>Scientific extrapolation of a finding is common practice to plan the
direction of research.  I don't know how this thread got sidetracked into
the media frenzy--I'm just talking biology.

I was wondering the same thing about how the thread went sideways and I think it's because it was introduced in the context of global warming. If the entry point was Ziska the discussion may have been different. Reading the science I never got the message that goldenrod was in imminent danger of failing as a protein source but I did get that there is a significant change in the protein level versus pre-industrial levels and that it's attributed to increased atmospheric carbon - that's just a fact as I see it.  I also got the message that there's a body of work represented in the 58 citations that support claims in the paper. I think it's clear that at some point in the future this has the potential to become a major issue and the alarming part is we don't know when that is. And since we don't know the exact consequences of diminishing protein levels we may be experiencing sub-lethal effects right now. We need more research. 

>To the ecologist, the question is how this is going to affect all bee
species, not just honey bees.

I think the ecologist would also include plant species.  As discussed in Cane's paper, angiosperms evolved to meet their own need for sexual reproduction independent of pollinators need for protein.  Crane speculates that the growth of different length pollen tubes may have determined why we see variation in protein levels of various plant species.  As beekeepers, we are rightfully interested in the effect on pollinators, but there may also be a point where plants begin to show signs of stress in their own reproductive process. 

Bill Hesbach
Cheshire CT
Northeast USA 

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