Jump to content

Talk:Colony collapse disorder/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Global warming relation

I'd like to propose that another possible cause for CCD is global warming, or that the two are at least related. Subtle temperature variations can cause different plants to bloom earlier/later. Certain predators/mites/etc. might also have some advantages. There's also the phenomenon of ousting drones with weather changes. Check out this article: http://www.beebehavior.com/global_warming_bee_behavior.php

I think this is reason enough to suspect there can be some link between global warming and CCD. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by CydeSwype (talk • contribs)

Didn't Al Gore touch on something like this in An Inconvenient Truth? I remember the example; it wasn't bees though.... -- Kendrick7talk 19:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If you can find a credible citation linking the two phenomena, then by all means include it, but do not expect it to be supported. Again, chronic, long-term factors like global warming, cell phones, and such are not consistent with the abrupt and sporadic appearances of CCD and potentially related phenomena from past years and decades. Ask yourself this: what was different between the fall of 2003-spring 2004 and the corresponding time period in 2006-2007? If a particular "pet" theory cannot explain why honey bees did not die in 2003/2004 and *did* die in 2006/2007 (or why so many beekeepers remain entirely unaffected), then that theory is probably not applicable. That's one reason so few bee researchers place any credence in the entire phenomenon; other than colony stress, there is no external factor whose occurrence matches the spatial and temporal appearance of CCD. Colony stress is not a disease - and it's something that is a beekeeper's responsibility to avoid. I know several beekeepers in California, and none of them are reporting any problems whatsoever, aside from those beekeepers who have Varroa infestations - the ones keeping their bees well-fed and healthy, with regular requeening, didn't have any unusual dieoffs - this DESPITE a record-breaking drought. Dyanega 20:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe the bees in "Inconvenient Truth" were being killed by wasps. This exactly why I made a note any link to Wasps (European Bee Wolves)? Kgrr 05:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Scale and phenomenology of CCD doesn't fit with GW. Current bee dieoff in C Europe is apparently weather-related (no rain in most parts of the continent since 6 weeks or so, and temps in the high 20s/low 30s °C) and the odd weather seems to be GW-related. BUT the phenomenon is different: bees under these circumstances starve; food stocks are being depleted as foodplants did't flower at the expected time this year. Also parasite load is very high; colonies that usually wouldn't have made it through winter survived this year in quantity, because in most of C Europe, there wasn't any "winter" to speak of. Dysmorodrepanis 11:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The climate change section of this article is currently poorly written. It consists of mainly quotes strung together with links to the articles they come from. More explanation on the individuals being quoted, or the sources being quoted, should be included in these paragraphs, or a better explanation of the situation as a whole. As it stands, the section is confusing and poorly worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.84.73 (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to being poorly written, this section is very poorly sourced and altogether dubious. The first source cited in the section [1] is an anonymously submitted news report, and the quote is from the anonymous author, not a climate or bee expert. Hardly an appropriate source for an encyclopedia! The second source [2] is a San Fransisco Gate article that doesn't even mention global warming or climate change. The next citation [3] also makes no mention of global warming or climate change. It does anecdotally mention "a hard fall followed by a warm winter," something that is bound to happen in California every now and then, regardless of climate change. One reference [4] at least contains quotes from scientists, but it is still a newspaper opinion piece, not a scholarly or peer-reviewed article. Conjecture unsupported by even rudimentary research, even when it comes from scientists, doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Another link [5] is to an MSNBC report on US temperature. The supposed links between global climate change, one half-year of US temperature, and CCD constitutes original research--to put it rather generously--on the part of the author. Climate scientists have not published such claims because they know you can't just pick out six months worth of data from one nation and lay it at the feet of long-term, global, climate phenomena. Moreover, CCD hasn't disappeared in the last two years, which did not feature unusually warm springs. But even if it had, we would still need a good research article to show that the relationship was more than coincidence! Finally, we have yet another quotation from a newspaper reporter [6], imputing a relationship between CCD and climate change based on anecdotal reports of weather variations.
This section provides no evidence to back up the author's opinion, and scant evidence that many people outside the media even agree with it. It's so bad I'm tempted to just delete it. However, since there seems to be some controversy over this article, I'll leave it there for awhile to see if anyone wants to rewrite it or come to its defense.
It wouldn't really surprise me if there were a link between CCD and climate change, but so far nobody has put forth a credible source for it. I think that, as with GM foods and cell phones, a lot of people are playing pin-the-unexplained-phenomenon-on-the-environmental-boogeyman. Such speculation shouldn't be included here.0nullbinary0 (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I've conducted a google scholar search for "'colony collapse disorder' and ('global warming' or 'climate change')," with no results that appear to address any suggested relationship between the two. Since problems with this section have been noted and unaddressed for several months now, I cannot find any credible sources, and most of the current iteration would need to be removed even if sources can be found, I'm removing the section. I admit my search for sources was far from exhaustive, so if anyone can find a good reason to think a link between global warming and CCD might exist, I encourage them to add a new and better piece to the article.0nullbinary0 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The citations I list above are all external links. Since I'm removing the section, I've edited my earlier comments to include the links. Sorry if this is confusing or long-winded, this is my first major edit and I want to make sure everyone knows why I'm doing it.0nullbinary0 (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone else apparently reverted your deletion - I think there has to be a compromise position possible here. People HAVE made the claim, in public, so it qualifies for inclusion here - even if the claim is utterly without merit (e.g., cell phones). Just because a theory is wrong or has no data to back it up does not mean we get to simply declare it unfit for Wikipedia. If that were all there were to it, I'd delete the sections on GMO crops, cell phones, and a lot of other material that is linked to CCD largely through wishful thinking - but I haven't, and I won't, because that's not how WP:NPOV operates. You CAN point out that a claim is only a claim, and - in the present case - I agree completely that those long quotes are far too much saying far too little. This section could easily be boiled down to a single paragraph, limited to links to the sources for the quotes and a very brief summary of what they actually say. Deleting it completely is going too far, for sure, but you could sure as heck trim it down a LOT without sacrificing anything of importance. Dyanega (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The editor rightly reverted my deletion because I forgot to include an edit summary, not because it was inappropriate. Dyanega, you're right, so I reinserted the climate change section in much briefer form, referencing the only scientist I've found who thinks there's even a tenuous connection between CCD and global warming. I still think this section is on the edge of noteworthiness, though. 0nullbinary0 (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
That seems fine, thanks. Dyanega (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

removal of "poisonous plants" section?

As I look over things in detail again today, I notice that not one scientific or press report I can find has linked CCD to poisonous plants, and it strikes me that - as such - this entire section probably represents original research on the part of the editor who first included it. If no one can attach some appropriate citations in the next day or so, I expect I will be removing this section, accordingly. It can always be restored should anything come to light regarding it. Dyanega 21:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Amen. That's a good call, and some of the material is misleading to boot. Pollinator 22:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak References

I am working on improving the quality of this article. One of the major problems is that it needs to be properly sourced. Preferably, the sources should be reliable sources such as scientific literature, journals, etc. In most cases, the references are sub-standard or inadequate.

Please respond to my list of proposals:

  • Reference #4 "Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group". is basically an introductory paragraph for the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group web page. It makes a huge set of claims, but in itself it is not a reliable source (see WP:RS). There are five instances (a, b, c, d, and e) where this reference is used. These all need to be replaced with more reliable sources for each. I would like to remove this reference and replace all instances with {{fact}} until more solid reference(s) can be found.
This is an overly restrictive interpretation of WP:RS, I believe - the CCDWG is THE primary authority on the subject! They have defined the syndrome, and they are the main source of data ON the syndrome. It is fine to treat their publications with some skepticism (many of us do, in fact), but that certainly does not justify deleting citations attributed to them! This is a developing story, and it is going to be months if not years before anyone outside the CCDWG produces peer-reviewed publications on the topic. In the meantime, the information they provide, skimpy as it may be, is what we have to go on, and should continue to be cited here. By its very nature, this article is going to have to include more than the average amount of speculative content - virtually nothing surrounding this is established fact, and won't be for some time. This article accordingly is going to need at least a little "breathing room" until things sort themselves out. Dyanega 16:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Dyanega, you are right, I would be overstepping my bounds by deleting references to the CCDWG homepage. BTW I'm not at all skeptical of the CCDWG. I also find the MAAREC will be a good resource too. And, I do believe that eventually, the literature will be full of research articles. But the problem is that the CCD article refers five times to the top page of the CCDWG. Instead, it should actually be referring to individual articles and facts within their website. Alternatively, more reliable sources should be found than just the CCDWG's unreferenced homepage. I will help find the correct references.Kgrr 05:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Theories include ... unknown pathogens (i.e., disease[4])"

- ??? looking into it Kgrr 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • "Limited occurrences resembling CCD have been documented as early as 1896[4]"

- needs reference to Howard (1896) (see slide on page 8 [[7]]) - ??? looking into it Kgrr 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • "At present, the primary source of information, and presumed "lead" group investigating the phenomenon, is the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group[4]"

- ok ... reference properly points to the CCDWG web page.  DoneKgrr 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • "However, similar massive bee die-offs have been recorded for decades prior to the introduction of these crops[4]"

- perhaps the slide deck [[8]] is better for this one. But the references needed here are Howard (1896), Burnside (1930), Disappearing Disease (1915)[9] --looking into it Kgrr 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • "The preliminary report of the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group[4] concerning "Fall Dwindle Disease"[7]"

- here reference [4] is just referencing to the CCDWG. Perhaps the CCDWG needs a wiki page.  DoneKgrr 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Kgrr 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Kgrr 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

other possible causes

  • Lack of genetic diversity?
  • Direct Stress (bee rentals, sugar water replacement for honey, bee farming too intrusive?
  • Artificial Insemination?

65.101.141.224 01:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

All are totally speculative - and mostly contrary to the observations of beekeepers. As far as bee rentals, moving bees from no bloom to a blooming crop helps alleviate stress, assuming they don't overheat on the truck. Keeping bees working is far less stressful on a colony than having them sit around (and possible robbing each other). Mite and pathogin buildup occur faster in colonies that are inactive than in ones that are busy. Old bees carry their pathogins away from the hive when they can no longer return loaded.
And feeding bees is far less stressful than starvation. Some of the feeding beekeepers do results from bees unable to feed themselves due to pesticide hits causing losses of the field force. Should they just be left to starve?
Pesticide hits have to be the most significant unnatural stress that occurs to the bees. That can happen anywhere to any bees, wild, feral, or domestic. The only bees that have any chance at alleviation of that stress are those under the care of a beekeeper. Pollinator 03:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, the observations of beekeepers are not necessarily a replacement for controlled experimental investigation. Further, several of the beekeepers I have talked to mention two of the three things mentioned above (lack of genetic diversity and artificial insemination) as contributing to the general decline in honey bees, though not necessarily to the CCD phenomenon. I don't know if this is being investigated in that context, and it certainly wouldn't explain the observed dieoff patterns.
The feeding question, as I understand it, is not asking whether supplemental feeding induces/reduces stress, but whether removing the honey from a colony and replacing it with something else like corn syrup is stressful on the bees. However, that particular idea as an explanation for CCD seems to be incompatible with the evidence, given that CCD still occurs in colonies whose honey stores have not been swapped out for artificial sugar sources.
Just consider any factors suggested as responsible for CCD, in light of when and where CCD is being observed, and what is and is not being reported in association with the phenomenon. THAT is what the scientific approach means - evaluate hypotheses using the available evidence, and that evidence includes the patterns of dieoff. A number of the theories proposed so far simply fail this test, meaning they are either not involved, or at least that they are not BY THEMSELVES responsible for CCD. There is indeed a difference between a "possible cause" and a "contributing factor", and too much of the discussion around this topic confuses and conflates the two. Dyanega 18:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: loss of genetic diversity, isn't this a given in honeybees not only because of management practices, but also because the species reproduces by haplo-diploidy, with one breeding partner (the queen) contributing more chromosomes to her offspring than the other? 70.184.72.38 23:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope. For two reasons: the only offspring that receive more chromosomes from their mother are the drones (who have no father at all), upon whom natural selection is barely acting. The other is that free-mating queens mate MANY times, so the gene pool in a colony is normally very diverse. The "lack of genetic diversity" issue is solely a matter of artificiality: if half the queens in the world are supplied by a handful of queen-suppliers, and if they're being artificially inseminated with sperm from only a tiny handful of males, then you're just begging for trouble (trouble such as inbreeding depression). Dyanega 19:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Severe inbreeding (queen mating with brother) will result in brood death; whether by natural death or removal by workers, I'm not sure, but it occurs most often where honey bees have become scarce, so there is not a good supply of drones. As far as loss of genetic diversity, the issue is well known and being actively addressed by queen breeders. Pollinator 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Famous Albert Einstein quote

I thought that this quote should be added in the article Albert Einstein one said that "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man." just my 2 cents and yes this quote is authentic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 08:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC).


You say the Einstein quote is authentic, but where is the proof? Can you provide a source?


here it is http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/02/thomas_gerber_m.html Albert Einstein made the statement "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years left to live." He was speaking in regard to the symbiotic relationship of all life on the planet. All part of a huge interconnected ecosystem, each element playing a role dependant on many other elements all working in concert creating the symphony of life. Should any part of the global body suffer, so does the whole body. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 08:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Despite the unsourced qoutes in your references above, there is still some question if the qoute is authentic. See: Einstein biographer unaware of Einstein's Bee Qoute [10] and a political comedian using the qoute in his monologue is certainly not proof that it was attributed to Einstein. --Bugguyak 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I left the quote added to the article, as the issue is likely to brought up again if people don't see it there. Plus it now addresses the fact that who said it is not clear. Comments? DocGratis 15:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have certainly found the citation in German on a quotes site at [11]

which is clearly attributed to German born Albert Einstein. "Wenn die Biene einmal von der Erde verschwindet, hat der Mensch nur noch vier Jahre zu leben. Keine Bienen mehr, keine Bestäubung mehr, keine Pflanzen mehr, keine Tiere mehr, kein Mensch mehr." However, the page does not provide a context for it.

Certainly, Albert Einstein was a strong advocate of Socialism. In his 1949 Monthly review article "Why Socialism?"[12] he contrasts humans and bees and their fixed social behavior "It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished -- just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change." At that time, he was also pre-occupied with the grand unified theory. Did you know both ants and bees have highly developed gravity-sensing organs? It would not surprise me at all if he looked at nature for many answers to his questions.Kgrr 14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I found several references to a short form of the Einstein quote "No bees, no food for mankind. The bee is the basis of life on this earth." [13] This page was created in 2003. Kgrr 15:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. "Bienen sind gar nicht so fleißig, wie ihnen immer nachgesagt wird. Sie können nur nicht langsamer fliegen." A bee is never as busy as it seems; it's just that it can't buzz any slower.

Kin Hubbard (1868-1930), eigtl. Frank McKinney, amerik. Humorist | Zitat-Nr.: 1398

Infamous or famous?

Is the quote really infamous?

in·fa·mous /ˈɪnfəməs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fuh-muhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. having an extremely bad reputation: an infamous city. 2. deserving of or causing an evil reputation; shamefully malign; detestable: an infamous deed. 3. Law. a. deprived of certain rights as a citizen, as a consequence of conviction of certain offenses. b. of or pertaining to offenses involving such deprivation.

I don't think it meets any of these three definitions. The heading should be corrected 65.101.141.224 04:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone changed it to Apocryphal  Done Kgrr 15:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it inappropriate to include a melodramatic, apocryphal quote in an encyclopedia article? If it were appropriate to include random quotes, another would be from Jean de Crèvecoeur, that the honeybee "...spreads sadness and consternation..." Rolofft 02:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT a random quote - it is one that has appeared in the press HUNDREDS of times now, always in specific reference to CCD. Just Google it if you want proof that this quote and CCD are linked in the media's collective consciousness. I find over 60,000 hits, each linking this quote to the recent honey bee disappearances. That seems pretty darn relevant to this article, no? Dyanega 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I too agree that the quote is melodramatic, not to mention just plain inaccurate. Not only is its content as well as the original source of the quote in question but its sensationalism is innappropriate, but I have to agree that its inclusion in the article is necessary. Perhaps a rewrite of that section is in order to include a clarification? Bugguyak 03:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't really get Dyanega's point. Why does the fact that the media likes to use this quote in reference to CCD justify it's inclusion in an encyclopedia? What true fact is communicated by the quote that sheds light on the disorder? This is an article on CCD, not on how CCD is reported in the press.0nullbinary0 (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia's content is derived largely from secondary sources, then what those sources say is all fair game; the nonsense about "cell phones" is a perfect example of something with no basis in reality, yet it needs to be included here because it has been linked by the media to CCD, just as the bogus "Einstein" quote. Just because it's peripheral or silly doesn't mean it isn't related - the press created the relationship, yes, so the article explains it. Frankly, there needs to be somewhere that quote is discussed, since we had something like half a dozen editors ADDING it to the article every time it was removed early on, each one of them convinced it was a genuine quote. I can imagine moving it to the Western honey bee article, perhaps, but I'll bet you that if you did, some other editor would either move it back here, or would make a link to it, so it would then appear in BOTH articles. Better to simply keep it here, in the context most readers are going to encounter it. Dyanega (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

CCD affecting other insects?

While all this is certainly entertaining, the qoute does not stand on its own in that even if all honeybee populations collapse, mankind will not disappear. Wild pollinator insects, animals, and even wind can still pollinate many even most edible food crops. Even if those crops that depend solely on domestic bee pollenation cannot be produced any longer, humans would adapt agriculture to fill those niches. --Bugguyak 02:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point it's not clear yet that CCD only affects bees. It certainly stands to reason that other insects could be affected by the same disorder. Also, the quote may be overly simplified. But the big picture is that without pollinators, things are much more difficult.65.101.141.224 04:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I have not seen any references that have indicated that wild bee populations, wild pollinators or other insects have been affected by the same disorder. If you know of any references that cite a similar decline in native or wild pollinators it may be helpful to include a section on this.--Bugguyak 17:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Wild bees are generally becoming rare in the Western world due to habitat destruction. This is AFAIK most severe in C Europe. Dysmorodrepanis 17:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that wild bees are increasingly rare worldwide, but the cause has little if anything to do with colony collapse. --Bugguyak 17:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
"Little if anything"? The proper and correct response is it has nothing to do with CCD. Even in the event that CCD should prove to be a "disease", diseases are rather specific in what they affect, and a disease that affects honey bees is unlikely to affect any other insects; and there are only 7 species of honey bees. It's like expecting that a disease that affects deer will spread to other mammals, such as humans. That is an unreasonable expectation - it most definitely does NOT "stand to reason that other insects could be affected by the same disorder" - the reality is exactly the opposite. The seven species in the genus Apis have had something on the order of 35 million years of independent evolution - 35 million years for their genomes to diverge from those of all other insects; compare that to the 70 million years mammals have existed. The human genome has had about as much time to diverge from deer, as the honey bee genome has had to diverge from other bees. But no one expects humans and deer to be affected by the same diseases. Why should a honey bee disease affect other bees?
While it is certainly true that habitat destruction and climate change are major threats to pollinating insects, bees foremost among them, CCD, even in a worst-case scenario, is not a threat to anything outside of agriculture. Dyanega 19:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing can be added to that, thank you Dyanega. --Bugguyak 21:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

not appropriate to cite errors by reporters

Josef09's latest edit included a citation of a news piece ([14]) which erroneously claims that genetically modified corn contains imidacloprid. This is false. The actual quote is "Many farmers in the United States and around the world rely on genetically engineered corn to survive the assault of crop-killing insects. The seeds are coated with a systemic pesticide that is essentially built into the corn as it grows." The facts are: (1) ANY type of corn seeds may be coated with imidacloprid (2) not all GM corn seed is coated with imidacloprid (3) no one has demonstrated that the imidacloprid from the seed coating makes it into the pollen in significant amounts. Furthermore, the news item was inappropriately inserted into the section on Bt toxin, instead of the section on imidacloprid. This is a perfect example of why secondary sources such as news articles should NOT serve as the basis for a WP article that deals with science. Dyanega 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Imidacloprid seed coatings on corn are specifically designed to protect the seedlings; by the time a corn plant starts producing pollen, the activity of the pesticide is negligible, if only through dilution effects (not surprising, given that there is only 0.16 mg of pesticide per kernel [15]). As the corn grows in biomass, the pesticide effects get progressively weaker and weaker, contrary to what the reporter has implied. Dyanega 00:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colony_collapse_disorder/Archive_4&oldid=415740654"