
Study shows massive insect loss - pgrote
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2018/10/15/hyperalarming-study-shows-massive-insect-loss/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6e364be6ddca
======
carlesfe
Years ago, my family used to drive to our grandparents' village in hot, summer
Friday nights.

The windshield ended so pestered with dead bugs that the first task on
Saturday morning was to drive the car to the river to clean it. I remember it
vividly because it was so fun to wash the car with the cold river water.

Last August I went stargazing with my wife. We chose a secluded area because
it was far away from light pollution, a few hours away from the capital.

We watched the Perseids for a couple of hours in the middle of a field. We had
no lights on, but being CO2-emitting mammals, no flying insect bothered us. We
had anti-mosquito spray ready but we didn't need to use it. There were a few
ants but that's it.

Afterwards, I drove an hour and a half at 2am and only a few bugs died on my
windshield. I didn't even need to use the wipers the next morning.

I hate mosquitoes as much as everybody else, but something has been happening
to insects in the last 20 years. As a human it's comfortable but I'm honestly
a bit afraid for the environment. And studies like this don't paint a positive
picture.

~~~
bsdetector
> and only a few bugs died on my windshield.

Smoother airflow around the windshield means fewer bugs smashing into it and
more glancing hits that don't leave a mess.

Traditional hard edged cars like Jeep Wrangler seem to get a lot of bugs on
the windshield (based on brief Googling), so while there may be fewer insects
I'd wager to guess aerodynamics is large factor.

~~~
lostapathy
Can confirm aerodynamics are part of it. I drive a 2013 Jeep Wrangler. Wife
has a brand new, aerodynamic vehicle. Jeep definitely collects bugs, bird
poop, and even rocks at a MUCH higher rate.

------
CptFribble
At what point does the cost of continuing the status quo outweigh changing it?
How do you even measure something like that, when the people in charge of
making changes won't live to see them?

I think a major problem humanity has, among many others, is the way we assign
leadership roles. Leadership of major institutions should be balanced not just
among gender, but also among age. Every government should include decision
makers under 40.

When we don't have rules for this, we wind up with the current situation: the
average Representative is 57, the average Senator is 61. [1]

This might seem trite or pointless to many, but I really think we need
decision-makers who will have to live with the longer-term consequences of
their decisions.

Mitch McConnell, the current majority leader in the Senate and one of the most
powerful people in Congress, is 76. When the UN says we have 12 years to
change our ways or suffer possibly world-ending consequences, how much does
that matter to a 76-year old?

I think it's pretty well established at this point that we can't rely on our
leaders to think or act empathetically, or make decisions that matter beyond
their party and the next re-election. We need to figure out a way to build
future-focused thinking into our governance.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to do it.

[1]" [https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/the-115th-
congres...](https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/the-115th-congress-is-
among-the-oldest-in-history/175/)

~~~
undersuit
I don't see how making us have more diverse set of leaders will make things
better. There are plenty of people under 40 I don't want making decisions and
there are plenty of people over 40 I do want making decisions.

Diversity isn't going to make good leaders, it's going to give us diverse
leaders.

~~~
erikpukinskis
In general if you are suppressing a class of people’s participation, the top
people in that class will be more apt than your average participant. So
including them will increase the average aptitude.

The only time that isn’t true is when you are suppressing a class of people
who are fundamentally shittier than the dominant class.

The affirmative action debate comes down to whether you think skewed
performance numbers are evidence that a) some of the classes are superior to
the others or b) the numbers don’t accurately measure performance.

There’s nothing inherent in the data to point one way or the other. It’s just
a litmus test on whether you’re a supremacist.

------
christophilus
My wife and I leave large portions of our lawn untended. We seed ours with
flowering native plants and herbs. We had fireflies and butterflies and bees
galore this year— noticeably more than any of our neighbors. It’s not much,
but it’s something.

~~~
njarboe
After the three year California drought and not watering the lawn much during
it, I just let the grass and wild flowers grow up without mowing the last few
years. Lots of different kind of plants, many bees, etc. Pretty cool, although
some people comment on how we have let the yard go. I wish I could do a
controlled burn at the start of the rainy season.

On the other hand, I recently learned what a carpenter bee is and what they
can do to exposed wood structures. This year was the first time I had them
boring into the wooden eves of our house. I have mixed feelings when I see
them now.

~~~
saiya-jin
What exactly do you mean by controlled burn? If it is what I think it is, you
will kill many insects that call that lawn their home. Not really good for
anything (plus the risk of burning down the neighborhood)

~~~
njarboe
Of course burning my front lawn would never be allowed and I understand the
reasons for that but ever since humans arrived (15,000 years or so ago)
California grasslands would burn quite often. The "native" ecosystem was
adapted to it and I think it would be fun to see what a few years of buring
would do to the biological diversity of my little bit of grassland.

~~~
Baeocystin
California has been burning for far longer than people have been here. Human
presence did, of course, alter things, but natural ignitions due to lightning
strikes shaped the ecology for millennia before we showed up.

[https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/Fi...](https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/FireScienceResearch/FireHistory/FireHistory-
Stephens07.pdf)

~~~
njarboe
This looks like an interesting paper. I'll read in over in detail, but from
the abstract this paper is discussing the suppression of fire after Euro-
American settlement in the 1800's. Fires caused by Native Americans is
discussed as the cause, along with lightning, and I don't think lightning is a
big factor in (Northern) California wildfires. While lighting is a major cause
of fire throughout the Rocky Mountains, they are less of a factor in
California, especially along the coast and central valley. I have lived in
Oakland for over two decades and the number of thunderstorms I've seen/heard
here is less than a half-dozen.

We don't get the same kind of bad lightning storms that occur in the Rockies
where the monsoons bring up thunderstorms from the south during otherwise dry
summers. Maybe in the San Bernardino mountains near LA get a few of these
summer lightening storms.

It would be interesting to read about pre-human fire occurrence rates in the
grasslands of California but, as this study states, preserved evidence of
grass fires more than 15,000 years ago are rare.

------
14
My dad claims that the bugs come and go in cycles and says he has seen so
several times over his life. He believes that we are just in a period of low
bug population and that at any time there could and will be a population
explosion. Personally I am not so optimistic. My dad moved around multiple
times over his life and I would suspect different areas would naturally have
varying bug densities and that is why he felt they went in cycles. Because for
myself I DO notice the decline in bugs and articles like these do scare me for
the sake of humanity.

~~~
fzeroracer
I'm starting to feel like this is the common trend when you bring up arguments
of potentially how disastrous our effects on the environment have been.

Bugs? They come and go in cycles. Climate? Again, cycles. I suppose next we'll
see claims that the rising ocean is just the cycle of the ocean and it'll fall
back down any day now.

~~~
sosense
But the oceans have been rising for over 1000 years at the same rate, and
things like insect population and climate are cyclical.

------
coldnose
Does anyone else find spicing up ordinary words with new cognates amusing?
Super-researchers are ultraconcerned about hyperalarming insect megaloss.

~~~
traek
Prefixes, not cognates.

~~~
jawns
One of the examples that coldnose offers has a suffix appended to it, so I
think you're incorrect, too.

Maybe affixes?

By the way, yours is an example of Muphry's law. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law)

And because I'm correcting your incorrect correction, I have a feeling that
I've gotten something wrong, too.

~~~
kbrackbill
Which one is a suffix? super- hyper- ultra- mega- are all prefixes

------
kpil
I'm pretty sure this is more related to a rather radical shift to a more
industrialised agriculture the recent 40 years.

Grazing land and more importantly meadows are simply gone. According to
Wikipedia, England and Wales have lost about 97% of their hay meadows. Meadows
are artificial, but they increase the biodiversity significantly.

Neonicotinoids are probably also to blame.

Climate change must be negligible in comparison, but it seems that everything
can be blamed on climate change. War in Syria for instance.

~~~
dTal
The article specifically addresses and refutes this:

>Huge numbers of bugs have been lost in a pristine national forest in Puerto
Rico... [it] remains the only tropical rain forest in the National Forest
system

>Lister pointed out that, since 1969, pesticide use has fallen more than 80
percent in Puerto Rico

The article also provides several - reputable, scientific - references that
demonstrate a _predicted_ loss of insects in tropical regions from thermal
pressure.

~~~
linuxftw
>>Lister pointed out that, since 1969, pesticide use has fallen more than 80
percent in Puerto Rico

The article does make this claim, but it doesn't appear to back it up in any
way. Additionally, nothing is said about the type of pesticide. If I use a
pesticide that is 10x stronger by weight than what was available in 1969 and
possibly doesn't need to be applied as often, then we're not comparing apples
to apples.

Additionally, it's not mentioned what is meant by 'pesticide' Is that just
insecticide or herbicide? Perhaps the application of herbicide (roundup) has
increased, killing off native food-stuffs and poisoning the insects that eat
them.

~~~
AstralStorm
You should read the linked studies before posting, they answer all these
questions.

~~~
linuxftw
You should read it. They don't actually answer any of the questions I raised.

------
Havoc
I'd be more inclined to blame neonicotinoid pesticides than change in
temperature, but seems plausible I guess.

~~~
tptacek
Why would you be more inclined to blame neonicotinoid pesticides?

~~~
christophilus
Presumably because their entire purpose is to kill insects?

------
tannhaeuser
It probably won't save the world, but we developers sure could do more to save
energy and not requiring ridiculous hardware resources for what seems like
merely gradual improvements over the 90s, with all the chemicals for
processing and in batteries, and with all the waste. By this time, we could've
achieved long-lived solar-powered mobiles with B/W LCDs. I remember text
processing software being pitched as paper-saving devices.

~~~
EGreg
You mean like Proof of Work mining?

~~~
zanny
I a more generalist sense just things like using Electron vs native toolkits
matter. The desktop Discord app is going to use substantially more power to
run day to day than if it were a native code app that just used something like
C++, and across millions of gamers for hours a night every night those
resource requirements and power demands add up.

It isn't always just "average hardware is faster so use more inefficient
frameworks to lower time to market". Using those shortcuts to ship makes
sense, but it should then be a long term goal to reel in those expensive
abstractions once you can start counting the amount of power your software is
using on a regular basis by whole power plants required to keep your code
running on a daily basis.

~~~
kankroc
Presenting "not using Electron" as a significant way to reduce our impact on
the environment has to be the most HN thing I ever read.

~~~
goatlover
Javascript is ruining the environment. Everyone should switch to Rust, and
compile all apps to web assembly. Also, blockchain.

~~~
smolder
No, blockchains are bad for the environment.

------
jayalpha
Yes. Has been in the news since a few years.

More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in
protected areas

[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809)

Connected?

Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees
[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/09/18/1803880115](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/09/18/1803880115)

------
pvaldes
Cars, Pesticides, and habitat loss.

There is nowadays also a general phobia and fear towards nature in general.
Millions of people (driven by decades of publicity) had assumed that a
backyard with tall grasses is a sort of unforgivable sin. They run
compulsively towards their fancy lawnmower (and their magic products against
each single plague known in the continent) each weekend.

But if you loose the grip and let a small space of lawn alone (Maybe cutting
it three times a year instead 30 times a year). The thing will bloom and
attract thousands of species of invertebrates including many butterflies and
rare beetles. Is a very satisfying change. Small backyard ponds give also a
big life boost.

------
monktastic1
> The authors of a 2017 study of vanished flying insects in Germany suggested
> other possible culprits, including pesticides and habitat loss. Arthropods
> around the globe also have to contend with pathogens and invasive species.
> “It’s bewildering, and I’m scared to death that it’s actually death by a
> thousand cuts,” Wagner said. “One of the scariest parts about it is that we
> don’t have an obvious smoking gun here.”

I feel this is a good place to share a quote from a favorite author (Charles
Eisenstein). His philosophy might be too New-Agey for some (the skeptics
society at Google even protested his visit), but I think there's more than a
little something to it:

"Clear-cutting aside, the decline of one after another species of trees all
over the world is something of a mystery to scientists: in each case, there
seems to be a different proximate culprit— a beetle, a fungus, etc. But why
have they become susceptible? Acid rain leaching free aluminum from soil
silicates? Ground-level ozone damaging leaves? Drought stress caused by
deforestation elsewhere? Heat stress due to climate change? Understory damage
due to deer overpopulation due to predator extermination? Exogenous insect
species? Insect population surges due to the decline of certain bird species?

Or is it all of the above? Perhaps underneath all of these vectors of forest
decline and climate instability is a more general principle that is
inescapable. Everything I have mentioned stems from a kind of derangement in
our own society. All come from the perception of separation from nature and
from each other, upon which all our systems of money, technology, industry,
and so forth are built. Each of these projects itself onto our own psyches as
well. The ideology of control says that if we can only identify the “cause,”
we can control climate change. Fine, but what if the cause is everything?
Economy, politics, emissions, agriculture, medicine … all the way to religion,
psychology, our basic stories through which we apprehend the world? We face
then the futility of control and the necessity for transformation.

...

Thus I say that our revolution must go all the way to the bottom, all the way
down to our basic understanding of self and world. We will not survive as a
species through more of the same: better breeds of corn, better pesticides,
the extension of control to the genetic and molecular level. We need to enter
a fundamentally different story. That is why an activist will inevitably find
herself working on the level of story. She will find that in addition to
addressing immediate needs, even the most practical, hands-on actions are
telling a story. They come from and contribute to a new Story of the World. "

~~~
TangoTrotFox
I think views such as this take a premise of peace in nature -- that without
external influence, Earth would be relatively static. But we know this is
false. For instance (as per the topic of this article) these [1] are the
temperature readings we have from various sources, just over the past 400k
years (things get _really_ wacky going back a bit further). Literally before
humanity existed we see extreme global climatic swings happening on very short
time scales, with upwards of 9 degree (celsius) temperature changes. We are
likely exasperating both the acceleration and magnitude of the most recent
swing, but even if humanity did not exist or even if we managed to achieve 0
carbon output, we'd see a warming event happening some time right about now.

And it's easy to forget that throughout the history of our planet that have
been numerous mass extinction events where nearly everything on this planet
went extinct, all without any help from any species whatsoever, let alone
humans. For instance during during the Permian-Triassic extinction period,
about 250 million years ago, some 96% of species ended up going extinct. All
of the incredible diversity we know as life today emerged from those 4% that
survived.

The point of this is that Earth and nature are not inherently peaceful or
stable. We live on a brutal planet that has a habit of killing just about
everything that manages to evolve on it with a pretty good degree of
regularity. The one and only reason we might not end up going extinct, in the
longrun, is because of our intelligence. Be one with nature and it will,
sooner or later, kill you. Overcome it, and you might just survive.

[1] -
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png)

------
jelliclesfarm
I really like all the innovations with indoor farming. But I have always
thought that it’s missing a huge chunk of the bigger picture. The rest of the
eco system and habitat. Traditional farming(as we know it) is not that close
to nature. It’s is essentially an open air factory for food...largely aided by
chemicals and a lot of brute horse power. In all this, nature and it’s
balancing effects are lost.

------
randcraw
Growing up in the 1960s, I remember car windshields being just _covered_ with
dead bugs in summer, especially after highway trips. Thinking back, I haven't
seen this happen since 1990, at latest.

Putting my zoologist hat on, arthropods make up the largest fraction of
biomass of any other large animal group (phylum). The next largest, fish,
heavily depend on arthropoda for food. As do small birds, and as it happens
the worldwide loss of birds is also being called 'catastrophic', at about 40%.
That makes me wonder, how much fish have we've also lost? And what's next?

[https://e360.yale.edu/digest/forty-percent-of-the-worlds-
bir...](https://e360.yale.edu/digest/forty-percent-of-the-worlds-bird-
populations-are-in-decline-new-study-finds)

When the world's population of insects drops 50% to 80% in only 40 years, this
is a VERY BIG problem.

------
24gttghh
First the climate came for the coral reefs, and I did not speak up because I
am not a marine invertebrate.

Then, the climate came for the rest of the arthropods, and I did not speak up
because I only have two legs.

Then, the climate came for the fishes of the sea, and I did not speak up
because I do not have gills.

Then, the climate came for the plants, and I did not speak up because I am not
a tree.

Then, the climate came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

These are serious warnings the planet is giving us and those in charge are
more concerned about their nest egg than their grandchildren's future.
Something's gotta give, and so far it's Earth's ecosystems.

~~~
antisthenes
> Then, the climate came for me, and there was no one left for me to eat

ftfy

~~~
24gttghh
Same result, we starve.

------
bitL
This summer was very atypical; in previous years my house was getting all
kinds of insects visiting it during the day, this year very few. Also, there
were too many bees I found lying dead on the floor - I had to pick one almost
every day - something is definitely up.

------
oldandtired
Interesting. The insects must be migrating to Australia. I have lived in the
same location now for 20 years. In that time, I have seen cycles in the
populations of both insects and birds. This years has been one of the peaks
for birds.

So many different species, and some of them are much larger than I have seen
in a number of years - some of them are up to twice the normal size. Flies
again have increased, but mosquitoes are down. Bees have been out and about as
the amount of flowers being pollinated and fruit starting to appear is large
this year. It seems to be an increase over last year. Plenty of spiders and
earwigs, though down on snails (as yet).

The chooks are chasing lots of insects about for a feed. There are plenty of
aphids on the roses - too many in fact - may not get any roses this year.

Mind you this is Spring and we may see a different change later as we get to
summer. We are expecting a bad fire season, though doesn't appear to be like
it was when we had the Black Saturday bushfires a decade ago.

I have only just stopped running the fire at night because it has still been
too cold to not do so.

------
newnewpdro
Similar to what others have said here, I've noticed a marked decline in dead
bugs on my vehicle following cross-country road trips over the last 10-15
years.

I _never_ have to clean my windshield of dead bugs anymore. The first time I
visited the midwest after moving to CA, something like 10 years ago now, via
i80, the front of my car was completely covered with insects to the point you
could barely see the paint.

Every successive year I made that same trip the dead bugs lessened until there
was simply no need at all to even clean my car upon arrival.

Things are changing, there's no doubt about it.

I just hope the species evolving to thrive in the emerging conditions are as
easy to cohabitate with as the ones going extinct. Other than a small subset
like mosquitoes, wasps, ticks, and some spiders, insects have been rather
hospitable to us. Maybe not so much in the future.

------
latchkey
Living in Vietnam, there is a massive population of swallows. They are prized
for the nests they make [1] and people build whole multi-story windowless
buildings just to house them [2]. I've seen these buildings all over. At dusk
you see them flying around clearly eating up all the mosquitos and bugs in the
air. No absolute proof, but I'm pretty sure this is why there are so few
mosquitos and flying bugs here.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_bird%27s_nest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_bird%27s_nest)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_bird%27s_nest#/media/Fi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_bird%27s_nest#/media/File:Nestinghouse_003.jpg)

------
dvh
I'm fishing quite a lot, few years ago if I reeled cloth, old sock, or plastic
bag from river bottom it was full of tiny shrimps and other tiny insects. When
I reel it now it's just empty. Also I see significantly less chubs.

------
vixen99
This year about half the apples in our garden were devoured by insect and
microbial predators. You could say this is the natural condition for producing
organic food. The pristine ones marketed for sale are there courtesy of the
2.8 million tons of pesticide (2009. Is it more or less now?) used to fend off
such attacks. Have we properly assessed the true cost of our food?

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2946087/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2946087/)

------
cmpaul
> The invertebrates that live there, likewise, are adapted to these
> temperatures and fare poorly outside them; bugs cannot regulate their
> internal heat.

This makes me think that the insects which do survive will be better adapted
to the higher temperatures. Hopefully the change is slow enough they have time
to adapt. And this is nothing to say about the impact of that adaptation time
on other species...

~~~
GlenTheMachine
Problem is the temperature keeps changing (upwards). If it was a step input,
then you might see a sudden die-off and then a ramp back up. But the
temperature change is, to first order, a ramp input.

~~~
Dylan16807
Problem? Slow ramps are the ideal way to drive adaptation. That's why
finishing a course of antibiotics is so important.

~~~
GlenTheMachine
This isn't slow, by evolutionary standards. The bugs are trying to adapt to a
changing, rapidly increasing temperature.

~~~
Dylan16807
I'm willing to bet that the necessary genes already exist in the population,
since the bugs already handle daily temperature swings that are much larger
than the increases from climate change.

Given that, a few dozen generations is plenty. And insect generations are for
the most part quite short.

~~~
GlenTheMachine
Then why are the insects all dying? If this is true, the populations should be
rebounding. They aren't.

~~~
Dylan16807
Because it's still a bad effect that takes time to adjust to. And there might
be other factors.

~~~
GlenTheMachine
It has, apparently, been going on for a couple of decades now. As you
correctly point out, this constitutes many insect generations. If this were
simple case of letting pre-existing genetic variations that are robust to
temperature get selected for, _we would be seeing populations rebound_.

And it seems most of the other factors, besides climate, have been accounted
for. The losses here are in large nature preserves, where insecticides and
herbicides are not used. And in the case of Puerto Rico, at least, pesticide
use island-wide has dropped dramatically since the 1960s. So one would not
expect the results of pesticide use on insect populations to only be
manifesting themselves now. Other than climate, most other factors seem to
have changed in the insects' favor. Yes, neonicotinoids are an issue, but a
relatively local one. One would not expect them to be an issue deep inside a
Puerto Rican rainforest nature preserve.

------
jungletime
Can confirm, its happening in Canada too. When I was a child, the car
windshield used to get covered with bugs, but its not happening anymore.
Drastic change. Even driving up north, where you would expect very little
human induced influence. Where have all the bugs gone? even windows has fewer

------
chiefalchemist
re: "Lister and Garcia attribute this crash to climate. In the same 40-year
period as the arthropod crash, the average high temperature in the rain forest
increased by 4 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperatures in the tropics stick to a
narrow band. The invertebrates that live there, likewise, are adapted to these
temperatures and fare poorly outside them; bugs cannot regulate their internal
heat."

No doubt, this is alarming. None the less, couldn't this suggest that the
species in question simply moved to more suitable climate? That is, there is a
difference between being killed off, and leaving an area that no meets their
needs.

~~~
sxates
Have any of these studies found places where insect populations have not
declined at all?

~~~
rjsw
Midges in Northern Europe still seem to be thriving.

~~~
brohee
Not in Scotland [https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/693445/dont-know-why-
myste...](https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/693445/dont-know-why-mystery-
midge-populations-decline-Scotland)

------
travisoneill1
Is there a chance that there is an issue with the methodology and that numbers
are wrong? I would have thought this type of loss would cause very obvious and
catastrophic changes higher up the food chain.

~~~
randcraw
I would think so too. But most species are capable of switching among multiple
food sources, to compensate for lean times. I think this allows those critters
that are already living to stay alive. But it probably limits their ability to
reproduce, since their young are unlikely to be as flexible in finding food. I
suspect the impact of a long-term change in foodstuffs will take a while to
fully propagate.

------
kingkawn
We are killing everything the way we’re living. Either we change or we too
die.

------
_trampeltier
We talked this summer in a wonderfull warm night about it. Usually there are
some kind of bugs around at nighttime. But there was not even one around. Our
idea was, because of all light is LED now, or something like this.

~~~
DonaldFisk
Insects can see ultraviolet light but not red.

~~~
excalibur
I'm no expert on the matter, but that seems like a pretty sweeping
generalization.

~~~
DonaldFisk
This site confirms it:
[https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/insect-
color...](https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/insect-color-
vision/)

I knew because ultraviolet light is used by entomologists to attract insects
to traps during the night, e.g. moths:
[https://mississippientomologicalmuseum.org.msstate.edu/colle...](https://mississippientomologicalmuseum.org.msstate.edu/collecting.preparation.methods/Blacklight.traps.htm)

This site gives the visual spectrum response of a species of beetle:
[http://cronodon.com/BioTech/Insect_Vision.html](http://cronodon.com/BioTech/Insect_Vision.html)

------
epynonymous
that's because all the mosquitos are now in china...

