Re: Who would volunteer to save the hemlocks?
Posted: Thu May 08, 2014 12:12 pm
Oh geez, guys, it's not a choice between hemlocks and bees.
The hemlocks will die. Imidicloprid will save many of them. Whether it's cost effective to treat them every year for the indefinite future is another story. The environmental impacts of imidicloprid use are definitely worthy of concern, but should really focus on aquatic invertebrates.
The bees might be affected. Those rightfully concerned about colony collapse should review the articles other thoughtful readers have already posted in this thread.
The meta-analysis of all published papers of the effects of imidicloprid on hive function is here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 010-0566-0 A meta-analysis is a survey of all of the published studies on a topic, compared and contrasted to try to draw a conclusion about the state of the field.
The most cited paper on the definitive link between imidicloprid and CCD is here, posted in The Bulletin of Insectology: http://bit.ly/QpUpT3
It's reviewed (informally) here, so I don't have to: http://alandove.com/content/2012/04/col ... y-science/
Pesticides are bad, m'kay, but blaming colony collapse disorder on them wholesale without looking (or refusing to look) at the science is counter-productive. The research at present (albeit unconvincingly) points to a multifactor etiology. High pathogen load of Nosema, Israeli Acute Paralysis, and Varroa; miticide, pesticide, and other agrichemical use; management stressors from frequent hive travel; and reduced access to water and nutritionally diverse pollens in farm fields may be creating a constellation of symptoms that together cause colony collapse. We just don't know. What we know so far is that neonicotinoid pesticides do not alone reliably produce colony collapse. We may be wrong, but I suggest we base our actions on science rather than superstition.
The hemlocks will die. Imidicloprid will save many of them. Whether it's cost effective to treat them every year for the indefinite future is another story. The environmental impacts of imidicloprid use are definitely worthy of concern, but should really focus on aquatic invertebrates.
The bees might be affected. Those rightfully concerned about colony collapse should review the articles other thoughtful readers have already posted in this thread.
The meta-analysis of all published papers of the effects of imidicloprid on hive function is here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 010-0566-0 A meta-analysis is a survey of all of the published studies on a topic, compared and contrasted to try to draw a conclusion about the state of the field.
The most cited paper on the definitive link between imidicloprid and CCD is here, posted in The Bulletin of Insectology: http://bit.ly/QpUpT3
It's reviewed (informally) here, so I don't have to: http://alandove.com/content/2012/04/col ... y-science/
Pesticides are bad, m'kay, but blaming colony collapse disorder on them wholesale without looking (or refusing to look) at the science is counter-productive. The research at present (albeit unconvincingly) points to a multifactor etiology. High pathogen load of Nosema, Israeli Acute Paralysis, and Varroa; miticide, pesticide, and other agrichemical use; management stressors from frequent hive travel; and reduced access to water and nutritionally diverse pollens in farm fields may be creating a constellation of symptoms that together cause colony collapse. We just don't know. What we know so far is that neonicotinoid pesticides do not alone reliably produce colony collapse. We may be wrong, but I suggest we base our actions on science rather than superstition.
