Two reasons, the first being to run an experiment whose result is predicted by the paper, in order to confirm the science in the paper.
The second being to mitigate the accumulation of insects around my campsite.
While it is true that insect populations world wide have been impacted by the commercial deployment of pesticides by large agricultural operations, it is not true that populations outside that particular affect are negatively affected. Insects, as a fauna, have an extraordinarily effective reproductive cycle relative to the natural hazards they encounter every day.
The most recent article about excess honeybee populations was a good example of how honeybees that are outside of the risk zone are not in any danger of becoming extinct but can and do displace important local pollinators.
A non-persistent local light trap is the ideal mitigation strategy for insects in a particular regions because it leaves no lasting footprint, doesn't contaminate the food chain, and has zero net impact on the overall population density of the insects.
I agree with the sentiment of not elevating selfish human desires over the health of an existing ecosystem. (But practically, there are many great ways to camp to minimize the habitat impact.)
But defining "the health" of an ecosystem is tricky. An invading invasive species is better adapted after all, and it is part of nature.
We need clearer understanding of what we mean by nature and what we are protecting.
* Are we just trying to hold on to some moment of time in a dynamic ecosystem? Maybe. Protecting the status quo might be practical in terms of human survival, but this doesn't feel like a moral invariant that some people hold it up to be.
* Are we protecting nature in proportion to its ability to feel pain? ... or sentience? ... over what perceptual time frame?
* Practically, so far, when enough people like or find value in certain aspects of nature, we may see some collective action.
As for me, I feel a deep connection with nature, and I recognize this most likely comes from us evolving alongside it. But I recognize my own bias; I care less about mosquitos than birds.
And as to "home territory", mosquitos don't seem to constrain themselves to their homes, whatever that might be. They multiply in little spots of water and go forth seeking blood. To oversimplify, I value human life more than mosquito life. Malaria is a terrible disease. Is this human-centric? Yeah. Do I want humans to continue to grow and destroy nature (whatever that means) as we have done so far? Not really, but I don't know how to practically slow population growth nor development in a way that people will go for. It is a collective will and action problem on a global scale.
Heck yeah we are. Also wherever your house is and whenever it was built theres a 100% chance it was built on a bugs house and theres definitely a haunted mass grave of insects under and around it.
yes, but there was proper notice given, and the planning permits were on display that construction was going to be occurring. there was plenty of time to relocate rather waking up one day and having the color yellow front of mind and needlessly laying down in front of the equipment.
At least the plans weren't on display It in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.”
> all the more reason - whatever the observed timeframe - for us humans to not behave like assholes towards insects and other life or nature in general.
But what about kudzo?
> Kudzu, a perennial vine native to Japan and China, was first introduced into the USA in 1876 and was actively promoted by the government as a “wonderplant", It expanded to cover over 1 million ha by 1946 and well over 2 million ha today. When Kudzu invades a forest, it prevents the growth of young hardwoods and kills off other plants. Kudzu causes damage to powerlines, and even overwhelms homes, Kudzu has invaded important protected areas, requiring significant investment of management resources, The management response to date outside the protected areas has been insufficient to deal with this very significant threat.
You talk as if the bug would have any respect for your house. Spoiler: they don't, bugs will literally eat your house to feed themselves (termites). I understand and support the concept that the existence of bugs is beneficial to us and so we should refrain from eliminating them, but there's nothing natural about the concept of respect for a bug's "house".
Good point and the whole idea of what is natural tends be anchored at some point in time, from some point of view. All too often, people use natural as a (unimpressive) rhetorical technique to justify some moral claim. Such claims fall apart when you (a) define nature at some other time or point of view; or (b) reject the notion that behavior we see in nature (in all its wonder, complexity, ruthlessness, and cruelty) should be the fundamental basis for human morality.
Is the OP killing them because s/he has no other alternative to feed himself/herself, or is it because of the annoyance even though s/he is in their habitat?
I don't think OP feeds on bugs, that's why mass killing of insects seems wrong. If it's a campsite it's less bad though than if it was a house where you could just turn down outside lights instead.
Here the science suggests that just having a light isn't an attractant. It just happens to confuse the bugs flying by. Statisically they would be no more likely to go to the neighbors site or yours. Of course it also suggests that if you surrounded your site with lights that it could create a "light shield" which would disrupt the flying pattern of any bug that was on a vector that passed by your site.
That suggests another interesting test which would be to use a bunch of rope lights to create a complete circle around your site to disrupt all bug flights going in or out of your area. Presumably it could create a higher density at the perimeter of disrupted bugs.
That's rather interesting. In late summer when I think there are lot of bugs in the grass, I would find if I had my headlamp with the default white light (even fairly dim) they tended hit my face more to my liking when walking in my backyard. But putting on the red LED almost none annoyed me.
Again, per the paper, the night sky is actually pretty luminous and nominally the bugs can still orient "up" with their top toward the night sky. If your red light was comparable to the illumination flux from the night sky you would see this effect.
It's probable that the psychological effect of having the light on is distorting how they perceive the insects hitting. I think the only scientific way to deal with this would be to make a bug spraying machine that can spray bugs at someone's face in different patterns. It may take a little time to find the right pattern, but when the subject thinks it matches what they experience with the headlamp they could say "Yes! Yes! That's the one!" (or they could just put their thumbs up and smile if they prefer not to open their mouth)
I recently bought a red headlamp for night hiking because I wanted to try something that wouldn't kill my night vision (under a good moon I prefer to hike without a light as using a light kills your night vision and thus your distance vision) but if it doesn't draw bugs that's an extra plus. At the borderline I usually avoid using my headlamp because the bugs it draws are annoying--when something flies a couple of inches from your face it's very bright!
Depends on the characteristics of the trap, the bait and the bug, doesn't it? A highly attractive trap with a steep drop-off, and large and effective kill zone, and a kind of bug with a small but active nightly migration radius (when near campers) (compared to the trap attraction radius) might quickly attract and kill all the bugs that will come into that radius that night.
When you kill all those bugs in the first hour of the night, does that leave a noticeable excess-food signal in the region where the dead bugs use to be?
I've been battling the Japanese Lady Beatles at my house every winter since we've moved in, and it's taught me so much about both of these things- and that most seo results about insect traps etc are entirely wrong about.
I haven't figured out the sweetspot for attractant trap placement yet. It's not inside or attached to your camp or house.
But I know that cold, dry, nonstressed deaths for those that do intrude minimizes the ultimate number that invade via that route. Don't heat them, including by cleaning then up with a standard vacuum.
Interesting facts (according to me): their smell that attracts others is one of those like asparagus, that only some people seem to sense.
But to me smells like burning peanut butter toast crossed with a kaolin/ clay.
Also they hate vibrations/ noise and will aggressively attack and bite in retaliation.
> run an experiment whose result is predicted by the paper, in order to confirm the science in the paper
Why would you do that ? I understand the science process but if you do this in an hardly reproductible environment (x setup in y location with z group of fauna), how can this confirm anything useful ?
> The second being to mitigate the accumulation of insects around my campsite.
Another reply recommend to use yellow light bulbs, that may also do the trick
> Insects, as a fauna, have an extraordinarily effective reproductive cycle relative to the natural hazards they encounter every day.
Sorry, these light traps you’re using are a natural phenomena the bugs have evolved to be effective against with breeding? Can you elaborate on that line of training?
This does recall my youth (in my country): when with my parents we were driving on highways, I recall clearly the insects crashing into the windshield which would have been to be cleanup after a few hours of driving.
This has not being happening anymore for a 2 decades...
The cars also improved aerodynamically. Modern cars designed to minimize the dead insect build up on the windshield. I suppose you're not driving the same old car for the past two decades?
The second being to mitigate the accumulation of insects around my campsite.
While it is true that insect populations world wide have been impacted by the commercial deployment of pesticides by large agricultural operations, it is not true that populations outside that particular affect are negatively affected. Insects, as a fauna, have an extraordinarily effective reproductive cycle relative to the natural hazards they encounter every day.
The most recent article about excess honeybee populations was a good example of how honeybees that are outside of the risk zone are not in any danger of becoming extinct but can and do displace important local pollinators.
A non-persistent local light trap is the ideal mitigation strategy for insects in a particular regions because it leaves no lasting footprint, doesn't contaminate the food chain, and has zero net impact on the overall population density of the insects.