Witches VS Patriarchy

1167 readers

1 users here now

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

QueenMidna@lemmy.ca

267

Socialisation (infosec.pub)

submitted 4 months ago by LadyButterfly@piefed.blahaj.zone to c/witchesvspatriarchy@lemmy.ca

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Of the individual species depredated or scavenged by cats, birds comprised 47.07% (981 species), followed by reptiles (463 species, 22.22%), mammals (431 species, 20.68%), insects (119 species, 5.71%), and amphibians (57 species, 2.74%; Fig. 2)

So you definitely wanna mention mammals and reptiles way before insects.

It's also regional, in Europe and North America insects don't really register. I assume the cause would be comparatively few larger insects.

This also only measures numbers of species, so does not directly mention individual counts nor factor in size of the animals. Biomass eaten would be a far better measurement here, and I would expect see insects placed far lower due to smaller body-sizes.

To me this doesn't seem like cats are a notable danger to insect life.

[+] finitebanjo@piefed.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago

I'm sorry that you don't consider insects a valuable part of the ecosystem

That is quite obviously not what I said.
It's pretty shitty to argue in bad faith like that.

The study tells nothing of danger, it tells of consumption. This might come as a shocker but in nature everything consumes something, often something alive. When talking about endangering, that means destroying the ecological balance, so by reducing a species numbers or even bringing it to extinction. It means an unsustainable load.

Roaming cats eat a lot of birds, enough to change the balance of the ecosystem.
The study now told us that cats eat comparatively a lot fewer insects in number. However smaller animals have vastly greater population numbers, a more constant value across species is biomass.

To simplify, if your insects are 1000x smaller that means you need to eat 1000x as many to cause the same damage.

I am calling the amount of insects consumed by roaming cats likely sustainable based on what the study presents. Cats don't hunt enough insects for it to matter to the entire ecosystem. Not (only) because they hunt fewer insects than rodents or birds apparently, but (much more) because they would need to hunt thousands of times more insects for a similar impact as they have on birds. Just due to the difference in population numbers stemming from the difference in size.