The Silent Spring is coming true

When I was in college (aeons ago), Rachel Carlson's The Silent Spring was mentioned in nearly every ecology and organism-focused biology course I took. The general consensus was that this book had heralded in the modern environmental movement and helped save us from a massive loss of bird species from pesticides like DDT. We did indeed snatch many of the raptor species back from the brink of extinction, including peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and ospreys.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/...-america-canada.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Sadly, it's the songbirds that are taking it on the chin now. Over the past 50 years, there has been a sharp decrease in the number of migratory songbirds. Ornithologists have long predicted that some birds do better in the face of human encroachment than others, so they expected to see a decline in some species and not in others. What they saw was even more worrying--a broad, across-the-spectrum decrease in bird numbers (and not just in species diversities). Even relatively abundant species, like Robins, redwing blackbirds, meadow larks, finches and sparrows. The culprits seems to be both habitat encroachment and pesticide use (the latter probably also partially explains the decline in insect numbers observed recently, which may also be impacting insectivorous bird species).

According to data published in Science, there are 2.9 billion fewer birds in the US and Canada than there were 50 years ago. That's a decline of about 29%.

I noticed that the lesser goldfinches we've enjoyed seeing at our thistle seed feeder for several years stopped coming after last winter and we haven't seen more than an occasional one since (we were getting swarms of them before). I'm hoping it's just because the end of our long drought means they can find more seeds out in nature and so they are foraging more widely, but now I wonder.

And worry.

Amphibians have been in decline for quite a while. I suspect many smaller mammals are also in decline, though it's harder to census them. Climate change appears to be playing a role here as well. Unlike birds, mammals tend to be nocturnal and very secretive (with underground burrows and so on), so it's harder to get the same kind of annual population counts as they've been doing for birds for decades.

It makes me sad, because I love animals and nature for their own sake (surely they are entitled to live and thrive) and for the amazing evolutionary and biological legacy they represent. But for the folks out there who don't think other species are important (unless they are of commercial significance), I have to ask: do we really think humans can continue to thrive when we've polluted the environment so badly most other life forms are struggling?

I give money to scientific and conservation groups, and vote for candidates who at least claim they care about the environment. I get organic produce when I can and use no pesticides or herbicides in my yard (even if that means it looks a bit rattier than some of my neighbors), keep my cats inside, and have landscaped in a way that is more water friendly and appeals to birds. I keep feeders out year round. When I teach non major's bio, I include units on ecology and conservation and hope some of the students come away with an understanding of how our behavior affects other species. But I wish I knew what more I can do to help.

Gregg said:

In Wisconsin it appears that West Nile disease - spread by mosquitos - is killing birds. Research/study is on-going.
Another reason for fewer birds (and other wildlife) is loss of habitat. New housing developments are part of that. Also, most wildlife likes young forests, so proper land management is critical - careful logging can help in a big way.

Click to expand...

We have that here too. There were a couple of years where we saw very few yellow-billed magpies (a unique and vulnerable species in central California), scrub jays, and even crows, and there still seem to be fewer than there once were. Adding to the complexity, all the spraying for mosquitoes to fight these diseases affects other insects too, and many birds eat insects, to it's not just the birds most vulnerable to the disease that are affected.

But there are other factors going on too, as this decline has been happening for fifty years, since before West Nile was a thing. And of course, West Nile and other diseases aren't spreading into North America for no reason. Changes in development, climate change, and human travel patterns (and transport of livestock and produce) all contribute to the spread of diseases and vector species. And habitat destruction and climate change are problems for nearly all wildlife.

frimble3 said:

Well, at least they've knocked off blaming the eeeviiil cats.

Click to expand...

They did suggest keeping cats inside is a good thing. I think cat damage to birds has been going on for as long as humans, cats, and birds have lived in the same space, but as human populations grow and expand into previously natural areas, so will our domestic animals. More humans=more housecats. So if cats are killing more birds than they once did, it's an aspect of human expansion and habitat destruction.

Though I am guessing a higher percentage of people in the US and Canada keep pet cats inside all or most of the time than once did.

There are likely many things going on here, but it's unsurprising to me that things are finally becoming critical. There are fewer and fewer places for wildlife to go, and with a warming and increasingly polluted and "under cultivation" planet, it's not going to get any better without concerted effort on our part.

A long environmental half life was one of the many problems with DDT, wasn't it? And toxins do get passed down to offspring by mothers.

And for those who don't care about wildlife (I know those generally aren't the AW people in this forum, but we all know some of those folks), why do they think humans are going to immune to the toxification of our environment, and from the effects of climate change? We drink water, breathe air, and eat food grown with these pesticides and fertilizers. We all have radioisotopes in our bodies from nuclear testing decades ago and certain nuclear accidents. The change in disease distributions (due to changes in climate) affect us as well as domestic animals and wildlife. And the chemical effects of our industries and agriculture are getting everywhere, even in creatures that live deep in the ocean.

We're poisoning ourselves too, and we live a lot longer than most organisms--plenty of time for toxins to affect our health.

Meanwhile, we're merrily deregulating.

Americans say they want more environmental protection from our government, but until we start voting like we mean it, things will only get worse.

Introversion said:

Was out on my hands & knees with a big screwdriver and a bucket, levering out dandelions by the roots and filling the bucket. The nextdoor neighbor saunters over with a smirk and says, “Yanno, Introversion, they make stuff in a bag that will kill those?”

I explained that I didn’t like to use to use herbicides, because they’re pretty toxic to many things, people included. He guffawed. “They wouldn’t sell it if it wasn’t safe!”

Yeah, that’s typical. (When his hired lawncare service would lay down pesticides and herbicides, it stank like hell for days, and I’d forbid my kids from crossing his lawn. Sigh.)

Click to expand...

Wonder if he spit out his coffee one morning when the news about the link between Round Up and Lymphoma was on the news.

Though peoples' news consumption is so targeted these days, many don't even hear about things like this.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190214093359.htm

Doesn't help when our government agencies are still insisting these chemicals are safe.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...weed-killer-is-not-a-carcinogen-idUSKCN1S62SU

What happened to conservative mistrust of the government when it comes to chemicals?