Sender: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:16:55 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Message-ID: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
multipart/mixed;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005C_01DA08F9.65367E80" |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>A grossly distorted picture is being presented.
With all due respect, I am not certain we can make this claim until detailed studies are conducted in a particular biome.
As noted in the paper from which the referenced density chart originates (https://resjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/een.12715)
'Assessing the density of feral colonies at ecosystem scales is difficult. Assessment by visual identification of individual colonies is rarely feasible because nests are cryptic and hard to find...Indirect methods based on population genetics provide a practical alternative method for estimating colony densities at broad scales while ignoring any heterogeneity in colony densities across the landscape. Because workers fly up to 10 km to forage (Beekman & Ratnieks, 2000), the average density of colonies in an ecosystem is more ecologically relevant than the local density. Therefore indirect methods based on drone genotypes require less labour, are cheaper, are probably more accurate, and provide information that is more ecologically relevant than direct observations.'
In the paper in question they note:
'Regional differences were not significant after controlling for both temperature and survey area, suggesting that cooler climates and larger survey areas may be responsible for the low densities reported in Europe.'
The source data from 40 locations worldwide utilized to develop their model is attached for reference.
***********************************************
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
|
|
|