Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research | Hacker News Reader

Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees: new research

phys.org

233 pointswglb106 comments

All: please respond to the information in the article rather than just your feelings about moths and bees.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

This phys.org article says:

> Moths are more efficient pollinators than bees, oh and bramble is important.

The underlying paper is an easy enough read that you probably don't need phys.org: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

It says:

- Many different species rely on bramble [e.g. raspberry, blackberry, etc...]

- Bramble fruits can grow twice as large if the flower was visited by multiple insects, which improves bramble's ability to support its many species

- Moths are an outsized contributor to the pollination of bramble, and therefore to supporting those many species

- So conservation efforts should focus on things that uniquely help moths, like limiting light pollution

Given the prevalence of pollinators that are hyper specialized to what they pollinate, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that general purpose pollinator efficiency is both a useless metric, and not what was studied here.

The huge difference between moths and butterflies is surprising as I consider moths nocturnal butterflies. I wonder what causes the difference.

Moths have mouthparts, butterflies generally don't. They have a specialized nectar sucking tube type organ with a "tongue" in it.

Moths can rob flowers, which means they cut a small hole inside the bottom of the flower's nectar reservoir and then lap it up. Butterflies can't cut flowers.

>Moths have mouthparts, butterflies generally don't

I'm not sure where you get that information. Butterflies also feed on nectar from plants, so they do have mouthparts.

On another note, some butterflies (and maybe moths) are cannibals [1] and feed on their own caterpillars:

"Some butterflies don’t only look like horror movie stars, but are horrors in themselves. Milkweed butterflies (Danainae) — the same subfamily that includes the regal monarch — are vampiric cannibals that use clawed feet to tear open their own caterpillars and mercilessly suck the guts out of them. But why devour your own offspring from the inside out? It’s an even stranger phenomenon known as kleptopharmacophagy."

[1] https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/milkweed-butterflies-suck-out...

I was talking about nectar robbing by moths, butterflies don't do it. And butterflies only have a tube with a tongue, they don't have opposing jaws or a typical mouthpart. Moths are some of many nectar robbers who will cut a hole or slit in the bottom part of the nectar bearing parts of plants and drink that directly rather than playing by 'the rules' and going down the flower past the reproductive organs. Thus getting the benefit of the nectar without abiding by the "rules" that ensure the plant's pollentation.

I wonder what the advantage is in "nectar robbing". Is carrying the pollen a significant additional effort to an insect?

My guess is that some flowers have a thin shape to force the bees to get covered in polen, the butterfly can use the long tube, but the moth are too wide.

Some moths have mandibles, but most sorts don’t. Further, ‘nectar larceny’ behavior is still the subject of study and appears to possibly help pollination or have a neutral effect in many cases. There also seems to be an indication that some plants are perforated by bees and that certain moths reuse those holes for access to nectar.

As another curiosity, I believe the death’s head hawk moth (as ‘made famous’ by The Silence of the Lambs) can disguise itself as a bee via scent and just take honey from a beehive.

That's not listed here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_butterflies_and_... though certainty possible Wikipedia is wrong.

Indeed, in many languages, even unrelated ones like Finnish, Greek, and Vietnamese, the word for moth is "night butterfly".

In French as well: "papillon de nuit"

In German the category of both is called "Schmetterling" which is also the German word for butterfly, which are technically called "Tagfalter" (day folders). Moths are called "Nachtfalter" (night folder) or simply "Motte" (moth), which technically refers only to specific smaller moths, especially pests.

In german: Nachtfalter ie nightfolder

The word "Falter" is not in fact etymologically related to "falten" (folding), according to Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmetterlinge#Herkunft_des_Na...

If, when in doubt, you assume butterfly unless they have poofy antennae, you'd probably be correct 9 out of 10 times.

I believe it is actually the other way around: butterflies are colorful moths that learned to exist during the day. The moths are also vastly more diverse and numerous.

The article states moths are more efficient pollinators _at night_.

But many types flowers close at night (tulips and hibiscus for instance).

So presumably moths don't pollinate those and we still need daytime pollinators.

Relatedly, the article states that more than 80% of pollination happens during the day. I reckon that'd probably be higher if we hadn't been so hellbent on decimating daytime pollinator populations.

Well, we are also hellbent on decimating nighttime pollinators (probably even more than daytime), as well as most other types of insects (except maybe cockroaches).

So with all of this talk for years about colony collapse and food shortages yet moths were doing the bulk of the pollinating the whole time?

Or am I missing something.

Not that colony collapse doesn’t worry me, it does. But if I was being baselessly told to fear agriculture production issues, I am super mad.

(This is a hobbyhorse of mine...)

At least in North America, the "colony collapse" stuff was a livestock phenomenon more than it was a wildlife/ecology issue. Honey bees aren't native to the US; if you see a honey bee in your back yard, there's a pretty good chance that somebody owns it.

So what species are the native pollinators here in North America?

There's lots of them, including a huge variety of bees, but many (most?) of those bees are solitary, and aren't battery-farmed the way honey bees are.

I don't know what they are called, but the big bees that like to burrow into pine and other wood I have tried to make a home for. They aren't aggressive at all so I don't mind them buzzing about.

Every time I get a decent population we get some cold weather and I don't see them again for a long time.

Carpenter bees. They are pretty neat for sure.

If anyone has issues with them boring into buildings, there’s an easy solution: stuff a paper bag with some plastic bags and hang it up nearby. The bees will think it’s a wasp’s nest and vacate the area within a few days. I know someone who does this every year and it works like a charm. Which, I suppose in a way, it is.

I have wild honey bees in my yard (New Mexico) and have seen them in other places. I believe they are Africanized but just looking I can't tell the difference.

At any rate, in warm areas of the US there are many feral old world bees.

They're africanized if they are very aggressive.

Recently I saw a talk where the speaker said that if you find any africanized beehives in the wild, you should kill the hive because you don't want the africanized bees to spread. (Or if you have an africanized beehive, re-queen it.) I don't have any, and I'd be loathe to kill bees because I'm quite fond of them, but it's probably good advice.

You should hire a professional exterminator, to be more precise.

I've all the protective equipment and I know what to do if the bee attacks get overwhelming: run to a shed and leave the door ajar -- angry bees don't like to follow their targets into dark places!

But also if you're going to try to kill an africanized wild beehive you should use soapy water, with a sprayer, and if the bees attack then you'll spray your attackers with soapy water than that's that.

>if you see a honey bee in your back yard, there's a pretty good chance that somebody owns it.

This is true even in Europe. If memory serves the percentage of "wild" honeybees (feral may be a more fitting adjective) is in the order of 1%.

> Not that colony collapse doesn’t worry me, it does. But if I was being baselessly told to fear agriculture production issues, I am super mad.

Maybe before getting emotionally attached to a position (again) you should understand what’s going on.

Just be an expert in everything. See easy. And experts never get mislead either, just repeat all research yourself, double plus good. /S

I’m suggesting not to get too emotionally invested in something you don’t understand. It does not fill that you need to be an expert in everything.

> Or am I missing something.

One of the things you may be missing is that the article is about "efficiency" as opposed to total impact.

"researchers found that 83% of insect visits to bramble flowers were made during the day. While the moths made fewer visits during the shorter summer nights, notching up only 15% of the visits, they were able to pollinate the flowers more quickly."

Moths are doing great work, but they don't have much time to do the work in and they are not doing the bulk of the work. Also it seems that the night pollinators actually may largely work different flowers than the day pollinators so one can't necessarily pick up the load left by the absence of the other.

Per the article, the bulk of the pollinating happens during the day. Moths being individually more efficient at pollinating is only one of several variables at play here; others include the pollinator populations, the length of daytime v. nighttime, and whether or not flowers bloom during daytime v. nighttime and for how long.

Where I'm at colony collapse is not really a big deal. Beekeepers manage to keep the number of hives up, we're trying to get agribusiness to reduce the usage of pesticides, we have ways to deal with the varroa mites, etc.

Beekeeping is a business. Much beekeeping business lies in renting hives to farmers (meaning: driving them to far away farms where the bees are then allowed to pollinate for a few days, then on to the next far away farm). Hive renting is pretty stressful to beehives, and farmers tend to use a lot of pesticides. And guess what: pesticides are pretty indiscriminate, so they hurt bees too. So yeah, this particular business has colony collapse issues. Beekeepers who produce honey, queens, and hives mostly only have to deal with varroa mites and such predators.

Ecology. We are always scratching the surface.

Are spiders vegetarian? Yep. Some are. Do European butterflies migrate like the monarch butterflies do?, yep. Do mosquitoes eat diseases? yep. Do they eat other mosquitoes? Double yep...

Ad infinitum

i think we need both, and others

Biology in a nutshell.

Don’t forget about hummingbirds. In the Americas, a lot of the pollinating job of moths is done by hummingbirds. Hummingbirds in the day, moths at night.

My impression is that bees and moths/hummingbirds mostly work on different kinds of flowers that are evolved for the size and mouths of pollinators,

As a gardener I have noticed that most types of insects tend to visit as many flowers as possible. None seem to show a vast preference. I know that's not what the data shows but it's my experience.

I guess most flowers that people will put into their garden are those pollinated by, let's call them "bee-like pollinators", that are attracted to sweet-smelling and/or colorful flowers (although some, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddleja_davidii, have a preference for butterflies) . For instance, if you would plant one of these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphophallus_titanum (that are pollinated by flies and carrion-eating beetles, and smell really yummy to them, but less so to us humans), your neighbors would probably complain...

Bees prefer native flowers. Zero snark intended.

what is a "native flower"?

autochtonous

None seem to show a vast preference

That might be some kind of observation effect. Which isn't surprising either: there are various species out there which have a distinct preference for, or even visit only, one specific family of native plants or even just one particular plant. If those plants are already less common to begin with (due to various reasons, unfortunately often human-induced) there's a lot less chance you'll ever get to see the insects which rely on those plants. Just 2 of the many examples for Western Europe which are in decline and becoming hard to find are Andrena hattorfiana haemorrhoidalis and Andrena pandellei. You'd have to be fairly lucky to just see them in your garden, you'd already need to pay attention to now mow the plants they're after at the correct time, if you already have those to begin with. Likewise the more generalist insects who visit a wide range of plants will be much easier to witness.

> Don’t forget about hummingbirds

well, that was kind of my point - there is an entire universe of small creatures, and not so small ones (lemurs, for example), that perform pollination, and we mess with them at our peril.

Plus bees also make honey on the side which increases their overall efficiency, moths only seek out the lämp.

I hate bug zappers. They should be illegal. All they do is kill moths and beetles. They are entirely ineffective against mosquitoes and other biting flies, and their otherwise indiscriminate killing disrupts pollination and generally throws the local environment completely out of balance.

Interesting. Never had one but I never thought about it. So there aren’t any more pesty bugs that it’s effective against?

Mosquitoes are pollinators, only the females suck blood, and that's only to produce eggs.

Wow! Learned something new today. I've been misinformed into believe that mosquitoes are useless, and we should wipe them out.

They are useless and harmful, there are far better pollinators than mosquitos.

They are part of the ecosystem and are efficient pollinators. Without mosquito larvae, for example, aquatic animals such as tadpoles and such would have less to eat.

There are 3500 species of mosquito, of which only about 200 bite humans. If we eliminated biting mosquitos, tad poles and such will still have plenty of non-biting mosquito larvae to eat. And compared to bees and moths, mosquitos are not nearly as efficient pollinators. If all biting mosquito species suddenly vanished, the effect on ecosystems would be negligible, and it would stop them from killing a million people a year. The benefits would far, far outweigh the risks.

Only ~90 is known to transmit disease.

I'm all for eradicating the diseases, but not really a fan of wiping out entire mosquito species. Eliminating biting mosquitos may have a knock-on effect... possible unforeseen effects that may adversely affect entire ecosystems.

There may be certain species that have evolved to hunt/feed on specific mosquitos, and in turn, other species that rely on these. When they are displaced because of this, it's possible that the checks and constraints on certain species will be reduced.

They may not be efficient pollinators per insect, but they may yet pollinate certain types of plants in certain locations that no other species do efficiently due to sheer numbers.

We've strayed from the topic of bug zappers, which people foolishly install to control mosquitos having no effect, instead killing moths by the generation. If anyone comes up with a viable plan to extinct an entire species of biting mosquito, we can revisit. But at this point, your concern simply isn't credible.

There are certain species that are only pollinated by mosquitoes. Orchids for example.

Orchids are not only pollinated by mosquitos. While there are some orchids that have a single insect species pollinator, this is not the case with the orchid that mosquitos pollinate, the blunt-leaved orchid, which is also pollinated by other insects.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platanthera_obtusata

They also move nutrients down the food chain. The larvae and the mosquitoes they produce feed lots of birds and other insects.

Up the foodchain, sorry for beeing a pedant.

Unless the parent was explicitly referring to the nutrients that they get from us, at the top.

as my vector algebra teacher always said... up, down, same thing.

From a mosquito's pov it might be down the foodchain.

> Mosquitoes are pollinators

Of the 3500 species of mosquito, only 6% bite humans. Of the 200 indigenous species of mosquitos in the US, only 12 of them bite humans. Mosquitos are the world's deadliest animal, killing a million people a year. Moths don't kill anyone, and if they're more efficient than bees at pollination, then they're likely more efficient than mosquitos. If we eliminated only the biting species of mosquito, any detrimental effects on pollination or the food chain would be negligible.

Should fly swatters be illegal too?

You're equating genocide to a mugging. It's a strikingly poor analogy.

And check out the bee-fly too:

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/bee-flies-cute-bee-mimic-with...

Lots of pollinators out there.

To me, the most fascinating pollinator is the hummingbird hawk-moth (which, interestingly enough, is a daytime pollinator): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummingbird_hawk-moth. There's not a lot of similarity in photos, but if you see one, its sound and the way it hovers around flowers is just like a miniature hummingbird.

We have hummingbird moths here in Texas. They're not afraid of humans, so I've seen them just a few feet from me several times. They look and act and fly just like hummingbirds -- you have to look closely to see that they're not birds, then you'll notice the antennae, and the lack of feathers, and the "beak" being flexible.

beauty of the night

colors in infrared light

i wish i could see

> However, due largely to climate change and intensive agriculture, there is a widespread decline in wild pollinators.

Source?

There's also hummingbird moths. I've seen more of those than regular hummingbirds.

Bees also produce honey in the process, basically for free.

Everything in real life is a balancing act!

I mean, honey is pure carbs, so anything that produces so much excess of it can’t possibly be very efficient

I feel like it’s the opposite, the amount of energy packed into a single drop of honey makes it very efficient.

The energy taken by the bees and turned into honey is a cost from the flower’s point of view. I think you are looking at the efficiency of honey as a food, while the previous poster is looking at the efficiency of bees as pollinators?

it’s even more efficient for the bees who effortlessly and by their very nature produce enough that an invader can eat and be satisfied and yet still leave them with plenty! a veritable honey pot

Honeybees are domesticated, and as usual humans tend to select for animals that produce more. Even so they'd need to produce enough to hold the hive over winter.

Honeybees are actually not very good at pollinating plants; they take most of the pollen back to their hive instead of spreading it between plants. Furthermore, they often outcompete (non-honey producing) indigenous bees that are actually good at pollinating plants.

This comment captures the actual efficiency of the bee. The article measures it by time-per-plant.

Bees do take most of the pollen back, but flowers don't need most of the pollen anyways. As with most species of sexually-reproducing lifeforms, the males produce much much more sperm than is actually needed for the reproductive act, and they do this precisely because so much sperm will be lost in the process. In other words: flowers account for the loss of pollen to pollinators. Flowers also make nectar to reward pollinators -- nectar production is otherwise pointless for flowers, and yet they put serious energetic effort into producing a pointless product.

You did imply something about honeybees being non-native in many areas, thus like invasive species. To be specific, honeybees have not been native to the Americas for millions of years.

thaaaat is how the world works (that is how the world works)

....and more efficient at eating my expensive clothes and my brassicas, so fuck moths and bring on the native bee, wasp and butterfly populations

honey bees are not native to north america. Native Americans called them "white man's flies" (or should I not be learning history by watching westerns?)

Honey bees, sure, but there are plenty of native bee species to North America.

Thee native bees are also about 100x better at pollinating than honeybees.

That list of native bees includes bumblebees, in case anybody was conflating them with honeybees.

So that is why corn syrup is popular in US?

Corn syrup is/was more used as a cheaper alternative for maple syrup and sugar. The relative unpopularity of honey probably has more to do with sugar plantations making sugar somewhat affordable.

people are sensitive on the honey topic, but since I learned how hard it was to distinguish natural honey from fake honey (you need NMR or something), I've just been wondering why don't we all just use cheap fake honey?

If you want to support local farmers, buy local honey. You can go look at their bees if you don't believe them, and it supports the local economy. And, honestly, the range of flavors in real wildflower, orange blossom, clover, sage, buckwheat, etc honey is amazing. I don't use honey all that often, so I spring for the good stuff and drizzle it on fresh fruit, toast, tea, oatmeal, etc. It keeps basically forever so I have various little jars from places I've visited, and now and then I'll crack one open.

There are many different species of moths and only a few eat clothing...

indeed, and i would not like to exterminate any of them. but it is bit irritating when the wool pullover you put away in spring is completely buggered come autumn. they are difficult to get rid of.

Been there. Moth balls really work.

Any advice on usage? How many/ what placement do you do? Had you success with the wood ones (Cedar ?) or another type? Sanding any x times or not at all?

I think they are quite toxic so are meant to be placed in sealed containers with wool clothing. Then when you want to use the clothes clean them first to remove the residue.

I use the ones that I think are naphthalene or something like that. I put them in a jar with a loose lid, and throw the jar into whatever bin I'm storing the clothes in.

However, they are not innocuous:

https://ldh.la.gov/assets/oph/Center-EH/envepi/Pest/Document...

Naphtalene is supposed to deter them. It doesn't smell pleasant but at least it sublimates, leaving no stains.

> fuck moths and bring on […] butterfly populations

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieris_rapae

I often watch butterflies, and they really suck flowers deep and long using their long straw-like antennas, more than bees. Note: flies, ants, and all kind of insects also "pollinate"

The nectar that butterflies suck is just the "bait" that flowers use to lure insects. What's more important is how much pollen they pick up in the process.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com