BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Peter Loring Borst <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:09:22 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (17 lines)
The honey bee's woes have been taken up by a range of diverse groups and used as the shining example of their apocalyptic vision.  

> Probably the most compelling support to the role of pollutants in the emergence of infectious diseases comes from the population decline of the honey bees (Apis mellifera). During the 20th, high honey bee mortality has been observed worldwide. A full understanding of this collapse is still lacking. However, it seems now clear that pathogens (such as paralysis viruses, Kashmir bee virus, deformed wing virus or Nosema sp.) are the most important cause of colony losses, and it has been hypothesized that subtle, sublethal effects of either neonicotinoid systemic insecticides or their metabolites make bees more susceptible to infectious diseases. Source: "Immunity and the emergence of virulent pathogens" in: Infection, Genetics and Evolution (2013, prepress version)

If the decline of the honey bee is the "most compelling support" for their argument, then they have a rather weak case. Admittedly, they immediately soft pedal (full understanding is still lacking). As to the connection between neonics and widespread collapse, "it has been hypothesized." Sure it has. So have a lot of other things, but why is this the "most compelling"? Because it fits neatly with their predilection, of course. Further, they repeatedly quote "Ratnieks and Carreck, 2010". What do those gents actually say? 

> Neonicotinoid systemic insecticides have been blamed for extensive colony collapse, and this has caused much debate. After 10 years of research, it seems unlikely that imidacloprid was responsible for the French bee deaths, but it is conjectured that subtle, sublethal effects of either the compound or its metabolites may occur, perhaps making bees more susceptible to disease. Rather, it may be caused by many agents in combination — the interaction between known pests and pathogens, poor weather conditions that diminish foraging, lack of forage, and management factors such as the use of pesticides and stress caused by long-distance transport of hives to nectar sources or pollination locations. Source: Clarity on Honey Bee Collapse? in: Science 327, 152 (2010)

PLB
             ***********************************************
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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm

ATOM RSS1 RSS2