From PURDUE UNIVERSITY: Rising CO2 levels reduce protein in crucial pollen source for bees
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have reduced protein in goldenrod pollen, a key late-season food source for North American bees, a Purdue University study shows.
Researchers found that the overall protein concentration of goldenrod pollen fell about one-third from the onset of the Industrial Revolution to the beginning of the 21st century.
Previous studies have shown that increases in carbon dioxide can lower the nutritional value of plants such as wheat and rice – staple crops for much of the global human population – but this study is the first to examine the effects of rising CO2 on the diet of bees.
“Bee food is less nutritious than it used to be,” said Jeffrey Dukes, study co-author and professor of forestry and natural resources and biological sciences. “Our findings also suggest that the quality of pollen will continue to decline into the future. That’s not great news for bees.”
Native bee species and honeybees rely on flowering plants for energy and nutrition. While nectar is the primary energy source for bee colonies, pollen is the sole source of protein for bees. Pollen is essential for the development of bee larvae and helps maintain bees’ immunity to pathogens and parasites.
Goldenrod, a common North American perennial that blooms from late July through October, offers bees some of the last available pollen before winter. Bees that overwinter must store substantial amounts of pollen to rear their winter young. Declines in pollen protein could potentially threaten bee health and survival and weaken bees’ ability to overwinter on a continental scale, said Jeffery Pettis, study co-author and research entomologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service.
“A poor diet sets bees up for failure,” he said. “Previous research shows bees have shorter lifespans when fed lower quality pollen.”
The researchers noted, however, that this study only assessed pollen protein levels and did not look at the impact of protein reductions on bee health and populations.
“Our work suggests there is a strong possibility that decreases in pollen protein could contribute to declines in bee health, but we haven’t yet made that final link,” said Dukes, who is also director of the Purdue Climate Change Research Center housed in Discovery Park.
Dukes collaborated with a team led by USDA-ARS researchers to examine protein levels in historical and experimental samples of goldenrod pollen. They found that pollen protein levels dropped about a third in samples collected from 1842-2014, a period during which the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere rose from about 280 parts per million to 398 ppm. The greatest drop in protein occurred during 1960-2014, a time when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose dramatically.
A 2-year controlled field experiment that exposed goldenrod to a gradient of carbon dioxide levels from 280 to 500 ppm showed strikingly similar decreases in pollen protein, Dukes said.
“These data provide an urgent and compelling case for establishing CO2 sensitivity of pollen protein for other floral species,” the researchers concluded in their study.
Bees provide a valuable service to U.S. agriculture through pollination, contributing more than $15 billion in added crop value each year.
But a number of new and mounting pressures are crippling colonies and endangering bee populations. These threats include emerging diseases and parasites such as deformed wing virus, Varroa mites and Nosema fungi; a lack of diversity and availability of pollen and nectar sources; and exposure to a wide variety of pesticides. From 2006 to 2011, annual losses of managed honeybee colonies averaged about 33 percent per year, according to the USDA-ARS.
“Bees already face a lot of factors that are making their lives hard,” Dukes said. “A decline in the nutritional quality of their food source going into a critical season is another reason to be concerned.”
Elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide – a building block for plant sugars -have allowed many plants to grow faster and bigger. But this growth spurt can dilute plants’ total protein, rather than concentrating it in the grain, resulting in a less nutritious food source.
Slowing the degrading effects of rising carbon dioxide levels on plant nutrition hinges on reducing carbon emission rates from deforestation and burning fossil fuels, Dukes said.
“The impact of carbon emissions on the nutritional value of our food supply is something people need to be aware of. This issue isn’t just relevant to honeybees and people – it will probably affect thousands or even millions of other plant-eating species around the world. We don’t yet know how they’ll deal with it.”
###
The study was published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B on Wednesday (April 13) and is available to journal subscribers and on-campus readers at http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.0414.
Increasing CO2 and temperature could potentially bring new food sources and improve bees’ ability to overwinter on a global scale, said a random commenter in the Internet. He was not paid to find more alarming results for further investigation.
Not only that, but a longer growing season would mean less overwintering food requirements.
I’m getting a little bit put out by statements like this from so-called “scientists”:
Since when have unsubstantiated assumptions been allowed to be passed off as an inevitability in the scientific community? The only headline the researchers should have had was “Pollen from goldenrod has declined in protein content by 30% since the Industrial Revolution began”. Don’t speculate.
Hockey sticks anyone?
and when did the industrial revolution begin? Did they even know what protein was?
“Bee food is less nutritious than it used to be,” said Jeffrey Dukes,
Did they also look at whether it would be more abundant? NO.
This is just more crap pseudo science. Take whatever you want to study and find some subjective, twisted means to link it to long term change in CO2.
Something goes up , something goes down WOW we have a correlation with CO2!
“Pollen from goldenrod has declined in protein content by 30% since the Industrial Revolution began”
===========
eat 43% more pollen. problem solved. or do the authors believe bees are incapable of adjusting their diet to match available food supplies?
Add to that the fact that if the pollen has 30% less protein because of increasing CO2 then it’s probably because there IS 40% to 60% more Pollen being produced.
In other news, poverty declined since the start of the war on poverty. It declined before that, too.
A key sentence in the paper reads: :…the subsequent influence of reduced protein concentration from S. canadensis on bee feeding, health or demographics has not been explicitly determined.”
So despite an apparently real decrease in goldenrod pollen protein, they have no idea of its affect on bees.
Those of us who are allergic to it says bravo to the decrease.
I understand your allergy, ShrNfr, but in the greater scheme of things, the world could do without those with bee sting allergies better than it could do without the bees.
Apologize if that sounds unkind, but it is what it is.
Bees aren’t the only pollinators. Even mosquitoes can act as pollinators. And Honey Bees aren’t the only bees. We don’t have to choose between bees and people.
Unlikely. Solidago pollen is large, not windblown. It’s usually ragweed that causes the allergies, goldenrod being falsely accused.
This is the first mosquito-friendly comment I saw. If they only did not want to pollinate me…
While true that “bees are not the only pollinators”, honey bees are the only pollinators that
1. are promiscuous in their ability to pollinate a wide variety of plants (as opposed to the niche-pollination of, say, mosquitoes)
2. are continuous in their pollination throughout the growing season (as opposed to the time-limited pollination of most wasps and bumble bees that only pollinate when the specific plants that they co-evolved with are blooming)
3. easily pollinate the plants that make up most of the human-preferred food plants (native pollinators in the Americas did not evolve with and will at best only weakly pollinate the crops that we imported)
4. work at industrial scale and can be moved as agricultural needs demand
5. can be moved to other pastures/crops when the target monoculture crop stops blooming (For more on this, go look at an industrial orchard. The main crop blooms for a few weeks but when that dries up, there’s nothing left for the bees. It’s a “green desert” until the few weeks next year.)
So while it’s true that there are other pollinators out there (and also true that most of our cereal crops are wind-pollinated and will be unaffected by any loss of bees of any sort), the variety and nutrition levels that you have come to expect for your regular human diet would be sharply curtailed by the loss of honeybees.
Well if they had completed their study, they would have discovered that the total amount of goldenrod pollen available to bees was increased more by the increased CO2 levels, than the specific nutritional value was reduced, so bees are living high off the hog now, thanks to more CO2.
Did I detect the presence of the word ” may ” in the headline there.
So who is it that ‘may’ give the bees permission to starve on the low protein pollen.
Are you sure they didn’t say ‘ might ‘, as in NOT ‘ might not ‘ ??
I hereby give those bees permission to eat all of the goldenrod pollen they want to.
G
In a desperate clamber for excess UN-esque climate-change research trough cash, somebody actually concocted an investigation of CO2 effects on bee food. Seriously, somebody thought this one up. Must have been some PT Barnum DNA in the woodpile.
And of course, increased plant growth has ONLY a negative effect on bees…. predictable farce.
How would CO2 increases affect Zika-infected mosquitoes? Well… they would multiply faster right?
“The researchers noted, however, that this study only assessed pollen protein levels and did not look at the impact of protein reductions on bee health and populations.”
Perhaps they’ll just eat more and it will not be a problem.
Lets see…Increased CO2 leading to Increased Plant Growth…Increased Plant Growth leading to evolution of Mega Flora…Mega Flora leading to increased food supply…Increased food supply leading to evolution of Mega Fauna…
The Bees will simply respond to this increase in food supply created by increased CO2 by evolving an increase in size to accommodate the necessity of a greater intake of food
Bigger Bees..YEA
Bee obesity is a serious matter.
+ Thanks JohnWho.
As much as I hate to repeat the obvious, showing a correlation does not establish causation. Especially when the correlation is a lab experiment with 500ppm, vs a real world at 400ppm.
It’s suggestive, but that’s all it is. We should never forget that today’s CO2 concentrations are relatively low compared to most of the history of evolution.
Bees have been around a lot longer than we have, through periods of much higher concentrations of CO2. I find it scarcely credible that this small rise leaves them seriously endangered.
I’ll give the Researchers this, they at least actually ran the experiment to find if different levels of atmospheric CO2 altered the amount of protein in pollen. By now I would have expected them to published based on just the speculation.
Now they need to run the concluding experiment, to find out if their hypothesis actually holds up. I’d try several greenhouse with varying levels of CO2 and hives of honey bees. See if the ones in High CO2 fair poorer then in Low Co2.
Once they have some actual Data to go along with their beautiful hypothesis is the time to publish. Of course, if they wait that long they might get Data that doesn’t support the CAGW meme, and good luck getting published then!
It is a good thing that CO2 levels have never been above that supposedly healthier 280ppm or life would have surely suffered in the past.
/sarc
Wait, do I understand this correctly?
An imported species, the European honeybee, will starve as the nutritional value of the pollen of a native plant declines?
no. they will just get dia bee tees.
Why goldenrod? I sorta thought that bee colonies stored food, so late seasonal availability was not that relevant.
Was just reading up on that. They do, especially when foraging is good. E.g. Milkweed nectar, alfalfa pollen. Honeycomb and bee bread are the proofs.
But will forage the whole season. Wiki has main sources of both nectar and pollen for spring, summer, and fall, divided feral and domestic plants, further subdivided trees/ bushes and flowers/crops. Golden rod is listed as one of 9 fall pollen sources, and not the primary one.
What are the odds that if you tested the eight other pollens, you would find them less affected by CO2, yet the growth would be even higher. (Did they cherry pick?) Lab results from instantly changing the CO2 content, and from there harvesting or measuring right at the same growth phase, (comparing both base and increased CO2 bio-mass) before the increased biomass affect of additional CO2 concludes, can also skewer the nutrient content which may increase at more mature growth. Nevertheless, in all cases a slightly reduced nutrient density content (I have never seen the very 30% figure before) is in general associated with increased bio-growth and increased total nutrient that double or triples the slight nutrient density loss.
goldenrod ’cause that’s the data they had … no goldenrod where I live … lots of bees (native and otherwise).
But, faster growing stuff will cause changes. For better, worse, or benign. Those that solely focus on the bad are miss’n 75% of the potential information (o.k. ya, I just made up the 75%).
I’ve been waiting see a big ass study about how increased growth of Douglass fir will result in lower strength 2 x 6’s and how our timber industry will just go down into freefall … oh wait that already happened, to the gleeful cheers of the likes of Gore etal.
I was 97% sure your 75% was made up.
Don M 75% good eh?
Bad
1. Slight loss of nutrient density.
Good
1. Increase in total nutrient with increase in bio-mass greatly exceeding slight loss in nutrient density.
2. No additional water required for increase in bio-growth and nutrients.
3. No additional land required for increase in bio-growth and nutrients.
(75% good on the money)
You probably won’t see this cause it is so late; 25% good, 50% benign, and the rest left for those with nothing better to do with their time.
Did anyone open up enough hives and take a sample of the winter stores?
Probably not, but it would be the only way to tell that there really is a problem. My guess is that the bees simply find other sources and ensure their mix of pollen is as it should be.
As a side note, some veteran bee keepers swear by removing the brood towards the end of the season to avoid the various foulbroods (US and EU), with the reasoning that at the end of the season there isn’t much bloom available anyway, and all you get is too many hungry (and useless) bees. Those hives seem to do just fine the next year (and also not get FB).
And in the spring, the bees have new pollen sources to raise the brood with, and if a new hive is started in the spring with even a small swarm(and also, if you like, as a top bar where the bees make their own frames from scratch), they usually do very well without stores. You can give them some sugar stores, but more often than not, they just dump it outside.
Color me ssssskeptical.
Another weasel word “overall protein concentration” not total protein for a particular
grain of pollen. It might just be much bigger and therefore have more protein.
first thing I thought too Albert…..
I spoke too soon, Apparently increased CO2 will increase mosquitoes populations.
http://www.planetforward.org/idea/mosquito-population-will-increase-with-climate-change-say-university-of-arizona-researchers
I bet CO2 increase hurts cute creatures and benefits mean creatures.
ie fewer bees, dolphins, panda bears, hedgehogs, and platypuses.
but more, mosquitoes, head lice, rats, pigeons, flesh eating bacteria, and Peter Gleicks
Well Orcas are just ‘ Sea Pandas ‘ anyway !
g
Don’t forget Polar Bears. They might look at you as dinner but they are so cute and cuddly and that darn CO2 is killing them and well doggone it it is all your fault for driving automobiles you selfish knuckledragging, mouthbreathing louts. Because of you, Coke commercials will never be the same.
Paul, I am guessing the Arizona folk never checked out the mosquitos in Alaska.
Maybe we could take a few spare million out of the “climate change trillion dollar spending spree” and find out a way to stretch bee tongues:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/25/claim-global-warming-is-shortening-the-tongues-of-bumble-bees/
Two different reactions. 1.CO2 fertilization will mean more goldenrod pollen to be eaten.
2. Late summer wild bloomers include sedges and milkweeds. Fall bloomers include asters, coneflowers and and various grasses like big and little bluestem. The second and third cuts of alfalfa in Wisconsin bloom late July and late September. The notion that goldenrod pollen is the main late summer early fall pollen source for bees is laughable.
They need to think up new reasons for why increased CO2 is “bad”, since the whole warming thing doesn’t seem to be panning out. Careers are at stake here, after all.
Not just the warming thing. The ocean acidifying thing, the accelerating sea rise thing, the increasing weather extremes thing. Ma Nature did not stay on message.
Why didn’t they just add bees to the controlled CO2 experiments and see which bees fared better or worse at different CO2 levels?
better question is why didn’t they just go out and collect golden rod pollen as it is produced naturally in the field and see if it has lost any of its protein content? Even with the atmospheric increase in CO2? That would constitute a “control” on whether you are replicating all that needs to be replicated in order to conclude ANYTHING AT ALL from your “controlled experiment”
Because that does not carry the funding appropriate message. (But you knew that) This is the second go around for bees, ( I forgot the reason for the first bee alarm) and like the first, this will also fail.
Just like the study saying driving your SUV will cause frogs to get smaller, followed by a second study saying frogs will get larger. (I guess they did not talk to each other) Billions of dollars purchase lots of results, disguised as science.
These ‘experts’ really are desperate now aren’t they? Next up: “Increased CO2 leads to lower funding for climate scientists. Species may become extinct.”
We can only wish…
Although to be fair, it is starting!
Uh oh, we will need to watch for hangry bees now. Mad bees will go on rampages, stinging everything in sight. And we’ll deserve it, because it will be our fault. Oh, the humanity.
Hangry. Is that a Portmanteau of Hungry and Angry? I think I like that word. ^_^
+
Global warming will, allegedly, also lengthen the growing season.
What’s good for plants and mosquitoes should also be good for bees.
[I was going to say that Arnold Schwarzenegger was also telling us to eat less high-protein food to stave off global warming, but I won’t go there today.]
Looks like the same CO2/Protein Dilution thing will cause us all to gain too much weight! Oh No!
CO2 Rise Could Fuel Obesity As Plants “Carb Load”
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/R-D/CO2-rises-could-fuel-obesity-as-plants-carb-load/?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=14-Apr-2016&c=J8YjrlRTMD42KkjW3clZLfO9m7Hw0WLQ&p2=
One way or another, climate change is going to kill bees…
It’s like there is a climate agenda or something!
Calling James Bond …..
…. please solve this dastardly evil conspiracy in Goldenrod the movie.
Overall protein concentration :so if I put 1 gram of protein in 1 ml of sugar water, and compare it to 1 gram of protein in 2mL of sugar water, the protein concentration goes down… great news, we know that CO2 helps plants make carbohydrates .
Did they offer any theory of why increased CO2 concentration would reduce the protein content? If there is no plausible mechanism for the result, I would say the correlation is spurious. If they can manipulate the historical temperature records, which a lot of people are paying attention to, and get away with it; how much easier would it be to fake an experiment comparing CO2 and plant protein? Sorry, but I don’t believe either their results, or their conjectures regarding the possible consequences.
Ancient relatives of modern bees – which were pollen collecters as well – already thrived in the cretaceous period with much higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere than today. Bee fossils from that time can be found in amber, see e.g. here:
So – How on Earth could these bees survive then ??? Why do climate alarmists always overlook obvious facts?
“Why do climate alarmists always overlook obvious facts?”
If you really need to ask that, you don’t understand the lying bast …. well, you get the drift.
Well, it was a rhetorical question of course… 😉
But I don’t think that all climate arlamists are simply “lying”. I guess, most of them are just free riders of a convenient science fashion and driven by usual group-think and confirmation bias.
bees evolved in the tropics….trying to get them to over winter out of their normal range where they need late fall pollen is man’s fault
I not a scientist; can someone tell me what might happen to pollen protein after being stored for 174 years? Why, in 1842 would anyone have bothered to do so?
GTL, great observation and question. I did some research. Beat finishing taxes today. Many old university botany collections contain ‘dried flowers’ from which old pollen could be obtained. Presumably golden rod is one. Harvard’s Peabody Museum has not only dried flowers, it,has blown glass replicas.
As to pollen protein content deterioration over time, I could find nothing on golden rod. But found several papers on ragweed pollen protein deterioration, plus a full chapter in a book. Written from 1933 to 1949. Ragweed pollen extract (the proteins) are used by immunologists to desensitize hayfever sufferers. My daughter had this treatment. The doses are very carefully calibrated increases over time. The problem the medical literature was investigating was ‘autolytic allergenic protein degradation’ over time causes by the associated pollen enzymes (enzymes are proteins also). Which meant dosing problems. The degradation rate at ambient was characterized, and then solutions explored. Final answers included shelf life expiration and dosing calculations calibrated to age of extract. So it is entirely plausible that protein degradation in old golden rod pollen also occurs.
It would be experimentally possible to check this hypothesis by growing golden rod in greenhouses with 280, 350, 400 (today ambient) instead of only 500ppm. One suspects Purdue did not because that might ruin their warmunist conclusion, which is laughable anyway since honeybees store up whenever abundant pollen as ‘bee bread’ no different than they store nectar as honey. There are some interesting beekeeping articles I read earlier this afternoon thanks to this post.
Thank you Ristvan.
Or, could they have tested CO2 levels at 280ppm, 350ppm, 400ppm and 500ppm but just didn’t include the results?
Nah, they wouldn’t do that…would they?
Were liars like Mikey Mann or Petey Gleick involved?
Maybe for peer review?
Bothered to store goldenrod.