Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 101 posts

Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study

#41

Post by whyenot »

Joof wrote: post #39
whyenot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have many, many, many pesticides that do this, but neonicotinoid pesticides are really useful for a couple of reasons: 1. Very low toxicity to mammals. Neonics are used in flea collars, and to kill lice in farm animal bedding materials for this reason. Neonoics are also very safe to apply by human applicators. 2. Neonics are systemic pesticides in plants. They are absorbed into the plant and provide long t…

Ok, so lets make bees more resistant to Neonics. :P

the non-native bees shipped around the country (US) and that are the primary pollinators in agriculture appear to already be fairly resistant to neonics.

Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study

#42

Post by tptacek »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #40
whyenot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have many, many, many pesticides that do this, but neonicotinoid pesticides are really useful for a couple of reasons: 1. Very low toxicity to mammals. Neonics are used in flea collars, and to kill lice in farm animal bedding materials for this reason. Neonoics are also very safe to apply by human applicators. 2. Neonics are systemic pesticides in plants. They are absorbed into the plant and provide long t…

>Very low toxicity to mammals. What is the difference between killing us directly and destroying the food web and ecosystem we depend on to survive?

Can you present any evidence that neonics are destroying the food web? The difference might be "toxicity of legacy pesticides is a real concern, and destruction of the food web from neonics is fictitious."

Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study

#43

Post by tptacek »

whyenot wrote: post #41
Joof wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so lets make bees more resistant to Neonics. :P

the non-native bees shipped around the country (US) and that are the primary pollinators in agriculture appear to already be fairly resistant to neonics.

Honeybees are themselves non-native! They're an introduced species.

Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study

#44

Post by whyenot »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #40
whyenot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have many, many, many pesticides that do this, but neonicotinoid pesticides are really useful for a couple of reasons: 1. Very low toxicity to mammals. Neonics are used in flea collars, and to kill lice in farm animal bedding materials for this reason. Neonoics are also very safe to apply by human applicators. 2. Neonics are systemic pesticides in plants. They are absorbed into the plant and provide long t…

>Very low toxicity to mammals. What is the difference between killing us directly and destroying the food web and ecosystem we depend on to survive?

* Most of the food crops we depend on both directly and indirectly are grasses and are wind pollinated (corn, wheat, etc.).

* There is no evidence of neonics disrupting food webs or destroying ecosystems. How do you even "destroy" an ecosystem? that doesn't make any sense, at least with an ecologist's definition of "ecosystem."

There has also been a coevolutonary arms race between plants and insect pests going back millions of years and many plants contains chemicals many times worse than any pesticide used on crops.

Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study

#46

Post by bjelkeman-again »

tzs wrote: post #19
hoodoof wrote: post #5

The strange thing is that the response will be "OK so lets create poisons that kill all insects EXCEPT bees".

That's probably not practical, but in practice it is also not really needed. Usually when someone has a problem with insects they just need to kill a few particular species. Doing that is actually feasible. There are three broad approaches to killing insects. #1. Mechanically disrupt them. E.g., rip their heads off or squish them or similar. This may seem impractical at first, bringing to mind images of immigrant lab…

So called biological controll (for example parasitic wasps) is a very powerful way to deal with insect problems, as you point out.

As a side note I am wondering about there only being two parasitic wasp experts in the US, that must have been a long time ago.

My brother in law, who is one of the world's top parasitic wasp experts (based on papers published and scientific awards) has been working with US parasitic wasp experts for decades. He never mentioned this shortage of US scientists in this field.

Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study

#47

Post by mintplant »

Joof wrote: post #39
whyenot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have many, many, many pesticides that do this, but neonicotinoid pesticides are really useful for a couple of reasons: 1. Very low toxicity to mammals. Neonics are used in flea collars, and to kill lice in farm animal bedding materials for this reason. Neonoics are also very safe to apply by human applicators. 2. Neonics are systemic pesticides in plants. They are absorbed into the plant and provide long t…

Ok, so lets make bees more resistant to Neonics. :P

And then force it through the population with a gene drive? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_drive

I'm sure there won't be any negative consequences ;)

Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study

#48

Post by ameliaikeda »

tptacek wrote: post #36
Ratufa wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you talk about "increase in beehives", are you referring to hives that are managed by a beekeeper, or hives created by wild bees, and not managed by a human? When you talk about "fewer live bees", are you referring to wild bees, or bees in a managed hive? In my previous post, I was only referring to managed hives.

There are no feral honeybees in the US. They were wiped out, not by neonics, but by the varroa mite, 30 years ago. (Before we colonized this place, there were no wild honeybees: they're an introduced species). Honeybees are livestock, not wildlife.

As an amateur beekeeper, I can tell you that honeybees _are_ wild, in a sense. A captured swarm is just a wild colony with the queen trapped in an excluder box in your hive.

They can't be domesticated, and containing them after they swarm involves tricking the bees into thinking they are the ones making a decision (you can turn their hive 90 degrees after they swarm in summer and they will return in most cases, assuming they've found a new spot for a hive).

Also, mites (and foul brood) are still a pain in the ass and I can see why bees need a beekeeper to even stand a chance.

Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study

#49

Post by cmdrfred »

whyenot wrote: post #38
hoodoof wrote: post #5

The strange thing is that the response will be "OK so lets create poisons that kill all insects EXCEPT bees".

We already have many, many, many pesticides that do this, but neonicotinoid pesticides are really useful for a couple of reasons: 1. Very low toxicity to mammals. Neonics are used in flea collars, and to kill lice in farm animal bedding materials for this reason. Neonoics are also very safe to apply by human applicators. 2. Neonics are systemic pesticides in plants. They are absorbed into the plant and provide long t…

I say bring back nicotine sulfate.

Re: Pesticide link to long-term wild bee decline in 18 year study

#50

Post by tzs »

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #46
tzs wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably not practical, but in practice it is also not really needed. Usually when someone has a problem with insects they just need to kill a few particular species. Doing that is actually feasible. There are three broad approaches to killing insects. #1. Mechanically disrupt them. E.g., rip their heads off or squish them or similar. This may seem impractical at first, bringing to mind images of immigrant lab…

So called biological controll (for example parasitic wasps) is a very powerful way to deal with insect problems, as you point out. As a side note I am wondering about there only being two parasitic wasp experts in the US, that must have been a long time ago. My brother in law, who is one of the world's top parasitic wasp experts (based on papers published and scientific awards) has been working with US parasitic wasp…

Evans died in 2002, at age 83. If he retired around age 65, that would have been around 1967, so if he was referring to the state of the field when he was a professor that would have been in nearly 50 years ago.

"Life on a Little Known Planet" was first published in 1968, which fits in with that. The latest edition was revised and updated in 1993, which was still quite a while ago.

I don't recall for sure, but I believe the passage that mentioned only two parasitic wasp experts in the US was talking about the time when his graduate student was interested in specializing in that area, which could have been any time before he retired.

(I can't check because unfortunately I have it as an audio book. Great for listening in the car, but terrible for searching to find and reread a particular passage!)

Post reply on HN