USDA researchers have identified the neonicotinoid insecticide clothianidin as a likely contributor to monarch butterfly declines in North America.

The USDA research is published in the journal Science of Nature and was published online on 3rd April (Pecenka and Lundgren 2015).  (ISN has had hacking problems, again. If this page is unavailable to you, thank the chemical industry, and please try later)

Monarch butterfly populations (Danaus Plexippus) have declined precipitously in North America in the last twenty years. This decline has commonly been linked to loss of milkweeds (Asclepias species) from farmer’s fields.

Monarch caterpillars are dependent on milkweeds. The ability of farmers to kill them with the Monsanto herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) has therefore led to this herbicide being considered as a major contributor to the decline of the monarch butterfly.

However, industrial farming methods include other known or potential causes of monarch disappearances. One of these is the known toxicity of Bt insecticides found in GMO crops.

For instance, in 2006 pollen from Syngenta’s BT176 corn (no longer on the US market) was shown to have a lethal dose of 14 pollen grains towards caterpillars of European Swallowtail butterflies.

Pollen from GMO crops falls on the milkweeds where monarchs feed and individual maize plants produce millions of pollen grains.

‘Neonic’ pesticides – toxic to caterpillars at 1 part per billion

Neonicotinoids have been strongly implicated in pollinator declines worldwide, as shown by a report from a task force of the International Union of Nature Conservation based in Switzerland.

These pesticides, such as clothianidin (Bayer), are a particular hazard because, unlike most pesticides, they are water-soluble molecules.

From soil or seed treatments they can reach nectar and are found in pollen. They are now the most widely used pesticides in the world (Goulson 2013). Up to now there has been negligible research on the effects of neonicotinoids on butterflies and this new research is therefore the first to link neonicotinoids to the survival and reproduction of any butterfly.

In their experiments the USDA researchers showed that clothianidin can have effects on monarch caterpillars at doses as low as 1 part per billion. The effects seen in their experiments were on caterpillar size, caterpillar weight, and caterpillar survival. The lethal dose (LC50) they found to be 15 parts per billion.

The caterpillars in their experiments were exposed to clothianidin-treated food for only 36 hours, however. The researchers therefore noted that in agricultural environments caterpillar exposure would likely be greater than in their experiments. Furthermore, that butterfly caterpillars would be exposed in nature to other pesticides, including other neonicotinoids.

In sampling experiments from agricultural areas in South Dakota the researchers found that milkweeds had on average over 1ppb clothianidin. On this basis the USDA researchers concluded that “neonicotinoids could negatively affect larval monarch populations.”

This new report is therefore the first to link neonicotinoids to monarch butterfly survival and reproduction. Neonicotinoids are neurotoxins that are partially banned in the EU.

And an even greater hazard in horticulture

Now a new paper in Plos ONE shows that far greater concentration of pesticide are achieved in the plant nursery and horticulture industry, where plants are routinely treated with the neonicotinoid Imidaclopri – and as much as 300mg of active ingredient may be used in a single large pot.

This means that domestic gardens – often considered a ‘haven’ for wildlife species that can no longer survive in chemical-drenched, GMO-occupied farmland – can present an even great toxic hazard. Most gardeners will never even know that their commercial plant purchases are helping to wipe out the biodiversity they are trying to save.

“Translocation of imidacloprid from soil (300 mg AI) to flowers of Asclepias curassavica resulted in 6,030 ppb in 1X and 10,400 ppb in 2X treatments, which are similar to imidacloprid residues found in another plant species we studied”, the paper by Dr. Vera Krischik and colleagues reports.

“A second imidacloprid soil application 7 months later resulted in 21,000 ppb in 1X and 45,000 ppb in 2X treatments. Consequently, greenhouse/nursery use of imidacloprid applied to flowering plants can result in 793 to 1,368 times higher concentration compared to an imidacloprid seed treatment (7.6 ppb pollen in seed- treated canola), where most research has focused.

“These higher imidacloprid levels caused significant mortality in both 1X and 2X treatments in 3 lady beetle species, Coleomegilla maculata, Harmonia axyridis, and Hippodamia convergens, but not a fourth species, Coccinella septempunctata. Adult survival were not reduced for monarch, Danaus plexippus and painted lady, Vanessa cardui, butterflies, but larval survival was significantly reduced.

“The use of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid at greenhouse/nursery rates reduced survival of beneficial insects feeding on pollen and nectar and is incompatible with the principles of Integrated Pest Management.”

Using toxins to kill pests runs contrary to all biological understanding

“These results are very worrisome, but it is also crucial not to get lost in the specifics of chemical toxicology and individual species declines”, says Allison Wilson, Science Director of the Bioscience Resource Project, a non-profit public interest science organization.

“Industrial agriculture is a lethal combination of methods that is causing the extinction of thousands of species worldwide. It is affecting birds, amphibians, bats and other pollinators besides butterflies. Many ecosystems are staring down the barrel.”

“The saddest irony is that, though industrial agriculture experts call their methods ‘scientific’, using toxins to kill pests runs contrary to all biological understanding, including the sciences of ecology, of evolution, and of complex systems.

“The proof of this is that the very best results in all of agriculture come from farming methods that reject all industrial inputs. Agribusiness would very much like that not to be known.

“The best news is that there is a simple way to transfer to sustainable agricultural methods: remove the subsidies for industrial farming.”

Jonathan Latham is editor of Independent Science News.

This article was originally published on Independent Science News. It has been extended by The Ecologist to include new information about the vera Krischick paper.

References

• Pecenka J and Lundgren J (2015) ‘Non-target effects of clothianidin on monarch butterflies‘. Science and Nature 102: 19
• IUCN Task Force (2014) ‘Systemic pesticides pose global threat to biodiversity and ecosystem services
• Goulson D. (2013) An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides‘.  Journal of Applied Ecology  50: 977-987.
• Vera Krischik, Mary Rogers, Garima Gupta, Aruna Varshney (2015), ‘Soil-Applied Imidacloprid Translocates to Ornamental Flowers and Reduces Survival of Adult Coleomegilla maculata, Harmonia axyridis, and Hippodamia convergens Lady Beetles, and Larval Danaus plexippus and Vanessa cardui Butterflies‘. Plos ONE.

Falling ocean oxygen levels due to rising temperatures and influence from human activities such as agrochemical use is an increasingly widespread problem.

Considering that the sea floors have taken more than 1,000 years to recover from past eras of low oxygen, according to a recent University of California study, this is a serious problem.

Ocean regions with low oxygen levels have a huge impact on aquatic organisms and can even destroy entire ecosystems. Areas of extremely low oxygen, known as oxygen minimum zones or ‘dead zones’, are estimated to constitute 10% and rising of the world’s ocean.

This expansion has been attributed to a warming climate, which increases water temperature, changes ocean circulation, and decreases the solubility of oxygen in sea water.

At the same time fertiliser and pesticide run-off from farming and other human activities leads to rising levels of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous reaching the sea.

Together, these two processes speed up the release of chemicals from ocean sediments and promote algal blooms. Subsequent algal death and decay result in increased consumption of oxygen in the water. The result is that other aquatic species such as invertebrates on the seafloor and fish suffocate for lack of oxygen.

Due to circulation and runoff effects, dead zones are especially severe around large cities on the western continental coasts such as the coast of Peru, and within enclosed or semi-enclosed regions like the Baltic Sea or Gulf of Mexico.

Looking to the past

What effects will these changes have? We don’t yet know how great the effects of human-caused climate change will be, nor how much can be done to try and mitigate the effects on the environment. Even if oceanic oxygen levels rise again, will the world’s ocean ecosystems be able to recover?

The University of California study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, studies fossils of over 5,400 sea animals including seed shrimps, molluscs, and brittle stars in order to try and answer this question.

By examining seafloor sediments the researchers assessed how global warming affected sealife during the transition from the last ice age to the more-recent interglacial period, between 17,000-3,000 years ago.

What the study found was that within only 130 years the oceans underwent devastating changes that led to complete collapse of invertebrates on the seafloor. More worryingly, the fossil records show that ecosystem recovery took at least 1,000 years.

So the current growth of dead zones could leave drastic and long-lasting changes to marine life biodiversity. Climate change caused by human activity has already caused significant environmental damage over a relatively short time – the vast increase in pollution, ocean acidification, overfishing and deforestation in just the last 50-100 years, for example.

However long it takes us to reverse the effects of global warming, if indeed we can, it will likely take ocean ecosystems many orders of magnitude longer to recover.

Headed for collapse?

Though microscopic organisms residing in the ocean and on the seafloor might seem to have little relevance to us, even small changes in ocean ecosystems can have enormous effects on the entire ocean food chain, from the smallest bacteria to the largest fish.

Any impact on the creatures higher up in the food chain will have a massive impact on the human communities that rely on them economically and as a food source.

Studies have shown that populations of mid-water fish such as Pacific hake decreased by up to 60% during periods of low oxygen off the coast of Southern California.

Conversely, numbers of Humboldt squid, which are more tolerant of low-oxygen waters, have increased significantly in the same location.

Even the fish that can survive in dead zones are not faring well: large numbers of female Atlantic Croaker have been found to be growing testes-like organs instead of ovaries, a sexual deformation which causes infertility.

Feedback loop

Any shifts in ecosystem biodiversity can lead to a vicious feedback loop: dead zone seafloors turn into biodiversity deserts, where little but methane and hydrogen sulphide-producing bacteria survive.

Paired with changes in nutrient cycling which result in the release of nitrogen gas, levels of greenhouse gases being released from the ocean to the atmosphere increase and contribute to further global warming.

To prevent the possibility of a 1,000-year (or longer) recovery period from a dead zone seafloor, we need to be much more aware of how the various environmental aspects are connected.

An understanding of how de-oxygenation has affected the ocean in the past and how our actions are affecting the ocean in the present is critical to either preventing a recurrence or at least minimising effects of what we have already done.

Lee Bryant is Prize Fellow in Water Engineering, Architecture and Civil Engineering Department at the University of Bath.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

South Florida Water Management District had a meeting last week to discuss buying 46,000 acres of ‘conservation’ land from US Sugar and other landowners south of Lake Okeechobee.

The intention is to use the land to recreate a large area of the Everglades ecosystem on the former farmland, and create a 26,000 acre system of lakes to store and remediate seriously contaminated run-off water from sugar farms, and so keep the nitrogen and phosphorus-rich water out of lakes, water courses, wetlands, springs and public water supply.

Thanks to the surfeit of nutrients, huge areas of open water and wetlands are regularly afflicted by outbreaks of stinking green slime – and the water district has come under growing pressure to act to stop the pollution and its severe consequences on local people and the Everglades.

Cue a mysterious post on the Facebook page of the Broward Acting Group headed “Political Really Protestors Needed!!” and offering $75 each (no breakfast) for up to 40 actors to show up at the water district on 2nd April from 8.30 to 10.30 am:

“Details: Basically to stand behind fence, holding banners or signs that will be provided. Clothing is almost anything!! Use common sense and don’t wear ‘club’ outfits or gym clothes. Just wardrobe for a Political Rally…We will pay CASH of $75 at end of shoot.”

‘It’s pathetic!’

And sure enough, a well-attended protest of around 50 people took place that morning doubtless convincing the water district that it faced strong public opposition to its plan. Until, that is, a political group called Progress Florida released a screen shot of the Facebook post (since removed, but see screengrab above right).

The group claims to “hold our elected officials accountable by empowering citizens in their communities. We’re fighting for social justice, economic fairness, strengthening public education, health care reform, environmental protection, and much more.”

According to the Palm Beach Post the protest was sponsored by Tea Party of Miami and Florida Citizens Against Waste, described as “a recently formed group that has no contact information on its website and is not registered to do business in Florida.”

“Big Sugar supporters hiring actors to pretend to protest is pathetic”, said Progress Florida executive director Mark Ferrulo. “Someone should ask who is paying for artificial sweetener to make polluting the Everglades and our drinking water easier to swallow.”

Another fake protest by the Tea Party of Miami?

The Tea Party of Miami is fiercely opposed to the plan, which it claims will cost Forida an initial $500 million for the land purchase, and as much as $2 billion to execute the entire conservation plan, describing its supporters as “radicalized environmentalists” acting “under the pretense of cleaning-up the environment”.

The problem is all too real!

While the ‘protests’ put up by the Tea Party of Miami against the so-called “land grab” may be as fake as a three-dollar bill, the pollution problems faced by the Everglades are all too real and present.

And according to the environmental law group Earth Justice, Florida’s Lake Okeechobee – “home of Big Sugar” – is faring especially badly: “At present, polluters are legally discharging 300 tons of phosphorous over the legal limit, and the legislature is proposing a plan that will only reduce pollution by 100 tons over 10 years.”

Florida’s current plan to deal with the problem is to get rid of Florida’s water pollution permits and replace them with a voluntary ‘Best Management Practices’ system. But according to Earth Justice, the plan is ‘designed to fail’:

“Large agricultural corporations have convinced the state to let them off the hook as long as the polluters claim they are changing the way they handle manure and fertilizer. This is simply legalizing pollution. Instead of requiring permits, the state would just be asking polluters, ‘What’s your plan?’ That alone would be considered compliance.”

Last August an outbreak of toxic ‘green slime’ algae caused officials in Toledo, Ohio to ban citizens from drinking tainted city water for several days. Another water plant serving 30,000 people along Southwest Florida’s Caloosahatchee River, near Fort Myers, has been repeatedly shut down over the years because toxic algae makes the water unsafe.

Many of Florida’s 900 freshwater springs, known for their deep blue water, which are a major draw to both locals and tourists as open air swimming places, are also suffering from toxic green algae. Some of the best swimming holes in the state now have “No Swimming” signs posted due to the public health threat.

In 2014 state senators from the ‘springs country’ were deluged with protests from constituents who want the springs protected – and introduced legislation to provide over $300 million to protect the springs.

But polluter lobbyists first succeeded in weakening the measure, before it died altogether in the Florida House of Representatives.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

In its recent appointments to the BBC Trust, the government has deeply associated our public broadcaster with the arms trade. Why aren’t we talking about this?

“Sometimes you have to make hard sacrifices”, said Sir Michael Lyons, former chairman of the BBC Trust, after the Corporation’s decision not to renew Jeremy Clarkson’s contract on March 25.

Clarkson’s apparent status as “too valuable to sack”, despite a long list of indiscretions, was displaced by the insistence that, in the words of the BBC’s director of television, “it’s like football clubs: no one is bigger than the club.”

The Clarkson fiasco – complete with “derogatory and abusive language”, a “physical attack” lasting around 30 seconds, and allegations of death threatsmade to the BBC Director-General by Clarkson fans – has, unsurprisingly, received its share of media coverage.

Owen Jones saw the saga as a “test” of whether the “well-connected” and “highly paid” are held to the same standards as everyone else, while the BBC news website provided an almost comically wide spectrum of public reaction to Clarkson’s departure, ranging from the views of Star Trek actor William Shatner to the original ‘Stig’, Perry McCarthy.

Although the coverage was, at times, excessive, this was still an important story, raising vital questions about privilege, bullying and the integrity of the BBC. But more troubling, if less sensational stories – going right to the heart of our public broadcaster – have been largely overlooked.

‘Surely you should go?’

The BBC Trust is the governing body of the BBC, with the responsibility to ensure that the Corporation delivers on its mission “to inform, educate and entertain.” The Trust describes itself as “the guardian of license fee revenue”, aiming to make the Corporation “simpler, more efficient and more open.”

It also sets editorial standards, appoints the Director-General and serves as “the final arbiter on complaints.” Established through the 2006 BBC Royal Charter, the Trust, along with the separate executive board, plays a central role in the governance and regulation of the BBC.

As Dan Hind has written for ourBeeb, the Trust’s members are not, to say the least, chosen democratically. There are twelve trustees – four of whom are charged with representing Britain’s Home Nations, one an International Trustee – all formally appointed by the Queen, on the recommendation of government ministers.

Hind also illustrates how experience in journalism has not exactly been a prerequisite for trustees, with CVs instead distinguished by “strong links with the financial sector”, and roles on the boards of energy companies.

The current chair of the Trust is Rona Fairhead, who was CEO of the Financial Times Group from 2006-2013. Her biography on the BBC website notes that she sits on the Board of HSBC Holdings, but makes no mention of the fact thatshe became the chair of HSBC’s audit and risk committee in 2007, with “responsibility for governance and compliance across the global bank.”

Inevitably, Fairhead has had to face some serious questions. When pressed by the Public Accounts Committee on the HSBC tax evasion scandal, she protested “I could only respond to the information that I had”, mainly blaming the management of the bank’s Swiss branch, “because they should have created a controlled environment.”

Conservative MP Stephen Philips was not satisfied, asking “How can you stay in place as a non-executive of this bank? Surely you should go?” Margaret Hodge, the chair of the Committee, put it more bluntly:

“The performance you have shown here as a guardian of HSBC does not give me confidence as a licence fee-payer in your ability as a guardian of the licence fee-payers’ money and I think you should consider your position and resign.”

Fairhead’s power over BBC decision-making should not be overstated, and herrecent call for largely replacing the Trust with an external regulator demonstrates a grasp of public concerns with accountability and oversight.

However, there is definitely something concerning about this core public institution being governed by people whose career backgrounds could hardly be further from the mission of “inform, educate and entertain.”

‘More trustees with business and financial backgrounds’

Maybe we shouldn’t find this surprising. We’re now at the point where we expect most of our public institutions to be linked, in some way, to banking. Careers in British public service are often stepping stones to careers in finance, and vice versa.

A similar ‘revolving door’ exists with weapons companies, who also have many friends in important places: from the Ministry of Defence, to the Department of Trade and Investment, and even the House of Windsor. Now, it seems, the arms industry will have a representative at the top of the BBC.

Sir Roger Carr, the chairman of Europe’s biggest arms company, BAE Systems, has recently added “Vice-Chair of the BBC Trust” to his CV, and will be paid £70,610 a year to “represent licence fee payers’ views.”

Carr has been chairman of BAE since February 2014, and “is also a member of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Group and a senior advisor to KKR – the world’s largest private equity company.”

Appointed as a trustee on March 20 along with former Radio 4 controller Mark Damazer and former Tory donor and banker Mark Florman, Carr apparently fits with the government’s keenness to “introduce more trustees with business and financial backgrounds.”

BAE’s record

What does “business experience” with BAE look like? This is a company perhaps best-known for its role in the 1985 Al-Yamamah arms deal, making £43bn selling warplanes to the Saudi monarchy – with an estimated £6bn “distributed in corrupt commissions, via an array of agents and middlemen.”

The Serious Fraud Office began an investigation into the Al-Yamamah deal in 2004, only for its probe to be shut down in December 2006, after alleged Saudi blackmail.