Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeMore caution please
Posted by WackesSeppi on 14 Jan 2014 at 12:18 GMT
1. The authors should have specified in the summary that they have developped a theoretical construction which does not describe the real world in absolute terms but allows (at best) some comparisons between years and between countries.
More generally, authors of scientific articles likely to get some attention from the media and the public should take care to minimise the risk of overinterpretation and misrepresentation. Setting out the limits of the study and the caveats towards the end of the article is not good enough : the scaremongers don't read that far!
2. In that respect, the title of the paper is already quite objectionable. There is a mismatch under the – acrobatic – assumptions of the study. Whether there is one in reality is not demonstrated. In fact, there are no reports, at least as far as I am aware, of crop losses due to underpollination arising from pollinator shortages in Europe.
3. The results are only shown in the form of maps with fairly large intervals. A table with the « real » figures would have been most welcome.
4. There seems to be an error in Figure 1. France is shown as having witnessed an increase of between 10 and 50 % of its honeybee stocks whilst there has been a decrease. The area under – misnamed – main biofuel crops would have declined by between 10 and 50%? Strange.
5. It is a pity that the most interesting and useful comments of the end got lost in the media scaremongering.
RE: More caution please
TDBreeze replied to WackesSeppi on 14 Jan 2014 at 14:28 GMT
Thank you for your comments. In response to your specific points:
1. It is the view of the authors that the assumptions are made clear in the methods, although the implications are not expanded upon until the discussion. With regards to the media, the paper has received an exceptional amount of coverage and the authors have been clear to stress the limitations of the study, including that it does not show a decline in honeybees in several countries or a loss of yields. However in most cases the media will not read the paper at all - they will only read the press release provided to them.
2. While no actual loss of yield has been demonstrated, as is emphasized within the study, there is also no evidence that yields are at peak. Furthermore the purpose of the study is not one of actual benefit provided or lost but of security - were wild pollinators to collapse, several countries do not have the stocks to provide services.
3. The data in question is available in Supplemental 5, however this was not included within the article due to the sheer size of tables.
4. There is indeed an copy-error in figure 1. Figure 1a should be 1b, 1b should be 1c and 1a should be 1c. This is in the process of being corrected.