Only hardier species can adapt to global warming
Story submitted by Eric Worrall
Another claim that its worse than we thought – this time warmer temperatures are killing the bees.
According to Scott Groom, PhD student at Flinders University, mathematical modelling has connected changes in bee populations over the past 20,000 years across the South Pacific region, and exceptionally large declines in bee populations, with changes in temperature.
Groom says that prior to the ice age when temperatures rose, many bee species migrated to cooler areas, with only one hardy species able to adapt to the warmer temperature.
“They’re almost canaries in the coal mine, you can see that they’re going to be the first sort of species to be impacted by changes in climate,” Groom said.
The study, “Parallel responses of bees to Pleistocene climate change in three isolated archipelagos of the southwestern Pacific” can be found at the link below.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1785/20133293.abstract
Abstract
The impacts of glacial cycles on the geographical distribution and size of populations have been explored for numerous terrestrial and marine taxa. However, most studies have focused on high latitudes, with only a few focused on the response of biota to the last glacial maximum (LGM) in equatorial regions. Here, we examine how population sizes of key bee fauna in the southwest Pacific archipelagos of Fiji, Vanuatu and Samoa have fluctuated over the Quaternary. We show that all three island faunas suffered massive population declines, roughly corresponding in time to the LGM, followed by rapid expansion post-LGM. Our data therefore suggest that Pleistocene climate change has had major impacts across a very broad tropical region. While other studies indicate widespread Holarctic effects of the LGM, our data suggest a much wider range of latitudes, extending to the tropics, where these climate change repercussions were important. As key pollinators, the inferred changes in these bee faunas may have been critical in the development of the diverse Pacific island flora. The magnitude of these responses indicates future climate change scenarios may have alarming consequences for Pacific island systems involving pollinator-dependent plant communities and agricultural crops.
I don’t have access to the full text, so I don’t know whether other possible causes of population crashes, such as bee killing Varroa mites, were considered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varroa .
Varroa mites were originally discovered in Asia, but have since spread worldwide. Some bees are resistant to Varroa mites, because they have evolved hygiene behaviour, which removes and kills the mites.
Eric Worrall says: May 9, 2014 at 3:33 pm
Thanks for the missing link – it explains some of the confusion about honey bees since the Food article has a picture of honey bees, the ABC report it is based on may also show a honey bee (if so, it is a melanistic one) and neither reporter seems to understand the difference between Mr Groom’s bees and the honey bee
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-07/bees-key-climate-change-research-flinders-university/5435502
Mr Groom certainly was anxious to put about the ‘canary in a coal mine’ meme.
Jimbo says: May 9, 2014 at 4:20 pm
“Yet DaveW wants to blame commenters.” – yep, when I put my foot in my mouth it is my fault and I use the same standard with other commentators.
“Good luck with your snearing attitude, I hope you have learned something today.” Well, I already knew that commentators tend to talk past each other and are more likely to indulge in invective than reasonable discourse, so I haven’t learned anything here except that you are thin-skinned. Thanks for the information. Honestly, I thought you might be interested to learn why bees are doing well in Australia. My mistake. Sorry.
This is how you get funding and past peer review even if your paper has nothing to do with present or future global warming. See Groom the PHD student’s name and the LGM. Funny how ‘global warming’ slips in here AND in the press release he was quoted in above.
Mr Groom said that as the climate warmed, species of bees that successfully evolved to live in the cold found it necessary to retreat to the contracting reaches of mountain rainforests to survive, while a smaller range of species that showed an ability to adapt to warm conditions thrived.
Current diversity, however, remains under threat: “The bad news is that these rare lineages found at higher altitudes will be susceptible to further change,” Mr Groom said.
“If it continues to warm, they’ll have nowhere to go.”
====
We call that a bad evolutionary choice…..
But the good news is….the vast majority of species….the ones holding the genetic diversity that gave rise to the small rare lineages…….are doing great!
They need to study what is going to happen to these important species when the planet starts to cool.
“So any and all comments relating to honeybees are without merit.”
Okay Jimbo, I reread my original comment and the sentence above was poorly phrased, especially in consideration of Eric’s missing link that does show a picture of honey bees and an article that confounds them with the Groom bees. I meant ‘without merit to the discussion about the Groom et al. paper’. Probably I should have said ‘So any and all comments relating to honeybees are not relevant to this paper.’ I apologize to anyone who made interesting comments about honeybees and I had no intention of singling out any individual, especially not Jimbo whose comments I often appreciate and learn from.
I’ve reread the paper again (can’t post it without violating copyright) and it really doesn’t have anything to say about global warming or the success of any bees in adapting to CAGW. That is all handwaving. In my opinion this paper could have been published without any mention of climate change other than the hypothesized relationship between apparent genetic bottlenecks and the last glacial maximum – genetic data (even if only from one gene), a lack of information about bees in the South Pacific, and replicated design (three island groups) make it acceptable, although probably not to the Proceedings of the Royal Society without the CAGW malarky. The paper may have uncovered a signal relevant to the effects of the Last Glacial Maximum in the South Pacific, but the inference is weak.
So this is yet another example, as if we needed any more, of how CAGW poisons all it touches. It demonstrates that even people who are specialists on tiny bees that most people have never heard of on islands in the middle of nowhere feel the need to drape themselves in the mantle of saving the world. Yet, it is undoubtedly human modification of the islands including the introduction of exotic bees, pathogens and plants that will have the greatest effect of native bees on these islands. So, again, the real world problems will be ignored in favour of the endless rewards for waving the bloody shirt of CAGW.
DaveW says:
May 9, 2014 at 5:47 pm
===========
Yep, I figured I would let the thread play out.
Let cooler heads prevail.
And they finally did !
The things bees could tell us, if only they could talk.
Some nasty and snide comments floating about here. I based my comment previously on the fact that it was being stated that the bee was to be held up as an indicator or ‘canary’ of climate change. I wanted to comment that climate is currently the last of the bee’s worries right now ( thinking honey bee populations but not excluding others )
I read what I read and didn’t jump to any knee jerk reaction over global warming. I simply think that if what’s being posited is that the fate of bees can be tied to and shown as an indicator of climate changes then it’s hogwash.
Those of you who are better educated might consider teaching the half-wits amongst us the errors and gaps in our understanding rather than scoff and pat each other on the back because you figured out some readers ‘did not get it’.
Some of the language used in this thread would get you a punch in the eye in my polite society.
If the site wishes to prevent incorrect reactions based upon little to no reading then perhaps titles such as “Claim: Climate change will kill the bees” ought to be avoided.
Lewis P Buckingham May 9, 2014 wrote:
“I have been working on a safe heater using a low voltage transformer and LED lights …..to get them through winter.
Lewis: LEDs produce virtually no heat. You should be using incandescent lamps if they are still available in Oz. Here in Canada the alarmists managed to have the sale of 100W and 75W incandescent bulbs banned, with lower wattages to follow. One of our stupider laws (along with the banning of 2,4-D herbicide (which leaves grass alone) while allowing the continued sale of glyphosate (which kills everything)).
Ian
Us plant pathologists don’t find much effect from insecticides, including nicotinamides, but we do know the bad effects of “miserable” summers and harsh winters combined. Brett Keane
This research really stings.
Tom J
This research really stings.
Ouch 🙂
Jimbo says:
May 9, 2014 at 5:00 pm
…..
http://apscience.org.au/projects/APSF_10_7/apsf_10_7.html
———————————————————————————-
After a short search I came upon the same site and the same conclusions as you did. Thankfully I read through all the responses and found yours before I wrote this.
It seems that the decline of bee populations in the SWP has very little to do with AGW and more to do with warming since the LGM, the retreat of the endemic species to higher altitudes in order to adapt to the higher temperatures, and the introduction of foreign species of bees.
“In summary, our study leads to four major conclusions: (i) bees comprise a very recent element in SWP ecosystems; (ii) endemic bees in the SWP have shown parallel massive responses to recent changes in climate since the Last Glacial Maximum; (iii) the oldest bee species in the SWP now appear to be mostly limited to very high elevtion mountains, where they are vulnerable to increases in global temperature; and (iv) a large proportion of bee species in Fiji, Vanutu and Samoa have been introduced by humans.”
Bees they retreat to hives in winter. And fed sugar and water by apairists. But they don’t have long lives. I have some St.John[‘s wort shrubs in my garden, and they love these. If one strays into my house, I catch it, and let it go. If there is no pollen for them to get, then – that will slowly starve them. You don’t see many bees in the Arctic or antarctic. One of the organic methods for aphids, is spray the plant with 1 tblespoon of sugar to one litre of water. The Bees came along and really enjoyed themselves, but did’nt eat the aphids, other insects do that. We experimented but it was an interesting result. In the Guyra tomato farm, they grow nice tomatoes under glass in all seasons, but people are hired to hand pollinate the tomatoes. They wanted to import bumble bees but were not allowed.
The idea of bees dying off as a result of climate change is obviously enough to stir up a hornet’s nest – honest and polite debate doesn’t deserve knee-jerk, dismissive retorts, especially when one makes an honest misinterpretation. Much like alcohol, the anonymity and remoteness of internet boards makes for puffed-out chests in spite of possible greater insight or scientific knowledge. I see it a lot on the other side of the aisle and have traded barbs before realizing I’m just pissing into the wind; it’s a shame to see it here and I don’t care which side started it – it’s weak. I applaud Dave W. for making the effort to retrace and clarify his intentions and observations. It’s a science blog after all, not a ESPN comment board.
What is an ESPN comment. I applaud those who offer scientific graphs and maps. But I can agree or not agree if my own experience in the field contradicts them. We can object to some of these pseudo scientists, because quite honestly, climate change alarmists grab at some form of research that is so biased it is laughable.
There is a natural bacilicus for use on larval stage insects, that eat flowering plants. It gives them a stomach ache. Pretty sure it affected bees since its use coincides with supposed decline. Also, have to wonder how bees survived the mwp and before it, the rwp since these times were much warmer for longer than now.
J. Fujita says:
May 9, 2014 at 10:04 pm
============
Points well taken.
Now, do you have anything to say ?, or am I just supposed to feel guilty now ?
BT for Bacillus Thuringiensis.
There are bees in Australia that are wild, and don’t sting.
bushbunny says:
May 9, 2014 at 10:26 pm
Never said one cannot disagree but rather that it’s rare where ridicule and/or haughtiness help get a point across. There are the fundamentalists who will remain obstinate no matter what but there are fence-sitters here that are trying to discern scientific honesty. Oh, and ESPN comments are just about who can trash talk the best, never mind who’s right.
u.k.(us) says:
May 9, 2014 at 10:28 pm
I don’t possess the level of scientific acumen of the many contributors here but my geology and engineering degrees help me see the forest from the trees – mainly the difference between correlation and causation. I do enjoy observing human nature when it comes to posting on climate blogs – sometimes the way one makes a point is almost as important as the point itself… something alarmists are learning the hard way. I don’t know why you’d feel guilty.
Oops… I’m J. Fujita’ s alter ego.
u.k.(us) says:
May 9, 2014 at 10:28 pm
J. Fujita says:
May 9, 2014 at 10:04 pm
============
Points well taken.
Now, do you have anything to say ?, or am I just supposed to feel guilty now ?
————————————————————————————————————————–
As you say, ‘Points well taken’. I agree with Fujita that most of the comments are just “knee-jerk, dismissive retorts”, especially since I have read the original research by the authors of the article published by the Royal Society.
Since I don’t have access to the Royal Society article as published, only the abstract, my comments are directed towards the motive behind why the RS is publishing this article. Their motive, as outlined in the abstract, is clearly to link the decline in bees to present climate change. As such, this is a gross misrepresentation of the original article, which clearly states that the native bee population, as the climate warmed coming out of the LGM, relocated to the higher altitudes, and that current declines in native bees is due mostly to the introduction of foreign bees. They also stated that further declines in the native bee population could be expected with continued climate change since the higher temperatures would force them out of their current ranges.
This is where everything explodes. The whole story of declining bee populations and their potential impact on our food production can fill entire volumes of literature. In this case, the emotional impact of the threat to our food supply is being exploited by using the decline of an inconsequential pollinator, whose decline started when the LGM was reached and has been exacerbated by the introduction of invasive pollinators. The original research conducted by the authors is entirely valid, but it has been corrupted by linking it with spurious claims that AGW will lead to further declines in the native bee population and threaten our food supplies, when in fact the native bee population has almost entirely been replaced by bees introduced to the regions for the purposes of increasing the production of honey.
This is a real can of worms. I thought they had done paleontological studies on the bees, but the data supplements (the paper itself is paywalled) show that it is all done by phylogenetic reconstructions.
However what they seem to have overlooked is that sea-level at the LGM was about 115 meters lower than now, uniting most of the concerned islands and greatly narrowing the straits between the others. The result of this would be unification of populations that had been separated for c. 100,000 years and a general homogenization of their gene pools. Then the Ice-age ends c. 15,000 years ago, bee populations are once again separated by water barriers and start to re-differentiate, aided by differential selection due to differing conditions on each island.
By the way it was colder temperatures that were supposedly killing the bees, not warmer. As far as I can see there is no trace in their cladograms of any untoward effects of the previous, considerably warmer interglacial c. 125 000 years ago. Actually some insular bee populations may well have died out then since sea-levels were slightly higher than, probably making some smaller islands unsuitable for bees.
However these would have been re-colonized as sea-levels declined, and extinct populations of course leave no direct traces in a cladogram (though their existance can sometimes be indirectly inferred if they hybridized with still-extant populations).