any species, in my opinion, but many factors must be taken into account, first of all, whether it will become a pest. You should import some species if: they are on the verge of extinction, were previously found, but became extinct, etc.
That's right, man has made and still makes a lot of mistakes, so why add to them once again such a mistake as mindless dispersal of insects? We have a lot of examples of such nonsense - the Colorado potato beetle, the American white butterfly, cockroaches (although the latter is hardly intentional), and Pharaoh ants.. how much happiness is there from all this? And if a couple of dozen more species are added to this?

If we are going to do something as an experiment, then we need to control the population.. But in natural conditions, this will not work, unless you then have to poison everything with pesticides.

It is possible to import any species, in my opinion, but many factors must be taken into account, first of all, whether it will become a pest. You should import some species if: they are on the verge of extinction, were previously found, but became extinct, etc.

It is probably also necessary to take into account the possibility of displacement of other species by the introduced species. By the way, in the case of extinct species in a given territory, we also interfere in the natural course of events, and this case will not differ much from others.
By the way, it is probably not known whether letrus apterus was south of the Don, but it could have been.

bloody guest (very much his name is consonant with the Italian sangue-blood ) - and what does the agricultural crops you write about have to do with it? They are not wild, they live for us and because of us... and here is a man who destroyed many species (after all, we are not the first, we are not the last, it happened without us - heh, heh, however, we are probably "better" than others)? Are you sure that spreading the beetle out of its range will not lead to the extinction of someone in the place where we moved it? Of course, I will not say that it is very likely, but it is possible, and even a reduction in someone's number, if it takes root, then this is almost certain... and God knows where the consequences of this case will end...

and agricultural culture, in fact, at the same time. the fact that insects or other representatives of the animal world are more mobile does not mean that among plants there are no examples of displacement of some species by others. even rocks, according to one theory, are living things. on the example of agates, the birth, life and death of stone was shown. what can we say about plants, the difference is only in time. there are also examples of, let's say, "unsuccessful" importation and cultivation of certain crops, for example, one of the types of hogweed. it was supposed to become a universal food plant, but the hopes, alas, did not materialize. now this plant is found everywhere. I do not know if it has caused any harm to other plants or animals... except for the person who should definitely try and touch it :- ) in addition, representatives of fauna can be present on the plants themselves, on the roots, in an earthen coma. they can't even do it, but they must be present! does anyone think anything about this, bringing some strange plant to their dacha plot?
about the Colorado potato beetle, rabbits, rattan, silkworm, etc. - did they cause damage to agriculture? did they displace the local fauna? did they bring other troubles? have you changed nature as a whole?"absolutely!
but we are not in a position to prevent such relocations. they will happen regardless of our foresight or stupidity, they will somehow happen on their own. a person cannot foresee everything, simply because he does not know what exactly to foresee. In addition, the animals themselves contribute to the settlement of animals and plants by spreading seeds, insects, fish eggs, etc.
.. I don't even know if it's blood related or not. this is the name of the insect Sungaya inexpectata; -) funny stickman-walks, swinging on its legs, as if someone got stoned

And I'm from your quote:

if the goal is to preserve nature, then first of all it is necessary to change and limit human economic activity, which, most likely, is impossible. the danger of introducing a couple of beetle species compared to the catastrophic consequences of scientific and technological progress is simply ridiculous. of course, if you do science for the sake of science, then yes, there is no doubt - you need to monitor the "purity of the experiment", let everything go by itself.

I thought that you are just in favor of resettling them-even if the belly is in a large number of places, so that it is more difficult to die out. and it turns out that this was said, in contrast to the harm from a person in general...

by the way, why not also ban the cultivation of plants in non-typical latitudes?

and eat what? one cranberry? (or what grows there?) or drive? and that a large saturation of roads is not so good for the Earth? After all, any highway or railway track is probably a disaster for the surrounding animals. not to mention the rest.
You see, one day in English class, just as a text, there was a passage about how the situation of cheetahs is now (very deplorable) and then there was a discussion, so the passage said that one of the problems is that the local population does not like cheetahs because they often drag cattle. So what do we do now? People need this animal not just to eat, but to eat it. Or here, for example, when I see solid fields, I don't feel very good...I can only imagine how many people died out in these territories... but after all, I myself eat from these fields, so what should I do?..

but what kind of "purity" can we talk about if southern species are increasingly spreading north due to global warming,

do you know exactly what this is about? and when do tropical species take root in temperate latitudes? (that is, they show temperature tolerance) how does this fit in here? You see, when there is a change in the area, it is always a lot of reasons - after all, to live in a new place is not always enough to take and relocate. We still need a bunch of conditions.

And I transported archons last year.If there were battered specimens,he did not release them,but transported them closer to the house,where there was already a population.Who knows, maybe there is a sense in this.And then all the time to draw from one well....

By the way, a really interesting example with agricultural crops. Corn was brought, potatoes, jerusalem artichoke, etc. The planting of forest protection strips has led to a greater penetration of forest species (at least ground beetles) into the steppe zone. The agrocenosis itself is indeed a disaster for many aborigines.

And the imported species should still take root (there are many cases of unsuccessful introduction).

  

do you know exactly what this is about? .....

Of course, I do not know anything for sure, but it is more or less clear that man, despite his unreasonable activities, is nevertheless as integral a part of nature as any other being. therefore, all its actions ( including those that contribute to the migration of other species) are as natural as any other organism.
each of us at our own level, in accordance with our capabilities, desires and ideas, can try to save some part of nature - to wash birds from spilled oil, pour tons of toxic substances on Colorado Potato beetles, drag stranded whales into the water, etc.... but all this effort is futile; as long as there is a cause, there is no point in fighting the effect. it is likely that someone will say that every life saved makes sense, but still, it seems more like an attempt to justify yourself to nature, since in general, the actions of humanity contradict the very idea of preserving the environment. you know, it's like maintenance therapy - when the patient can't be saved, but out of compassion, doctors give medical treatment to ease the suffering. but here's the thing - the doctors want to cure you, but they can't. and in the example of nature, people can save it and know how, but they don't want to. however, the conversation moves to a slightly different plane, which does not fully correspond to the original topic.
please excuse me if I've offended anyone.
and please accept my assurances of the utmost respect.
sincerely yours,
sungaya (not bloody)

sungaya, in my opinion, is right. The solution to the question "on the acceptability of deliberate dispersal of other species" depends on what place we define the species Homo sapiens sapiens in nature. Do we put it on the same" shelf " with all organisms or higher? That is, this question goes back from the biological to the philosophical.

* go to the auto repair shop
It is necessary to think, so as not to make it worse, and not at what height you will be compared to others

I agree with RippeR, it is important for yourself not to litter yourself, but to argue that someone once did it and still does it for a long time.

This post was edited by amara - 11/16/2007 09: 03

RippeR and amara, you think so ("do no harm") precisely because you have already answered the philosophical question "what is a person?". One of the consequences of your answer was: "a person is responsible for his environment (with all organisms), he is intelligent and must regulate his relationship with it."
An alternative answer can be, for example, this: "a person is the same living organism as others (first of all, an animal) and has the right to fight for life, like everyone else, according to the same rules."

Gentlemen, isn't it time to stop approaching Nature as a whole by the standards of human society? It, Nature, has existed for billions of years, during which billions of species of living beings have appeared and disappeared. And there was always only one criterion: you can live - live, you can't-disappear. Regardless of changing conditions and someone's will. The same specific beetles of Mr. Adamov crossed the river countless times by chance. If they didn't survive, then they couldn't. From the point of view of nature, a single experiment of a single experimenter is as random as a gust of wind or a log that floats across a river with a beetle... And there is no need to talk about any harm or benefit in relation to nature, since these concepts are purely subjective not even for human society as a whole, but at the level of individual groups of people and even individuals. We are part of nature, so we are an internal observer, not an external one, with all the resulting bias. All this is strictly IMHO, this argument can be endless

[quote=Adamov,16.11.2007 11:33]

on the one hand, it is true that a person should survive by the same rules blah blah blah...
On the other hand, this is also a non-professional question.. Some people will say that a person means nothing, others will say that he is everything, and there will also be millions of other opinions.. and almost everyone is right.. And within the framework of philosophy, even more so, since philosophy has no limits, as well as a person's imagination is boundless.
The only question is not to do any harm until there is a final single conclusion about what to do, because otherwise it may be too late, when the time comes when no decisions can affect anything anymore..
This can also be disputed, but the fact remains that man is the only animal whose actions can and do have a global character, so you can understand the consequences yourself.
You can also state another point of view - experiment almost without looking, but stop in time.. i.e. even when it will be possible to cope with the catastrophic consequences..
No, I can't stop there. I am a complete atheist, though not a complete materialist. I can say that we are not created by anyone, our intentions are not indicated by anyone, our goals are only our goals, no one guides us, no one has set us a meaning, goals of special achievements. You don't have to agree. The conclusion is that if all this is really true, then nothing makes any sense, no actions, no intentions, no consequences.. No small Earth can play any role in relation to the infinite, all-consuming universe. And consequently, no event on Earth can play any role, like a tiny pimple, on the infinitely huge ass of the universe, which does not care about the fate of this pimple, since the end of it will certainly come.. when? it doesn't matter, because no one in the entire universe cares.. What is the importance that we attach to something? This is nothing, because it is just a fiction that does not affect the universe as a whole.. All we can do is make our miserable short existence happy.

In general, experiments are cool. In principle, the only thing we are afraid of is our Sense of Self-Importance, that it will be hurt by someone in this life, that our life will be hurt, which we attach this excessive importance to, We are even afraid that after our life negative opinions will be formed about us, although all this importance is far-fetched and far-fetched. it has no reasonable basis, because indulgence cannot be considered as such

a man is not an insect, and an insect is not a man.
nothing matters, then
whether a person is even an insect, or vice versa, a philosophical revolution will arise in entomology !