Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

response to Ms Youngsteadt

Posted by honeylove on 12 Nov 2015 at 04:42 GMT

Regarding the quote from the report (noted below)

It is not explained WHY these expectations are assumed for honey bees. Feral colonies persist because they are NOT being treated by chemicals, not because urbanization intensifies the effects of no management. I assert, in fact, that human intervention by "management" is more of a insult on honey bees than a support.

"On balance, however, the effects of urbanization largely favor susceptibility and transmission of disease agents, and we expect urbanization to reduce immune response and increase intensity of pathogen infections. Further, we expect the effects of urbanization to be more intense in feral colonies than managed colonies, since the response of feral bees to their environment is unmitigated by management."

I have this reaction, as well---in the study there are postulations of certain effects seen as due to the heat island effect of cities, patchy forage, and other phenomena. Why would the researchers choose to make deductions about those effects while ignoring the more obvious effects of the unnamed "management techniques" which I take to imply as varroa suppression chemicals? In fact, how can they even assert that "urbanization" causes ANY of the outcomes they measured without accounting for in-hive chemical usage?
Am I missing something here? Susan Rudnicki

No competing interests declared.