Bill Truesdell wrote:
> With mono-culture and no pollinators to
> add diversity, you invite disease to spread unchecked.
>
> So it is not the number of pollinators that is the real issue, but the
> diversity you get from natural pollinators.
What I am having trouble understanding is the claim that
natural pollinators aren't abundant and fairly diverse even
in and around our most intensive monocultures.
Case in point: Even though nearly all of Iowa, and southern
Minnesota look like this from the air (tens of thousands of
square miles of corn and soybean monocultures):
http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/squ.jpg
on the ground, butterfly and bee pollinators are abundant
around the edges of those same monocultures:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/mastertech/gilc.jpghttp://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/mastertech/gilb.jpghttp://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/hiacjpg.jpghttp://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/jackb.jpg
So I'm having trouble understanding what is big problem
(let alone "crisis") with monocultures and pollinators?
Have there been cases, in the past 50 years, where
crop yields in the USA have suffered serious yield loses
over large areas due to a shortage of pollinators?
Or just occassional set backs (like the current CCD
issue) that were not severe enough to cause serious
yield loses (e.g. California has a bumper crop of
almonds this year despite the CCD).
Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
