Good grief.
We are all in a handbasket and we
all know where it’s going.
Comment by Rightwingsparkle —
6/16/2008 @ 4:29 pm
110.
i can’t imagine sharing a sexually
explicit “joke” with him.
here’s a joke i heard long ago at my
grandmother’s knee: a brand new prostitute-in-training just went to work at a
whorehouse in miami. first day of orientation, the madam explains the ropes
“first, you take off his clothes.” the new kitten piped up with a question “and
then, how do i handle the genitals?”
the madam replied “oh, just the same
as the jews.”
Comment by assistant devil's
advocate — 6/16/2008 @ 4:37 pm
111.
Is the show over? I was enjoying
“Making de maximus out of de minimus”
Comment by cboldt — 6/16/2008 @ 4:41
pm
112.
Cyrus or his
sockpuppet said that it was wrong to point out the trial that proves this, as
the trial was overturned. This is ridiculous. All I was doing was pointing out
it was ridiculous
The only thing that is ridiculous
here is your apparent ignorance of how courts in America function. If a trial
court’s decision is overruled, it is dead and gone. An attorney can no longer
point to what the trial court said for proof of anything.
But, again, like I said - even if Mr. Sanai is not someone with whom you
would like to share a romantic dinner, so what? He’s not a sitting federal
judge with a taste for what may be child pornography and anti-Catholic jokes.
Comment by frankfromfresno —
6/16/2008 @ 4:43 pm
113.
More powerful stuff against the
Great Koz (what federal law clerks call Kozinski b/c we dig his intellect,
“out-there” sense of humor, and writing style) at http://howappealing.law.com/
Search for “felony” and “investigation.” You’ll find a .pdf of a 2007 letter
from the former Administrative Head of the U.S. Courts accusing Koz of a
federal felony. He also beefs about the 9th Circuit’s failure to investigate
him when it was obligated to do so. You’ll also find news of U.S.S.Ct. Chief
Justice Roberts’s appointment of a special, Third Circuit panel to investigate
the Koz. On the smut I say we give him a pass; Clinton copping an intern’s
blo-job in the oval office raised the bar a lot higher than Koz’s stuff. Everyone
should just chill, and Beware of The Thought Police. The MP3’s I’m not sure
about. As for a federal felony for tampering with judicial computer
systems….yeah, I’d be dialing up a high-powered defense lawyer on that one.
Comment by Chris — 6/16/2008 @ 4:54
pm
114.
Disturbing images can be funny… I
could link the video of donkey chasing the guy around and say: this is what my
day was like… or link to the kid blowing himself and say: life sucks today.
I wouldn’t do it, because I think it’s
too crude, but I know more than a few people who would laugh.
I also think a judge should be able
to store images he or she is intellectually curious about.
Comment by SteveG — 6/16/2008 @ 5:00
pm
115.
Let’s say there was a slip-and-fall
case, and the trial court held that that as a matter of law, because a
supermarket failed to clean up a spill within 15 seconds, the supermarket was
negligent. During the same trail, a gigantic bug frolicked in the courtroom,
and the transcript read:
“Court: Holly crap, there’s a giant
bug in the court room!”
The appeals court reverses the trail
court’s ruling regarding negligence. However, the judge’s exclamation remains
good evidence that there really was a giant bug is the courtroom (excited
utterance exception to the hearsay rule).
And that evidence can be used, e.g.,
the Court’s administrative branch can sue the exterminator, or perhaps the
giant bug, if it has a law license, can face disciplinary proceedings…
Comment by Brian — 6/16/2008 @ 5:00
pm
116.
– The only thing that is ridiculous
here is your apparent ignorance of how courts in America function. If a trial
court’s decision is overruled, it is dead and gone. An attorney can no longer
point to what the trial court said for proof of anything. –
.
Except the “facts” as ascertained
below. Oh, and except for any parts of the law that the court below got
correct, as a matter of law.
.
Only disgruntled dipwads argue that
an appellate reversal means EVERYTHING below is reversed.
Comment by cboldt — 6/16/2008 @ 5:05
pm
117.
Thank you for keeping us informed
concerning Judge Kozinski. I will continue to follow this. If it does prove
that LA Times dropped the ball about the Judge’s alleged porn site story, then
LA Times owes the Kozinski family an apology. If LA Times is accurate, then the
Kozinskis have so explaining to do. I read the judge’s wife letter on your
blog. All I can say is that there are two side of the story and one of their
stories is the rruth. LA Times is not exactly truth and balanced. Look at the
blackeye that they received from the public on their story on later rapper
Tupac Shakur. I posted your article on my blog for reader to decide.
SP Biloxi
Justice League
Comment by SP Biloxi — 6/16/2008 @
5:07 pm
118.
Sad Marcy Tiffany and her tale of
woe. Let’s all start sawing on our violins at her Palos Verdes pity party.
Comment by Maxine Weiss — 6/16/2008
@ 5:10 pm
119.
See? Maxine is so ‘tarded, she can’t
be a sock-puppet. Any self-respecting puppeteer would create someone with a
frontal cortex.
Comment by Brian — 6/16/2008 @ 5:15
pm
120.
– any evidence to support your
accusation that someone else had planted these files on Kozinski’s web site –
.
Poking my nose into an accusation
that wasn’t mine, I see evidence. An admission by the disgruntled of file
deletion is indicative of ability to modify site contents.
.
Not proof of addition of files, but
certainly evidence. Combined with evidence of persistent axe to grind, I find
the accusation credible. Not that placing the material is a crime, but I’d run
a preliminary presumption in favor of the judge that illegal material was
placed by an enemy.
Comment by cboldt — 6/16/2008 @ 5:17
pm
121.
Long letter from the spouse.
Bottom line is that the judge is not
fit for his office and should resign.
But neither he or his spouse see it
that way - that is a basic problem.
In any event, I’m glad that his name
gets dragged through the mud and everyone knows what type of person he really
is.
He leaves a legacy that he deserves.
Comment by Normal People — 6/16/2008
@ 5:20 pm
122.
“alleged” illegal - to quell the
sock puppet chorus
Comment by cboldt — 6/16/2008 @ 5:20
pm
123.
Cyrus @ #76. “The case law
concerning CCP 170.1(c), which Ted Frank should be familiar with, says that
reassignment under this statute is reserved solely for cases of bias or
misconduct. If anyone can find a published case saying differently, bring it to
my attention. Until someone does, I say that Ted Frank is just making it up.”
That was easy.
Comment by Ted — 6/16/2008 @ 5:20 pm
124.
How can a woman in Kozinski’s
courtroom expect to get fair, unbiased treatment by this judge, who apparently
occupies his freetime with mysoginist fantasies? It’s also dismaying to think
that a judge with his standing has the same kind of sense of humor that you
would expect of a pervert. It’s also dismaying to think that this judge has
obstructed legal efforts to censor pornography on the basis of his own
perverted personal tastes. He must be removed from the bench, immediately.
By the way, I’m not buying his
wife’s (Tammy Wynette) Stand-By-Your-Man act !
Comment by Carolyn Konnick — 6/16/2008
@ 5:33 pm
125.
“I note that trolls like daleyrocks
and jem don’t have the guts to do this.”
Cyrus - I have no idea why anybody
would want to expose themselves to you in meatspace. The concept of a grown man
spending four years of his life litigating a disputed rent obligation of $2800
and generating the kind of court record and animus you did with U.D. Registry
is just chilling.
If I were venturing an opinion,
which I am not, I would say that normal people do not do such things and
suggest that you seek professional help.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/16/2008 @
5:39 pm
126.
ada #110,
My mother on the subject of
mixed/interracial marriages: “They all have the same thing between their legs.”
It seems, however, that nobody
caught the obvious in Ms. Tiffany’s letter. She complains that Glover was a bad
person for not publishing until after jeopardy had attached. And then her
husband had to recuse himself. If that’s not saying, “I ain’t done something
wrong unless I’m caught”, I don’t know what it is.
Comment by nk — 6/16/2008 @
The Philippine Tarsier (Tarsius
syrichta), known locally as the Mawmag in Cebuano/Visayan, is an endangered
tarsier species endemic to the Philippines. It is found in the southeastern
part of the archipelago, particularly in the provinces of Bohol, Samar, Leyte,
and Mindanao, Philippines.[3] Its name is derived from its elongated
"tarsus" or ankle bone.[4]
Its geographic range also includes
Maripipi Island, Siargao Island, Basilan Island and Dinagat Island.[2] Tarsiers
have also been reported in Sarangani, although they may be different
subspecies. Believed to be about 45 million years old,[5] and perhaps one of
the oldest land species to continuously live in the Philippines, it was only
introduced to western biologists in the 18th century.[6]
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Anatomy and morphology
* 2 Range and distribution
* 3 Ecology and life history
o 3.1
Habitat
+ 3.1.1 Home range
o 3.2
Ecosystem roles
+ 3.2.1 Feeding ecology
o 3.3
Behavior
+ 3.3.1 Communication
o 3.4 Life
history
+ 3.4.1 Reproduction
* 4 Etymology and taxonomic history
* 5 Importance to humans
* 6 Conservation
o 6.1
Threats to the species
o 6.2
Conservation efforts
+ 6.2.1 Legislation
+ 6.2.2 Conservation initiatives
+ 6.2.3 Philippine debt-for-nature swap program
+ 6.2.4 Philippine Tarsier Foundation Incorporated
+ 6.2.5 Tarsier Sanctuary captive display
* 7 References
* 8 External links
[edit] Anatomy and morphology
The Philippine Tarsier is a tiny animal,
measuring about 4 to 6 inches (15 cm) in height. The small size makes it
difficult to spot. The average mass for males is around 134 grams, and for
females, around 117 grams. The average adult is about the size of a human fist
and will fit very comfortably in the human hand.
Like all tarsiers, the Philippine
Tarsier's eyes are fixed in its skull; they cannot turn in their sockets.
Instead, a special adaptation in the neck allows its round head to be rotated
180 degrees. The large membranous ears are mobile,[7] appearing to be almost
constantly moving, allowing the tarsier to hear any movement. It has uniquely
large eyes (disproportionate to its head and body), which are listed in the
Guinness Book of Records as the largest eyes on any mammal. These huge eyes
provide this nocturnal animal with excellent night vision.[8]
The Philippine Tarsier has thick and
silky fur which is colored gray to dark brown. The thin tail, usually used for
balance, is naked or bald except for a tuft of hair at the end, and is about
twice the body length. Its elongated "tarsus," or ankle bone, which
gives the tarsier its name, allows it to jump at least three meters from tree
to tree without having to touch the ground.[8] Its long digits are tipped with
rounded pads that allow T. syrichta to cling easily to trees and to grip almost
any surface. The thumb is not truly opposable, but the first toe is. All of the
digits have flattened nails, except for the second and third toes, which have
sharp claws specialized for grooming.[9]
The dental formula is 2:1:3:3 in the
upper jaw and 1:1:3:3 in the lower jaw, with relatively small upper canines.[7]
[edit] Range and distribution
The Philippine Tarsier, as its name
suggests, is endemic to the Philippine archipelago.[10] Tarsius syrichta populations
are generally found in the southeastern part of the archipelago. Established
populations are present particularly on the islands of Bohol, Samar, Leyte and
Mindanao.[3] They have also been found on various isolated islands within its
known range, such as Maripipi Island, Siargao Island, Basilan Island and
Dinagat Island.[2]
[edit] Ecology and life history
Tarsier tree climbing
Tarsier tree climbing
[edit] Habitat
The Philippine Tarsier's habitat is
the second growth, secondary forest, and primary forest from sea level to 700
m.[10] Its habitat also include tropical rainforest with dense vegetation and
trees that offer it protection like tall grasses, bushes and bamboo shoots.
Research findings also show that the
Philippine Tarsier prefer dense, low-level vegetation in secondary forests,
with perching sites averaging 2 meters above the ground.[11]
[edit] Home range
Initial studies show that the
Philippine Tarsier appears to have a home range of 1 to 2 hectares.[3] Recent
research shows that home ranges averaged 6.45 hectares for males and 2.45
hectares for females (MCP and Kernel 95%), allowing for a density of 16 male
and 41 female tarsiers per 100 ha.[12]
Research findings also show that while
both male and female tarsiers are solitary animals, they cross each other's
paths under the cover of nightfall as they hunt for prey. They travel up to one
and a half kilometres across the forest and the optimal area is more than six
hectares.[13]
[edit] Ecosystem roles
Besides human hunters, feral cats
banished from nearby communities are the species' main predators, though some
large birds are known to prey on it as well.[14] Because of its nocturnal and
arboreal habits, the Philippine Tarsier is most likely to fall prey to owls, or
to small carnivores which it can encounter in its canopy homes.
[edit] Feeding ecology
The Philippine Tarsier is carnivorous.
Primarily insectivorous, its diet consists of live insects and it has also been
observed to feed on spiders, small crustaceans, and small vertebrates such as
small lizards and birds. Tarsius syrichta preys on live insects, particularly
crickets and grasshoppers. Upon seizing its prey, the tarsier carries it to its
mouth using both hands.[3]
As predators, the Philippine Tarsier
may help to structure insect communities. To the extent that it is preyed upon
by other animals, it may impact predator populations.
[edit] Behavior
The Philippine Tarsier is a shy
nocturnal[3] animal that leads a mostly hidden life, asleep during the day and
only active to look for food during the night. During the day, it sleeps in
dark hollows close to the ground, near the trunks of trees and shrubs deep in
the impenetrable bushes and forests. They only become active at night, and even
then, with their much better sight and amazing ability to maneuver around
trees, are very well able to avoid humans.[6]
It is arboreal[3] and is a vertical
clinger and leaper,[7] habitually clinging vertically to trees and are capable
of leaping from branch to branch.
The Philippine Tarsier is solitary.
However, it is found to have either monogamous or polygamous mating system.[7]
[edit] Communication
The Philippine Tarsier uses varied
means of communication. Although less vocal than many primate species, it uses
calls which are often associated with territorial maintenance and male-female
spacing.[3] Its "loud call" is a loud piercing single note. When
content, it emits a sound similar to a soft sweet bird-like twill. And when
several tarsiers come together, they have a chirping, locust-like sound.[15]
Its vocal communication is the
distress call made by infants when they are separated from their mothers. It is
also the call made by males to their mates during mating season. Its olfactory
communication is the marking of a scent from the circumoral gland which the
female uses to mark her mate with the gland located around the mouth. It is
also the marking of a male's territory with the use of urine. Its tactile
communication is the social grooming done when one tarsier grooms the other,
removing dead skin and parasites, observed in females on adult males, as well
as in females on their offspring.[7]
[edit] Life history
Tarsier with a baby
Tarsier with a baby
[edit] Reproduction
The Philippine Tarsier's pregnancy or
gestation period lasts about 6 months. The female's estrous cycle lasts 25-28
days.[7] Mating season begins in April to May. The males "plug" the
female’s vagina after intercourse. The female gives birth to one offspring per
gestation. The infant is born with a lot of hair and born with its eyes open.
The females carry their infants in their mouth. A new born can already cling to
branches and in less than a month after birth, it can start leaping.
The Philippine Tarsier reproduces
poorly in captivity.[16]
[edit] Etymology and taxonomic history
The Philippine Tarsier has been called
"the world's smallest monkey" or "smallest primate" by
locals before. However, the Philippine Tarsier is neither a monkey nor the
smallest primate. It is related to other primates, including monkeys, lemurs,
gorillas and humans but it occupies a small evolutionary branch between the
strepsirrhine prosimians, and the haplorrhine simians. While it is a prosimian,
and used to be grouped with the rest of the prosimians, it has some
phylogenetic features that caused scientists to classify it as a haplorrhine
and, therefore, more closely related to apes and monkeys than to the other
prosimians.
The smallest primate is the Pygmy
Mouse Lemur while the smallest monkey is the Pygmy Marmoset. Nevertheless, the
Philippine Tarsier is still one of the smallest primates, and is considered to
be the mammal with the biggest eyes.[citation needed]
Although the species is believed to be
about 45 million years old, and is perhaps one of the oldest land species to continuously
live in the Philippines, it was only introduced to Western biologists in the
18th century through the description given to J. Petiver by the missionary J.G.
Camel of an animal said to have come from the Philippines. Petiver published
Camel's description in 1705 and named the animal Cercopithecus luzonis minimus
which was the basis for Linnaeus' (1758) Simia syrichta and eventually Tarsius
syrichta, the scientific name it is known at present.[17] Among the locals, the
tarsier is known as "mamag", "mago", "magau",
"maomag", "malmag" and "magatilok-iok".[18]
According to records of the Philippine
Tarsier Foundation, three subspecies are presently recognized: Tarsius syrichta
syrichta from Leyte and Samar, Tarsius syrichta fraterculus from Bohol and
Tarsius syrichta carbonarius from Mindanao.[19] The IUCN taxonomic notes lists
two subspecies but that the non-nominate one is poorly defined as present, so
the species is treated as a whole. Tarsius syrichta carbonarius and Tarsius s.
fraterculus: Hill (1955) recognized these taxa as weakly defined subspecies.
Niemitz (1984) found the differences to be insignificant based upon comparisons
with museum specimens. Musser and Dagosto (1987) felt that the available museum
specimens were insufficient to resolve the issue, but mentioned that Heaney
felt that a single male tarsier from Dinagat might be distinct. Groves (2001)
did not recognize subspecies of T. syrichta.[20]
[edit] Importance to humans
There is no known negative impact of
the Philippine Tarsier on humans, just as long as it is in its native
environment. However, when kept as pets, there is a possibility that the
species may spread worms and other parasites to their human owners.
Tarsiers used to be kept as pets or
sold for trade, although their survival in captivity is erratic due to their
need for live insects upon which to feed. Scientists are interested in these
animals because of their unique taxonomic position, and study of tarsiers may
aid human economies.
[edit] Conservation
In 1986, the Philippines Tarsier was
assessed as "Endangered" by the IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre
1986. It was still assessed as "Endangered" by the IUCN Conservation
Monitoring Centre in 1988, as well as in 1990 (IUCN 1990). In 1996, it was
assessed as "Lower Risk/conservation dependent" by Baillie and
Groombridge (1996).[21]
On September 13, 1991, the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), per DENR Administrative Order
Number 48 or DAO 48, listed the Philippine Tarsier as an endangered species:
species and subspecies of wildlife whose populations are in danger of
extinction and whose survival is unlikely if the causal factors continue
operating.[22]
The Philippine Tarsier is listed in
Appendix II of CITES,[23] and the U.S. ESA classifies it as threatened.[24]
In 2000, the IUCN, having continuously
listed the Philippine Tarsier as endangered,[1] further assessed the Tarsius
syrichta in its red list category and criteria as "Data Deficient"
(DD)[2] which means that there is inadequate information to make a direct or
indirect assessment of its risks of extinction based on its distribution and/or
population status. Further, it basically means that it is not known how close
the species is to extinction or if it is a lower risk.
Being classified as such, the sale and
trade of the species is prohibited. In addition, research on the species,
particularly those using invasive techniques, is controlled by the DENR
Environment Management Bureau (DENR-EMB) and requires Environmental Compliance
Certificate/Environmental Impact Statement or ECC/EIS.
[edit] Threats to the species
For the past 45 million years,
tarsiers have inhabited rainforests around the world, but now they only exist
on a few islands in the Philippines, Borneo and Indonesia.[13] In Bohol, the
Philippine Tarsier was a common sight in the southern part of the island until
the 1960s. Since then, the number has dwindled to as few as an estimated 1000
still left in the wild.[citation needed] Once protected by the humid
rainforests and mist-shrouded hills, these mysterious primates struggle to
survive as their home is cleared for crop growing.
Due to the quickly growing human
population, which causes more and more forests to be converted to farmland,
housing areas and roads, the place where the Philippine Tarsier can live its
secluded life is disappearing.[6]
Along this line, the dwindling of
Philippine forests has posed a grave and significant threat to the survival of
the Philippine Tarsier because this results in the destruction of its natural
forest habitat. Indiscriminate and illegal logging, cutting of trees for
firewood, "kaingin" or slash and burn method of agriculture,
urbanization patterns have encroached on the habitats of the tarsier, causing
the tarsier to be threatened or endangered.[25]
In addition, the unabated hunting of
the species by humans for house pets or for trade has contributed to its
decline. Hunting tarsiers to sell as pets was until recently, a thriving
industry. Because of its adorable and benign appearance, many have been lured
to keep the Philippine Tarsier as pets. This demand fuels the capture and
illegal trade of the animal further diminishing its remaining number.[citation
needed] Moreover, the life span is 24 years when living in the wild, but only
12 when in cages and taken care of by people. It is also known to die from
psychological damage when around humans because its instinct is to be out in
the wild. Moreover, its reduced life span in captivity is due to the fact that
it is easily distressed by being displayed and physically handled during the
day contrary to its natural biological rhythm.[citation needed]
Hunters and poachers are also big
threats; not only do they kill the Philippine Tarsier, but they capture them
too. Tarsiers rarely live long in captivity. It has been reported that some
tarsiers were so traumatized by captivity that they committed suicide by
beating their heads against the cages or drowning themselves on the drinking
bowls.
Paradoxically, indigenous superstition
coupled with relatively thick rainforest, particularly in Sarangani province,
have apparently preserved this endangered species. Indigenous tribes leave the
Philippine Tarsiers in the wild because they fear that these animals could
bring bad luck. One belief passed down from ancient times is that they are pets
belonging to spirits dwelling in giant fig trees, known as belete trees. If
someone harms a tarsier they need to apologise to the spirits of the forest, or
it’s thought they will encounter sickness or hardship in life.[13]
[edit] Conservation efforts
[edit] Legislation
Signage at entry to Philippine Tarsier
Foundation Research and Development Center
Signage at entry to Philippine Tarsier
Foundation Research and Development Center
Several legislations have been passed
to protect and conserve the Philippine Tarsier. DENR Administrative Order No.
38, Series of 1991 (DAO No. 38) included the Philippine Tarsier among the
national protected wildlife species and proposed its listing under Appendix 1
of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). More
over, the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group had given the species Conservation
Priority Rating 4, which means that the species is highly vulnerable and
threatened by habitat destruction and/or hunting.
Proclamation 1030 was signed by then
President of the Philippines Fidel V. Ramos on June 23, 1997, declaring the
Philippine Tarsier a specially protected faunal species. [1] The Proclamation
contains that since the Philippine Tarsier, endemic to the Philippines, offers
immense ecological, aesthetic, educational, historical, recreational and
scientific value to the country and to the Filipino people, it is a matter of
national concern since it forms part of the Philippine heritage. The
Proclamation thus prohibits the hunting, killing, wounding, taking away, or
possession of the Philippine Tarsier, but that possession for educational,
scientific, conservation-centered research purposes may be allowed upon
certification of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Secretary. Further, the DENR is also tasked to collaborate with other concerned
government agencies, NGOs, local government units and local communities in the
conduct of accelerated and expanded field researches and to avail of financial
support and technical cooperation from local and international entities, as may
be deemed necessary to implement the provisions of the Proclamation.[26]
Republic Act No. 7586, otherwise known
as the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1991 mandates
the establishment of appropriate sanctuaries to preserve and protect the
Philippine Tarsier.
There are also legislations at the
other local level, including Provincial ordinances and proclamations (Bohol
Province), Municipal Ordinances (Corella), Barangay Ordinances (Canapnapan,
etc.).
On July 30, 2001, Philippine President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed Republic Act No. 9147 otherwise known as the
Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act that provided for the
conservation and protection of wildlife resources and their habitats, including
the Philippine Tarsier, and its inclusion as a flagship species.[27]
[edit] Conservation initiatives
Conserving biological diversity
involves tools like the protection of natural or semi-natural ecosystems, the
restoration and rehabilitation of degraded lands, and ex-situ conservation
techniques.[28] In-situ conservation is the maintenance of plant and animal
genetic material in their natural habitat. The aim of in-situ conservation is
to allow the population to maintain itself within the community of which it
forms part and in the environment to which it is adapted so that it has the
potential for continued evolution.[28] Protected areas are among the most
valuable in situ conservation tool and cost-effective means for preserving
genes, species, and habitats and for maintaining various ecological processes
of importance to humanity. They are set aside to conserve species that cannot
be preserved ex-situ and wild crop relatives. The protected areas system
maintain species diversity by protecting the range of different community types
and by allowing for changes in species' distributions. They do this by
protecting the diversity of physical environments containing a range of
situations to allow organisms to adjust their local distribution in response to
climate change and linking corridors of natural and modified environments,
which will allow species to change their continental distributions.[28]
Reforestation attempts to restore
deforested areas using indigenous tree species are more consistent with
biodiversity conservation strategies such as protected area management and
natural regeneration. This allows for enhanced forest ecological services such
as watershed functions, wildlife habitat, and maintenance. As a result, local
biodiversity is protected and rehabilitated. In trial sites in Leyte, local
fauna has been seen to quickly re-colonize the mixed plantations of
rainforestation cooperators/farmers. Birds and fruit bats initially, and then larger
mammals including Philippine Tarsier (Tarsius syrichta) and Flying Lemur
(Cynocephahis volans) were seen in the sites after four years (Goltenhoth et
al. 2000).[29]
[edit] Philippine debt-for-nature swap
program
To save the Philippine Tarsier from extinction,
the Philippine government has launched various initiatives. Efforts to conserve
the species started in 1988 when a study on the tarsier habitat requirements
was initiated in Corella, Bohol by the Parks and Wildlife Bureau or PAWB under
the financial grant of the Wildlife Conservation International. This was
followed by a Philippine Tarsier Project by Department of Environment and
Natural Resources Region 7 in 1991-1992 under the Debt-for-Nature Swap
Project.[30]
The debt-for-nature swap, first proposed
by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature in 1984, is a scheme in which
conservation organizations acquired title to debt, either by direct donation
from a bank, or by raising the cash to buy it, and then negotiate with the
debtor countries to obtain debt repayment in local currency at a favorable
conversion rate, or to secure conservation measures/activities.[30]
Haribon Foundation was identified as
the local NGO partner in its venture. As the local NGO partner, Haribon
Foundation became the fund manager of the program, thus, all financial
transactions with the Central Bank of the Philippines and the World WWF were
handled while release of funds to all the projects was facilitated. One of the
projects implemented on the first year was the "Endangered Species
Conservation: Philippine Tarsier" supervised by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources or DENR.[31]
[edit] Philippine Tarsier Foundation
Incorporated
Main article: Philippine Tarsier Foundation
PTFI Tarsier Research and Development
Center, Corella,Bohol
PTFI Tarsier Research and Development
Center, Corella,Bohol
The Philippine Tarsier Foundation Inc.
based in Tagbilaran City, Bohol, Philippines is spearheading the campaign to
preserve the Philippine Tarsier. Under a Memorandum of Agreement with the DENR
signed on April 27, 1997, its mission is: to establish a forest reserve on the
island of Bohol which shall serve as the sanctuary of the Philippine Tarsier;
to protect and manage the tarsier sanctuary through the active participation of
local communities; to establish and maintain a wildlife research laboratory for
the study of the ecology and biology of the Philippine Tarsier; to establish
and maintain visitor facilities for ecotourism and disseminate information
material about the Philippine Tarsier with emphasis on the species' protection
and conservation."[32]
To date, the Philippine Tarsier
Foundation has acquired 7.4 hectares of land in Corella, Bohol for the
sanctuary. With the Department of Environment and Natural Resources playing an
oversight role, the foundation has asked other Bohol towns with Philippines
Tarsier populations to donate 20 hectares (49.4 acres) of forestland for
conservation.
It also runs a Tarsier Research and
Development Center, which serves as a visitor center and venue for research, as
well as a habitat preserve.[33] At the sanctuary, a spacious net enclosure
keeps 100 Philippine Tarsiers for feeding, captive breeding and display. Here,
visitors can observe the Philippine Tarsier in their natural habitat. Within
the sanctuary, the Philippine Tarsiers roam freely and all of them have gotten
used to a seven-foot high fence that circumscribes the territory and which
serves mainly to protect them from predators like feral cats. At night,
tarsiers can be seen climbing out of the fence to forage for food farther into
the forest. They return again before daybreak, as if observing a curfew.[26]
[edit] Tarsier Sanctuary captive
display
Captive tarsier display in Loboc,
Bohol
Captive tarsier display in Loboc, Bohol
Because the Philippine Tarsier
sanctuary in Corella, Bohol is off the tourist path,[34] private individuals in
Loboc, Bohol have provided an alternative way for tourists to see them through
their displays of the Philippine Tarsier along the Loboc river banks. This
captive tarsier display is conveniently on the way to other tourist spots in
Bohol, particularly the Chocolate Hills in Carmen town.[35] Despite the
protection status of the Philippine Tarsier, the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources has granted special limited permits for this display of the
Philippine Tarsier in Loboc. Here, tourists can see the Philippine Tarsier up
close and personal and take pictures, but are not allowed to touch them.
Unfortunately, the Philippine Tarsier here are semi-captive, being kept in
cages along the Loboc river. Here, the animals are not in a sanctuary and as
such, these shy animals have miserable lives and normally don't survive for
long.[36] Though they are allowed to leave their cages at night to hunt for
food, this is contrary to the ban on possession of Philippine Tarsier by virtue
of its protected status. Proclamation 1030 states that "the possession of
the Philippine Tarsier is only allowed for educational, scientific,
conservation-centered research purposes upon certification of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary." Further, the
possession of these tarsiers for display encourages their possession as pets.
ccccccc
From 1971 to 2006, there was a
dramatic reduction in the number of feral (wild) honeybees in the US (now
almost absent); and a significant, though somewhat gradual decline in the
number of colonies maintained by beekeepers. This decline includes the
cumulative losses from all factors such as urbanization, pesticide use,
tracheal and Varroa mites, and commercial beekeepers retiring and going out of
business. However, late in the year 2006 and in early 2007 the rate of
attrition was alleged to have reached new proportions, and the term "Colony
Collapse Disorder" was proposed to describe this sudden rash of
disappearances.
Limited occurrences resembling CCD
have been documented as early as 1896,[6][12] and this set of symptoms has in
the past several decades been given many different names (disappearing disease,
spring dwindle, May disease, autumn collapse, and fall dwindle disease).[13]
Most recently, a similar phenomenon in the winter of 2004/2005 occurred, and
was attributed to Varroa mites (the "Vampire Mite" scare), though
this was never ultimately confirmed. Nobody has been able to determine the
cause of any past appearances of this syndrome. Upon recognition that the
syndrome does not seem to be seasonally-restricted, and that it may not be a
"disease" in the standard sense — that there may not be a specific
causative agent — the syndrome was renamed.[14]
Symptoms
A colony which has collapsed from CCD
is generally characterized by all of these conditions occurring
simultaneously[15]:
* Complete absence of
adult bees in colonies, with little or no build-up of dead bees in or around
the colonies.
* Presence of capped
brood in colonies. Bees normally will not abandon a hive until the capped brood
have all hatched.
* Presence of food
stores, both honey and bee pollen:
* i. which are not
immediately robbed by other bees
* ii. which when attacked by hive pests such as wax moth and small hive
beetle, the attack is noticeably delayed.
Precursor symptoms that may arise before the
final colony collapse are:
* Insufficient workforce
to maintain the brood that is present
* Workforce seems to be
made up of young adult bees
* The Queen is present
* The colony members are
reluctant to consume provided feed, such as sugar syrup and protein supplement.
Scale of the disorder
In the U.S., at least 24 different
states[5][16] as well as portions of Canada[17] have reported at least one case
of CCD. However, in many cases, beekeepers reporting significant losses of bees
did not experience CCD, and a major part of the subsequent analysis of the
phenomenon hinges upon distinguishing between true CCD losses and non-CCD
losses.[18] In a survey of 384 responding beekeepers from 13 states, reporting
the number of hives containing few or no bees in spring, only 23.8% met the
specified criteria for CCD (that 50% or more of their dead colonies were found
without bees and/or with very few dead bees in the hive or apiary).[18] In the
US, despite highly variable anecdotal claims appearing in the media, the best
documentation indicates that CCD-suffering operations had a total loss of 45%
compared to the total loss of 25% of all colonies experienced by non-CCD
suffering beekeepers in 2006-2007; it is further noted that non-CCD winter
losses as high as 50% have occurred in some years and regions (e.g., 2000-2001
in Pennsylvania), though "normal" winter losses are typically
considered to be in the range of 15-25%.[18]
There are also putative cases reported
by the media from India, Brazil[19] and parts of Europe.[20] Since the
beginning of the 1990s, France, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Spain,
Greece, Slovenia and the Netherlands have been affected by honey bee
disappearances, though this is not necessarily associated with CCD;[2] Austria and
United Kingdom (where it has been dubbed the "Mary Celeste"
phenomenon, after a ship whose crew disappeared in 1872[21]) have also
reportedly been affected.[4] It is far from certain that all or any of these
reported non-US cases are indeed CCD: there has been considerable publicity,
but only rarely was the phenomenon described in sufficient detail. In Germany,
for example, where some of the first reports of CCD in Europe appeared, and
where — according to the German national association of beekeepers — 40% of the
honey bee colonies died,[4] there has been no scientific confirmation; as of
early May 2007, the German media were reporting that no confirmed CCD cases
seemed to have occurred in Germany.[22]
Possible causes and research
The exact mechanisms of CCD are still
unknown. One report indicates a strong but possibly non-causal association
between the syndrome and the presence of the Israel acute paralysis virus.[8]
Other factors may also be involved, however, and several have been proposed as
causative agents; malnutrition, pesticides, pathogens, immunodeficiencies,
mites, fungus, genetically modified (GM) crops, beekeeping practices (such as
the use of antibiotics, or long-distance transportation of beehives) and
electromagnetic radiation. Whether any single factor is responsible, or a
combination of factors (acting independently in different areas affected by
CCD, or acting in tandem), is still unknown. It is likewise still uncertain
whether CCD is a genuinely new phenomenon, as opposed to a known phenomenon
that previously only had a minor impact.
At present, the primary source of
information, and presumed "lead" group investigating the phenomenon,
is the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group, based primarily at Penn State
University. Their preliminary report pointed out some patterns, but drew no
strong conclusions.[14] A survey of beekeepers early in 2007 indicates that
most hobbyist beekeepers believed that starvation was the leading cause of
death in their colonies, while commercial beekeepers overwhelmingly believed
that invertebrate pests (Varroa mites, honey bee tracheal mites, and/or small
hive beetles) were the leading cause of colony mortality.[18] A scholarly
review in June 2007, similarly addressed numerous theories and possible contributing
factors, but left the issue unresolved.[13]
In July 2007, the USDA released its
"CCD Action Plan", which outlines a strategy for addressing CCD
consisting of four main components:[23]
1. survey and data collection;
2. analysis of samples;
3. hypothesis-driven research; and,
4. mitigation and preventative action.
As of late 2007, there is still no
consensus of opinion, and no definitive causes have emerged; the schedule of
presentations for a planned national symposium on CCD, titled "Colony
Collapse Disorder in Honey Bees: Insight Into Status, Potential Causes, and
Preventive Measures," which is scheduled for December 11, 2007, at the
meeting of the Entomological Society of America in San Diego, California, gives
no indication of any major breakthroughs.[3]
Poor nutrition or malnutrition
One of the patterns reported by the
group at Penn State was that all producers in a preliminary survey noted a
period of "extraordinary stress" affecting the colonies in question
prior to their die-off, most commonly involving poor nutrition and/or
drought.[14] This is the only factor that all of the cases of CCD had in common
in this report; accordingly, there is at least some significant possibility
that the phenomenon is correlated to nutritional stress, and may not manifest
in healthy, well-nourished colonies. This is similar to the findings of a later
independent survey, in which small-scale beekeeping operations (up to 500
colonies) in several states reported their belief that malnutrition and/or weak
colonies was the factor responsible for their bees dying, in over 50% of the
cases, whether the losses were believed to be due to CCD or not.[18]
Some researchers have attributed the
syndrome to the practice of feeding high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) to supplement
winter stores. The variability of HFCS may be relevant to the apparent
inconsistencies of results. European commentators have suggested a possible
connection with HFCS produced from genetically modified corn.[3] If this were
the sole factor involved, however, this should also lead to the exclusive
appearance of CCD in wintering colonies being fed HFCS, but many reports of CCD
occur in other contexts, with beekeepers who do not use HFCS.
Pathogens and immunodeficiency
theories
Further information: Pathogen, immunodeficiency,
and diseases of the honey bee
General
Some researchers have commented that
the pathway of propagation functions in the manner of a contagious disease;
however, there is some sentiment that the disorder may involve an immunosuppressive
mechanism,[24] potentially linked to the aforementioned "stress"
leading to a weakened immune system. Specifically, according to researchers at
Penn State: "The magnitude of detected infectious agents in the adult bees
suggests some type of immunosuppression." These researchers initially
suggested a connection between Varroa destructor mite infestation and CCD,
suggesting that a combination of these bee mites, deformed wing virus (which
the mites transmit) and bacteria work together to suppress immunity and may be
one cause of CCD.[25] This research group is reported to be focusing on a
search for possible viral, bacterial, or fungal pathogens which may be
involved.[14]
When a colony is dying, for whatever
cause, and there are other healthy colonies nearby (as is typical in a bee
yard), those healthy colonies often enter the dying colony and rob its
provisions for their own use. If the dying colony's provisions were
contaminated (by natural or man-made toxins), the resulting pattern (of healthy
colonies becoming sick when in proximity to a dying colony) might suggest to an
observer that a contagious disease is involved. However, it is typical in CCD
cases that provisions of dying colonies are not being robbed, suggesting that
at least this particular mechanism (toxins being spread via robbing, thereby
mimicking a disease) is not involved in CCD.
Additional evidence that CCD might be
an infectious disease came from the following observation: the hives of
colonies that had died from CCD could be reused with a healthy colony only if
they were first treated with DNA-destroying radiation.[8]
Varroa and Israel Acute Paralysis
Virus
According to a 2007 article, the mites
Varroa destructor remain the world's most destructive honey bee killer due in part
to the viruses they carry, including Deformed Wing Virus and Acute bee
paralysis virus, which have both been implicated in CCD.[25] Affliction with
Varroa mites also tends to weaken the immune system of the bees. As such,
Varroa have been considered as a possible cause of CCD, though not all dying
colonies contain these mites.[26]
In September 2007, results of a
large-scale statistical RNA sequencing study of afflicted and non-afflicted
colonies were reported. RNA from all organisms in a colony was sequenced and
compared with sequence databases to detect the presence of pathogens. The study
used technology from 454 Life Sciences developed for human genome sequencing.
All colonies were found to be infected with numerous pathogens, but only the
Israel acute paralysis virus (IAPV) showed a significant association with CCD:
the virus was found in 25 of the 30 tested CCD colonies, and only in one of the
21 tested non-CCD colonies.[8] Scientists pointed out that this association was
no proof of causation, and other factors may also be involved in the disease or
the presence of IAPV may only be a marker signifying afflicted colonies and not
the actual causative agent. To prove causation, experiments are planned to
deliberately infect colonies with the virus.[7]
The IAPV was discovered in 2004 and
belongs to the Dicistroviridae. It causes paralysis in bees which then die
outside of the hive. It can be transmitted by the mite Varroa destructor. These
mites, however, were found in only half of the CCD colonies.[8]
The virus was also found in samples of
Australian honey bees. Australian honey bees have been imported into the U.S.
since 2004[7] and until recently it was thought possible that this is how the
virus originally reached North America. Recent findings, however, reveal the
virus has been present in American bees since 2002.[27][28]
Nosema
Some have suggested that the syndrome
may be an inability by beekeepers to correctly identify known diseases such as
European foulbrood or the microsporidian fungus Nosema. The testing and
diagnosis of samples from affected colonies (already performed) makes this
highly unlikely, as the symptoms are fairly well-known and differ from what is
classified as CCD. A high rate of Nosema infection was reported in samples of
bees from Pennsylvania, but this pattern was not reported from samples
elsewhere.[14]
Mariano Higes, a scientist heading a
team at a government-funded apiculture centre in Guadalajara, Spain, has
reported that when hives of European honey bees were infected with Nosema
ceranae, a recently described microsporidian fungus, the colonies were wiped
out within eight days.[29] Higes has extrapolated from this research to
conclude that CCD is caused by N. ceranae. Higes and his team have worked on
this problem since 2000, and claim to have ruled out many other potential
causes.[30][31] Various areas in Europe have reported this fungus, but no
direct link to CCD has yet been established.[32][33] Highly preliminary
evidence of N. ceranae was recently reported in a few hives in the Merced
Valley area of California (USA).[34][35] The researcher did not, however,
believe this was conclusive evidence of a link to CCD; "We don't want to
give anybody the impression that this thing has been solved."[36] A USDA
bee scientist has similarly stated, "while the parasite Nosema ceranae may
be a factor, it cannot be the sole cause. The fungus has been seen before,
sometimes in colonies that were healthy."[37] Likewise, a Washington State
beekeeper familiar with N. ceranae in his own hives discounts it as being the
cause of CCD.[38] A study reported in September 2007 found that 100% of
afflicted and 80% of non-afflicted colonies contained Nosema ceranae.[8]
The primary antibiotic used against
Nosema is Fumagillin, which has been used in a German research project to
reduce the microsporidian's impact, and is mentioned as a possible remedy by
the CCDWG.[39]
Pesticides
Further information: Pesticide toxicity to bees
One of the more common general
hypotheses concerns pesticides (or, more specifically, insecticides), though
several studies have found no common environmental factors between unrelated
outbreaks studied.
It is particularly difficult to
evaluate pesticide contributions to CCD for several reasons. First, the variety
of pesticides in use in the different areas reporting CCD makes it difficult to
test for all possible pesticides simultaneously. Second, many commercial
beekeeping operations are mobile, transporting hives over large geographic
distances over the course of a season, potentially exposing the colonies to
different pesticides at each location. Third, the bees themselves place pollen
and honey into long-term storage, effectively meaning that there may be a delay
of anywhere from days to months before contaminated provisions are fed to the
colony, negating any attempts to associate the appearance of symptoms with the
actual time at which exposure to pesticides occurred. Pesticides used on bee
forage are far more likely to enter the colony via the pollen stores rather
than via nectar (because pollen is carried externally on the bees, while nectar
is carried internally, and may kill the bee if too toxic), though not all
potentially lethal chemicals, either natural or man-made, affect the adult bees
— many primarily affect the brood, but brood die-off does not appear to be
happening in CCD. Most significantly, brood are not fed honey, and adult bees
consume relatively little pollen; accordingly, the pattern in CCD suggests that
if contaminants or toxins from the environment are responsible, it is most
likely to be via the honey, as it is the adults that are dying (or leaving),
not the brood.
One recently published view is that
bees are falling victim to new varieties of nicotine-based pesticides;[40][41]
beekeepers in Canada are also losing their bees and are blaming neonicotinoid
pesticides. To date, most of the evaluation of possible roles of pesticides in
CCD have relied on the use of surveys submitted by beekeepers, but it seems
likely that direct testing of samples from affected colonies will be needed,
especially given the possible role of systemic insecticides such as the
neonicotinoid imidacloprid (which are applied to the soil and taken up into the
plant's tissues, including pollen and nectar), which may be applied to a crop
when the beekeeper is not present. The known effects of imidacloprid on
insects, including honey bees, are consistent with the symptoms of CCD;[42] for
example, the effects of imidacloprid on termites include apparent failure of
the immune system, and disorientation.[43] In Europe the interaction of the
phenomenon of "dying bees" with imidacloprid, has been discussed for
quite some time now.[44][45][46] It was a study from the "Comité
Scientifique et Technique (CST)" which was in the center of discussion
recently, which led to a partial ban of imidacloprid in France (known as
Gaucho), primarily due to concern over potential effects on honey
bees.[47][48][49] Consequently when fipronil, a phenylpyrazole insecticide and
in Europe mainly labeled "Regent", was used as a replacement, it was
also found to be toxic to bees, and banned partially in France in 2004.[50] In
February 2007, about forty French deputies, led by UMP member Jacques Remiller,
requested the creation of a Parliamentary Investigation Commission on
Overmortality of Bees, underlining that the honey production was decreasing by
1,000 tons a year for a decade. As of August 2007, no investigations were yet
opened.[31] The imidacloprid pesticide Gaucho was banned, however, in 1999 by
the French Minister of Agriculture Jean Glavany. Five other insecticides based
on fipronil were also accused of killing bees. However, the scientific
committees of the European Union are still of the opinion "that the
available monitoring studies were mainly performed in France and
EU-member-states should consider the relevance of these studies for the
circumstances in their country."[51]
In 2005, a team of scientists led by
the National Institute of Beekeeping in Bologna, Italy, found that pollen
obtained from seeds dressed with imidacloprid contains significant levels of
the insecticide, and suggested that the polluted pollen might cause honey bee
colony death.[52] Analysis of maize and sunflower crops originating from seeds
dressed with imidacloprid suggest that large amounts of the insecticide will be
carried back to honey bee colonies.[53] Sub-lethal doses of imidacloprid in
sucrose solution have also been documented to affect homing and foraging
activity of honeybees.[54] Imidacloprid in sucrose solution fed to bees in the
laboratory impaired their communication for a few hours.[55] Sub-lethal doses
of imidacloprid in laboratory and field experiment decreased flight activity
and olfactory discrimination, and olfactory learning performance was
impaired.[56] However, no detailed studies of toxicity or pesticide residue in
remaining honey or pollen in CCD-affected colonies have been published so far,
so, despite the similarity in symptoms, no connection of neonicotinoids to CCD
has yet been confirmed.
Antibiotics and miticides
Most beekeepers affected by CCD report
that they use antibiotics and miticides in their colonies, though the lack of
uniformity as to which particular chemicals are used[14] makes it seem unlikely
that any single such chemical is involved. However, it is possible that not all
such chemicals in use have been tested for possible effects on honey bees, and
could therefore potentially be contributing to the CCD phenomenon.[13] Some
reports indicate that organic beekeepers (who do not use antibiotics or
miticides) are not affected by CCD, despite proximity to non-organic beekeepers
that have been affected.[57]
Genetically modified crops (GMO)
Further information: Genetically modified
organism
Potential effects on honey bees of
gathering pollen and nectar from genetically modified (GM) crops that produce
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin have been investigated, and there is scant
evidence of deleterious effects on bees visiting such crops. Corn (maize), the
major such crop, is not a preferred plant for honey bees, although beekeepers
who keep bees near corn fields state that "corn is an excellent source of
pollen when in tassel".[40] Cotton, the second important Bt crop, is
highly subject to bee visitation for nectar (pollen is only consumed if there
is no other pollen available),[58] but there is no credible evidence of
toxicity of GM cotton, other than that from insecticides used during bloom.
The Sierra Club Genetic Engineering
Committee recently published a letter to Senator Thomas Harkin on the web.[9]
They are of the opinion that "highly respected scientists believe that
exposure to genetically engineered crops and their plant-produced pesticides
merit serious consideration as either the cause or a contributory factor to the
development and spread of CCD." Nine literature references which might
support this theory are cited.[9]
The primary effect of Bt on insects is
in the larval stage. Thus the studies on Bt-toxins and effects on honey bees
originally concentrated more on larvae and their development. However, as
pollen is an important part of bee bread, which is also food for adult bees,
some beekeepers think that adult bees may be more affected by ingredients of
pollen, because adult bees are something like a filter for larvae. And as the
CCD phenomenon involves the disappearance of the adult bees, some think there
could be a direct connection[59] despite the absence of symptoms in the larvae,
and despite any evidence that the bees experiencing CCD have ever been exposed
to GM crops.
In 2005, Bt maize, which has been
commercially planted in the U.S. since 1996, accounted for 35% (106,400 km²) of the total U.S. maize plantings.
GM insect-resistant Bt cotton has also been grown commercially in the U.S.
since 1996, and by 2005, was planted on 52% (28,000 km²) of total cotton plantings.[60]
According to David Hackenberg, former president of the American Beekeeping
Federation, and who has been leading the publicizing of information concerning
CCD, "beekeepers that have been most affected so far have been close to
corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, sunflowers, apples, vine crops and
pumpkins", though he personally attributes CCD to neonicotinoid pesticides
applied to these crops.[40] Thus, some Bt plants may have been visited by honey
bees that later exhibited CCD. However, similar massive bee die-offs (or
disappearances) have been recorded for decades prior to the introduction of
these crops,[6] and also "have occurred in Europe and areas of Canada
where Bt crops were not grown."[61] According to the European Union's GMO
Compass, Bt maize is grown in Spain, France, Czech Republic, Portugal, Germany
and Slovakia [4][5]. Various documents relating to U.S. risk assessment studies
on Bt in relation to honey bees are published on the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) homepage for Biopesticides Registration Action
Documents;[62][63][64] there is no indication that any of these studies found
effects of Bt pollen on honey bees.
In 2004, the knowledge of GMO
authorization agencies was mainly based on a comprehensive review of the
scientific literature published in Bee World[65] which examined the effects of
various commercialized and uncommercialized transgenes on honey bees. The
review concludes that "evidence available so far shows that none of the GM
plants currently commercially available have significant impacts on honey bee
health." However, in 2005 a new publication in the Journal Apidologie[66]
indicated that foraging activity of bees fed with CRY1Ab may decline
continuously through the treatment stages without any recovery between
treatments (though in the treatment with CRY1Ab-enriched feed, no significant
differences in bee mortality were found at different treatment stages). The
European Union GMO Panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) did not
share the view by the authors “that the above results were mainly CRY1Ab
dependent.” The Panel was of the opinion that “negative effects on bees are
likely not directly associated with exposure to the CRY1Ab protein because of
the design of the experiment and lack of simultaneous controls or
replication.[67]
A research study conducted in Germany
suggested that rather than having a direct effect, exposure to Bt maize pollen
may weaken the adult bees' defense against Nosema, though in the absence of
such an infection, there were no detectable effects: "When the trial was
repeated the colonies were treated prophylactically with antibiotics to prevent
re-infection…This indicates that healthy bee colonies are not impaired in any way
by the toxin in any of the tested vital functions of colony size, foraging
activity, brood care activity or development, even when exposed to extreme
levels of Bt maize pollen over a period of six weeks."[68] However, if
"the bee colonies happened to be infested with parasites (microsporidia),
this infestation led to a reduction in the number of bees and subsequently to
reduced broods.... This effect was significantly more marked in the Bt-fed
colonies." It has further been suggested that "genetically modified corn
may have altered the surface of the bee's intestines, sufficiently weakening
the bees to allow the parasites to gain entry—or perhaps it was the other way
around", though it was also noted "Of course, the concentration of
the toxin was ten times higher in the experiments than in normal Bt corn
pollen. In addition, the bee feed was administered over a relatively lengthy
six-week period."[69] Other more recent studies have failed to show any
adverse effects of Bt pollen on healthy bee colonies,[61] but the possibility
that Bt pollen weakens already unhealthy colonies has not been explored.
The preliminary report of the Colony
Collapse Disorder Working Group[6] concerning "Fall Dwindle
Disease"[14] indicated that "all PA samples were found to have Nosema
spores in their rectal contents. The sting gland of many examined bees was
obviously scarred with distinct black “marks”; this type of pin-point
melanization or darkening is indicative of an immune response to some sort of
pathogen." If the bees in Pennsylvania were gathering Bt-toxin-containing
corn pollen, it could potentially have interacted with Nosema and thus
contributed to CCD in those colonies; however, there is no evidence that these
colonies were gathering corn pollen at any point prior to their deaths, nor has
it been reported that colonies afflicted by CCD elsewhere had been collecting
corn pollen. Many of the colonies reported to be dying from CCD occur in
locations where GM corn is not grown (at least in the United States; also, 5 of
the 10 states with the greatest amount of corn production, including GM corn --
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska -- have had no reported cases
of CCD[16][13]), nor have bees from other areas outside of Pennsylvania been
reported to be significantly infected by Nosema (e.g.,[14]).
In 2006 the "Committee on Status
and Trends of Pollinators" of the United States National Research Council
published a report on the "Status of Pollinators in North
America".[70] It suggested that GMO, besides other factors, might
contribute to pollinator decline because, according to one scientific review of
"the small literature on this topic, ... in some cases, there are negative
but sublethal effects attributable to consumption of transgenic pollens."
The report goes on to say that, "These effects varied with the identity of
the transgene and the amount of its expression, but in no case have any effects
of transgenic crops on honey bee populations been documented."[71]
On March 28, 2007, the
"Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium"[72]
published a new "Summary of Research on the Non-Target Effects of Bt Corn
Pollen on Honeybees", which states that according to "a field study…
(soon to be published in the bee journal Apidologie) there is no evidence thus
far of any lethal or sub-lethal effects of the currently used Bt proteins on
honey bees", and, specifically regarding the possible causal connections
between Bt pollen and CCD, stated "While this possibility has not been
ruled out, the weight of evidence reported here argues strongly that the
current use of Bt crops is not associated with CCD."[61]
Bee rentals and migratory beekeeping
Further information: Beekeeping
Moving spring bees from South Carolina
to Maine for blueberry pollination
Moving spring bees from South Carolina
to Maine for blueberry pollination
Since US beekeeper Nephi Miller first
began moving his hives to different areas of the country for the winter of
1908, migratory beekeeping has become widespread in America.
Bee rental for pollination is a
crucial element of US agriculture, which could not produce anywhere near its
current levels with native pollinators alone.[73] US beekeepers collectively
earn much more from renting their bees out for pollination than they do from
honey production.
Researchers are concerned that
trucking colonies around the country to pollinate crops, where they intermingle
with other bees from all over, helps spread viruses and mites among colonies.
Additionally, such continuous movement and re-settlement is considered by some
a strain and disruption for the entire hive, possibly rendering it less
resistant to all sorts of systemic disorder.[74]
US bee rental travel extent
One major US beekeeper reports moving
his hives from Idaho to California in January, then to apple orchards in
Washington in March, to North Dakota two months later, and then back to Idaho
by November -- a journey of several thousand kilometres. Others move from
Florida to New Hampshire or to Texas; nearly all visit California for the
almond bloom in January.
Beekeepers in Europe and Asia are
generally far less mobile, with bee populations moving and mingling within a
smaller geographic extent (although some keepers do move longer distances, it
is much less common).
This wider spread and intermingling in
the US has resulted in far greater losses from Varroa mite infections in recent
years.[75]
Climate change
Some beekeepers think the culprit may
be climate change, in which the earth as a whole is warming but regional and
local temperatures may drop much lower or rise higher than normal.
"Erratic weather patterns caused by global warming could play havoc with
bees’ sensitive cycles. A lot of northeastern U.S. beekeepers say a late cold
snap is what did the damage to them this year" [6]. Indeed an unusually
dry and warm winter prevented the flowering of many plants, "If there is
not a common thread, such as a pathogen seen in many of the affected colonies,
Professor Eric Mussen of UC Davis said he is convinced that a nutritional
deficit helps explain how the honeybees were weakened by the smorgasbord of
potential causes of death. That is because dry conditions, certainly in
California, did not produce flowers in which bees find their required mix of
pollens, he said ... 'In many situations the bees were weakened by not being
able to get a nice mix of nutrients that they needed from the pollens, and I
think that weakened them,' he said. 'Under those circumstances you can take all
the other (causes), and there are plenty of them, and combine them together and
down go the bees'" [7].
No comments:
Post a Comment