Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wildflowers Give Bees a Dose of Pesticides

Posted by timothy on from the bzzt-pass-it-on dept.

JMarshall writes: Wildflowers growing near fields sown with pesticide-treated seeds can be reservoirs of bee-harming neonicotinoid compounds, according to new research. The study suggests bees get most of their exposure to these pesticides from wildflowers, rather than from the crops the pesticides are designed to protect. At the peak of flowering season, 97% of the pollen brought back to beehives tested in the UK came from wildflowers, not the canola crops they were growing alongside.

24 of 38 comments (clear)

  1. Bad reporters, no science for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let's completely ignore that the large scale data shows that banning neonicotonoids didn't have ANY affect on the bee population in Europe. Though there's a huge amount of media-induced blame, a continent-wide experiment demonstrated that they aren't a significant factor, after much smaller scale studies showed the same thing. Now Europeans are using pesticides that are worse for the environment because they are less specific to the particular pests.

    1. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Since it persists in the environment, banning neonicotonoids isn't going to have an effect for many years.

    2. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let's completely ignore that the large scale data shows that banning neonicotonoids didn't have ANY affect on the bee population in Europe.

      If you're going to challenge the science in this paper, challenge the science in this paper. "But ... but ... this other data seems contradictory to anecdotes I have" is not a valid scientific critique, which probably explains why your works critical of scientific studies aren't published.

    3. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Let's completely ignore that the large scale data shows that banning neonicotonoids didn't have ANY affect on the bee population in Europe.

      Neonicotinoids are not banned in Europe, so this data does not exist.

    4. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by Gr8Apes · · Score: 3, Informative

      IIRC, it took something like 20 years before the effects of DDT were removed enough from the environment to be measured. Just because you sat in the bottom of the latrine for years doesn't mean 1 shower washes the stink off of you.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Informative

      At least one expert disagrees with you.

      "Dr Lynn Dicks, a biodiversity and ecosystem services research fellow at the University of Cambridge, told the Science Media Centre: "We now have robust evidence that neonicotinoids have a serious impact on free-living bumblebee colonies in real farmed landscapes."

      http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      What's the average life of this chemical in the environment?

      Longer than the ban, so literally the ban meant nothing.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    7. Re:Bad reporters, no science for you by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      How?

      Neonicotinoids can last up to almost 4 years when in the ground. Where the plants will absorb it. Thus a 2 year ban would have no effect on reducing the chemicals in the soil.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      At least source your bitchiness.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  2. But is this enough to change policy? by waTeim · · Score: 2

    Is seems pretty clear now that an outright ban on neonicotinoids is what is is called for here. The overall effect in bee population in countries that use is versus ones that don't combined with the detectable presence in honey and now this show that even controlled use is has too many unexpected side effects. The mere benefit of improved pest control efficiency is not worth this danger.

    1. Re:But is this enough to change policy? by tinkerton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that one lesson of this research is that since bees get their honey not just from the targeted crops it's generally worth to try and contain the pesticides better. That means taking in account wind, drop size, delivery method. In fact it could mean that the pesticides on the targeted crops are the least of your concerns. Which is interesting.

    2. Re:But is this enough to change policy? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      it's generally worth to try and contain the pesticides better.

      If you just read TFS, you'd see that the seeds were treated. I am not sure how much more contained the pesticide can be.

      Just another one of those unforeseen consequences of moving ahead full speed and oh, is that an ice berg?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    3. Re:But is this enough to change policy? by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      But my comment is not about treated seeds. It's about general practice. I'm not saying general practice will make a large difference in this case. What I am saying is that if you have bees next to cropland then still use strict rules for the road shoulders.

    4. Re:But is this enough to change policy? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      1) I don't know how much more restrictive you can be than to treat the seeds prior to planting. The problem is leeching, which will happen with anything water soluble, which just about all pesticides are.

      2) To take that "strict" approach would mean to essentially create a bucket for crop land, because it has to be isolated from everything else. These pesticides are just flat out nasty in ways that apparently don't become evident until after widespread enough use causes effects that can take years to reverse. At least chemicals have a realistic shot at being countered. GMOs, not so much.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:But is this enough to change policy? by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      Ok, so ban neonics and replace them with what? Carbamates? Oranophosphates? Pyretheroids? Avermectins? Pretty much everything is horrible for bees. The neonics are some of the least harmful to them; they can at least shrug some low dosages off. Generally speaking runoff in water from farmland should have dinotefuran or imidicloprid at a concentration around 7ppm and they're not acutely toxic until you get to around 150ppm. Chronic poisioning can happen at 50ppm but that's still 7 times higher than what they should be found at "in the wild."

    6. Re:But is this enough to change policy? by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      The problem is seeds leave a bit of chaff in the seed bin when planting and when planting treated seeds you get a lot of insecticidal dust with that too. When that "dust" is dumped at the edge of a field with the wildflowers/weeds the bees pick it up.

      The solution to this problem is, I'm not kidding, just dump the seed bin's dust and chaff in the middle of the field where bees don't care to forage.

  3. Not mentioned... by willworkforbeer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Monsanto has demanded licensing payments for every jar sold of Pesticide Honey (TM).

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    1. Re:Not mentioned... by codeAlDente · · Score: 1

      LOL willworkforbees

      --
      He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
    2. Re:Not mentioned... by c · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right, like Monsanto would take responsibility for side-effects of their products...

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    3. Re:Not mentioned... by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      Monsanto doesn't have a dog in the neonic fight. They don't make any of them.

  4. Simple Solution by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

    There is a simple solution. We can just kill all the wildflowers. A good dose of roundup or gasoline 50ft around the perimeter of the field should do the trick

    1. Re:Simple Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We can just kill all the wildflowers. A good dose of roundup or gasoline 50ft around the perimeter of the field should do the trick

      That is actually a real corporate farming strategy, supposedly driven by the demands of food sellers. Farm in a doughnut hole of fertile land surrounded by a sterilized wasteland.

      Unsurprisingly, it doesn't work. And yes, they really do use glyophosate (roundup) if you were wondering how come there's so much of that showing up in our food.

  5. Lesson learned by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Don't do what the researchers did by placing bee hives right next to fields that are sprayed with pesticides.

  6. Poison everywhere by pabloApicco · · Score: 1

    So... the poison is everywhere!

  7. This is not really news by pi_rules · · Score: 1

    I work in Ag, which is probably a bit rare around here, and I also happen to be a pesticide applicator. Granted, greenhouse industry, not much field farming, but this is an issue that affects us too, if only for PR reasons.

    This exact scenario was explained to me about a year ago from an entomologist from MSU working in their Ag extension. Dr. Smitely is his name if anybody wants to double-check my memory or look into what else the guy has to say about neonics and bees.

    His take on this issue was pretty simple: it's a cultural fix. Teach the field farmers to quit emptying the "dust" of their seed bin at the edge of the field. Do it in the middle and we're good. That's it. That fixes it. That keeps the insecticides away from the wildflowers that they're going to gravitate to.

    There was a bit more to the talk, so I'll just go ahead and cover some of that too.

    The rise of neonics is tied to the rise of GMO pretty directly. We've had neonics for a good while, like the mid 80's, but they didn't get much use for field farming as a seed treatment until GMOs. When the seed costs rose it then became more economical to treat the seeds rather than just seed at a higher rate. Incidentally Australia tracks right along with the US in the rise of neonics and GMO crops but they have not experienced CCD or any decline in bee populations. They also don't have the varroa mite in Australia, which is why some think it's the mite and then something else on top of it leading to CCD with neonics being a possible candidate.

    Related to the GMO thing is with the RoundUp Ready GMO crops fewer wildflowers exist for the bees. Being able to dose the field with RoundUp before planting and then again after the crop has sprung up reduced the bees forage areas. Now you couple that with dumping insecticidal dust remaining in your seed bin on the few remaining wildflowers at the edge of a field and you've got some bee deaths. In hindsight we can see the problem but nobody really saw it moving into today's world.

    The last thing I'd like to mention is pretty much every insecticide is bad news for bees. Neonics are actually on the safer side of things for bees. That's not something you generally hear about because it's not popular and it's hard to make a meme graphic to spread across Facebook that reminds people that organophosphates, carbamates, pyretheroids, avermectins, etc. all suck for bees... and sometimes humans. Big words are hard. Thankfully this is Slashdot!