Skip to main content

The invasion of the ladybirds

Aliens are invading the United Kingdom and the consequences may be far reaching.

The non-native harlequin ladybird Harmonia axyridis has rapidly spread throughout Europe and is now displacing native species in the UK.

Researchers at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge have been tracking the invasion.   They examined changes in ladybird communities at four sites (two lime tree sites, one pine tree site and one nettle site) in East Anglia, England, over an 11-year period (2006–2016).


Harlequin Ladybirds displacing native species

Their study, published in the journal Insect Conservation and Diversity shows that overall Harlequins represented 41.5% of all ladybirds sampled in 2006 to a high of 70.7%  and was over three times more abundant than the second commonest species, Coccinella septempunctata.

The proportion of native ladybirds declined from 99.8%  in 2006 to 30.7%  in 2016, although Halequins were dominant only at the lime tree sites and not at the pine or nettle sites.

In an earlier study the researchers reported declines in three native species over a 3-year period following the arrival of harlequin ladybirds in East Anglia.  Their current work confirms and extends that finding.

Does it matter?

A key question is whether any of this matters.  Isn't one ladybird much like another?  The answer is that it matters at several levels, both in what it represents and in its consequences.  Nor is it the case that 'one ladybird is like any other'.   

Ladybird  communities in a given habitat often comprise a small suite of species that co-exist by occupying different niches.  Some will feed on aphids, others on mites, still others are herbivorous.

It matters also at another level.

The spread of invasive species 

Global trade, travel and climate change are driving the spread of 'invasive species'. Invasive non-native species are widely acknowledged as one of the main causes of biodiversity loss globally.  The prevalence of such invasions has increased dramatically over the course of the last half-century.

As the climate warms, this enables alien species to spread further to regions where previously they were poorly adapted.  Barriers to such movement are being eroded.  Such invasions can occur quickly, outpacing the adaptability of the native species.  Whilst native species struggle to adapt to changing climate conditions, the invasive species takes hold.  The population explosion of an invasive species can then disturb the predator-prey balance by providing a new abundant food source for the predators.  Increasing numbers of predators then further disturb the precarious hold of native species. 

Economic costs

So, why does it matter?  We could answer that question in monetary terms.  It is estimated to cost the global economy some $70 billion annually.  Many of the invasive species become 'pests' to agriculture.  But the real cost is greater than can be measured in dollars.

Human cost

Biological invasions are a major threat to global food security and livelihoods, particularly in developing countries. Those countries with high levels of subsistence and smallholder farming, often lack the capacity to prevent and manage biological invasions. 

Ruined crops mean ruined lives.  This can then become a driver for human migration as the land ceases to sustain a growing population.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As