Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:35:00 EST |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>Bee experts said that they can't predict how the
> decline in the wild bee population will affect wild plants and the
> animals that eat them. But they guessed that in places such as New
> York and New Jersey, which may have no wild honeybees left, there
> aren't going to be too many wild berries this year.
#Is there anyone besides me who finds this (and other pronouncements of doom
#in this article) to be excessively pessimistic, ignoring the possible
#ameliorating effects of *native* bee species? There *is* a native bee
#expert in Shimanuki's lab there in Beltsville, after all - so there is no
#obvious excuse for them to neglect to mention this anywhere.
#Exasperated, as usual,
Yes, this does seem too pessimistic to me. I just attended a
lecture on the forgotten pollinators and I'm reading a book
by the same name. One of the major points that was made
is that if *native* bees are given a chance they can
do an excellent job of pollinating plants. In many cases
the heavy reliance on honeybees has helped reduce
native bee populations by depriving them of
the resources to survive. It appears as if honeybees
may not be as benign as once thought. In a world of
scarce resources they consume a lot of nectar that
could support native bees. It was an interesting
lecture and one that I am still contemplating.
Other discussion...?
Larry Kellogg
|
|
|