At least that’s what some people say. If it’s true, then sadness would have to be a butterfly-less world.
Fortunately, you and I will probably never experience such a world. The planet currently hosts over 17,000 butterfly species. The United States alone has over 700 butterfly species. Most of these species are doing okay, but some are at risk of extinction. The Karner blue and San Bruno elfin, among others, are endangered in the United States.
And then there’s the monarch butterfly — an iconic species known for its epic migration. Monarch populations, according to several credible sources, are declining. To halt the decline, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recently proposed to list the monarch as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
Interestingly, this proposal is receiving criticism. Some people think that monarchs don’t need our help. Some researchers even claim there isn’t strong evidence of widespread declines.
Who are we to believe? Are monarch butterflies really in trouble? If so, why are populations declining? Is more intervention a good thing? Should we really be raising monarchs at home? And how does organized crime tie into all this?
Cases of tick-borne diseases are on the rise, and people are wondering what to do.
Spray more repellent on clothes? Wrap more duct tape around socks? Ingest more Japanese knotweed? Cull more deer?
How about introducing more earthworms into tick-prone landscapes?
It sounds bizarre, but some ecologists are researching this latter strategy. According to a few studies, the prevalence of earthworms is associated with fewer ticks in certain ecosystems.
How is this possible? Why are earthworms associated with fewer ticks? Could the intentional release of earthworms into wild landscapes work as a viable tick-reduction strategy?
In a brand-new video, I address these fascinating questions.
Paths I Walk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.