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:
randy oliver <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:31:49 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (30 lines)
>
> >The transplant water and split treatments resulted in significantly higher
> imidacloprid amounts ranging from 30-101 ppb in pollen and 3.8-13.7 ppb in
> nectar.


Thank you Pete!  When I followed your previous link, I came up with an
earlier report, in which they did not collect nectar directly:
http://entomology.umd.edu/files/entm/documents/mhwg/Report_of_Watermelon_Residue_data.pdf


I now see that you are referring to a later study, in which they appeared to
directly sample nectar and pollen:
http://agresearch.umd.edu/recs/WREC/files/2010Programs/EASPumpkinStudyPollenandNectarResidues2010.pdf

The results of the second study indeed appear to have found residues in the
general range at levels at which one would expect to start seeing effects
upon bees.  This makes much more sense with regards to reports of problems
in cucurbits if they are post transplant treated.

Randy Oliver

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