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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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