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

81–90 of 101 posts

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

#81

Post by will_brown »

tptacek wrote: post #75
will_brown wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you getting your global numbers? Because the USDA Honey Production Survey data tells a different tale. In 1989-1990 US honey Bee colonies were at about 3.5M. Neonicotinoids were introduced in the 1990's and since then the US Bee colonies declined to an all time low in 2012 (below 2.5M colonies). Since 2012 there was a small but steady uptick to just above 2.5M colonies; however, that is still down 1M and ne…

You're citing the time period corresponding to the varroa mite epidemic.

Is the time period for Neonicotinoids not accurate? I mean you completely glossed over my point just to say the time line I gave was consistent with the mites, I know the mites have had a devastating impact, but if their timeline is consistent with Neonicotinoids as I say, how do you just gloss over that, it would be on par with responding that the time period I cite corresponds with the introduction of rap/hip hop music. I was asking about your data in good faith because I know you are referencing global numbers and I am referencing US numbers, so I was genuinely interested, because if what you say is true about the introduction of Neonicotinoids in other countries having no impact on colonies in those countries that could obviously be very significant.

Nevertheless, your position is bee colonies have increased since the introduction of Neonicotinoids, which again may be true globally and in specific areas like Canada which you cite, but US data shows that is not true and we are at a net negative 1M (managed) colonies since their introduction.

Whether or not that is coincidence is beyond my point, as I said we know the mites have had a devastating impact on honey bees in the US, so we are left with the question why would the trend have reversed course (in the US) if entirely attributable to the mites? At least there is a theory I am aware of for the colonies reversing course despite the continued use of Neonicotinoids.

Moreover, there are studies that suggest of the 4,000 honey bee species in the US, only some were susceptible to Neonicotinoids while other species resistant, hence the major decline in the first 6 years since the introduction of Neonicotinoids and a slow taper off over the next 12 years until those susceptible species are gone leaving the resistant species which are now growing.

All things being equal, if the decline were solely attributable to mites, then what is your take on the US pattern for the initial huge decline followed by a slow decline and then the recent turn around? I know there has been some genetic modifications of both the mites and bees to address the issue, but that is more recent and wouldn't explain the big taper off in decline from 1996-2008 and it is not like they have been eradicated.

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

#82

Post by JoeAltmaier »

will_brown wrote: post #81
tptacek wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're citing the time period corresponding to the varroa mite epidemic.

Is the time period for Neonicotinoids not accurate? I mean you completely glossed over my point just to say the time line I gave was consistent with the mites, I know the mites have had a devastating impact, but if their timeline is consistent with Neonicotinoids as I say, how do you just gloss over that, it would be on par with responding that the time period I cite corresponds with the introduction of rap/hip hop m…

The answer to complex problems is usually "all of the above" in some degree. Weakened bees can succumb to things they normally would weather ok. Each different assault weakens them. Which is the 'real problem'? I'm thinking, all of them together.

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

#83

Post by will_brown »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #82
will_brown wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the time period for Neonicotinoids not accurate? I mean you completely glossed over my point just to say the time line I gave was consistent with the mites, I know the mites have had a devastating impact, but if their timeline is consistent with Neonicotinoids as I say, how do you just gloss over that, it would be on par with responding that the time period I cite corresponds with the introduction of rap/hip hop m…

The answer to complex problems is usually "all of the above" in some degree. Weakened bees can succumb to things they normally would weather ok. Each different assault weakens them. Which is the 'real problem'? I'm thinking, all of them together.

If it is not clear, that is exactly what I suggest.

Specifically, I acknowledge the devastating impact of the mites, but believe because the patterns (I am aware of) suggest more.

I am thoroughly interested in the global data if it suggests the U.S. Honey Production Survey data is an anomaly in terms of net negative colonies after introduction Neonicotinoids.

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

#84

Post by mvidal01 »

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.

Which species of bees are you referring to?

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

#85

Post by tzs »

dbcurtis wrote: post #68
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…

Is #1 really so safe? Here is my anecdote: When I was growing up in fly-over land, we had small, harmless little ladybug beetles. The most benign of all the flying insects in the territory. Then some how an aphid that attacks soy bean plants got imported from Asia, no one knows how for certain. It attacks the stems of the plants and destroys their ability to transport moisture through the stem. Pretty devastating to…

Using insects to control insects is not without risk, as you note.

I think the key is to understand very well the insects you are trying to control, and the insects you consider using to control them. Sometimes you can find a predator/parasite that only attacks the pest insect and cannot survive without it. That should usually be pretty safe, because as the pest is eradicated the control insect will die off too.

If you use a control insect that attacks multiple species, or that has a way of surviving absent the target insect, then introducing the control insect can be quite risky.

The more resources we put to understanding insects, the more we can get the good outcomes and avoid the bad.

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

#86

Post by tptacek »

will_brown wrote: post #83
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer to complex problems is usually "all of the above" in some degree. Weakened bees can succumb to things they normally would weather ok. Each different assault weakens them. Which is the 'real problem'? I'm thinking, all of them together.

If it is not clear, that is exactly what I suggest. Specifically, I acknowledge the devastating impact of the mites, but believe because the patterns (I am aware of) suggest more. I am thoroughly interested in the global data if it suggests the U.S. Honey Production Survey data is an anomaly in terms of net negative colonies after introduction Neonicotinoids.

Respectfully: come on. Once again, these aren't hard numbers to get. The varroa mite outbreak began in 1987. Feral honeybees were probably effectively eradicated by the end of the 1990s. Now, look up the introduction and adoption dates for neonicotinoids.

I know approximately fuck-all about beekeeping. It should not be this easy for me to rebut arguments about neonic toxicity, but I appear to be holding my own on approximately 3 Google searches per day.

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

#87

Post by smallnamespace »

tptacek wrote: post #76
smallnamespace wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an academic researcher so I don't have the raw data that you want, but I think it's worth not missing the forest for the trees. Bee populations have been demonstrably stressed for a very long time, and CCD and other more recent developments are yet another sign. The need for beekeepers to aggressively split hives is a sign that things are going very badly for them, even if we manage to raise the number of col…

I'm sorry, but respectfully, you've provided neither forest nor trees. I'm not an academic researcher either, but I feel as if I'm one of the few people on this thread that has heard of a varroa mite, or knows apis mellifera's actual role in the North American ecosystem. All I did was look stuff up. Can't everyone else do the same thing? The 2006 date cited for CCD isn't the government acknowledging CCD. It's the fir…

I'm not sure who your complaint is addressed to, honestly, and I don't see what you would prefer people be doing differently.

It seems like data collection in the US has always been at the colony count + mortality level, which has obvious limitations, such as not looking at the colony health. I'd presume that people are looking at getting better information, but rolling that out will take a lot of time.

OTOH, there are lots of other signs that bees, other pollinators, and many other parts of our ecosystem are under enormous stress. I think we should rightfully be alarmed, not because of the bee's direct effect on us, but because it is also a relatively well-measured bellwether for the status of other natural services that other species provide.

Are you saying we don't have enough data to warrant taking any action, or are you just unhappy at how this is being presented in the media? Note that action also includes finding more data.

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

#88

Post by tptacek »

smallnamespace wrote: post #87
tptacek wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but respectfully, you've provided neither forest nor trees. I'm not an academic researcher either, but I feel as if I'm one of the few people on this thread that has heard of a varroa mite, or knows apis mellifera's actual role in the North American ecosystem. All I did was look stuff up. Can't everyone else do the same thing? The 2006 date cited for CCD isn't the government acknowledging CCD. It's the fir…

I'm not sure who your complaint is addressed to, honestly, and I don't see what you would prefer people be doing differently. It seems like data collection in the US has always been at the colony count + mortality level, which has obvious limitations, such as not looking at the colony health. I'd presume that people are looking at getting better information, but rolling that out will take a lot of time. OTOH, there a…

I am objecting to arguing about honeybee population with people who believe that there is a large-scale endangered native apis mellifera population in the US, but can't cite sources backing that (surprising) assertion up.

Any actual statistic I find, I'm sure someone can come up with a Calvinball objection to. I wouldn't mind if those objections came with their own data, but they tend to take the form of "no data is available to support this argument, ergo it should instead be supportable from first-principles reasoning". And then you find out 6 comments into the thread that the assumed first principles include things like "there are gazillions of wild honeybees in the US and they're all dying due to neonicotinoids".

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

#89

Post by Gravityloss »

dbcurtis wrote: post #68
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…

Is #1 really so safe? Here is my anecdote: When I was growing up in fly-over land, we had small, harmless little ladybug beetles. The most benign of all the flying insects in the territory. Then some how an aphid that attacks soy bean plants got imported from Asia, no one knows how for certain. It attacks the stems of the plants and destroys their ability to transport moisture through the stem. Pretty devastating to…

This is what humans are doing everywhere. We transport so much species, nature is being turned into a monoculture at high speed.

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

#90

Post by will_brown »

tptacek wrote: post #86
will_brown wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is not clear, that is exactly what I suggest. Specifically, I acknowledge the devastating impact of the mites, but believe because the patterns (I am aware of) suggest more. I am thoroughly interested in the global data if it suggests the U.S. Honey Production Survey data is an anomaly in terms of net negative colonies after introduction Neonicotinoids.

Respectfully: come on. Once again, these aren't hard numbers to get. The varroa mite outbreak began in 1987 . Feral honeybees were probably effectively eradicated by the end of the 1990s. Now, look up the introduction and adoption dates for neonicotinoids. I know approximately fuck-all about beekeeping. It should not be this easy for me to rebut arguments about neonic toxicity, but I appear to be holding my own on ap…

Honestly, I don't expect a response, but getting the Global numbers and Canada's numbers on colonies by year isn't a simple Google Search.

I am not a beekeeper either but for a time I did sell honey, up to 65,000 units per order and so I am familiar with USDA annual reports and USDA Honey Production Survey.

In fairness I seem to be one of the only people in the thread not challenging you about the impact of the mites; however, USDA reports has guided my limits on the losses attributed to mites. Not to provoke you but the Honey Production Survey shows colony growth from 1987 when you say the mites were introduced until 1990, thereafter the numbers began declining sharply.

>Now, look up the introduction and adoption dates for neonicotinoids.

By all accounts I see development in late 80's and adoption in early 90's, coinciding with the time period honey bee (managed) colonies saw nearly 33% decline, but essentially during the same period as mites were introduced sans those few years of growth after the introduction of the mites.

Just so you understand where I am coming from the USDA 2015 annual attributes under 20% of loses to mites, and only 5% to pesticides, but 15% to "other" and over 20% (more the mites) to unknown.

Maybe my Google skills are subpar, but I could not find a straight forward graph of honey bee colony number by year for Canada or globally, which is readily available with a US bee population by year Google Search. What I did see is Canada territories in 2008 on the low end losing 20% of colonies and 48% on the high end (but 1 year snap shot is not helpful), and this year a 3.8% growth which they said was record growth over the last decade. I eventually found a standalone statement that Canadian Government which attributed the majority of loses to mites, which supports what you are saying, whereas the USDA 2015 report attributes only 20% of loses to mites and 40% between pesticides/other/unknown.

Post reply on HN