Recently in the BEE-L I mentioned how I would lurk the thread to glean 
information and instead I am now trying to read original 
research/studies/surveys and then augment what I read with input from 
the BEE-L.

I am also aware of the propensity for media to distort, exaggerate, or 
bias headlines hoping to gain the reader’s attention or to highlight a 
particular point of view. These marketing approaches may sometimes be 
all that an individual reads which is then perpetuated (shared) evolving 
into truth on social media. One of my hopes here in Vermont is to guide 
new beekeepers enhanced with an aspect of seeking the source information 
instead of the publicity version.

This article titled “Wild Bee Decline Threatens U.S. Crop Production” 
(http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmpr/?Page=news&&storyID=22053) caught my eye and 
is now showing up in some beekeeping social media circles representing 
another nail in the pollinator coffin. When I read the first sentence of 
the article it seemed to me that the status was not as definitive as the 
title represents and is instead a study that suggests an potential issue.

In reading the paper (http://www.pnas.org/content/113/1/140.full.pdf) I 
have a few things that I would like to ask for some list feedback.

The paper cites “quantified expert knowledge” and “use of expert 
opinion” as being part of the data used to create the models. Does 
anyone know any of the experts to vouch for their credibility or authority?

In the results section the authors talk about the model predictions.What 
are the thoughts about the quality of the developed model?

In the discussion section they identify areas of uncertainty and 
caveats. I counted 7 of these. How significant are these to the validity 
of the study?

Thanks in advance.

Scott


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