> But I'd be careful about drawing conclusions until we see replication.

This comment is more applicable to what one reads in ABJ than it is to studies published in one of the "Nature" journals.  But it is not a complex set-up, so any number can play, at least at a gross level of counting failing queens.  

> Why would one expect any effect on flight or orientation at all?

One wouldn't - they seem to have been addressing a potential critique before it was made.  This was appropriate given all the prior papers claiming that neonics impact bee navigational abilities.

> In any case, even if there was an effect on the queens, 
> the question is whether this could have anything to do 
> with the apocryphal claim that we are experiencing 
> higher rates of queen losses these days.

It is not "queen losses", it is queen FAILURES.  They stop laying fertilized eggs, or stop laying altogether.  

If you listen to those who are working on the problem, like Dave Tarpy, you find that there is no apparent problem post mating, there is simply a problem that crops up weeks later, where sperm is no longer viable.  This symptom, described well before any specific mechanism was suspected, echoes exactly what the study at hand found.

> In this study, ~50% of the neonic queens successfully mated out, compared
> to ~79% of the controls. 
> These percentages are within normal variation,

Nope, see the description of Figure 2:

"Percent of honey bee queens that oviposited (i.e. laid worker eggs). (b) Percent of honey bee queens that were alive and had produced diploid offspring by the end of the experiment (= Successful). Significant differences between treatments denoted by *P ≤ 0.1, **P ≤ 0.05, ***P ≤ 0.01."   A claim of "within normal variation" does not apply very aptly to a P of less than 0.01.  :)

> If it were due to neonics, that would mean that the Calif and 
> Georgia cell builder colonies were exposed to neonics during 
> the cell building process.

> I don't know about Georgia, but this certainly doesn't happen in
> California.

What if it is not a "cell-builder issue" at all, despite the specific study methodology, and the queens are simply getting a big dose from the ubiquitous foundation and wax residues of this and that and the other?  They are sticking their abdomens into wax cells all day long, and that could expose the spermethica to the residues... 

Remember, the queens are fine both pre-mating and immediately post-mating.  It is only after some time that one sees the sudden failure of an otherwise acceptably-laying queen.

I'm encouraged - this is the first we've heard of anyone being able to merely replicate the mysterious symptoms found by so many.  

             ***********************************************
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