>So, this article is only one more data point showing that if one uses the global confirmation bias machines of search engines to look for a specific phrase, (such as 'no preference' + 'tree' + 'bee'), one can find all sorts of statements that appear to serve the purpose, but are lacking in the sort of grounding and support that would actually add to the sum of human knowledge.
I agree with this sentiment. This is a real problem. Dismissing this article I fear you have fallen victim to a similar bias. This article was published for a "general audience" The full paper is quoted in the article and can be freely accessed under https://rdcu.be/ca7xK It has data, good explanation of the methods used and I find it to not be "obscure" but rather high quality scientifically and statistically sound.
Once again, a quick glance at the actual article quoted (and a quick glance is all it takes, as the article is only 2 pages, including photos and citations), shows the relaxed level of rigor, which may explain the surprisingly high numbers of 15,000 trees claimed inspected and 23.6% of them classified as "hollow" trees. No definition is given for "hollow" to say if these were hollow trees suitable for bees, of a larger size suitable for Keebler elves to make cookies, or hollowed out enough for Edgar (from King Lear) to hide in, and escape the guards. But 23.6% is a very large percentage for 15,000 trees. Sound like Poland needs to hire some forestry majors, pronto.
We used the 5 point scale of Pacyniak (1992) to assess tree health 1—trunk and crown healthy; 2—hollows possible, up to 25 % of crown damaged (loss); 3—25–50 % damaged (loss); 4—50–75 % damaged (loss); 5—above 75 % damaged (loss) or a dead tree. Trees with health status 1 by definition are not hollow; trees with poor health could contain cavities.
"most abundant were class 2 as class 3+ are being typically removed." 23.6% of trees with at least 25% crown loss and hollows possible doesn´t seem unrealistic to me.
The real conclusion imho of the paper re this discussion is that:
a)"In our study, the occupancy of any particular tree species depended mainly on its availability. However, we observed two exceptions to this pattern. First, the occupancy of alders was higher than expected, and secondly, hornbeams were avoided. The first observation may be biased by the small sample of alders, but the latter one probably reflects the fact that hornbeam are usually not appropriate for bees due to relatively small trunk diameter. Contrary to our expectation bees did not prefer lime trees for nesting. The greater occurrence of bee colonies in this tree species could be fully explained by its greater availability."
b) So maybe your hypothesis is true for your area. Bees might be found preferentially in a certain tree type as this is the most abundant in your area or others do not fulfill the minimum requirement.
as with all things I think it´s important to not take things too personal.
I learned a lot during the discussion you prompted in here and the papers posted.
My favorite comic for this is https://xkcd.com/386/
P.S.: I am acutely aware of the irony of the sentence above as this is my first post as a long time lurker on this list, because your dismissal of the source got an emotional reaction from me having polish heritage :-)
Cheers from Austria, Patrick
> ***********************************************
>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
***********************************************
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
|
