_http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?utm_medium=feed&utm_camp
aign=Feed%3A+plosone%2FPLoSONE+%28PLoS+ONE+Alerts%3A+New+Articles%29&utm_sou
rce=feedburner&articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009754_
(http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=
Feed:+plosone/PLoSONE+(PLoS+ONE+Alerts:+New+Articles)&utm_source=feedburner&
articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0009754)
Glad to see this information in a paper. As I learned years ago,
inventory lists of residues aren't easy to get published - this kind of data is
often not considered to be unique or innovative research.
I wish that the raw data was included, the data summaries make it difficult
to answer some questions - for example, we see often see comments about a
HIGH max value for this or that pesticide that falls outside a Confidence
Interval, but no information about how many samples fell into this range.
Is a high median level a result of lots of samples near the median, or of a
few outliers that were very high?
That said, this paper points out what we all know and don't want to hear
about what are the most common chemical(s) in U.S. bee colonies.
As per the neonics, I haven't had time to thoroughly look at the results,
but I did look at Imidacloprid. The imidacloprid results show that only 1%
of the wax samples, 2.9% of the pollen samples, and 0% or none of the bees
had detectable levels. That makes it hard to argue that this chemical
constitutes a major problem to bees in the U.S. My reading of the authors
conclusions and discussions seems to be - the neonics are reported to cause
problems, but this data doesn't support widespread or high level exposure,
with the exception of ONE out of 350 pollen samples.
Their exact quote - which is sandwiched between comments about the toxicity
of neonics and the increased use of these systemic pesticides is:
Although a few residues for atrazine, carbendazim, cyprodinil, pronamide,
dimethomorph, and the degradates THPI (captan) and 1-naphthol (carbaryl) were
detected, systemic pesticides were generally absent from bee samples (_Table
3_
(http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+plosone/PLoSONE+(PLoS+ONE+Alerts:+New+Articles)&utm_source=feed
burner&articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0009754#pone-0009754-t003)
). No neonicotinoid residues were found in bees, while 49 detections were
obtained from pollen and wax (_Tables 1_
(http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+plosone/PLoSONE+(PLoS+ONE
+Alerts:+New+Articles)&utm_source=feedburner&articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/jou
rnal.pone.0009754#pone-0009754-t001) , _2_
(http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+plosone/PLoSONE+(PLoS+
ONE+Alerts:+New+Articles)&utm_source=feedburner&articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/
journal.pone.0009754#pone-0009754-t002) , _3_
(http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+plosone/PLoSONE+(PL
oS+ONE+Alerts:+New+Articles)&utm_source=feedburner&articleURI=info:doi/10.13
71/journal.pone.0009754#pone-0009754-t003) , _4_
(http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+plosone/PLoSONE+
(PLoS+ONE+Alerts:+New+Articles)&utm_source=feedburner&articleURI=info:doi/10
.1371/journal.pone.0009754#pone-0009754-t004) ). Our results do not
support sufficient amounts and frequency in pollen of imidacloprid (mean of 3.1
ppb in less than 3% of pollen samples) or the less toxic neonicotinoids
thiacloprid and acetamiprid to account for impacts on bee health, although one
pollen sample contained an exceptional level of 912 ppb imidacloprid
(_Table 4_
(http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+plosone/PLoSONE+(PLoS+ONE+Alerts:+New+Articles)&utm_source=f
eedburner&articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0009754#pone-0009754-t004
) ).
Note, the 49 detections were from 558 samples of pollen and wax, or 698
samples including bees, so only 8.78% of all of the wax and pollen samples
and 7.02% of all samples (wax, pollen, bees) had any detectable levels, and
most of these were low levels.
More importantly, no residues of any of these chemicals were found in any
of the analyzed bees - which either says it was so toxic, that any exposed
bees died (outside the hive) and as such weren't available for sampling, or
we have to conclude that not much, if any of these chemicals accumulated
in the bees themselves. I have to conclude: These chemicals are in some of
the wax and pollen samples (representing a potential dose) but none ended
up at detectable levels in the bees (the ultimate fate) sampled.
That doesn't seem to be the message that's been delivered time and again at
meetings and in discussion groups - where the neonics have been touted as
the cause of CCD, and if not CCD, the worst pesticide problem facing
beekeepers.
Note, I'm not saying that these chemicals can't harm or never harm bees,
not do I think we fully understand them, but I'd be careful about calling for
outright bans, when this paper clearly indicates whole groups of other
insecticides, fungicides, and miticides that were far more common in wax,
pollen, and bees in N. America.
Jerry
***********************************************
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
Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L
|
