FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-14-2002, 05:10 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,140
Post Poor beleaguered honeybees & poor science reporting

Not sure just where this belongs, but according to this article:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11354-2002May13.html" target="_blank">Honeybees in a Mite More Than Trouble
</a>
the plummeting populations of honeybees in North America due to parasitic mites would appear to be an unmitigated disaster:

Quote:
In the garden this means a scant harvest of cucumbers, squash, pumpkins and other vegetables requiring insect pollination, as well as feeble flowering and fruiting of many ornamental trees and shrubs. Wildflowers are not reseeding themselves as they should.
There are a couple of problems here. First, flowering is independent of pollination; a lack of pollinators may result in reduced fruit set, but not reduced flowering. Second, and more significantly, they apparently don't realize that honeybees are not native to North America, and were introduced only after Europeans started settling in the Americas. (Maybe there's a Noah's Ark angle in here somewhere?)

While many of our food crops are also not native to North America, and may well depend on honeybees for efficient pollination, I'm sure our native bees could be pressed into service. But to go on to suggest that our native wildflowers are in trouble because there are no honeybees to pollinate them is pure poppycock. Until the last 400 years or so, all native bee-pollinated plants depended on entirely different species of bees (or flies, or beetles, or butterflies, or hummingbirds, or any number of other interesting creatures) for pollination. If anything, this should be a boon for our native bee populations, which have been out-competed by honeybees. Honeybees are very aggressive and efficient gatherers of nectar and pollen, they are generalists (i.e., visiting a wide range of flowers), and their populations levels were always kept artificially high by beekeepers who kept hives to pollinate crops and produce honey. I've always wondered what long-term evolutionary effect this might have on our native flowers, which are often more specialized in their pollinators.

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>
MrDarwin is offline  
Old 05-14-2002, 07:39 AM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 9,747
Wink

Quote:
Originally posted by MrDarwin:
<strong>

While many of our food crops are also not native to North America, and may well depend on honeybees for efficient pollination, I'm sure our native bees could be pressed into service.</strong>
I think we should import lots of African bees. Yeah, that'd do the trick.
theyeti is offline  
Old 05-14-2002, 08:12 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NCSU
Posts: 5,853
Post

And Fire Ants!
RufusAtticus is offline  
Old 05-14-2002, 04:11 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: California
Posts: 646
Post

I think I heard somewhere that native bees (at least some species) were getting hammered pretty hard by foreign parasites also, so that might explain some of it.

The bit about less flowering though is pretty bad.

I'm beginning to discover that a lot of science journalism isn't very scientific...an awful lot of it is simply vague, usually ham-handed reprocessing of whatever a scientist or science-related person says or writes.

nic
Nic Tamzek is offline  
Old 05-14-2002, 05:18 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Los Angeles Area
Posts: 1,372
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Nic Tamzek:
<strong>I'm beginning to discover that a lot of science journalism isn't very scientific...an awful lot of it is simply vague, usually ham-handed reprocessing of whatever a scientist or science-related person says or writes.</strong>
The more people that realize this, the better our society will be. It's important to treat science journalism as any other form of journalism: with ample skepticism and critical analysis. Does the author have a bias or agenda? Is he/she misinformed or misunderstanding? Too many people treat these sources of information as the gospel of science, the utter truth. It appeals to scientific authority, therefore it must be true!

Then again, the job of communicating science to laypeople is a daunting task. If scientific literacy were greater, it wouldn't be so bad. Alas.
fando is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:58 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.