An exchange with ChatGPT this morning

[Antipodes]

First: I'm talking about the general tendency, the general situation.

So: under what circumstances might treated bees develop resistance, and how would that work, what can you say about the mechanisms (in each circumstance)?

Not an answer to that question Beesnaturally, but I wondered, is it true that about 1/3 of UK beekeepers don't treat for varroa? I was reading that in an article today.
I also read that there used to be "bee-driving" competitions. I'm trying to imagine how they were done?
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/is-beekeeping-wrong

 

[Beesnaturally]

See the second point four of your original post, which Chat GPT wrote in response to your own query. If you actually read the outputs you see it self contradicts.

The facts that firstly this happened and secondly you didn't notice should give you pause for thought.

BTW it's GTP, not GDP. Ruddy TLAs.

Anyway, that's me done on this thread as it's now marking season so I have 'better' things to do.

Good point. It seems like it might have taken my assertion and fed it back to me. I went back to GPT (thanks - my bad - GPD got stuck in my brain somehow):

MB
Yesterday you asserted :Genetic Diversity: Frequent treatments can also reduce genetic diversity within managed colonies" Can you expand on that?


ChatGPT
Certainly, I'd be happy to expand on the idea of genetic diversity and its relationship to frequent treatments in managed bee colonies.

Genetic diversity refers to the variety of different genes within a population. In the context of honeybee colonies, genetic diversity is crucial for several reasons:

1. Adaptability: Genetic diversity allows populations to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Different individuals within a population may possess unique genetic traits that become advantageous in response to specific challenges, such as pests or diseases.
2. Resilience: Populations with higher genetic diversity are often more resilient to diseases and parasites. If a particular threat affects some individuals, those with different genetic traits may be less susceptible, contributing to the overall health of the population.

Now, when frequent treatments are applied in managed bee colonies:

1. Selective Pressure: Regular treatments for pests like varroa mites create a selective pressure on the bee population. The treatments may eliminate or reduce the reproduction of individuals that are susceptible to the treatment but not necessarily to the pest itself.
2. Loss of Diversity: If treatments are consistently applied, colonies that survive may share similar genetic traits that allow them to withstand the treatment. Over time, this can lead to a reduction in genetic diversity within the managed colonies.
3. Reduced Adaptability: A population with reduced genetic diversity may have limited resources to draw upon when facing new challenges. This lack of variability could hinder the ability of the population to adapt and evolve in response to changing environmental conditions.

In summary, frequent treatments, while effective in the short term for managing specific issues, can inadvertently contribute to a reduction in genetic diversity within managed honeybee colonies. This emphasizes the importance of finding a balance between managing immediate threats and allowing natural selection to operate, promoting the long-term health and resilience of the bee population. Strategies like selective breeding and fostering natural resistance can be employed to strike this balance."

---
That isn't how I would have answered that, but I suspect its on to something. The crux is in premises 1 and 2. But it needs some unpicking.

Anybody?

BTW I would have answered, as I wrote yesterday, by reference to the damage done to wild and feral colonies through the injection of unresistant genes.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Not an answer to that question Beesnaturally, but I wondered, is it true that about 1/3 of UK beekeepers don't treat for varroa?

I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me. However if you asked how many hived colonies are regularly treated, the commercials would push the numbers in the opposite direction.

 

[mbc]

Not an answer to that question Beesnaturally, but I wondered, is it true that about 1/3 of UK beekeepers don't treat for varroa? I was reading that in an article today.
I also read that there used to be "bee-driving" competitions. I'm trying to imagine how they were done?
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/is-beekeeping-wrong

No, but as there's a legal requirement to keep records of hive treatments and generic oxalic acid isnt really allowed under our rules, hence it's much easier to declare oneself treatment free than poke your head above the parapet, skewing any statistics gathered on the subject beyond plausibility.

 

[Wilco]

Good point. It seems like it might have taken my assertion and fed it back to me. I went back to GPT (thanks - my bad - GPD got stuck in my brain somehow):

MB
Yesterday you asserted :Genetic Diversity: Frequent treatments can also reduce genetic diversity within managed colonies" Can you expand on that?


ChatGPT
Certainly, I'd be happy to expand on the idea of genetic diversity and its relationship to frequent treatments in managed bee colonies.

Genetic diversity refers to the variety of different genes within a population. In the context of honeybee colonies, genetic diversity is crucial for several reasons:

1. Adaptability: Genetic diversity allows populations to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Different individuals within a population may possess unique genetic traits that become advantageous in response to specific challenges, such as pests or diseases.
2. Resilience: Populations with higher genetic diversity are often more resilient to diseases and parasites. If a particular threat affects some individuals, those with different genetic traits may be less susceptible, contributing to the overall health of the population.

Now, when frequent treatments are applied in managed bee colonies:

1. Selective Pressure: Regular treatments for pests like varroa mites create a selective pressure on the bee population. The treatments may eliminate or reduce the reproduction of individuals that are susceptible to the treatment but not necessarily to the pest itself.
2. Loss of Diversity: If treatments are consistently applied, colonies that survive may share similar genetic traits that allow them to withstand the treatment. Over time, this can lead to a reduction in genetic diversity within the managed colonies.
3. Reduced Adaptability: A population with reduced genetic diversity may have limited resources to draw upon when facing new challenges. This lack of variability could hinder the ability of the population to adapt and evolve in response to changing environmental conditions.

In summary, frequent treatments, while effective in the short term for managing specific issues, can inadvertently contribute to a reduction in genetic diversity within managed honeybee colonies. This emphasizes the importance of finding a balance between managing immediate threats and allowing natural selection to operate, promoting the long-term health and resilience of the bee population. Strategies like selective breeding and fostering natural resistance can be employed to strike this balance."

---
That isn't how I would have answered that, but I suspect its on to something. The crux is in premises 1 and 2. But it needs some unpicking.

Anybody?

BTW I would have answered, as I wrote yesterday, by reference to the damage done to wild and feral colonies through the injection of unresistant genes.

Groan, time for a break.

I used to get the T and the P the wrong way round.

The issue is point 1. Which treatments (apart from maybe MAQs) kill off the colony? Treatments generally have the opposite effect so the argument fails.

Conversely, if wanting more genetic diversity, not treating is a problem because colonies are more likely to die with untreated varroa (assuming a world where not all colonies are 'resistant', which I think you'll accept) so you lose the diversity of genetics that they contributed, particularly reduction in their contribution to variation of all other traits unrelated to varroa survival.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Groan, time for a break.

I used to get the T and the P the wrong way round.

The issue is point 1. Which treatments (apart from maybe MAQs) kill off the colony? Treatments generally have the opposite effect so the argument fails.

Conversely, if wanting more genetic diversity, not treating is a problem because colonies are more likely to die with untreated varroa (assuming a world where not all colonies are 'resistant', which I think you'll accept) so you lose the diversity of genetics that they contributed, particularly reduction in their contribution to variation of all other traits unrelated to varroa survival.

I thought that strange until I looked closely. Its possible I may have to look more closely yet of course:

I've wangled from GPT the following explanation for that line:

Can you elaborate on this line: "The treatments may eliminate or reduce the reproduction of individuals that are susceptible to the treatment but not necessarily to the pest itself."

ChatGPT
Certainly: "The treatments may eliminate or reduce the reproduction of individuals that are susceptible to the treatment but not necessarily to the pest itself."
When beekeepers apply treatments for varroa mites:

1. Targeting Varroa Mites: The primary goal of these treatments is to control and reduce the population of varroa mites, which are parasitic pests that can have detrimental effects on honeybee colonies.
2. Impact on Individual Bees: The treatments used against varroa mites may not affect all individual bees in the colony uniformly. Some bees may be more susceptible to the treatment due to factors like age, genetics, or physiological conditions.
3. Selective Effect on Reproduction: If the treatment has a selective impact on certain individuals, especially those involved in reproduction such as queens and drones, it can influence the genetic diversity of the colony. The treatment may reduce the reproduction of individuals that are susceptible to the treatment but not necessarily to the varroa mites themselves.
4. Unintended Genetic Consequences: While the primary aim is to control varroa mites, the unintended consequence is that the treatment may selectively impact bees within the colony, potentially affecting the genetic composition of the population. This can lead to a reduction in genetic diversity, which is crucial for the long-term health and adaptability of the colony.

In summary, the line highlights the potential for varroa treatments to have a selective impact on individual bees within the colony, particularly those involved in reproduction, and the potential genetic consequences that may arise from this selective pressure. This emphasizes the importance of considering not only the immediate effects on varroa mites but also the broader impact on the health and genetic diversity of honeybee populations."

Its pretty off to the side from what I had originally intended, but is that plausible?

 

[Wilco]

I thought that strange until I looked closely. Its possible I may have to look more closely yet of course:

I've wangled from GPT the following explanation for that line:

Can you elaborate on this line: "The treatments may eliminate or reduce the reproduction of individuals that are susceptible to the treatment but not necessarily to the pest itself."

ChatGPT
Certainly: "The treatments may eliminate or reduce the reproduction of individuals that are susceptible to the treatment but not necessarily to the pest itself."
When beekeepers apply treatments for varroa mites:

1. Targeting Varroa Mites: The primary goal of these treatments is to control and reduce the population of varroa mites, which are parasitic pests that can have detrimental effects on honeybee colonies.
2. Impact on Individual Bees: The treatments used against varroa mites may not affect all individual bees in the colony uniformly. Some bees may be more susceptible to the treatment due to factors like age, genetics, or physiological conditions.
3. Selective Effect on Reproduction: If the treatment has a selective impact on certain individuals, especially those involved in reproduction such as queens and drones, it can influence the genetic diversity of the colony. The treatment may reduce the reproduction of individuals that are susceptible to the treatment but not necessarily to the varroa mites themselves.
4. Unintended Genetic Consequences: While the primary aim is to control varroa mites, the unintended consequence is that the treatment may selectively impact bees within the colony, potentially affecting the genetic composition of the population. This can lead to a reduction in genetic diversity, which is crucial for the long-term health and adaptability of the colony.

In summary, the line highlights the potential for varroa treatments to have a selective impact on individual bees within the colony, particularly those involved in reproduction, and the potential genetic consequences that may arise from this selective pressure. This emphasizes the importance of considering not only the immediate effects on varroa mites but also the broader impact on the health and genetic diversity of honeybee populations."

Its pretty off to the side from what I had originally intended, but is that plausible?

If one of my students put that as an exam answer they wouldn't pass. It relies on conjecture and forgets the marker of survival is the whole colony. There is perhaps a tenuous possibility to part of point three but but I wouldn't pick this output from ChatGPT as a hill to die on. Treatment by nature tends not to kill the colony.

 

[Beesnaturally]

If one of my students put that as an exam answer they wouldn't pass. It relies on conjecture and forgets the marker of survival is the whole colony. There is perhaps a tenuous possibility to part of point three but but I wouldn't pick this output from ChatGPT as a hill to die on. Treatment by nature tends not to kill the colony.

Treatments are designed not to kill the colony, but _if_ they are genetically selective in their effects, then lineages, sister groups might well be affected. This might (obliquely) shed light on a little of that, but really we'd need to see some science directly addressing genetically selective effects of treatments. https://www.psu.edu/news/agricultur...ay-inherit-altruistic-behavior-their-mothers/

To me its all a bit angels on pinheads, because my issue is about the sledgehammer effect of treatments in keeping alive individuals that are critically unfitted to their environment, and the gross effect that has on future generations.... outside the apiaries.

 

[Wilco]

Treatments are designed not to kill the colony, but _if_ they are genetically selective in their effects, then lineages, sister groups might well be affected. This might (obliquely) shed light on a little of that, but really we'd need to see some science directly addressing genetically selective effects of treatments. https://www.psu.edu/news/agricultur...ay-inherit-altruistic-behavior-their-mothers/

To me its all a bit angels on pinheads, because my issue is about the sledgehammer effect of treatments in keeping alive individuals that are critically unfitted to their environment, and the gross effect that has on future generations.... outside the apiaries.

Treatments are designed not to kill the colony, but _if_ they are genetically selective in their effects, then lineages, sister groups might well be affected. This might (obliquely) shed light on a little of that, but really we'd need to see some science directly addressing genetically selective effects of treatments. https://www.psu.edu/news/agricultur...ay-inherit-altruistic-behavior-their-mothers/

To me its all a bit angels on pinheads, because my issue is about the sledgehammer effect of treatments in keeping alive individuals that are critically unfitted to their environment, and the gross effect that has on future generations.... outside the apiaries.

I think you're getting into the realm of unsupported conjecture there- that link doesn't really back it at all, agree you need solid data. Epigenetics is the field you need to look to, mechanisms are there for the effect you're hypothesising although no actual examples demonstrating it in this context.

Critically unfitted in one regard perhaps though it's not to do with environment as much as parasites.

On the flip side to your point, those being treated and which survive varroa as a result may well have genes which are useful for surviving the next big threat to bees- for all we know such a trait might be inversely linked to your putative varroa resistance genes (tongue in cheek: is that why the AHs were so prevalent in Kent this year? ). So going TF, which would result in the death of anythings without significant adaptations, is likely to lead to loss of significant numbers of other alleles for other traits thus will definitely significantly reduce genetic diversity and increase the risk of bottlenecks. It also potentially selects against genes which might be game changers in future. Or not... We just don't know on that.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Critically unfitted in one regard perhaps though it's not to do with environment as much as parasites.

The environment contains parasites. The only bees fitted the the environment are varroa resistant bees.

On the flip side to your point, those being treated and which survive varroa as a result may well have genes which are useful for surviving the next big threat to bees- for all we know such a trait might be inversely linked to your putative varroa resistance genes

A number of varroa resistance mechanism are known, and the genes (alleles) that code for them are known too. There may be more unknown ones. I'm sure you know this, so I don't understand why you speak of them as 'putative'.

So going TF, which would result in the death of anythings without significant adaptations, is likely to lead to loss of significant numbers of other alleles for other traits thus will definitely significantly reduce genetic diversity and increase the risk of bottlenecks.

There is zero risk of bottleneck in the UK. You'd need an island population rising from just a few mother colonies to be in danger of a genetic bottleneck. There are healthy populations of highly endangered species saved by just a handful of individuals now thriving. In those cases, yes, it's great to make an effort to increase genetic diversity. But you are generally talking of a few individuals from the same family or narrow location.

At this time there is an unnaturally supermassive honeybee diversity in the UK. We've imported bees from pretty well everywhere. Compare that to say 2000 years ago when the British black bee had been isolated since the land bridge flooded a million years earlier. I've not seen any suggestion that even the purest of black bees suffer from any lack of genetic diversity.

Of course one can postulate future pests and diseases, and that resistance to them will rely on a particular gene. But you can postulate anything. The notion that we need to maintain the present supermassive diversity ' just in case' doesn't hold water for a second.

Not least because maintaining unfit stocks undermines feral bees that would otherwise outnumber kept bees AND keep not just mite protection genes and alleles but a great deal of the introduced genetic material too. A naturally selecting population brings forward the genetic material than is best suited to the environment while holding in reserve infrequently expressed material that is not being found ideal.

The honeybee has been around for something like 20 million years without our help. And wherever we cannot 'help' it it is fitted to its environment.

Come on Wilco, you know all this.

It also potentially selects against genes which might be game changers in future. Or not... We just don't know on that.

 

[Wilco]

The environment contains parasites. The only bees fitted the the environment are varroa resistant bees.

A number of varroa resistance mechanism are known, and the genes (alleles) that code for them are known too. There may be more unknown ones. I'm sure you know this, so I don't understand why you speak of them as 'putative'.


There is zero risk of bottleneck in the UK. You'd need an island population rising from just a few mother colonies to be in danger of a genetic bottleneck. There are healthy populations of highly endangered species saved by just a handful of individuals now thriving. In those cases, yes, it's great to make an effort to increase genetic diversity. But you are generally talking of a few individuals from the same family or narrow location.

At this time there is an unnaturally supermassive honeybee diversity in the UK. We've imported bees from pretty well everywhere. Compare that to say 2000 years ago when the British black bee had been isolated since the land bridge flooded a million years earlier. I've not seen any suggestion that even the purest of black bees suffer from any lack of genetic diversity.

Of course one can postulate future pests and diseases, and that resistance to them will rely on a particular gene. But you can postulate anything. The notion that we need to maintain the present supermassive diversity ' just in case' doesn't hold water for a second.

Not least because maintaining unfit stocks undermines feral bees that would otherwise outnumber kept bees AND keep not just mite protection genes and alleles but a great deal of the introduced genetic material too. A naturally selecting population brings forward the genetic material than is best suited to the environment while holding in reserve infrequently expressed material that is not being found ideal.

The honeybee has been around for something like 20 million years without our help. And wherever we cannot 'help' it it is fitted to its environment.

Come on Wilco, you know all this.

Nice try, I'll leave you to your half truths and misrepresentations. Have a good evening.

 

[Antipodes]

This is interesting about the genetic changes in the quoll.

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-decline-tasmanian-devil-genetic-tailed.html
https://www.utas.edu.au/about/news-...al-tumours-reveal-secrets-of-cancer-evolution

 

[Beesnaturally]

Nice try, I'll leave you to your half truths and misrepresentations. Have a good evening.

Just what is it you are disagreeing with?

Left alone bee populations develop resistance to varroa exactly as you would expect them to. It's absolutely predictable and has been shown to be happening all over. We've posted numerous scientific papers here in which that's been made clear.

Are you still trying to debate that part?

 

[Erichalfbee]

https://www.utas.edu.au/about/news-...al-tumours-reveal-secrets-of-cancer-evolution

Interesting. I wonder how the Tasmanian Devil and its cancer are coexisting? The article doesn't make that clear?

 

[Antipodes]

Interesting. I wonder how the Tasmanian Devil and its cancer are coexisting? The article doesn't make that clear?

It seems to be that some sort of gene (that was already there) developed more as a result of natural selection. It's tricky science, but heaps of work is being done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease

 

[Antipodes]

There is zero risk of bottleneck in the UK. You'd need an island population rising from just a few mother colonies to be in danger of a genetic bottleneck.

The bumblebee here has likely come from just two individuals from New Zealand and they are going great guns. I see them every day. Huge things some of them and they seem to have spread everywhere here. We're waiting for the inbreeding to knock them over but it doesn't seem to be working
https://tasmanianinsectfieldguide.c...oidea-s-l/apidae/bombus-terrestris-bumblebee/
Apparently it tolerates high inbreeding.
https://www.nature.com/articles/6801017

 

[Erichalfbee]

It seems to be that some sort of gene (that was already there) developed more as a result of natural selection. It's tricky science, but heaps of work is being done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease

Fascinating. But I was wondering how the Devil with a cancer DFT2 managed to survive. The tumour destroys the animal's face and Jaw. I really hope they explore the vaccine avenue. There are human vaccines against cancer that work very well

 

[Antipodes]

Fascinating. But I was wondering how the Devil with a cancer DFT2 managed to survive. The tumour destroys the animal's face and Jaw. I really hope they explore the vaccine avenue. There are human vaccines against cancer that work very well

Under "Research Directions" in that wikipedia page the work by Menzies (UTAS) and Sydney Uni. into vaccines is described.

 

[Antipodes]

Cautious hope...some sort of co-existence possible.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09...s-hope-deadly-facial-tumour-disease/102800670

 

[Beesnaturally]

Fascinating. But I was wondering how the Devil with a cancer DFT2 managed to survive. The tumour destroys the animal's face and Jaw. I really hope they explore the vaccine avenue. There are human vaccines against cancer that work very well

I really hope they have sense enough not to do that, and to let natural selection play out. Some are surviving and they are (um, obviously) reproducing more than those that didn't! From here on those that are better at holding off the cancer will breed faster than those that are weaker. That is: there will be a progressive improvement in resistance, until there are too few cancers to make new infections and devils will return to their former health. Following?

If you start handing out medicine all this doesn't just come crashing to a halt, it goes into reverse. Devils that would otherwise die for lack of resistance will reproduce in greater numbers that those that are already managing it, increasing and perpetuating that vulnerability.

Darwinism, pure and simple.

The agro-medical (and pets) model suited to _closed_ breeding settings is utterly catastrophic when applied to open-breeding (wild) species.