Talk:Colony collapse disorder/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Apocryphal quote

Is this section really helpful or necessary? The title itself basically says that it is unsourced, and it gives as a possible source Albert Einstein, who certainly wasn't an ecologist, a botanist, or an entomologist. Can we remove it? Makerowner 21:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Since it is universally associated with news articles dealing with CCD, it does still have a place here, otherwise I would agree; see comments above under "Famous or infamous?" Dyanega 21:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The section tends to reek of sensationalism, not to mention it is just plain inaccurate, but I have to agree that its use (overuse) in the popular media makes its inclusion an unfortunate necessity. Perhaps not necessarily in its current form? Bugguyak 03:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

the german wikiarticle quotes a Jerry Bromenshenk, Bienenforscher an der University of Montana in Missoula und Mitglied der amerikanischen CCD Working Group that according to the einstein institute in israel the quote is wrong (without reference) and quotes a article in the respected german weekly that the 'quote' is also nonsensical since honey bees came only with the europeans to the americas.trueblood 14:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but due to a large population growth and the need for lots more food westerners have unfortunately become dependant upon the european honeybee for their intensive pollination qualities. Actually though, much as I like h.b.s, I'd like to see native bees and other pollinators take back their natural role in the U.S. that was usurped by the introduction of the honeybee, or "white man's flies" as the native americans called them. 4.246.205.86 16:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't get too starry-eyed. It's not gonna' happen. European honeybees may have been a minor cause of loss of native bees in North America in some cases. But the plow removed far more native bees. Then came increasing monoculture, removing more. Then urbanization and development, removing more. Finally came the widespread use of insecticides, for which the wild bees have no defender. Native bees need wild places, which are harder and harder to find. I've been watching honeybees and native bees for many years. The places where native bees are most common are the same places where honeybees are most common - places where there is plenty of forage and safety from pesticide misuse. Wherever a diversity of bee forage, you'll find honeybees working on one plant species and native bees working on another. So they are not competitors. ALL pollinators are needed. Pollinator 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So they are not competitors. I don't know, unless we are claiming that there are more wildflowers now than before the honeybees arrived they are competitors (well there is industrial agriculture and flowers sold in nurseries - all sprayed though). And remember that in drought years (which will increase due to climate change) there will be even less wildflowers to go around, "That is because dry conditions, certainly in California, did not produce flowers in which bees find their required mix of pollens...I am pretty concerned about it this year because, at Davis, in January we only had 0.17 of an inch of rain and we should have had 4 inches. The early mustard -- we never got it,' Mussen said." [1]. 4.246.204.97 04:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is virtually no evidence that bees ever compete for floral resources. The available evidence is that bees (EXCLUDING Apis and Bombus) are limited by the rate at which they can lay eggs, since bee eggs are among the largest insect eggs relative to body size, and take about two to four days to mature inside the bee. Generally, then, the fastest a bee can lay eggs is maybe one per day, or every other day. A typical native bee can gather all the pollen and nectar it needs to provision a cell in less than an hour, even at maximal levels of "competition" (only Megachilidae might be an exception to this, and even that would require documentation). Why, then, would anyone think that pollen is a limiting resource? The other thing is that native bees don't require a mix of pollens - Mussen was referring to honey bees, not native bees. The idea that bees "compete" for pollen is a myth, based primarily on the myopic and mistaken assumption that honey bees are "typical". Honey bees are aberrant and exceptional in so many ways relative to other bees that it borders on mind-boggling that they're actually related to other bees. Dyanega 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying to understand your comments here. First that there is no competition between honeybees and native bees. The fact that they visit the same flowers at the same time (I've seen it myself) is by definition competition. And that native bees don't require a mix of pollens, I'd ask, why then do the same species visit a variety of wildflowers [2] (starting p. 5)? While it's apparently true that bees 'typically visit flowers from a single plant species during each foraging trip, which ensures that the correct pollen is transferred from plant to plant', their overall diets still require a mix of pollens from what I can gather. "In order to support the native bee community, a wealth of flowers is necessary. Unfortunately, heavily managed farm landscapes often lack the diversity and abundance of flowers that native bees require. By providing abundant and diverse pollen and nectar sources, a diverse community of native bee species will increase, adjacent crops may yield more, growers could rely less on imported European honey bees, and farm biodiversity and other wildlife species will benefit." [3]. 4.246.207.229 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I hate to put this so bluntly, but you are wrong in calling that competition. If I go to the supermarket, and my requirement is ONE gallon of milk, and I open the freezer at the same time someone else is getting milk, we *interfere* with one another, but we are not *competing* - the freezer contains 500 gallons of milk, each of us is only removing one gallon, and there are stockers behind the freezer who replace every gallon removed. That is exactly how pollen is taken from flowers by bees. Each bee has limited needs, the standing crop of available pollen is enormous relative to what the bees can gather, and the pollen is constantly replenished. Bees do NOT compete for pollen. It's like saying fish compete for water. Bees also don't visit one species on a trip to ensure that pollen is transferred; they do it because it's easier, or because they only use one species of plant. The vast majority of native bees are pollen specialists - they consume only one type of pollen to which they are physiologically and behaviorally adapted. That slide show you reference is misleading - when they say (for example) that "Andrena visit W, X, Y, and Z" that (1) does not mean that they are gathering pollen from all four plants ("visiting" could be nectar visits, or visits by males, which do not gather pollen), or (2) that any ONE species of Andrena is visiting all four - in fact, it is likely that there are about 30 species of Andrena involved, each of them visiting flowers only in one genus or family. Bees that can use pollen from multiple plant species, like honey bees and bumblebees, are a distinct minority among the 16,000 described bee species out there. Probably only around 10-20% of all known bees gather pollen from more than one plant family. The quote above is talking about bee diversity being supported by plant diversity - which reflects my point about specialization; if every plant species has 5-10 specialist native bees that visit ONLY that plant, then the more plant species you have, the higher the diversity of native bees will be. Look at a plant like creosotebush; it has some 40 specialist bee species associated - all living and foraging on the same plants at the same time. If the plants are wiped out, the bees are also wiped out - but there is no competition whatsoever in the system. Now, if you have a crop that is visited by native bees, and you saturate the crop with honey bees, to the point where they are gathering pollen as fast as the plants produce it, THEN you might have competition in that context. On the whole, that's going to be a very rare occurrence, if only because so few commercial crops are native plants visited by native bees and ALSO "saturation pollinated" by honey bees. In any given area, if there are some 200-300 native bee species, it's unlikely that more than a dozen or so will actually contribute to the pollination of crop plants - though, admittedly, for SOME crops (like blueberries and such) this can be all or nearly all the pollination the crops need. It all depends on the crop. Dyanega 02:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to get into a petty semantic debate but I'll quote this online biology dictionary: competition One of the biological interactions that can limit population growth; occurs when two species vie with each other for the same resource, so by this definition it is competition. Of course it is more of a competition when resources are limited but you'll notice that that's what I was refering to when I originally responded to Pollinator's competition comment. Remember the person I quoted above who said "That is because dry conditions, certainly in California, did not produce flowers in which bees find their required mix of pollens...I am pretty concerned about it this year because, at Davis, in January we only had 0.17 of an inch of rain and we should have had 4 inches. The early mustard -- we never got it"? Thus they are limited. And I said "remember that in drought years (which will increase due to climate change) there will be even less wildflowers to go around" well that will obviously increase the competition. About my included comment that bees 'typically visit flowers from a single plant species during each foraging trip, which ensures that the correct pollen is transferred from plant to plant' which you dispute, this is actually a quote from this USDA article Agroforestry: Sustaining Native Bee Habitat For Crop Pollination. I did not have it in full quotes because I italisized a section of it to highlight it thus changing it. But I think you are reading too much into that comment, it doesn't say that they are consciously trying to ensure pollination of a particular plant but that their visitation practices during a particular foraging trip ensures correct pollination. Your comment that "Andrena visit W, X, Y, and Z ... does not mean that they are gathering pollen from all four plants ("visiting" could be nectar visits, or visits by males, which do not gather pollen)" my understanding of pollination (pollination being the issue here) is that nectar visits are by nature also pollen visits as it rubs off on them while they are visiting the flowers. Is this incorrect? Next let's say that there are 16,000 species of bees out there (though the site I reference above says 20,000) but only 10 to 20% pollinate more than one flower as you say, that's still 1,600 to 3,200 whole species of bees to do the job. Anyway my basic point is that we need all bee pollinators, and should be doing all we can to encourage them rather than our present bee unfriendly practices (moncultures, pesticides etc). 4.246.207.112 05:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary says "vie with each other" - bees don't vie for pollen, any more than whales vie for plankton with other whales. There are LOTS of plankton-feeding marine organisms, but no one ever goes around saying they compete for plankton. Pollen does NOT limit population growth; parasites, predators, pathogens, nesting space, weather, and rate of egg producton can all limit population growth in bees, but pollen does not. If it is not a limiting factor, then - following that exact definition you gave - how can you claim there's competition? I hate to invoke expertise, but I am a published pollination ecologist, with several peer-reviewed papers on exactly this topic - TRUST me, bees don't compete for pollen except under very rare and unusual circumstances. That person you are quoting was talking about honey bees foraging in Davis. As for nectar visits being pollination visits, no, nectar visits are not necessarily pollination visits. The most dramatic example of that is honey bees visiting alfalfa flowers - they take the nectar, but leave the flowers unpollinated - which is why they have to use alfalfa leafcutter bees to pollinate that crop. If a flower species is pollinated by bees, then pollination is not "accidental" - it is typically accomplished specifically by female bees, in the act of gathering pollen. There are many, many flowers where a bee that simply wants nectar does not even contact the pollen-producing structures in the blossom. Some bees specifically cut the base of the corolla so they can suck the nectar out of the side of the flower, without accomplishing pollination. I'm not disagreeing about whether it's desirable to encourage native bees - I've been a vocal advocate of the practice for 25 years now - but the reasons I advocate it are not the same as you perceive them to be. Dyanega 22:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You said, "Actually, there is virtually no evidence that bees ever compete for floral resources" and "but there is no competition whatsoever in the system" Not to question your authority but have you seen this paper Competitive Interactions Between The Invasive European Honey Bee and Native Bumble Bees? According to this paper it's not that competition does not occur but that it has not been studied well yet. More: [4][5][6][7][8] See Abstract [9]. This site and this one reference the main article Honeybee-native bee competition: focal point for environmental change and apicultural response in Australia by Sugden, E.A., Thorp, R.W. and Buchmann, S.L. (1996). Bee World 77: 26-44. Another article is Competition between honey bees and native bees in the Sonoran Desert.

These papers focus on competition between honeybees and natives as that is the most important to us. I assume that interspecific competition between natives have not been studied as much. And yes I am aware that there are also papers that claim that there is no real competition between these bees. But at the very least there is another view on this issue than what you've said. Again I mean no disrespect but perhaps in the face of CCD we need to reevaluate our assumptions and practices. You can have the last word on this. 4.246.207.1 07:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Consider what is said in the paper by Thomson, which gives a nice summary in the beginning: "While suggestive, such studies do not provide direct evidence that floral resources are limiting, or that Apis reduces the fitness or population sizes of native bees (Roubik 1986, Butz Huryn 1997). Only a handful of studies have attempted to measure the impacts of Apis on any aspect of reproductive success for a native bee species (Roubik 1983, Sugden and Pyke 1991, Goodell 2000), with little clear evidence of competition emerging." I had not seen Thomson's paper prior to this, and - until so - my understanding was exactly as summarized: lots of people have suggested competition, but no one had ever produced actual evidence that floral resources were limiting. Even Thomson's paper points out that it is not simply the presence of honey bees, but proximity, that leads to a depression of resources for nearby bumblebees. I'm not disputing the conclusions Thomson has come to, except that I don't believe one can extrapolate from the effects of bumblebees being near honey bee hives to any overall competitive milieu. Being near an Apis colony is, in fact, an unusual circumstance for native bees to encounter, and - again - Apis is an extreme oddball in how it utilizes resources. Bumblebees are similar, though not quite so extreme, and the impact on bumblebees will be considerably greater than on other native bee groups. Yes, there is a lengthy litany of papers claiming competition, but that does not mean they represent good science; it's easy to publish papers that uphold popular paradigms, because in academia, models and theories take precedence over empirical data (e.g., Hamilton's theory of inclusive fitness, which, after 40 years, has still actually never been confirmed empirically). I am a scientist, and just because a model based on a theory (competition, in this case) makes a prediction which is met does not, to me, constitute evidence; few scientists who publish regarding a paradigm ever allow for alternative hypotheses, and this is the case with all of the pollen competition studies to date. Dyanega 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous IP added this on the apocalypse quote section, so I moved it here since it 'may' warrant discussion: "Not true....this quote belongs to Charles Darwin". I personally think the entire section warrants deletion now that the media fervor over the quote has died down. Bugguyak 11:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Steiner reference more appropriate than Einstein

In the organic agriculture world, a movement he was instrumental in creating, there is much mention of Rudolf Steiner's observation in 1924 that artificial beekeeping and especially management of queen bees would result in bees' disappearance in a century. Josef Graf's article at organicconsumers.org gives a long list of the invasive management measures that seem to fit Steiner's warning: [10]. --jb 13:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

While Graf is eloquent, he evidences a lack of critical thinking right in the introduction of his article, where he gives credence to EMF (which is preposterous) and GMO effects (which are impossible to link to CCD, given that CCD occurs in areas with no GM crops, and CCD dates back to the 19th century). Should someone formally come forward and state that one of the factors Steiner listed (as capable of causing the demise of honey bees) is involved in CCD, then it would be quite appropriate to include a reference to Steiner, and I hope you can track down the original reference; Graf's analysis is not particularly scholarly or objective, however, and as a secondary source, should be avoided. Dyanega 17:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I searched Steiner's book online and, unless he made the prediction somewhere else, the closest I could come to the above were these comments (it should also be stated that he didn't appear to be completely against the artificial breeding of bees, he had a wait and see attitude but leaned against it):

"But the strong bonding of a bee generation, a bee family, will be detrimentally effected over the longer period ... But we'll have to wait and see how things will look after fifty to eighty years. Certain forces that have operated organically in the beehive until now will become mechanized, will in themselves be mechanically carried out. It won't be possible to establish the intimate relationship between a queen bee you have purchased and the worker bees the way it would arise all by itself in nature. But at the beginning, the effects of this are not apparent ... But nevertheless it doesn't hurt to be conscious of the fact that by introducing a mechanical, artificial element, we are actually disturbing what nature has produced in such a wonderful manner." I think that his worry was not misplaced. 4.246.205.110 00:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The real essence of what Steiner had to say was that if humanity continues to work with the bees in the artificial manner that they are using, then we will see their disappearance in fifty to eighty years. Insofar as this be so, most of the hundreds of articles and studies on the disappearing bees miss the target - humanity's overall interference. Please read the analysis in the article, as posted on organicconsumers.org - Why the Bees are Dying - and how to bring them back. [11]Josefgraf (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)josefgraf.

I read your analysis, and stand by my comment above: "Graf's analysis is not particularly scholarly or objective, however, and as a secondary source, should be avoided." There are lots of people with opinions, but not all of them merit inclusion in Wikipedia, I'm afraid - especially on topics such as this one, which requires carefully drawing distinctions between peer-reviewed science and pure speculation. Objectively speaking, there are greater and more fundamental questions regarding humanity's ability to survive the next 50-80 years than there are regarding the survival of Apis mellifera. Remember, the western honey bee still lives in the wild in its native range over much of the Eastern Hemisphere, unaffected by beekeeping practices. Dyanega (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A Solution?

It looks like the USDA is acknowledging that nutrution is probably a big factor in CCD (along with pesticides, pathogens and parasites).

Mussen, and two researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s bee research center at Tucson, Ariz., agree that nutritional deficiency is likely a stress factor. Honeybees were lacking a good mix of pollens, according to Mussen, who is based at UC-Davis. "It may be a malnutrition stress situation. Pollen is where honeybees get important proteins, fats, minerals, and vitamins" ... Dry conditions in many parts of the country last fall reduced good nectar flow, so fewer good fall pollens were taken into colonies. "Bees rely on fall pollens to rear a brood and take them through the winter. It was a hard fall, followed by a warm winter, and bees were out flying. There weren’t any resources (food) out there, so the bees were burning up flight muscles"[12]

Their solution to the nutrition problem seems to be he creation of a diet supplement called the "Tucson Bee Diet" and to be called "MegaBee". It will first be distributed to major honeybee supply houses in 50-pound bags [to be either a liquid or paste]. Beekeepers then add their own sugar syrup to the mix. Pound for pound, the supplement is more digestible than natural pollen, Wardell says. I note this comment from the article, As much as U.S. agriculture needs honeybees, it’s very challenging to find areas where you can sufficiently feed bees on natural pollen, particularly during times of the year when you can have 8,000 to 10,000 colonies in a single area waiting to be moved into a crop like almonds.

Again I would suggest the simple addition of wildflower seed mix to a farmer's fields, say, starting at 5% of seeds planted. Or under a canopy of existing nut or fruit trees. As for reducing the pollination of the main crop I don't buy it. In my area it is being done with mustard growing under bountiful nut trees. This supplement, while possibly good, is untested for the long term (only four years so far) and is an unnnatural way to for bees to feed (Rudolf Steiner's concern). It's like putting out a plate of food for wild animals rather than let them eat the way they evolved to. 4.246.207.40 05:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A valid point - but birds flourish when given the opportunity to have food from feeders, with no side-effects that I know of. Inhuman14 01:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you heard that birds are disappearing too? [13] 4.246.207.117 15:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

GM crops, Roundup and Europe

Nice long article over at science magazine about some new researchers (from my eyes) getting into the search..... Not-So-Elementary Bee Mystery Detectives sift clues in the case of the missing insects by Susan Milius.--Smkolins 13:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to take exception to a statement in the aticle: "European beekeepers have now reported die-offs too, and GM crops aren't grown there".

Oh yes they are. In fact there are secret tests all over the world including the U.S. [14][15][16]. Additionally non-GM plants are becoming GM through "genetic contamination" throughout the region [17][18]. Until the biotech giants reveal where those tests are taking place no one can rule out GM. I also have to wonder if anyone's testing for exposure to herbicides. Monsanto has recently introduced their "Flex" version of Roundup which can be applied even more liberally and frequently. 4.246.205.2 07:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, an unforseen consequence of glyphosate in their Roundup herbicide recently discovered is fatality to frogs [19] and keep in mind that hundreds of million of acres of GM crops worldwide are sprayed with the stuff [20]. And "Glyphosate ... is absorbed by the foliage and translocated rapidly throughout the plant" [21]. "Residues of the commonly-used herbicide glyphosate have been found in a variety of fruits and vegetables. Residues can be detected long after glyphosate treatments have been made. Lettuce, carrots and barley planted a year after glyphosate treatment contained residue at harvest" says Caroline Cox, staff scientist for the NCAP (Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides) and editor of the Journal of Pesticide Reform [22] See also [23] under Accumulation in Confined Rotational Crops. Also see NCAP's glyphosate factsheets [24]" (copied from [25]. Am I saying that Roundup is the cause? Nope, just wondering if it may be a contributing factor which should be studied. 4.246.203.96 15:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no such quote in the article. Please do not fabricate non-existent quotes and then try to dispute them. The article gives citations, and if you wish to dispute them, then produce counter-citations. The closest actual quote in the article is: However, similar massive bee die-offs (or disappearances) have been recorded for decades prior to the introduction of these crops, and also have been reported in areas in Europe and Canada where there are no GM crops grown at all. Please note that it says "areas in Europe and Canada where there are no GM crops grown" - which is NOT akin to saying that there are no GM crops grown in Europe. More to the point, Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for you to promote your political causes and personal theories.WP:NOT Dyanega 16:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Um Dyanega, look again. The link is [26] what Smkolins provided. Go ahead, click on it. The entire paragraph reads "A USDA research plan, released in July, raises another question about the genetically modified crops: European beekeepers have now reported die-offs too, and GM crops aren't grown there" . I believe an apology is in order. Additionally, its fine if you want to be rah rah for biotech but lots of people have concerns about it. And secret tests do occur, a researcher may not know exactly where they are. For you to suggest that I cannot ask legitimate questions on the talk page is out of line IMHO. There are no sacred cows where an issue like this is concerned. 4.246.203.33 05:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

When I read YOUR comment, I thought you were talking about the Colony Collapse Disorder article (for which this is the discussion page), not the citation linked by Smkolins, which I didn't even look at. I don't give a crap about biotech one way or the other - what I object to is politics being inappropriately inserted into a WP article. As it is, there is way too much "beekeeper's opinion" cited here and not nearly enough actual research into CCD. In all fairness, the entire section on GM crops should be minimized, since CCD does apparently date back 100 years, which effectively eliminates it as a possible explanation, along with climate change, cell phones, and pesticides. You're not asking legitimate questions about CCD, you're asking legitimate questions about your personal list of environmental concerns, and trying to find some tenuous connection by which you can link them to CCD and insert them into this article even if they don't belong. That's not a legitimate form of scientific inquiry, and has nothing to do with "sacred cows" - it's politics, and doesn't belong here until and unless someone publishes statements where they EXPLICITLY link it to CCD. Dyanega 07:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No apology. That's okay. Is it politics to question whether the other issues mentioned might be aggravating factors? I think not. And apparently neither does science since scientists are studying the possible links to GE crops, climate change and pesticides etc. If science has not yet found the culprit then these cases are still open (with perhaps the exception of cell phones which was based on a misunderstanding or obviously nutball suggestions - e.g. the "rapture", though EMFs are still an open question). YOU however, as self-appointed censor of the page, apparently want to remove dissussion of any other than those hypotheses with which you personally agree. The answer to CCD may not be found any time soon, in the meantime until science as a whole "explicitly" RULES OUT a particular hypothesis it is appropriate to keep everything on the table and not attempt to stifle inquiry because it might upset one's pet ideas. By the way I'm moving this argument out of the middle of my previous comments. 4.246.201.14 15:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh and just to address a couple of your comments "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for you to promote your political causes and personal theories" "you're asking legitimate questions about your personal list of environmental concerns, and trying to find some tenuous connection by which you can link them to CCD and insert them into this article even if they don't belong. You'll notice that I did not include the above comments about herbicides into the main article since a possible link is not being studied yet AFAIK. I kept it to the talk page. You don't even want it there though. 4.246.201.14 15:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)