Paul Cherubini wrote:
>
> 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.
A valid question, especially when you consider what was there before. 
There seems to be an assumption that there were lots of local 
pollinators and the bad Agribusinesses drover them to extinction. The 
problem with that assumption is that there may have been few pollinators 
in the first place since most grasslands do not need them since grasses 
are generally wind pollinated. So you are actually not changing the 
pollination method, and you would have few pollinators either way since 
they are not needed.

To discount migratory pollinators like butterflies misses the mark on 
how many plants are pollinated. Plants do rely on migratory pollinators 
and set their bloom time for their arrival. You could go into an area 
and find no pollinators to speak of but lots of plants that need 
pollinators. Butterflies and even bats can accomplish it as they move 
through.

So pollinators can be missing from an area that needs them and they 
migrate through, such as a desert, or are not needed except in small 
numbers, such as a prairie.

As far as the other post that addresses the study on how added 
pollinators gives increased yields, we have gone down that path recently 
and do not need to do so again.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************