Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Nov 2022 21:33:06 -0600 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Message-ID: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>I think that the most level-headed summary is this:
https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/41836/PDF
I thought of this study while reading the following literature survey- while
it is a fairly dense read, it appears to give a fairly comprehensive view of
the predominant views of the cause(es) of CCD:
https://www.uky.edu/~jast239/reprints/Geography%20Compass%202016.pdf
They conclude (in part):
Working with multiple forms of ecological causality is necessary to
comprehend how to move beyond the useful, but ultimately limited description
of how knowledge about CCD is socially produced. The benefit of a
materialistic, pluralistic approach to understanding CCD is that it deepens
explanatory power while limiting the influence of human biases that anchor
us into fixed categories of causality derived from how these knowledges were
socially produced.
Solutions to honey bee decline must also embrace the idea that existing
institutions and epistemic cultures may be handicapped by the novelty and
complex openness that define the ecological relationships between humans and
pollinators. There is a need to invest in diverse kinds of research and to
expect that future ecological surprises are inevitable. The possibility of
the emergence of a new species of invasive varroa mite (Roberts et al.
2015), changes in honey bee genetics over time and space (Desai and Currie
2015; Locke et al. 2012), and the vagaries of economic and political
instability (Moritz and Erler 2016) highlight the importance of maintaining
an appreciation of the novelty and possibilities of the future.
***********************************************
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
|
|
|