Hi Randy,


I wonder why collapse of colonies is what you consider to be the significant neonic effect?  You mentioned this in context of the van der Sluij review. "This makes me wonder why no scientist to date has been able to demonstrate colony failure of any sort due to chronic feeding of field-realistic doses of neonics. "

What about colony productivity?  Or are you including low productivity in your definition of "colony failure of any sort"?


I'm not sure "colony collapse" as a result of toxins means much....most aren't around long enough (with the same queen) to evaluate that way, are they?  The type of collapse where the colony is dead in the box is more an acute phenomenon, or at least a poor management one because a failing colony would have been "righted" by the beekeeper long before it was dead (except here in the North of course where we can't do anything during the cold season).


Also, what is the right way to look at "field dose" in your view?  If foragers bring back amount X of some chem treatment, is that what you consider to be the "field relevant" amount?  Or are you calling the residues found in the hive to be the "field relevant" amount?


Christina



             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html