Are Neonic Really The Problem? - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 23 of 23
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    12,001

    Default Re: Are Neonic Really The Problem?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tenbears View Post
    Your resentment is actually unfounded. Note, The words "all of" did not precede our university researchers! It is shameless when any educator uses an educational position as a platform for their own means. Be it profit, fame, or simply to promote their views. Be it one educator, or a dozen educators it is shameless! I resent the implication that I am small Minded!
    Originally Posted by Tenbears "It is shameless that our university researchers are up for auction."

    The clear meaning of this statement is that "[all] university researchers are up for auction." If that wasn't your intent, then simply say "some university researchers . . . . " or "most university researchers . . . ."
    Regards, Barry

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #22
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Knox, Pa. USA
    Posts
    5,400

    Default Re: Are Neonic Really The Problem?

    However it was taken, I explained the intent was not inclusive of every researcher Once already. Or I would have included All!

  4. #23

    Default Re: Are Neonic Really The Problem?

    Something of interest maybe:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/...l-insects-gone

    a dedicated group of mostly amateur entomologists who have tracked insect abundance at more than 100 nature reserves in western Europe since the 1980s.
    Beyond the striking drop in overall insect biomass, the data point to losses in overlooked groups for which almost no one has kept records. In the Krefeld data, hover flies—important pollinators often mistaken for bees—show a particularly steep decline.
    Goulson and his colleagues reported in 2015 that nectar and pollen from wildflowers next to treated fields can have higher concentrations of neonicotinoids than the crop plants.
    A team from the University of Regensburg in Germany reported in Scientific Reports in February that exposing the wasp Nasonia vitripennis to just 1 nanogram of one common neonicotinoid cut mating rates by more than half and decreased females' ability to find hosts.
    No one can prove that the pesticides are to blame for the decline, however. "There is no data on insecticide levels, especially in nature reserves," Sorg says.
    The stable catches in southern England are in part due to constant levels of pests such as aphids, which can thrive when their insect predators are removed. Such species can take advantage of a variety of environments, move large distances, and reproduce multiple times per year. Some can even benefit from pesticides because they reproduce quickly enough to develop resistance, whereas their predators decline. "So lots of insects will do great, but the insects that we love may not," Black says.
    Paying attention to what E. O. Wilson calls "the little things that run the world" is worthwhile, Sorg says. "We won't exterminate all insects. That's nonsense. Vertebrates would die out first. But we can cause massive damage to biodiversity—damage that harms us."

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •