<They could be if they rob them of their food supplies.>

Which is different than what the article seems to be claiming.  I could
certainly agree with food supply and habit though, but complaining about an
evaluation that uses only two species of birds and then using it as a basis
for a calculation that is inheriantly wrong 50% of the time for a valid
counter seems a little ridiculous to me.  I figured out thinking last night
why it's wrong 50% of the time though.  That's because (at least I believe)
there is only a 50% chance that both species tested fall within 1 standard
deviation of the average susceptability (68.2% of the sample fall in this
category, so .682*.682 gets you about 47% chance they both lie in that
range), which they assume in order to calculate that the susceptability of
the bottom 5% is.

The question then is, does farming with something other than neonics not
rob the birds of their food supply, or is this more to do with the type of
farming that is done, fence row to fence row monoculture etc.

Jeremy
West Michigan

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