8 ms·

Life finds a way. I think in some ways, CCD has probably "pruned" the bee population in a good way. Beekeeping allowed weaker hives that would have normally die

by c-slice 11y ago

Life finds a way. I think in some ways, CCD has probably "pruned" the bee population in a good way. Beekeeping allowed weaker hives that would have normally died off in the wild to continue to spawn new hives. CCD has reversed that trend, and may have improved the overall strength of the bee population genetics.

maratd 11y ago
> CCD has probably "pruned" the bee population in a good way A reduction in the population is never a good thing. Is this some sort of neo-eugenics viewpoint? Pruning the population will not create some sort of super-bee. That's not how it works. It will enhance whatever qualities are being selected for, but it will reduce the genetic diversity in the population, making it vulnerable to a hole raft of new diseases and disorders. Ideally what you want is for the genetic variant that protects against a specific disease to be already within the population and for that variant to simply spread, without any population loss. If you're losing population, that is a BAD thing. That means things are happening too quickly and you're in for a world of hurt in the long-term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
- pauloday 11y ago
  Well I wouldn't say population reduction is never a good thing, but it's probably pretty obvious when it's needed.
  - vlehto 11y ago
    But the way it should be reduced would be by limiting "family size" not "family number". This allows for higher genetic diversity among the population. Which is always a good thing for long term survival or future genetic engineering experiments.
- rrss1122 11y ago
  It seems that the way beekeepers raise bees, spreading positive genetic variants happens often. They split healthy colonies into two to hedge their bets against bad colonies bringing down the entire population.
  - bsder 11y ago
    Evolution doesn't work that way. Your genetic variant is positive for what? If you select for resistance to CCD, other characteristics can (and will) vary negatively. Organisms have a finite amount of energy to grow and breed. If increased energy is channeled into one particular characteristic, then there is less energy for other characteristics.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Yours is a needlessly inflammatory response to what was in fact a reasonable question. Eugenics is a philosophy that suggests human breeding should be controlled to select for favored features. It's disfavored for a variety of obvious reasons that connect to our principals about the unique value of human life. Honey bees are livestock. Livestock has been selectively bred for millennia, and discussions of long-term genetic selection among honey bees is not an indicator that participants believe in eugenics.
  - maratd 11y ago
    > ... to what was in fact a reasonable question. There was no question. It was a statement. > Yours is a needlessly inflammatory response ... I'm sorry, but what word would you use to describe the theory that selective pressures that decimate a population will eventually result in a superior specimen? It may be inflammatory, but that's the only word that came to mind.
    - marknutter 11y ago
      How about "genetic engineering".
      - maratd 11y ago
        Genetic engineering doesn't necessarily result in a population reduction.
      - klibertp 11y ago
        I don't think genetic engineering involves killing off large chunks of a population just because it - for the moment - pays off. I'm not a specialist, though, so I may well be wrong here...
      - mpdehaan2 11y ago
        Natural selection. See also "unnatural selection" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIeYPHCJ1B8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIeYPHCJ1B8
    - 11y ago
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Reduction in population allocates more reproduction-relevant resources to the survivors. Resistance genes spread faster if the threat kills the non-resistant. (It is much easier to outcompete a corpse than an invalid.) But ancestor post is also presuming that it is possible for bees to acquire genetic resistance to CCD. As we are not entirely certain about the exact mechanism involved, which may or may not have something to do with pesticides, chemicals in HFCS, dietary deficiency disease, or mites, it's hard to say whether any random mutation could protect against CCD without also making the colony unable to reproduce. For instance, if CCD is caused by a dietary deficiency, a colony is very unlikely to spontaneously acquire the ability to synthesize the missing nutrient, unless the species lost that ability at some point. For instance, it is far more likely that humans could re-acquire the ability to synthesize ascorbate than it is that we might spontaneously gain the ability to synthesize our own omega-3 fatty acids. E. coli evolution experiments show it is possible, but the selection pressure has to be maintained over thousands of generations. Applied human brainpower to the specific mechanisms of the threat is going to cure CCD much faster than bee breeding, which in turn is faster than natural bee evolution. The only good behind the pruning of the population is that it is scaring the human agricultural industry into investing resources to stop further losses.
tehchromic 11y ago
You are right and wrong. It's true that introduction of new diseases and parasites were a part of what is called CCD, and to the extent that hives with genetic strategies both of immunity and behavior were the survivors in the usual evolutionary way, then the remaining stock should be more robust (although of course that isn't necessarily "weaker" hives, and who knows what kinds of genetic variation was lost due to a lack of a particular success strategy against varroa for example). However, CCD is rightfully attributed to pesticides, fungicides, and a host of other human created stress factors on bees. Colonies survive these collateral stresses for the most part by luck, and not by any generic advantage. You are right that beekeepers have artificially extended generations of bees whose natural defenses might have failed against new parasites and diseases (that we ourselves imported into their populations), and that some die off was inevitable as result of natural balance being reached, but I'd say there is a good argument to be made that CCD interfered with this process rather than aiding it.

by c-slice 11y ago

maratd 11y ago

> CCD has probably "pruned" the bee population in a good way A reduction in the population is never a good thing. Is this some sort of neo-eugenics viewpoint? Pruning the population will not create some sort of super-bee. That's not how it works. It will enhance whatever qualities are being selected for, but it will reduce the genetic diversity in the population, making it vulnerable to a hole raft of new diseases and disorders. Ideally what you want is for the genetic variant that protects against a specific disease to be already within the population and for that variant to simply spread, without any population loss. If you're losing population, that is a BAD thing. That means things are happening too quickly and you're in for a world of hurt in the long-term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck

pauloday 11y ago
Well I wouldn't say population reduction is never a good thing, but it's probably pretty obvious when it's needed.
- vlehto 11y ago
  But the way it should be reduced would be by limiting "family size" not "family number". This allows for higher genetic diversity among the population. Which is always a good thing for long term survival or future genetic engineering experiments.
rrss1122 11y ago
It seems that the way beekeepers raise bees, spreading positive genetic variants happens often. They split healthy colonies into two to hedge their bets against bad colonies bringing down the entire population.
- bsder 11y ago
  Evolution doesn't work that way. Your genetic variant is positive for what? If you select for resistance to CCD, other characteristics can (and will) vary negatively. Organisms have a finite amount of energy to grow and breed. If increased energy is channeled into one particular characteristic, then there is less energy for other characteristics.
tptacek 11y ago
Yours is a needlessly inflammatory response to what was in fact a reasonable question. Eugenics is a philosophy that suggests human breeding should be controlled to select for favored features. It's disfavored for a variety of obvious reasons that connect to our principals about the unique value of human life. Honey bees are livestock. Livestock has been selectively bred for millennia, and discussions of long-term genetic selection among honey bees is not an indicator that participants believe in eugenics.
- maratd 11y ago
  > ... to what was in fact a reasonable question. There was no question. It was a statement. > Yours is a needlessly inflammatory response ... I'm sorry, but what word would you use to describe the theory that selective pressures that decimate a population will eventually result in a superior specimen? It may be inflammatory, but that's the only word that came to mind.
  - marknutter 11y ago
    How about "genetic engineering".
    - maratd 11y ago
      Genetic engineering doesn't necessarily result in a population reduction.
    - klibertp 11y ago
      I don't think genetic engineering involves killing off large chunks of a population just because it - for the moment - pays off. I'm not a specialist, though, so I may well be wrong here...
    - mpdehaan2 11y ago
      Natural selection. See also "unnatural selection" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIeYPHCJ1B8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIeYPHCJ1B8
  - 11y ago
logfromblammo 11y ago
Reduction in population allocates more reproduction-relevant resources to the survivors. Resistance genes spread faster if the threat kills the non-resistant. (It is much easier to outcompete a corpse than an invalid.) But ancestor post is also presuming that it is possible for bees to acquire genetic resistance to CCD. As we are not entirely certain about the exact mechanism involved, which may or may not have something to do with pesticides, chemicals in HFCS, dietary deficiency disease, or mites, it's hard to say whether any random mutation could protect against CCD without also making the colony unable to reproduce. For instance, if CCD is caused by a dietary deficiency, a colony is very unlikely to spontaneously acquire the ability to synthesize the missing nutrient, unless the species lost that ability at some point. For instance, it is far more likely that humans could re-acquire the ability to synthesize ascorbate than it is that we might spontaneously gain the ability to synthesize our own omega-3 fatty acids. E. coli evolution experiments show it is possible, but the selection pressure has to be maintained over thousands of generations. Applied human brainpower to the specific mechanisms of the threat is going to cure CCD much faster than bee breeding, which in turn is faster than natural bee evolution. The only good behind the pruning of the population is that it is scaring the human agricultural industry into investing resources to stop further losses.

tehchromic 11y ago

You are right and wrong. It's true that introduction of new diseases and parasites were a part of what is called CCD, and to the extent that hives with genetic strategies both of immunity and behavior were the survivors in the usual evolutionary way, then the remaining stock should be more robust (although of course that isn't necessarily "weaker" hives, and who knows what kinds of genetic variation was lost due to a lack of a particular success strategy against varroa for example). However, CCD is rightfully attributed to pesticides, fungicides, and a host of other human created stress factors on bees. Colonies survive these collateral stresses for the most part by luck, and not by any generic advantage. You are right that beekeepers have artificially extended generations of bees whose natural defenses might have failed against new parasites and diseases (that we ourselves imported into their populations), and that some die off was inevitable as result of natural balance being reached, but I'd say there is a good argument to be made that CCD interfered with this process rather than aiding it.