131 replies to this topic

[Martialis]

Three cheers for sensationsalism!

[ponerinecat]

Yay!

[Martialis]

 

 

don't kill me but mandarin hornets probably won't be too big of a deal imo.

why do you say that?

 

I truly can't see any negative effects besides potential harm to beekeepers, and even then the predation on honeybees is a boon to native bees. Just as an example, bumblebee populations are rapidly dying out due to a number of reasons, one of those being wild honeybees. Stings are simply painful, nests are easy to destroy, death from a sting is rare and honestly just as reasonable and rare as death from a bee sting. While it certainly is somewhat harmful to local businesses and can cause some discomfort to the people I just see them as a competitor to the invasive honeybees.

 

 

The one problem I see is their effects upon already-strained native ecosystems.

[ArmyAntz]

 

 

 

Well, Washington is the ideal place for them to spread. Miles and mile of wilderness, where they won't be caught. They will decimate native wasps, and probably native bees, birds, and will kill more people. Also, honeybees kill native bees indirectly. These hornets will kill them directly, giving them no chance whatsoever. They aren't fluffy little bunnies(which by the way do cause trouble in many places)

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, how many times do I have to say this, they pose minimal threat to native bees. Wasps, maybe, birds, maybe, people, maybe, (if they're stupid) but they certainly won't wipe the population away. Answer me this, how come there are plenty of wasps and bees and birds in their native habitat? They haven't evolved any defenses, so why haven't these "murder hornets" wiped out all life in Asia? They will simply be another minor predator, unless you're a European honey bee.

 

Actually its ignorant of you to think that they pose minimal threat to native bees. 

 

Animals that evolved living around these hornets obviously adapted to survive with them over the course of thousands of years. It's not rocket science, anyone should be able to figure that out. Japanese bees will swarm and cover single hornets, cooking them alive, as an effective defense strategy.

 

Solenopsis invicta live with plenty of diverse wildlife in the Pantanal. if they're so devastating in the US and Australia, why haven't they wiped out life in South America and destroyed countless amounts of infrastructure? What about Argentine Ants? What about the Burmese Pythons introduced to Florida?

 

^That's how you sound. Invasive species are unrecognizable to native populations. Army ants, for instance, would wipe out almost all the life in tropical countries where they don't currently exist because native animals didn't evolve dealing with such a threat. If no animals ever evolved a response to predators (natural selection), they would have all died out, and therefore the predators would have too, meaning they wouldn't exist today. But obviously that isn't the case.

 

 

The same applies here, the hornets wouldn't kill off entire bee populations obviously, that's very very unlikely, but the fact that you're saying they pose minimal threat doesn't make sense.

 

Through the food web, certain things will prevent one species from ever truly becoming dominant. When they are put in an environment where there is nothing stopping them from becoming dominant, they ruin the food web. I'm sure you know that though.

 

No, no no. Honey bees evolved that response to direct targeting as a preferred food item. Most native Asian bees are at most picked off one by one as a simple small boost in larval protein. The Burmese python isn't a threat in its native habitat because things will eat it, while it has no predators in it's invaded areas. Nothing ever evolved to specifically ward off them. Argentine ants are so destructive because invasive populations came from a minimal amount of ancestors, thereby causing massive super colonies. In their natural habitat infighting keeps population under control. As for the red imported fire ant, the animals here were simply not prepared for it. They came from jungles, which are the most diverse terrestrial habitats and therefore the most competition intense. Residents there were equally aggressive and thus able to compete successfully. In that case it isn't the ant itself but the environment in which it developed. Think of it as having a major league player being moved to play against some schoolkids. Native animals didn't need to defend themselves because they naturally had evolved to be equally aggressive from environmental factors.

 

Yes that's what I'm saying? The only predators giant hornets have in Japan are Oriental Honey Buzzards, which, through evolution, evolved to be the perfect predators to giant hornets, equipped with feet and claws designed to rake out nests, and feathers that resemble scales to decrease the sting potency. 

 

The hornets have no other predators aside from these birds, which specialized in killing them through the process of hundreds and thousands of years of evolution.

 

But there's no predators that are adapted to this in Washington. If they were so similar to hornets that already exist here, there would be no reason to worry, but they're clearly in a whole different league to native species. And if there is anything that would actually hunt the hornets, it would be on occasion, but nothing to hold back the population to a big extent.

[Serafine]

I've had quite some experience with european hornets and unless you actively threaten them or move within half a meter of their nest they don't care.

From what I've read asian giant hornets are fairly similar - they know they're big and scary so there's no need to waste energy relentlessly attacking everything that moves.

 

I actually had a large wasp nest (Vespula vulgaris/common wasp) in my shutters box last year and they couldn't care less about me. I could literally stick my head out of the window 40cm away from their nest entrance and they didn't bother at all.

Once I realized that they are perfectly capable of finding out of the room on their own if you just leave the window wide open and that you should turn off the lights when they return home at dusk co-existing with them was a cakewalk.

I even made them a small feeding station on the outside window sill with some sugar water (they also got the empty maple syrup bottles to clean out) and they never bothered to visit my kitchen even when I was roasting meat.

 

Most of the time wasps and hornets react aggressively because people flail around like bumbling idiots when one comes closer than arm's length.

And if you squash one so they release all of their "I got killed, avenge me!" pheromones that's your own fault by literally painting a crosshair on yourself and everybody around you.

Just stay calm, move away and if you have to hit them do it with a swift short poke on the head so they have no chance to sting you.

Unless you're covered in sugary sweets or pork sausage they will just bugger off and leave you alone.

Edited by Serafine, May 5 2020 - 11:47 AM.

[NickAnter]

Not so true everywhere. I know for a fact that the yellowjackets here, that while they may not sting you, will chase you around as soon as they see you. I have experienced this myself. I mean, I didn't get stung, but I wouldn't say they "didn't bother" with me. Also, by Santa Catalina island, as soon as my dad started eating his sandwich, a yellowacket immediately came buzzing around. Luckily, after a few swipes, it flew away. The same day, however, one was determined on chasing everybody around. If you stood still, it would buzz around you and land on you, if you ran away, it would chase you. And we were hundreds upon hundreds of feet away from any nesting site.

 

So while most don't sting, they are a nuisance. I mean, I mistook one for a fly, and hit one a few feet away from me midair, and I didn't get stung.

[ponerinecat]

Not so true everywhere. I know for a fact that the yellowjackets here, that while they may not sting you, will chase you around as soon as they see you. I have experienced this myself. I mean, I didn't get stung, but I wouldn't say they "didn't bother" with me. Also, by Santa Catalina island, as soon as my dad started eating his sandwich, a yellowacket immediately came buzzing around. Luckily, after a few swipes, it flew away. The same day, however, one was determined on chasing everybody around. If you stood still, it would buzz around you and land on you, if you ran away, it would chase you. And we were hundreds upon hundreds of feet away from any nesting site.

 

So while most don't sting, they are a nuisance. I mean, I mistook one for a fly, and hit one a few feet away from me midair, and I didn't get stung.

It didn't sting you did it? Just caused a natural fearful reaction. Wasps and bees are known to be attracted to certain things like color and sweat. They simply saw you as a thing which had some resources on it. Most likely.

[ponerinecat]

 

 

 

 

Well, Washington is the ideal place for them to spread. Miles and mile of wilderness, where they won't be caught. They will decimate native wasps, and probably native bees, birds, and will kill more people. Also, honeybees kill native bees indirectly. These hornets will kill them directly, giving them no chance whatsoever. They aren't fluffy little bunnies(which by the way do cause trouble in many places)

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, how many times do I have to say this, they pose minimal threat to native bees. Wasps, maybe, birds, maybe, people, maybe, (if they're stupid) but they certainly won't wipe the population away. Answer me this, how come there are plenty of wasps and bees and birds in their native habitat? They haven't evolved any defenses, so why haven't these "murder hornets" wiped out all life in Asia? They will simply be another minor predator, unless you're a European honey bee.

 

Actually its ignorant of you to think that they pose minimal threat to native bees. 

 

Animals that evolved living around these hornets obviously adapted to survive with them over the course of thousands of years. It's not rocket science, anyone should be able to figure that out. Japanese bees will swarm and cover single hornets, cooking them alive, as an effective defense strategy.

 

Solenopsis invicta live with plenty of diverse wildlife in the Pantanal. if they're so devastating in the US and Australia, why haven't they wiped out life in South America and destroyed countless amounts of infrastructure? What about Argentine Ants? What about the Burmese Pythons introduced to Florida?

 

^That's how you sound. Invasive species are unrecognizable to native populations. Army ants, for instance, would wipe out almost all the life in tropical countries where they don't currently exist because native animals didn't evolve dealing with such a threat. If no animals ever evolved a response to predators (natural selection), they would have all died out, and therefore the predators would have too, meaning they wouldn't exist today. But obviously that isn't the case.

 

 

The same applies here, the hornets wouldn't kill off entire bee populations obviously, that's very very unlikely, but the fact that you're saying they pose minimal threat doesn't make sense.

 

Through the food web, certain things will prevent one species from ever truly becoming dominant. When they are put in an environment where there is nothing stopping them from becoming dominant, they ruin the food web. I'm sure you know that though.

 

No, no no. Honey bees evolved that response to direct targeting as a preferred food item. Most native Asian bees are at most picked off one by one as a simple small boost in larval protein. The Burmese python isn't a threat in its native habitat because things will eat it, while it has no predators in it's invaded areas. Nothing ever evolved to specifically ward off them. Argentine ants are so destructive because invasive populations came from a minimal amount of ancestors, thereby causing massive super colonies. In their natural habitat infighting keeps population under control. As for the red imported fire ant, the animals here were simply not prepared for it. They came from jungles, which are the most diverse terrestrial habitats and therefore the most competition intense. Residents there were equally aggressive and thus able to compete successfully. In that case it isn't the ant itself but the environment in which it developed. Think of it as having a major league player being moved to play against some schoolkids. Native animals didn't need to defend themselves because they naturally had evolved to be equally aggressive from environmental factors.

 

Yes that's what I'm saying? The only predators giant hornets have in Japan are Oriental Honey Buzzards, which, through evolution, evolved to be the perfect predators to giant hornets, equipped with feet and claws designed to rake out nests, and feathers that resemble scales to decrease the sting potency. 

 

The hornets have no other predators aside from these birds, which specialized in killing them through the process of hundreds and thousands of years of evolution.

 

But there's no predators that are adapted to this in Washington. If they were so similar to hornets that already exist here, there would be no reason to worry, but they're clearly in a whole different league to native species. And if there is anything that would actually hunt the hornets, it would be on occasion, but nothing to hold back the population to a big extent.

 

Now that you mention it, that is a valid point. They could very well reproduce exponentially. In theory competition with native species won't be too strong because of differences in behavior, but who knows. At this point their biggest threat would be attacking bee hives but with enough population increase they could take a toll on random prey insects as well. Thank you for bringing that up.

[Martialis]

 Honey bees evolved that response to direct targeting as a preferred food item. 

 

 

Yep. The Japanese ones at least.

 

Most native Asian bees are at most picked off one by one as a simple small boost in larval protein. The Burmese python isn't a threat in its native habitat because things will eat it, while it has no predators in it's invaded areas. Nothing ever evolved to specifically ward off them. Argentine ants are so destructive because invasive populations came from a minimal amount of ancestors, thereby causing massive super colonies. 

 

 

Indeed. And this is why all invasive species are a threat: a lack of predation/natural "enemies." Human modification of ecosystems also disturbs them and allows exotic species to establish themselves. From Kudzu, to bush honysuckle, to even Tetramorium: all thrive in areas which have previously been disturbed by some event. 

 

In their natural habitat infighting keeps population under control. As for the red imported fire ant, the animals here were simply not prepared for it. They came from jungles, which are the most diverse terrestrial habitats and therefore the most competition intense. 

 

Eh, the Pantanal is actually pretty similar to an undeveloped American Southeast, especially near the gulf coasts. It's a wetland comparable to many North American swamps. It is more productive bioligcally speaking, but this doesn't necessarily mean species living there will thrive in other, less productive ecosystems. The fact that it's only 15 degrees south. and the North American region is about 28 North also helped to "acclimate" them easier here. As for argentines, genetic diversity leads to that, as a lack of it did to the supercolonies. But that's sort of irrelevant.

 

Residents there were equally aggressive and thus able to compete successfully. In that case it isn't the ant itself but the environment in which it developed. Think of it as having a major league player being moved to play against some schoolkids.  

 

 

 

No. It's not a matter of aggression (though that is an evolutionary response and a method of native animals defending themselves), or that has to do with the ecosystem as a whole. If you take a specialist species from the Pantanal, for instance, it'll have a whole lot of a harder time establishing itself as an invasive than a generalist like S. invicta.

 

As you yourself said, the presence of specialized parasites, predators, and pathogens present in the Pantanal are what keeps the ant "under control" there. Native animals here have a hard time countering S. invicta because they haven't evolved with it.*

 

*This doesn't mean that native animals cannot compete with S. invicta. They do, and quite successfully sometimes. But species which have evolved alongside RIFA are often able to do so more effectively.

Edited by Martialis, May 5 2020 - 10:54 AM.

[ponerinecat]

 

 Honey bees evolved that response to direct targeting as a preferred food item. 

 

 

Yep. The Japanese ones at least.

 

Most native Asian bees are at most picked off one by one as a simple small boost in larval protein. The Burmese python isn't a threat in its native habitat because things will eat it, while it has no predators in it's invaded areas. Nothing ever evolved to specifically ward off them. Argentine ants are so destructive because invasive populations came from a minimal amount of ancestors, thereby causing massive super colonies. 

 

 

Indeed. And this is why all invasive species are a threat: a lack of predation/natural "enemies." Human modification of ecosystems also disturbs them and allows exotic species to establish themselves. From Kudzu, to bush honysuckle, to even Tetramorium: all thrive in areas which have previously been disturbed by some event. 

 

In their natural habitat infighting keeps population under control. As for the red imported fire ant, the animals here were simply not prepared for it. They came from jungles, which are the most diverse terrestrial habitats and therefore the most competition intense. 

 

Eh, the Pantanal is actually pretty similar to an undeveloped American Southeast, especially near the gulf coasts. It's a wetland comparable to many North American swamps. It is more productive bioligcally speaking, but this doesn't necessarily mean species living there will thrive in other, less productive ecosystems. The fact that it's only 15 degrees south. and the North American region is about 28 North also helped to "acclimate" them easier here. As for argentines, genetic diversity leads to that, as a lack of it did to the supercolonies. But that's sort of irrelevant.

 

Residents there were equally aggressive and thus able to compete successfully. In that case it isn't the ant itself but the environment in which it developed. Think of it as having a major league player being moved to play against some schoolkids.  

 

 

 

No. It's not a matter of aggression (though that is an evolutionary response and a method of native animals defending themselves), or that has to do with the ecosystem as a whole. If you take a specialist species from the Pantanal, for instance, it'll have a whole lot of a harder time establishing itself as an invasive than a generalist like S. invicta.

 

As you yourself said, the presence of specialized parasites, predators, and pathogens present in the Pantanal are what keeps the ant "under control" there. Native animals here have a hard time countering S. invicta because they haven't evolved with it.*

 

*This doesn't mean that native animals cannot compete with S. invicta. They do, and quite successfully sometimes. But species which have evolved alongside RIFA are often able to do so more effectively.

Thank you for the clarification. I still see aggressive competition as part of it but i suppose you are right in that effect.

[TheMicroPlanet]

Can everybody sum up their points of view on this in a few, neat little sentences? It's getting kind of hard to tell who's saying what.

[Martialis]

I'll do a Haiku:

 

Murder hornet bad.

But media made too big deal

Of their real risks.

[ponerinecat]

I'll do a Haiku:

 

Murder hornet bad.

But media made too big deal

Of their real risks.

nice.

[TheMicroPlanet]

I'll do a Haiku:

 

Murder hornet bad.

But media made too big deal

Of their real risks.

Too many syllables. It's supposed to be 5-7-5, you did 5-8-5. Sorry...

[RushmoreAnts]

How about this:

 

Murder hornet bad.

Media make too big hype

of their real risks.

[TheMicroPlanet]

How about this:

 

Murder hornet bad.

Media make too big hype

of their real risks.

Perfection 

[TheMicroPlanet]

Solving invasive species-related issues < doing haikus right

[RushmoreAnts]

And doing haikus < keeping ants. 

[NickAnter]

Simpleton bad engrish version: :

Hornet Bad

Importing Japanese honeybees bad

Not as bad a media potray

Could ruin northwestern outdoor activities and beekeeping.

 

  Here is a properly written, and concise version of my views, in English. I think that the hornets could be very bad in some areas, but it depends on the temperature and humidity.

It is also a very poor idea to import Japanese honeybees, as they too could damage the honeybees we already have here. As I stated this would be bad, but not necessarily deserving of the media hype it will most certainly receive. On the bad front of things, they could drop sales on outdoors industries such as guided fishing in the northwest, as well as almost certainly put a serious strain on the beekeeping industry.

[ponerinecat]

As always the medias been messing things up   Found out the first hornets were actually found in 2019 in Canada and then again in 2019 in the US.