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
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 16 Dec 2015 09:27:20 -0600
Reply-To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
<035a01d13816$4a4707a0$ded516e0$@com>
Subject:
Re: Neonicotinoid-Coated Zea mays Seeds Indirectly Affect Honeybee Performance and Pathogen Susceptibility in Field Trials.
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From:
Charles Linder <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines) 
Reading it  I see a couple of things that jump out,  first  obviously  the
control of "no treatment"  was a leap of fantasy,  but what is more
interesting is the mite levels are considerably higher in the hives on
coated seed.  It appears no attempt to evaluate mite load was done before
placing hives.  What are the odds that the heavy mite load hives  "just
ended up" in the treated fields???

Not enough time elapsed to say that the mites do better because....

Really short window of testing.  

Christana (or anyone)  can you explain figure 2 ??    Not sure what the
differences in the two graphs are supposed to be??

Charles

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