tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7977840442564030026.post1140370337418248731..comments2023-10-13T00:32:22.392-04:00Comments on pollinator gardens: A letter about the birds and beesClement Kenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03861060989781345200noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7977840442564030026.post-7261964900254581002013-11-04T14:03:09.623-05:002013-11-04T14:03:09.623-05:00First, thanks for all the important work you do fo...First, thanks for all the important work you do for pollinators. It is not your blog, far better balanced than most Internet posts, that frustrates me. Instead, I worry about the many exaggerations and omissions, often well intentioned, cropping up everywhere. They can be counterproductive. Take for instance the bumble bee die-off in Wilsonville, OR, mentioned in this blog.<br /><br />It is unquestionable that pesticides were the main or the only culprit in this episode. However the linden trees involved are known to produce toxic nectar that periodically causes bee die-offs. The role, if any, of toxic nectar should have been investigated. I have contacted repeatedly the people involved in these studies at the Oregon Department of Agriculture. I only got vague answers. I still don't know if they tested any bumble bees for the effects of toxic nectar. My argument is that, if there is another die-off a few years from now in the absence of neonics, the pesticide industry will grab that opportunity to make their case. We should be prepared with the facts.<br /><br />You are right that there is no need to go into great detail in a blog of this nature. Maybe, I should rather pester the Oregon Department of Agriculture one more time.Beatriz Moissethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05745938472052790104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7977840442564030026.post-39158927315771172622013-11-02T21:45:33.099-04:002013-11-02T21:45:33.099-04:00It's a privilege to get a comment from a blogg...It's a privilege to get a comment from a blogger as distinguished as Beatriz Moisset. If you haven't already, check her blog at http://pollinators.blogspot.com. However, I have written extensively in this blog and elsewhere about other factors affecting bees; indeed Moisset in her recent blog posting on monarchs says "I haven't covered the topics you mention because I planned to do so in a future post." Substitute "past" for "future" and you have my case.<br /><br />However, and it is a very BIG however, I urge anyone interested in this issue to either look at the recent PNAS article by Di Prisco et al, titled "Neonicotinoid clothianidin adversely affects insect immunity and promotes replication of a viral pathogen in honey bees" http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnas.org%2Fcontent%2Fearly%2F2013%2F10%2F18%2F1314923110.full.pdf&ei=1qd1UsHyKPLlsATVzICgBQ&usg=AFQjCNHA-HjjieSdLqy_QVNt5Q6DRZ0iKQ&sig2=LfIzQKBAYQ9t4HhJWALwAA&bvm=bv.55819444,d.cWc&cad=rja.<br /><br />This article is very well researched. It finds a new gene which responds to nicotine and nicotine-like compounds by reducing the immune response. It characterizes this gene in detail in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster and shows that it works in the same way in honey bees. Finally, it shows that doses of neonicotinoids comparable to those experienced by bees in the field raise the levels of a bee virus, in proportion to the neonic dose.<br /><br />Admittedly, the prevalence of more virulent viruses in honeybee populations is due to the role of the introduced Varroa mite, which plays see same role for bee viruses as mosquitos do for malaria or dengue fever in humans ( see excellent paper on this in Hawaiian honeybees, where the mite was introduced only recently and researchers tracked increasing virulence of viruses after mite introduction: Martin et al 2012, "Global Honey Bee Viral Landscape Altered by a Parasitic Mite" Science Vol. 336 no. 6086 pp. 1304-1306). However, Varroa mite has been in North America longer than the extensive use of neonics.<br /><br />Having considered every possible angle, I believe reducing or banning neonic use will have strong positive effects on many organisms, of which honeybees are only the most prominent. I cannot write journal length articles in my blog, especially when I have covered other topics previously. So, I maintain my call for neonic use to be reconsidered in North America.Clement Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03861060989781345200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7977840442564030026.post-63139644616357676252013-11-02T19:40:15.459-04:002013-11-02T19:40:15.459-04:00The trouble with bees in the United States is more...The trouble with bees in the United States is more complex than the use of nicotine-based pesticides. Almond farm acreage has been growing steadily for the last 50 years. Even without bee losses, one would expect that, sooner or later, the bees could not meet the demand. Also, it is important to remember that commercial pollination, the way it is practiced nowadays, is stressful to bees. I do not dismiss the important role of pesticides on the current crisis, but one should consider all the aspects of the problem. You mention Rachel Carson. One reason why her arguments were so powerful was that she considered every possible angle. We must do the same. http://pollinators.blogspot.com/2013/04/what-is-connection-between-honey-bees.htmlBeatriz Moissethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05745938472052790104noreply@blogger.com