UK Nature and Environment

384 readers

34 users here now

General Instance Rules:

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
Do not spam or abuse network features.

Community Specific Rules:

Keep posts UK-specific. There are other places on Lemmy to post articles which relate to global environmental issues (e.g. slrpnk.net).
Keep comments in English so that they can be appropriately moderated.

Note: Our temporary logo is from The Wildlife Trusts. We are not officially associated with them.

Our autumn banner is a shot of maple leaves by Hossenfeffer.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Kim@feddit.uk

GreyShuck@feddit.uk

128

Young people can't remember how much more wildlife there used to be (organicallyhuman.com)

submitted 4 months ago by GreyShuck@feddit.uk to c/nature@feddit.uk

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Walking in England’s New Forest in 1892, butterfly collector S. G. Castle Russell encountered such numbers of the insects that they “were so thick that I could hardly see ahead”. On another occasion, he “captured a hundred purple hairstreaks” with two sweeps of his net.

Patrick Barkham, who recounts these riots of nature in his 2010 book on butterflies, laments never seeing such a sight. However, new research suggests Barkham is a rarity, because a lot of people are forgetting, or just don’t appreciate, how much wildlife there was.

To gauge this effect, Lizzie Jones at Royal Holloway, University of London, compared population records dating back to 1966 of 10 UK bird species against public perceptions of those birds. More than 900 people told her how abundant they thought the species – including declining ones such as house sparrows – were today and when they were aged 18.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (4 children)

I've always wondered about this anecdote, partly because I still see a lot of bugs when going out into the country. Is it that there are actually fewer bugs, or do the more aerodynamic cars of today cause fewer dead bugs to stick to bumpers/grills/windshields?

[–] englislanguage@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 4 months ago

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320474864_More_than_75_percent_decline_over_27_years_in_total_flying_insect_biomass_in_protected_areas (Please note: some scales are logarithmic and this is only for 27 years)

[–] SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

There are fewer bugs.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 9 points 4 months ago

I've had the same car for 15 years. In that span alone I can confirm there's a lot less bugs on my car.

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Is it that there are actually fewer bugs, or do the more aerodynamic cars of today cause fewer dead bugs to stick to bumpers/grills/windshields?

It's actually the opposite - more aerodynamic means a smaller cushion of air, which should translate to hitting more bugs because they aren't pushed out of the way as strongly or for as long. Instead, insect populations have fallen so dramatically that this effect still doesn't make up for it.