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
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date:
Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:33:14 -0400
Reply-To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Message-ID:
Sender:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
From:
Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
Hi all
I think this the following is a clear example of confirmation bias, particularly since it is referring to Southern California, which had an incredible wealth of native bee plants, which were pollinated by native bees, and which provide a boon to beekeepers during wet years. 

I doubt that honey bees have negatively impacted native bee populations anywhere near as much as they have been devastated by human activity. Further, the study of native bee abundance is hampered by the long term droughts that California experiences.

Unfortunately, she cites her own work as proof, and the reference is unavailable for public view.

The balance of evidence suggests that
European honey bees (Apis mellifera) have a
negative impact on native bees and that they
reduce pollination services, decrease the seed
set of native plants, and preferentially pollinate
the flowers of nonnative plants (reviewed in Knapp 2010a).

Monographs of the Western North American Naturalist 7, © 2014, pp. 421–434
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION ON SANTA CATALINA ISLAND:

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