Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Potentially misleading description of cited work [12]

Posted by David_Pollard on 17 Oct 2010 at 00:27 GMT

The authors write, "A survey of bee samples from across the USA revealed traces of pesticides in many bee samples, but none were shown to correlate with CCD [12]."

In everyday English, this would be taken to suggest that the cited survey found only small quantities of pesticides; and that its authors had concluded these did not have any causative relationship to CCD.

The findings of the survey, 'High Levels of Miticides and Agrochemicals in North American Apiaries: Implications for Honey Bee Health', published previously in PLoS one, were the opposite of what Bromenshenk et al. appear to imply. The survey found that "unprecedented levels" of a range of pesticide residues were widespread. Rather than that there was no correlation with CCD, the survey's authors suggested many synergistic interactions could be factors leading to CCD: "[T]he potential for multiple pesticide interactions affecting bee health seems likely."

No competing interests declared.

RE: Potentially misleading description of cited work [12]

psommer replied to David_Pollard on 15 Mar 2011 at 03:05 GMT

I would recommend reading about "Bee" in WIKIPEDIA. You will find there the following paragraph with references 5 through 7. It seems to me that reference #6 from this Wikipedia article may provide some clarification why the work by Mullin et al. is misinterpreted by Bromenshenk et al.

"After several years of research and concern, a team of scientists headed by Jerry Bromenshenk published a paper in October 2010 saying that a new DNA-based virus, invertebrate iridescent virus or IIV6, and the fungus Nosema ceranae were found in every killed colony the group studied. In their study they found that neither agent alone seemed deadly, but a combination of the virus and Nosema ceraneae was always 100% fatal. Bromenshenk said it is not yet clear whether one condition weakens the bees enough to be finished off by the second, or whether they somehow compound the other’s destructive power. "They're co-factors, that’s all we can say at the moment. They’re both present in all these collapsed colonies."[5][6][7]."

No competing interests declared.