Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:24:23 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>* OK. Then why, when a non-native species is introduced into a new area,
> it is then referred to as "naturalized"?
Hello Peter,
If used in it’s ‘proper definition‘, when a foreign or cultivated species
spreads into the wild, where they multiply by natural regeneration, they
become “naturalized”
>The term "nature" is used so much and in so many different ways, that it
>is essentially meaningless (or at least, it has multiple meanings).
It has only one meaning when the term is defined correctly and used in
it‘s proper context.
“Naturalization, in biology, the process when foreign or cultivated
plants have spread into the wild, where they multiply by natural
regeneration.”
>But to say that bees are suffering from varroa because of the use of
>chemicals is absurd. The varroa came first, not the chemicals.
If you look at research by the University of California, by Marla Spivak
and co. IT has shown that the chemicals fluvalinate and coumaphos had
negative affects on queen viability and health. Queens treated with high
doses of fluvalinate weighed significantly less than low-dose or control
queens. The queens exposed to coumaphos weighed significantly less and
had lower ovary weights than the control group queens. A queen suffering
from low viability and lessened health cannot be capable of performing at
her full potential. And I would expect a colony with such an inferior
queen to have MAJOR problems dealing with disease and parasites.
Best Wishes
Joe Waggle
Ecologicalbeekeeping.com
‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries'
Feral Bee Project:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FeralBeeProject/
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
|
|