Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t The Register – A study published in Science claims that global warming is shortening the tongues of Bumble Bees, which may impact the ability of their tongues to reach the bottom of deep tube flowers.
The abstract of the study;
Functional mismatch in a bumble bee pollination mutualism under climate change
Ecological partnerships, or mutualisms, are globally widespread, sustaining agriculture and biodiversity. Mutualisms evolve through the matching of functional traits between partners, such as tongue length of pollinators and flower tube depth of plants. Long-tongued pollinators specialize on flowers with deep corolla tubes, whereas shorter-tongued pollinators generalize across tube lengths. Losses of functional guilds because of shifts in global climate may disrupt mutualisms and threaten partner species. We found that in two alpine bumble bee species, decreases in tongue length have evolved over 40 years. Co-occurring flowers have not become shallower, nor are small-flowered plants more prolific. We argue that declining floral resources because of warmer summers have favored generalist foraging, leading to a mismatch between shorter-tongued bees and the longer-tubed plants they once pollinated.
Read more: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6255/1541.abstract
The full study suggests that Theoretical and empirical studies alike suggest that with lower floral resources, fitness advantages of long-tongued specialist phenotypes have diminished, potentially driving the rapid evolution of shorter-tongued bees.
Even if we accept the premise of the study, that harsher conditions are strongly selecting for bees with shorter tongues, it seems curious that the alleged shortage of bees with long tongues, and the implicit inability of available bees to satisfactorily pollinate deep tube flowers, doesn’t seem to be forcing deep tube flowers to evolve shorter tubes.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Their claim is that only minimum temperatures have increased. I would like an explanation of why higher minimums would change the floral composition- especially over about a 2C increase. I imagine that global warming had to be incorporated for grant purposes – otherwise a useful study. The publish or parish syndrome is evident with ten co-authors – it used to be much simpler and not hurried. And, yes, we now know that alpine areas are another “canary in the coal mine”.
Is that “publish or off the church with you”? “publish or off to the neighborhood?”
How long, as it were, have we been measuring bee tongue-length?
and more to the point, why are we measuring tongue length, and how is it done? Do you ask the bee to say AAH and then slip a ruler into its mouth? Sorry, I’m a little “beehind” on the technique involved here.
So if the Bees tongues get longer is it due to global cooling or regardless of bees tongues getting longer or shorter it is due to global warming?
If you want to get grant monies for your research I suggest the latter.
I anxiously await the terrible news about the Bee’s Knees!!!
emsnews,
How about that other famous bee appendage famous(In Australia and worldwide i assume) for measuring small distances.
All the Heteronormative Lady Bees are very, very interested to know if that particular appendage has been affected.
Have they done a study on spiders’ ankles yet?
I think there’s one on spiders’ toenails.
If they are studying anatomical details of bees, wonder when they will get to the knees?
I mean, horses knees are well studied, aren’t they?
Just ask Hannah:
https://youtu.be/fSyB5HeYZ3g
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
There are a few standards as to which I hold myself a ‘global warming’, ‘climate change’, ‘climate disruption’ or whatever suits the vibe of the day, sceptic. The first is that anything and everything is, can or will be blamed on the timeless aberration of climate.
The second is called ‘publish or perish’.
Dear Miller-Struttmann et al.,
Congrats on citing ‘climate change’ as the premise of your study…Thanks to WUWT, it has now bee-n cited by millions!
(Publish or perish…the climate change way.)
Using the assumptions of climate modeling, bumble bees can’t actually fly.
My question is why would anyone decide to do a study on the length of the tongues of Bumblebees anyway. And what were they trying to show at the onset of the project 40 years ago? Littlepeaks wants to know. I read the full study, and it doesn’t describe the method of measuring Bumblebees’ tongues. Could it be that tongue length was measured differently during the second part of the study?
It is in the supplemental:
From 1966-1969, Macior (18) surveyed and identified more than 8,000 bees from alpine habitats (>3500m) at Mount Evans and Niwot Ridge. Bumble bees collected by Macior from 1966-1969 were deposited in the University of Colorado Entomology Museum….
….2012-2014, we resurveyed bumble bee communities at four altitudes on Niwot Ridge (3500m, 3600m, 3675m and 3750m) and five altitudes on Mount Evans (3500m, 3600m, 3700m, 3800m and 3900m) in accordance with Macior (18)…
….surveyed and identified bumble bee workers weekly during the flowering season along transects at two altitudes (3505m in willow krummholz habitat and 3960m on the summit) from 1977-1979. In addition to Byron’s specimens, collections were made as part of a UNESCO Man-and-Biosphere project between 1977-1980. In 2008, 2011 and 2013, we collected worker bumble bees along transects at 3659m and 3730m,..
And like all good climate change articles, they use bias adjustment:
…We then used this relationship (y = 0.18 + 0.974x; R2 = 0.731, t1,61 = 12.87, P < 0.0001) to correct the tongue length of historic specimens from these sites.
However the authors present not one piece of data about climate change, either global or local, from which to build correlations or causations. It is all conjecture.
So, instead of the advertised “40 years of data”, we actually have 40 year-old data?
Sorry, I’ll check the supplemental myself to be sure, but from what you have, they have specimen from:
1) 66 to 69
2) 77 to 79
3) 77 to 80
4) 2008, 2011 and 2013
That’s not 40 years of data. That’s data from 11 years.
Hide the pea…
Is there NO data that get’s adjusted by these ….#@ur momisugly#
“A study published in Science claims that global warming is shortening the tongues of Bumble Bees”
I wish it would shorten the tongues of alarmists like the Pope.
Perhaps the shortening of bees tongues is causing global warming?
could Obama be impeached?
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/8/senate-epw-committee-releases-oversight-report-obama-s-carbon-mandate-an-account-of-collusion-cutting-corners-and-costing-americans-billions
Nothing new.
http://www.weirdnutdaily.com/78q
It appears Boehner is on his way out;
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/25/boehner-to-resign/?intcmp=hpbt1
Now who will protect the President from the wrath of the peoples house?…pg
Utterly beyond parody! I said it before – be prepared for continuous eye rolling until the Paris circus concludes.
We can only hope for copious snowfall on their circus tent.
Two words, Grant Money!!!!
Yes, see my post above:
Caligula Jones September 25, 2015 at 9:15 am
“global warming is shortening the tongues of Bumble Bees”
Wouldn’t we have to have a Global Bumble Bee for global warming to affect it? Whatever alpine areas they studied, they are local, not global.
I’m trying to figure out why bees with longer tongues can’t feed on shorter flowers. Just don’t stick it out as far. And why then would shorter tongues be selected for?
If the species can change radically in 40 years, it can change back radically.
“Cameron believes it would be a good idea to conduct the same study again in five years, just to be sure that the tongue-shrinking is a long-term trend and not just “short-term cycling.” But if the trend holds true, it represents an instance of surprisingly rapid evolution in the bees.”
Quote from the WaPo version of the article, which was a multi-layered heap of conjecture, which failed to notice the qualifier quoted above. Albeit an appeal for more grant money…. But at least a nod to premature conclusions.
As time starts to run out on the gravy train at the feeding trough, there will be late comers seeking rewards of pubs and promotions.
Mad Magazine used to my favorite periodical. It was very important to my personal and professional development.
That said, this new crop of cagwa stories reminds me of….
Who would be the new face to adorn the cover CagwMad mags….
Just need a cartoonist with the skills…..
still thinkin’
as for the poor bees, maybe mating them with some french bees?
As a musician I have noticed that global warming has caused my hands to sweat more and corrode the strings on my axes far quicker than is the norm.
Making this stuff up is dead easy. Can I get a grant for a study?
What? Bumblebees are characterized by having short tongues. They will chew holes on the bases of flowers to get nectar because of the short tongues. It is honeybees that have the long tongues and can feed from tube flowers.
Who wrote this crap -they know nothing about bees – seems like the PR intro writernwas just wingimg it, or maybe they all were.
marque2 said:
Who wrote this crap -they know nothing about bees
Give them time. They’ve only been at it for forty years.
Global Warming/Climate Change has caused Climate Scientists’ tongues to get longer to allow them to get further into the honey pot of government funding.
It’s always struck me as a bit odd that those who promote preserving nature in stasis would claim that anything Man does that might effect nature is unnatural.
Any “change” is bad. (Unless it is “Change you can believe in.”)
“It’s always struck me as a bit odd that those who promote preserving nature in stasis would claim that anything Man does that might effect nature is unnatural.”
Do you mean that by their standards what they’re doing is unnatural?
What I mean is that the Enviros seem to think that “Nature’s” natural state is frozen in place. Never changing. That leaves only Man as the cause of any change.
(Whether you are an “Evolutionist” or a “Creationist” or whatever either would call me, that’s nonsense.)
I’m surprised this study has noy found more exposure in the fundamentalist press, since it’s saying Natural Selection is selecting for less fit species.
Then again, I couldn’t see any figures for changes in population, so maybe it’s just irrelevant.
OOPS! noy > not, sorry
Fundamentalists agree with the concept of natural selection. We would not object if, for instance, you say thick furred dogs survive better in Alaska, while short haired dogs survive better in Mexico. Both traits are already in the canine gene pool. Nature selects for those traits present in a species’ gene pool best suited to a particular environment.
Fundamentalists would object if, for instance, you say natural selection will cause dogs to grow antlers, because then you are conflating natural selection with evolution. Evolution requires new traits to be introduced into the gene pool, and natural selection can not do that.
SR