Wikipedia

Talk:Colony collapse disorder/Archive 12

< Talk:Colony collapse disorder
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Kingofaces43 in topic fungicides section - idea to include
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Colony collapse disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colony collapse disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Poor writing wounds this article

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 While this article appears to present a good selection of material, the writing is incredibly bad.  "In another study done in 2013, scientists reported that experiments suggested that exposure to the neonicotinoid pesticides clothianidin and imidicloprid results in increased levels of a particular protein in bees that inhibits a key molecule involved in the immune response, making the insects more susceptible to attack by harmful viruses." Clearly the author did not use enough words. Perhaps additional clarifying verbiage would help. Something along the lines of.."In another study done(performed or completed or somethin) in 2013, ink on paper indicated that scientists reported that experiments suggested that  uh.. uh...simultaneously!

 I'm just here to provide some much needed help. Clearly all English teachers have mysteriously disappeared from the hive.2602:306:8B5F:7F50:38E8:2B2:627A:8748 (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

This entire article needs a rewrite, researchers at University of Wisconsin at Stout identified Serratia marcescens strain sicaria, infecting both bees and varroa as being a predominate cause in their local winter killed hives (formerly called CCD) and found it was probably in all US states based on out of state bee package testing. Given the almond producer requirements for bees in California migrating half the nation’s hives to their fields, this isn’t a surprise. See the UW-Stout news article at https://www.wisconsin.edu/for-wisconsin/story/research-buzz-uw-stout-professor-students-identify-bacterium-that-may-kill-honey-bees/ . A link to the PLOS peer reviewed paper is contained in the article. There is also videos online explaining the research at YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinkevichjm (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Could someone correct the hyperlink of the 4th citation?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This one guides to right article.

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2007/08/29/les-abeilles-malades-de-l-homme_948835_3244.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.186.136.203 (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. DferDaisy (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Clunky careless writing

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I cut the following long-standing pesticides paragraph -- maybe someone can salvage a bit of it. Too many semicolons and parentheses, speculations w/o citations, and nectar / honey confusion: 

Pesticides used on bee forage are far more likely to enter the colony by the pollen stores rather than  nectar (because pollen is carried externally on the bees, while nectar is carried internally, and may kill the bee if too toxic), though not all potentially lethal chemicals, either natural or man-made, affect the adult bees; many primarily affect the brood, but brood die-off does not appear to be happening in CCD. Most significantly, brood are not fed honey, and adult bees consume relatively little pollen; accordingly, the pattern in CCD suggests, if contaminants or toxins from the environment 'are' responsible, it is most likely to be via the honey, as the adults are dying (or leaving), not the brood (though possibly effects of contaminated pollen consumed by juveniles may only show after they have developed into adults).

--GeeBee60 (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The text of this paragraph has pretty certainly "morphed" over time with editorial modifications. On the whole, I agree that the overall content would require a reference to support it, as it sounds like it might involve WP:NOR. Most of the individual points are common knowledge or easily-supported observations that might not each individually require citation: (1) pollen IS carried externally by foragers, and nectar IS carried internally. This would not require citation. (2) If nectar contains strong toxins that affect adults, it CAN result in forager death. This should be easily supported. (3) Some substances that can contaminate nectar are not lethal to foragers but WOULD be lethal to brood. This should also be easily supported. (4) Brood are NOT fed nectar or honey, they are fed pollen. Non-foraging adult bees consume honey, but almost no pollen. Both points are also common knowledge. The conclusion drawn here is, from what I can see, logical, and follows from the stated points: since brood isn't dying in CCD, then if CCD is being caused by environmental contaminants, those contaminants are probably not in the pollen. The selective death of adult bees is, similarly, logically consistent with contaminated nectar/honey. The problem is that conclusion DOES need to have a citation. Dyanega (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@Dyanega: Thanks. While honey begins as nectar, nectar is significantly more dilute, when carried it is held in a special crop that is distinct from the bee's stomach, and the fresh nectar has not yet been altered by honey enzymes. Certainly nectar can contain toxins, but honey is different enough that it is erroneous to equal the carrying of nectar with the eating of honey. I also challenge the statement that brood is not fed nectar at all; other bee species are typically fed a pollen-nectar mash and like other bee larvae, honey bee larvae require fluids. We've all seen honey bees sipping water, but do they only transfer plain water to the larvae? All this is enough to ask that these overreaching conclusions need citations. --GeeBee60 (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bee biologist and pollination ecologist, so I can confirm these points. Foragers transfer the nectar to other non-foraging bees when they return to the hive, and then leave again. Bees that are not foraging produce, and feed on, honey. The pollen carried by foragers is slightly moistened with nectar so it can hold together in a mass during transport, but the amount of nectar is essentially negligible. Most of the water in the larval diet comes from the pollen itself and from royal jelly, a secretion which is fed to all larvae (despite the popular misconception that it is only fed to queen larvae). It is actually extremely rare for any bee species to ever offer liquid food to their brood. If honey bee larvae were "like other bee larvae" then they would feed on pollen exclusively, like 99% of all bee larvae. As such, the royal jelly fed to honey bee larvae is above and beyond anything seen in any other bee genus, and offers more than enough water. Dyanega (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your perspective Dyanega. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but when you thow out random numbers like ""99% of all bee larvae", your science veers off the mark.

With few exceptions, bee larvae eat pollen mixed with nectar or floral oil, or glandular secretions of adults that eat pollen and nectar. (Charles Michener, The Bees of the World, 2007, pg 60)

Michener doesn't give a number and neither will I, but significantly more than 1% of bee species use nectar as part or much of the liquid in the provisions. The main reason very few bees "ever offer liquid food to their brood" is because most species don't tend brood, living only a few weeks as reproductive adults and leaving unattended eggs with larval provisions in cells tucked into stems or crevices or (most commonly) excavated chambers in the soil. A number of these bees species provision their larvae with a wet nectar-rich food, including many Hylaeus and Colletes (both family Colletidae); Hylaeus don't even have a mechanism to carry pollen except by swallowing, where it mixes with nectar in a dedicated crop.
Look, my goal in posting the paragraph that I cut is to maybe get the ball rolling on a big edit that tidies some of the random choppiness and trims some of the naively hopeful uncited claims. Cutting an old poorly written paragraph seemed like a place to start. I may have been wrong and the bigger goal is probably an impossible task, as every special interest wants to edit some pet enthusiam extolling THE one true cause. I'm glad you have credentials, as do I. Hopefully we can work together and not spend too much time peeing in corners. --GeeBee60 (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Climate Change

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I severely cut down the climate change section. It was rife with misuse of sources to state things not in source material, and full of information about climate impact on other, unrelated bee species (like bumblebees, and native solitary bee species). Those issues are surely important, but not important to colony collapse disorder of domesticated honey bees. Gigs (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Working on spoken version

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am working on a spoken version of this article. Current plan is for the recording to be in four sections. Part one containing the introduction, contents, and Section 1, part two containing sections 2-4, part three containing section 5, and part four containing sections 6-8. Kayla Liz (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Glyphosate

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I posted a new section "Herbicide" under Possible Causes the other day. Here was my text:

As a herbicide glyphosate blocks a pathway used by plants and microbes, and doesn't target animals directly. However, animals also depend on symbiosis with certain beneficial bacteria. The Guardian [1] wrote that Roundup "damages the beneficial bacteria in the guts of honeybees and makes them more prone to deadly infections." They linked to the research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in October 2018, "Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees": [1] "The honey bee gut microbiota is dominated by eight bacterial species that promote weight gain and reduce pathogen susceptibility... We demonstrated that the ... microbiota species are decreased in bees exposed to glyphosate at concentrations documented in the environment. Glyphosate exposure of young workers increased mortality of bees subsequently exposed to the opportunistic pathogen Serratia marcescens."

This has now been deleted by Dyanega saying that the article from PNAS doesn't mention the words "Colony Collapse Disorder." But the article is about bees dying. Is there some other Wikipedia article about bees dying that you are suggesting this belongs at? Why would the article have to use specifically the CCD term? The article is very precise in stating its conclusions: that glyphosate increases the mortality of bees. It's not the job of these researchers necessarily to generalize that.

You say, "the authors do not link glyphosate exposure to CCD anywhere. There are other WP articles about honey bee health where the glyphosate data are pertinent."

I don't see a lot of articles about honey bee health. There is another discussion of CCD here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide_toxicity_to_bees . "All substances listed are insecticides, except for 2,4-D, which is an herbicide" -

This seems like a suitable article. Can we post the glyphosate - bee death reference here? JPLeonard (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.pnas.org/content/115/41/10305
Did you read the discussions on talk:glyphosate about this paper? If not then please do as it is equally applicable here. Pieces of primary research like this need to be treated carefully and there are very good reasons why we don't use news articles as secondary sources. We need to wait until other scientists have critically evaluated the research. SmartSE (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I have been over there. They are posting research funded by Monsanto and forbidding any reference to the fact that it's funded by Monsanto.

So WP wants first a critical review by other scientists but they will decide which other scientists count. WP admins are the arbiters over science.

You don't think articles in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences are already peer reviewed?

You want to delete articles from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences because they are primary research or secondary research? Or maybe they are both primary and secondary according to some kind of amazing WP logic?

Primary evidence would be me posting that the bees have disappeared in our neighborhood after several neighbors sprayed weed killer, which is how I got onto this topic, with a post "Roundup Kills Bees, No Fruit on my Trees" on Nextdoor.com. Of course I didn't try to post that on WP since it's primary experience and not any controlled experiment. But that is my motivation for posting here. I'm not being paid by anybody.

WP have this lovely rule about assuming good faith, which of course is useful to maintain harmonious discussion. On the other hand it's not difficult to see how corruption could be a problem in some topics on WP. If you have an open source system where anybody can edit ANONYMOUSLY and at zero cost (with no expertise needed other than knowing how to apply WP policies), and the articles about multimillion dollar products have a very high value to producers -- is it not inevitable that there will be editorial damage control activities by corporate publicity budgets to protect their bottom line at very little expense? The return on investment is going to be enormous. Corporate public relations departments could be seen internally as remiss in their duties to shareholders if they did not attempt to influence their image on Wikipedia. One ought to expect it as rational profit-maximizing behavior.

WP has lots of rules and policies. What controls are in place to protect the objectivity of articles against corrupt practices? Can someone direct me to that discussion and that policy? -- JPLeonard (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Dyanega, you deleted my post by saying that the article from PNAS doesn't say anything about "Colony Collapse Disorder." Take another look. Under the section "Significance" in the PNAS article, the very first sentence says, "Increased mortality of honey bee colonies has been attributed to several factors." "Mortality of honey bee colonies" is essentially just another way of saying "Colony Collapse". CCD is being given as the significance and purpose of the research. So why would one shunt it over to some (non existent) generic article on bee health?-- JPLeonard (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that you take a little time and read this article, especially - and most significantly - the section Colony_collapse_disorder#Signs_and_symptoms. CCD has an actual formal definition, including symptomology, and papers that talk about bee mortality IN GENERAL need to demonstrate explicit relevance to the article about CCD, such as the authors of a paper discussing how their data relate to CCD. Colony decline and CCD are not synonyms. What you are suggesting is what WP policy calls "original research", where you personally decided that honeybee death and CCD are synonyms, but WP policy prohibits editors from drawing their own conclusions and using that as a basis for edits. I don't think you would be surprised if you posted a paper discussing the causes of lung cancer in the WP article on ovarian cancer, and had the citation removed; this is no different. As for places that the glyphosate data might be relevant, try Bees and toxic chemicals. Dyanega (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Peer Reviews for Genetic and physio-pathological predictions

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I thought this part was well written and had some interesting facts that contribute to the understanding of CCD. Maybe you could add more details about how they studied the poly(A)-RNA in the gut from the literature you cited. What are poly(A)-rRNA? Are they present in lower amounts in normal bees or not at all? I just think that the RNA part is interesting and I would like to learn more about their role in CCD. I would also define or explain what the "Malpighian tubule iridescence" is for a reader who is not familiar with the parts of the bee. SnarkieGoblin (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I have added links to define a few jargons in this section including the Malpighian tubule iridescence, rRNA, and poly(A) tail which you suggested in your comment. Regarding how poly(A)-RNA was studied, protocol only listed dissection, RNA extraction, microarray analysis, qPCR, and statistical test. As suggested, I added qPCR and its link. For your suggestion about whether these transcripts are present in lower amounts in normal bees or not at all, the article states that due to bee samples being collected in different areas (West vs. East coasts), geography might introduce bias/ variation to the expression. However, they were able to conclude that the expressions of these 65 transcripts were either upregulated or downregulated depending on genes when comparing to the healthy bee's.Itsphuong (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Article too inclusive?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Colony Collapse Disorder refers exclusively to the majority of worker bees spontaneously disappearing. This article not only adequately covers this issue but also discusses most every issue and challenge that bees face. Should this article possibly be split into two separate ones? One exclusively on CCD, and the other on the overall "Major Threats to Bees"? These seem like two very important but not always overlapping issues(especially in 2019). Themarshallmills (talk • contribs) 19:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Themarshallmills (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • That is not the definition of CCD. The original definition is extremely restrictive, and is discussed in the "Signs and Symptoms" section of the article. Virtually none of the literature after around 2009 or 2010 explicitly conforms to the original definition, and instead uses a much broader definition ("anything that causes a large sudden loss of workers"), and this has been a tremendous source of confusion and controversy. You can cause a colony to lose a major portion of its worker force by spraying areas with foragers with aerial pesticides at regular intervals, but that's not what the people who first named CCD had in mind. The problem is that there have been so many people using different and increasingly broader definitions of CCD that it has become impossible to tease apart which research is talking about which phenomena; the term is now a "catch-all" for multiple things with multiple causes, instead of a single thing. I don't see how anyone is going to be able to edit this article and avoid well-meaning editors adding back everything that gets removed. Dyanega (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been meaning to give the article a good once over after solidifying the signs and symptoms because I did have at least some of the same concerns as Themarshallmills. We have articles on general bee health where some sources are more relevant that don't really apply here, but I don't know if I would say the literature is quite as jumbled as you portray on definition (and I say that knowing there are some heavily criticized articles on the CCD subject out there). I'd like to try to take a stab at combing through the article someday, but I might need to wait for a good blizzard or something to keep me inside to work on it. I've been slowly picking away at some draft text offline, so I'll just say someday. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

fungicides section - idea to include

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8DjeaU8eMs Mushrooms, Mycology of Consciousness - Paul Stamets, EcoFarm Conference Keynote 2017

this guy seems to have some credentials as a scientist, so what he says might be of relevance. his point is basically that some fungi growing on decaying wood material contain stuff that is found in some studies to be beneficial for bees suffering from some bacterial and or viral conditions. which seems to ring the same bells as the idea of bees being indirectly harmed by the presence of fungicides (perhaps because the fungi are not found in their environment).

overall his speech covers much more and some of it may be ideological, but the part about bees seems to be worth consideration. i dont know if there are other sources for that though. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC).

Youtube isn't a WP:RS we can use, and Paul Stamets isn't really a credentialed expert in the subject (or an entomologist). He's more a marketer for mushroom products. If you find anything you want to include though, it really helps to have peer-reviewed scientific literature since this is a subject that often needs specialized sources that deal with identification, potential causes, and potential solutions. There's a lot of "silver bullet" claims out there in general media, so it can be a tough subject to wade through. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colony_collapse_disorder/Archive_12&oldid=1066398655"