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:
Mon, 10 Jul 2017 13:03:07 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
>
> https://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media/blogs/robust-
> statistics-explain-finding
> s-neonicotinoids-field-experiment
> http://tinyurl.com/yaeaq8n4
>
> I'll let the article speak for itself.
>

I concur with Jim--neither Entine nor Driessen are statisticians.  And
although their challenging the headlines went a bit too personal against
the authors, I'm glad to see that it is resulting in a more measured
response by the authors of the study.

Unfortunately, once again the different effects of neonics upon honey bee
colonies vs. bumbles or solitary bees got confounded.  Evidence to date
certainly suggests that bumbles and some solitary bees are more adversely
affected by neonics (and likely any other insecticide applications).

Unfortunately, Dr. Henrys in his response did not specifically address the
criticism by Syngenta's Dr. Campbell regarding the purported effect upon
the honey bee colonies.  I hope that he does so.

-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2