——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

The honeybee is an endangered species, with rapidly declining populations across the globe. This disaster, although extremely relevant, given that the honeybee is well-known as the most important animal on the planet, has not been fully explored by the news. This study is therefore helping to fill a void in both the scientific and media world, where it analyses the reasons for this decline, explores both its ecological and economic consequences, and suggests solutions. Through studying a number of sources related to this matter, this paper concludes that the main causes for the sudden decline of honeybees are how pesticides, parasites and changing environments act together against the honeybee. The ramifications of these findings are that one simple action, either by the government or individuals, will not have the ability to save honeybee populations. It will take a substantial period of time to implement solutions, due to the fact that global warming is one of the main factors of declining populations. However, there are certain solutions which can be implemented immediately. This includes banning all pesticides that are toxic towards honeybees and implementing certain strategies against the Varroa destructor. Moreover, this dissertation proves that the absence of honeybees would have a disastrous ecological effect, although having a limited effect on the human population. This shows that investigating solutions is necessary to avoid possible consequences. This study is part of a growing body of research, all concluding in a call for help, for not only honeybees, but for all of nature.

2 Introduction

The honeybee was declared by the Royal Geographical Society as the most important animal on Earth. Populations are under extreme stress, where the extinction rate of the insect is up to 1000 times more than expected. Throughout the years, the extinction of certain species of animals has been mentioned in the media and mourned by environmentalists, however, the rapid decline of honeybee populations has not received enough attention. Given the importance of the honeybee to Earth, this is illogical: one of the main reasons for this project, therefore, is to dive into areas of this theme that have not been fully uncovered by the media. Albert Einstein was reputed to have said “If the bee disappeared off the globe, then man would have only four more years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man”. Although the truth of this quote and its attribution to Einstein remains ambiguous, it raises and highlights the importance of the honeybee and the disastrous effects that could come with its extinction.

This paper will attempt to answer the question of whether the absence of honeybees would lead to ecological and economic disaster. Alarmingly, unlike most research which often decreases in importance as time goes by, this paper is increasing in relevance, where if the contents of this, or a similar article, are not assimilated and understood, honeybee populations will shortly dwindle to zero. Therefore it is clear that finding a solution to this dilemma is becoming more and more important, to avert the ecological and economic consequences that may arise. Furthermore, this study will unearth the reasons for the rapid decline of honeybee populations, which can provide opportunities for further research in this domain, namely solutions to this disaster. Researchers in this field have yet to fully uncover all these areas in such a fashion, and therefore this study helps to fill a gap in the world of science that arguably should not even exist, given the dire state of honeybee populations.

3 Glossary

Abdomen - the hind part of the body of an arthropod, especially the segments of an insect's body behind the thorax

Biodiversity - the variety of plant and animal life in the world or in a particular habitat, a high level of which is usually considered to be important and desirable

Chemical Property - The potential of matter to undergo a chemical change by virtue of its composition

Entomologist - a person who studies or is an expert in the branch of zoology concerned with insects

Hemolymph - the circulatory fluid of invertebrate animals that is analogous to the blood in vertebrates

remaining in direct contact with the animal's tissues

Neuron - a specialised cell transmitting nerve impulses

Olfactory - The nerves that pass from the nose to the brain and contain the receptors that make smelling possible

Pollination - the transfer of pollen to a stigma, ovule, flower, or plant to allow fertilisation.

Polylectic - an insect which collects pollen from the flowers of a variety of numerous unrelated plants

Proliferation - rapid reproduction of a cell, part, or organism

Viral transmission pathway - the ways in which a virus is passed on from one organism to another

4 Literature Review

4.1 The general biology of the honeybees

In order for the later sections of this project to be understood, one must first understand the wider context around honeybees and how they are able to function and survive. It is necessary to understand how colonies of honeybees live in order to recognize how they are being threatened from so many different angles, and the knock-on effects that will occur if the upward trend of their decline continues.

The honeybee is well known by entomologists as the ‘Master Pollinator’ of nature. Although other organisms such as butterflies, wasps and even bats also play a part in pollination, the honeybee and the plant have evolved over millions of years to function in a perfect balance, each for their own benefit, leading to each organism being designed specifically for its own role and purpose. An example of this is that the nectar that the bee is looking for is specifically placed deep into the flower: this is so the bee has a higher chance of picking up the pollen of the flower with its electrically charged hairs, which benefits the plant as there is a higher chance of reproduction occurring. This shows how the honeybee functions as the perfect pollinator for the majority of insect-pollinated plants around the world. Although many insect-pollinated plants are reliant on the honeybee to transfer their pollen from the male reproductive part of the plant, the anther, to the female reproductive part of another plant, the stigma, the bee itself also gains from this special interaction. The nectar which the honeybee collects is abundant in carbohydrates, and the pollen which she gathers is full of protein. These are the only natural food sources she can digest, showing how the honeybee and the insect-pollinated plant are highly dependent on one other.

The way in which this interaction works is due to the honeybee’s traits which have evolved over time. She is outfitted with two large eyes on the front of her head, both consisting of 6,900 hexagonal lenses (Walsh 2013) that have the ability to decipher colours, light conditions and the position of the sun. Moreover, these front eyes can pick up movements with high precision and have hairs at the junction of the lenses to determine wind speed and direction. The honeybee can also see ultraviolet light, which directs her towards the area of the plant where nectar and pollen are stored. She has a set of antennas which are smell detectors; due to this adaptation bees are up to 100 times more sensitive than humans to useful odours such as flowers, nectar and wax (Benjamin and McCallum 2008).

Eighty percent of flowering plants employ insects in the services of pollination, the majority being polylectic insects. The honeybee will visit 1,500 flowers to collect just 15 mg of pollen in one trip, and collectively, honeybees will need to fly 40,000 miles to make one pound of honey (Theo 2022). In addition, each bee will fly 800 km in its lifetime, often carrying up to its body’s weight in pollen and nectar, leading to death by exhaustion on average a month after its first flight (RSPB, n.d.). The honeybee has developed a communication system, partly in the form of a ‘waggle dance’, to allow other bees to know the distances and directions of areas that are abundant in pollen. The forager allows other honeybees to taste and sniff the collected food, and then shakes her abdomen from side to side; the length of this dance reflects how close the food source is, and the direction she ‘waggles’ in while walking represents the direction in relation to the sun the food source is in. This is then repeated by other foragers that come back with food, leading to more bees going to areas with higher potential in terms of nectar and pollen sourcing. The number of honeybees that are constantly flying in and out of the hive and collecting food sources can number up to 80,000 in a colony, (Simmonds 2022) in comparison to bumblebee colonies which do not exceed numbers of a few hundred. This shows how valuable the honeybee is to the plant world.

Honeybees are not only hard-working in collecting nectar and pollen for their hives, but are also unsurprisingly hygienic and tidy organisms. They tend to groom each other and keep their hive extremely clean, where any dead bees are dragged out immediately; sick bees will leave the hive to limit the spread of disease throughout the colony (Milbrath 2016) and no honeybee will defecate inside the hive. Unfortunately, this cleanliness can sometimes impact colonies negatively. An example of this is the parasite nosema, which causes bees to excrete inside the hive, leading to other healthy bees attempting to clean it up with their mouths, causing them to ingest the parasite. Although this can be easily combatted by a healthy bee queen laying new eggs to replace the sick, solutions for the current problem of drastically declining honeybees are more complex.

In contrast to the human population which has risen dramatically over the last century, honeybee colonies around the globe have plummeted in numbers. US colonies have had a decline of 2.96 million bees in the last 80 years, where 800,000 colonies died in 2007 and 1,000,000 in 2008 (Ilievski, 2020), and 40% of US honeybee populations died in the year 2014/2015 (Casey 2015). Declining honeybee populations are not limited to the US however: Britain was found to have lost 90% of its honeybee colonies in the Isle of Wight in the 20th century; many regions in France had reported 100% mortality rates in 1999-2000; and Germany suffered a wipeout of bee colonies during the winter of 2002-2003. (Benjamin and McCallum 2008). These statistics have alarmingly become more extreme since they were published in their respective sources. Over the past decades, a multitude of studies and research has taken place by entomologists to combat this disaster, and there have been several reasons found for this.

This study has found three main reasons for the decline of honeybee populations:

Pesticides, especially neonicotinoids
Parasites, especially Varroa destructor and the diseases it transmits
The changing environments that the bees live in

4.2 Reasons for the decline of honeybee populations

4.21 The impact of pesticides on honeybees

The 19th century marked a great change in the world of biology, including the rise of manufactured chemical pesticides, where chemicals started being extracted from their botanical sources and purified in laboratories. This led to the rise of pesticides being used by farmers on crops, which caused honeybees to be severely impacted by certain chemical properties that pesticides had.

Neonicotinoids are a very common type of pesticide that has been found to have a severe impact on honeybees and have been in the pesticide market since the 1990s. They now register in over 120 countries, representing over 25% of the global pesticide market (Craddock and Huang 2019). Desiderato Annoscia’s study has found a type of neonicotinoid, Clothianidin, to have reduced honey bee immune response and contribute to varroa mite proliferation, having a negative impact on the activation of NF-kB. This is a transcription factor which disposes of the inhibitor IkB when threatened with immune challenges and enters the nucleus, activating genes which regulate cellular and humoral defence reactions in insects (Annoscia, Di Prisco, 2020). The study therefore shows that this immunosuppressant insecticide’s toxicity can enhance the efficiency of the feeding mite ‘Varroa destructor’ leading to the enhanced fertility of the parasite. This demonstrates that the neonicotinoid ‘Clothianidin’ has had an impact on the relationship of honeybees in contact with both the neonicotinoid and the Varroa destructor, negatively so towards the pollinator. This neonicotinoid is still used globally, since its first registration in 2001, and continues to maintain its registration status, despite the fact that the registrant failed to supply studies confirming its safety (Thany 2022). Annoscia’s conclusion of the toxicity of neonicotinoids towards honeybees is affirmed by Simone Tosi’s study on another common neonicotinoid pesticide, thiamethoxam, which was found to impair honeybee flight ability. When treated to a sublethal dose of 1.34 ng/bee, the honeybees showed excitement, with increased flight durations of +78% and distances of +72%. However, chronic exposure (starting from 1.96 ng/bee) to this particular neonicotinoid decreased flight duration by 54%, distance by 56% and velocity by 7% (Tosi 2017). Tosi’s study thus shows how either acute or chronic exposure to only one type of neonicotinoid significantly altered bee flights, where such changes have the ability to impact the foraging of honeybees severely. This conclusion is heavily supported by Thompson’s study on the same neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, where although no significant colony-level effects were observed at lower dose rates, similar results to Tosi’s were found when honeybees were exposed to the two highest dosages of the neonicotinoid: reduction of bees, brood and even colony losses were observed (Thompson 2019). Although numerous studies such as these show the toxic effects of thiamethoxam, it is still approved for use in a wide range of crops, with its first use in 1999 (Wikipedia 2023). These studies all show that several neonicotinoids which have all been used in a wide range of crops through seed treatment, soil and foliar applications, thus exposing honeybees to them, have had severely negative and toxic impacts on honeybees.

Not only are neonicotinoids toxic to foraging honeybees, but studies have also shown that bees are unaware of the substance they often ingest/come in contact with. This proves a greater problem for the biological world as this means a greater number of honeybees will be subjected to these toxic impacts than if bees were aware of the negative effects of the substances. In a study by Kessler, it was proven that the honeybee did not avoid any nectar-relevant concentrations of three commonly used neonicotinoids (Imidacloprid, Thiamethoxam and Clothianidin) used in the study that was laced in the food given to them. In contrast, they preferred to eat more of the laced rather than clean solutions, even though this consumption caused them to eat less food overall: “Stimulation with IMD, TMX and CLO neither elicited spiking responses from gustatory neurons in the bees’ mouthparts, nor inhibited the responses of sucrose-sensitive neurons” (Kessler, 2015). The conclusion of this study is similar to that of Geraldine Wright, who also found that sucrose laced with neonicotinoids such as Imidacloprid and Thiamethoxam was preferred by bees rather than sucrose alone. Moreover, it was found that Imidacloprid and Thiamethoxam had the ability to affect olfactory learning negatively, especially in the short-term memory of the honeybee, without requiring long-term exposure (Wright 2015): once again the impacts of neonicotinoids on honeybees were proven to be toxic. Therefore it has been proven by several studies that honeybees cannot taste neonicotinoids they come into contact with, and are in fact more attracted to them than repelled.

In conclusion, these sources show that pesticides, in particular neonicotinoids, have a major impact on the activity and behaviour of the honeybee, and thus can be attributed as playing a major part in the reasons for the rapid decline of honeybee populations.

4.22 The impacts of parasites on honeybees

Although there are numerous parasites that feed on honeybees since its discovery in 1904 in the Asian honeybee (Apis Information Resource Center, n.d.), the Varroa destructor has become widely known among entomologists across the globe. It is one of the most serious pests of the honeybee and is one of the main reasons for the recent dramatic decline in populations. It is imperative to understand the biology of the interactions of this external parasitic mite with the honeybee prior to examining its impacts.

This parasite feeds on the honeybee by attaching to its body and sucking on fat bodies, which are highly dynamic insect tissue composed primarily of storage cells. These fat bodies are integral to proper immune function, pesticide detoxification, overwinter survival, and several other essential processes in healthy bees. The varroa is visible to the naked eye, being 1.1 mm long and 1.6 mm wide (Beebase 2021) and in comparison to the 12 mm long honeybee, can be described as having a ‘monkey on a human back’ when looking at ratios of body sizes. In the summer, the parasite can live for up to 3 months, where if honeybees are present, up to 4 breeding cycles can occur (BeeAware, n.d). While it is possible for a colony of 50,000 bees to be infested with 20,000 mites yet survive, colonies of similar numbers, infested with fewer mites, may nevertheless be wiped out. This is due to the fact that the mite is a vector of up to 20 different viruses, including Acute Paralysis Virus (APV), Sacbrood Virus (SBV), and Deformed Wing Virus (DWV). This shows the danger of the mite, as what is even more deadly than the fat bodies it digests is the viruses it transfers. These can then be transmitted bee-to-bee via the feeding process or faecal-cleanup of diseased bees, as explained in section 4.1. One of the viruses that the mite transmits, DWV, causes stumpy bodies and shrivelled wings in the honeybee. It also slightly shortens adult bees’ lifespans: as a honeybee colony goes into winter with the virus, it can die before enough new bees are born in the spring to sustain the colony. This means that the rest of the colony disappears as its balance is shattered - these symptoms are however very similar to those of Colony Collapse Disorder. This is an abnormal phenomenon that has recently occurred in honeybee hives, where from one day to the next, nearly all the worker bees in a colony are found to disappear, leaving behind a queen with a few bees - no food is missing and high stores of nectar and honey are always found. Therefore it is possible that CCD overshadowed the disastrous effect that DWV has caused. The main reason for the rapid death of colonies that the varroa mite causes is due to the new viral transmission pathway that it creates. If there is an active infection in one bee (bees often carry a number of latent viruses) that got into the bloodstream of the honeybee, the varroa would feed on the honeybee and then its sisters. By doing this, it has effectively transmitted the virus from one bee to another, hence altering the naturally occurring transmission pathways of honeybee viruses. As well as this, because the viral landscape in which the varroa operates is much wider and the viral prevalence is higher than before the spread of the mite, the chances of the mite encountering a virulent strain and passing it on are much more likely. Mites have also built up a natural resistance to the miticides that they have encountered in the past - this makes the mite all the more formidable.

Francisco Florez has demonstrated that varroa mites provided with an artificial diet and supplemented with engineered viruses for 36 hours could acquire and transmit sufficient numbers of virus particles to establish an infection in virus-naïve hosts (Florez 2020). This shows that the varroa is an established vector of viruses, as well as consuming honeybee hemolymph. Furthermore, research has taken place in the pathogenic viral landscape of Australia, which is one of the few areas where honeybee colonies have not shown any signs of Varroa destructor infection. Through reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing, several key viruses that are prevalent in other bee populations were found to be missing, specifically DWV and slow bee paralysis virus (SBWV). This proved that although viruses can be present in honeybees without the presence of the varroa destructor, the co-pathogenic interaction of DWV and Varroa destructor is one of the main drivers of increased colony losses (Roberts 2017). As well as this, studies have shown that highly infested weak colonies that are on the brink of collapse can inadvertently facilitate mite dispersal and disease transmission to previously healthy colonies that were untouched by the mite (Traynor 2020). This is another major reason as to why the honeybee has not been able to rid itself of the mite for over a century, and the mite population has not decreased since its discovery. This is also because the mite is able to be transmitted via inter-colony methods, through pollen as a viral transmission route: bees exchange saliva when house bees receive nectar from foragers, and pellets of pollen are moistened with saliva when they are packed into cells before being eaten by other bees.

Along with many other viruses, the varroa has been found to be Israeli-Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) replication-competent. Studies have shown that in honeybees exposed to varroa mites carrying IAPV, the copy number of IAPV in bees was positively correlated with the density of varroa mites and the time period of exposure to varroa mites. Moreover, mite-virus association led to reduced host immunity and therefore promoted elevated levels of virus replication (di Prisco 2010). IAPV has been shown to attack every stage and caste of honeybees, where its positive PCR signal was found in eggs, larvae, pupae, adult workers and queens, as well as being present in royal jelly, honey, pollen, queen faeces and drone semen (Cheng 2014). This shows how many possible ways there are that IAPV could be transmitted to a single honeybee throughout its lifetime.

In conclusion, these sources show that parasites, in particular Varroa destructor, have a major impact on the activity of the western honeybee, mainly by being a vector of several diseases which cause the honeybee colony to collapse if widely transmitted, in particular Deformed Wing Virus and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus.

4.23 The impact of the changing environment on honeybees

The honeybee is currently subject to climate change: long-term shifts in weather patterns, in particular, due to the effects of the Industrial Revolution. This was the rapid development of industry by the use of steam power and growing factories throughout the 18th and 19th century (Britannic editors, 1998). In addition, land mass available for agriculture is depleting each year, leading to habitat loss. The combination of the effects of these events has had dire impacts on the honeybee.

Primarily, climate change is altering the scents of plants that bees use for pollination, where it has been found that air pollution destroys the aroma of flowers by as much as 90% compared with periods before automobiles and heavy industry (Benjamin and McCallum 2008). Moreover, scent molecules produced by flowers in less polluted environments in the past could travel further than 1,000 metres, in comparison to 200-300 metres today (Atmospheric Journal, 2008). As well as this, the aroma produced by plants themselves has changed (Jaworski, Geslin, and Fernandez 2019), as changing environmental conditions have caused plants to become ‘stressed’ with a lack of water and nutrients, releasing defence mechanisms which produce a change in smell. As described in section 4.1, the honeybee depends highly on olfactory cues to navigate the world she lives in, through the use of two large antennae. These antennae have the ability to store flowers’ scents in their memory and use them for their next search for pollen. However, with the decrease in how far flowers’

scents can travel, the decrease of the aroma produced by flowers themselves, and the change of the aroma produced by flowers themselves, have led to honeybees struggling to find flowers, the root of their food source, to pollinate.

The timing of flowering of plants that honeybees pollinate must coincide almost perfectly with the hatching of the honeybee colony, i.e when honeybees come out of hibernation. As well as because of climate change, blooming patterns of flowers are changing due to more pavements and roads being built, less soil moisture, air pollution and heat from homes, which all lead to heightened city temperatures. Due to increased temperatures and other factors, studies by Cambridge University, using over 400,000 accounts of plants, have shown that flowers in the UK are currently blooming on average a month earlier than in 1753 (Briggs 2022). The honeybee has not been able to adapt accordingly to these changing conditions, as these changes have only started to show their impacts in the last century, in comparison to the time needed for a bee to adapt at thousands of years, through a genetic mutation and selection pressure following on from it. This has led to a vicious cycle where less pollen and nectar is collected by honeybees so fewer seeds are pollinated, leading to fewer plants being present in the following years for bees to pollinate.

Research has shown that extreme weather is becoming more and more prevalent, where major floods have doubled and the number of storms have increased by 40%. As well as this, the number and duration of droughts have increased by 29% since 2000 (Best 2022), where in 2007 only 2 inches of rain fell in California. These changing weather patterns affect honeybees’ food supplies in numerous ways: excess rain keeps bees indoors and stressed, preventing them from visiting flowers for food. Furthermore, a lack of rain or too much heat reduces the amount of nectar and pollen a plant produces; moreover, cold nights can create sterile pollen that does not contain sufficient nourishment for honeybees. Therefore when honeybees go into autumn hungry and malnourished due to the lack of high-quality pollen they have collected, keepers cannot get out in the water-logged terrain to feed them supplements and treat against blood-sucking mites and fungal disease. This means that when winter arrives, honeybees are often ill-equipped to fend off parasites, with stores of honey running out, leading to their starvation. Changing climates have also introduced certain parasites to areas where they could not survive before: an example of this is Tropilaelaps, which has a higher potential for spreading due to warmer climates.

Habitat loss has also been a key driver in causing honeybee populations to decrease dramatically. In California, 75,000 acres of orchards, vineyards and fields are paved over each year; every minute America loses 2 acres of agricultural land; and from 1982-1997 the US population grew by 17% and urbanised land expanded by 45% (Benjamin and McCallum 2008). Fewer green spaces; more suburban gardens fashionably covered with decking or plants that provide little nectar and no pollen for example, double head roses, chrysanthemums and dahlias, mean that there are fewer flowers and plants for bees to forage on and sustain a healthy diet. People have also been found to be uncomfortable with bees foraging in nearby areas, further forcing bees out of proximity of urban towns, where hives must therefore be kept indoors in cool dark cellars instead of being trucked to warmer, more southern climates. These all lead to highly malnourished bees, who are often only subject to one source of food: in North and South Dakota, where millions of honeybees lodge, nutrient-rich flowers have been replaced with corn and soybeans due to more money available in the yield of these crops (USGS 2016). This fails to provide the honeybee with a balanced diet, as the corn and soybean yield no energy-boosting nectar. As explained earlier in this section, highly malnourished bees are more susceptible to disease, predators and insecticides, and thus changing crops impact the honeybee in a highly destructive manner.

In conclusion, the changing environment that the honeybees are living in is causing severe impacts on their populations through different factors of altering plant scents, rapidly changing weather patterns and habitat loss.

4.3 The consequences of the declining bee population

It is vital to analyse the varying impacts that declining bee populations will have, both economically and ecologically. This project covers all major areas, however, when looking at the economic effects, it will focus on the agricultural sector.

4.31 The ecological consequences on the surrounding ecosystem

The honeybee has been living and adapting to life on Earth for over 300 years, and therefore has coevolved and developed with the environment that surrounds her. Just as when the environment around the honeybee changes, she suffers adverse effects, the same occurs in the opposite direction. When the honeybee population decreases, the environment around the honeybee, whether it be insect-pollinated plants that she transfers pollen to, or the other animals that rely on such food sources that she produces, will suffer serious consequences.

Between 75% and 95% of plants require the help of pollinators: these plants provide most of the world’s vegetables and fruits, ½ of the world’s oils, fibres and raw materials and prevent soil erosion. Therefore without the pollination that honeybees provide, these insect-pollinated plants would not be able to survive, emptying the world of their numerous advantages. Hand pollination is extremely inefficient and labour-intensive, where research showed that a human could only pollinate 5-10 trees a day (Pearson 2014). Other methods including mechanical pollination through drones are too early in their respective research stages to be used on a widespread scale. Although studies have suggested that the use of drones shows potential, where drones that blew pollen bubbles at lilies were 90% effective (Temming 2020), a long period of time would be required until the science is effective enough that they could be used in high numbers globally: currently, they are of very small numbers and extremely expensive. Therefore, with the absence of honeybees and no other viable method to replace them, insect-pollinated plants would have no way to reproduce. Not only would this catastrophically affect insect-pollinated plants, it is also important to note that many organisms rely on honeybees and the food they produce as a food source, as well as food from plants they help pollinate.

There are numerous organisms in the many ecosystems of the world that rely on the pollinating services of bees: this includes honey badgers, flycatchers, foxes, badgers, pea moths, grizzly bears and martens. Although not all of these animals would die in the absence of the honeybee, the sheer number that rely on her in some form shows her importance. Examples are hive beetles which eat honey synthesised by honeybees; grizzly bears which eat both the honey that honeybees make and the honeybee itself; rabbits which eat berries and carrots, both coming from insect-pollinated plants; and aphids, which eat peas from plants that honeybees pollinate. In addition, the squirrel’s diet includes berries, pears, peaches, almonds, cherries and cucumbers - all originating from plants that the honeybee pollinates (Wikipedia 2022). Therefore, a large number of organisms that rely in some form on the honeybee would have a decrease in food sources in her absence. This would disrupt numerous food webs across the world, where relying organisms would decrease in population as a result of this.

The food that insect-pollinated plants produce is not the only help they provide for the ecosystem: they also provide shelter for many organisms. The willow plant, often depicted as a large, strong and sturdy tree is a good example of this as it is an insect-pollinated plant (Tree Guide UK, n.d.), and its long, cascading branches are known for providing a sanctuary for different birds, in particular songbirds. In addition, they attract borers, insects that burrow into the tree, and therefore attract woodpeckers, which feed on the borers. Furthermore, many organisms shelter in the cavities of the trunk, particularly possums, squirrels and raccoons. (Adams, n.d.). In this way, the absence of such trees removes entire habitats for many animals, disrupting food webs. This is just one example of many insect-pollinated plants that provide habitats for animals. Another example is the Alder, which as well as providing shelter for the surrounding wildlife, also, along with the Willow tree, as a deep-rooted species helps to maintain the soil in river banks and reduce the effect of erosion. Prevention of soil erosion is extremely significant, as soil erosion leads to increased pollution of rivers, clogging waterways and leading to a decline in fish populations; it also increases the risks of flooding as such lands are less likely to be able to hold onto water. Along with the highly devastating consequences on the biological ecosystem that the decline of honeybee populations would cause, the geological world around us could be shaped negatively in accordance with this.

4.32 The consequences of the declining bee population on the human population

This section will underline the reasons for the importance of honeybees to the human population, with a main focus on impacts on the agricultural sector.

Similar to many other organisms, humans are highly dependent on the reproductive abilities of honeybees onto flowering plants. It has been calculated that honeybees provide a third of humans’ food supplies (Why are Bees Important? 2021) - putting this into perspective this means that on average one in every three mouthfuls of our food comes from these pollinators. With already such high numbers of malnutrition and a lack of food across the globe, where there are currently 462 million adults severely underweight as of June 2021 (WHO 2021), the absence of insect-pollinated plants would lead to even higher levels of malnutrition. This would be especially evident in third-world countries as they rely more on agricultural produce, causing further economic and lifestyle imbalances. The reliance of humans on insect-pollinated plants cannot be combated by switching food lifestyles. As a vegetarian, one is directly dependent on many insect-pollinated crops. If one were to eat only meat, one would still be largely dependent on insect-pollinated crops, as cows, chicken and lamb are often fed with these crops. Other research has shown that honeybees pollinate up to two-thirds of essential crops in the world, and a study in 2007 stated that 87 crops rely on honeybees for pollination in comparison to 28 crops that are not reliant on them. (Palmer 2022). Although this portrays the importance of insect-pollinated crops, this same study also shows that these 28 crops contain many of the most necessary crops to humanity. This includes corn, wheat and rice, and together these crops make up 60% of the total volume of food grown worldwide. This study shows that although the major crops that are necessary for the survival of humanity as a whole are wind-pollinated, the human diet would suffer without the help of pollinators.

It is also important to note that not all crops that are insect-pollinated are entirely reliant on honeybees: some that are partially reliant also have other methods of pollination, such as self pollination. A study showed that without honeybees, crop production would decline by 5% in higher-income countries, and 8% in lower-to-middle-income countries (Ritchie 2021). Although not necessary for all insect-pollinated crops to survive, honeybees still have an impact on the produce such plants create. A study showed that Cotton and Sesame plants that were pollinated by bees were found to have an average of 62% higher quality and quantity in comparison to those being self-pollinated (Business Insider 2019). Affirming the conclusion of this study, the European Commission found that bee-pollinated plants, in contrast to plants producing offspring via different facets, produced strawberries that were heavier, redder, had fewer malformations and finally had longer shelf lives, thus decreasing food waste by storage (Business Insider 2019). These studies show the importance of the honeybee in the quality of production of plants, something that especially in agriculture is extremely important when looking at yields of crops.

5 Discussion

Following a comprehensive summary of studies available in this field, this paper will now provide arguments for and against the different themes and topics that have been covered in the literature review. This will be divided into two main sections: the reasons for the rapid decline of honeybee colonies and the consequences that will come with the absence of honeybee populations.

5.1 The reasons for the rapid decline of honeybee colonies

In the past, there have been numerous occasions where honeybee colonies have died out in large numbers, and where populations of honeybees have dropped rapidly: it is alleged that in his works on natural history, Aristotle noted that honeybee populations were decreasing during damp seasons and the winter. However, the main difference that separates reasons for the previous declines of honeybee populations and the current disaster is the ways in which the different causes intertwine and act together against the honeybee: this is yet to occur in history in such a drastic manner. This paper will argue that the reason for the latest disastrous decrease in honeybee populations is not because of one particular cause, as it may have been in the past. Instead, this is due to all the different causes acting together, as well as alone, to produce immeasurable amounts of stress upon the honeybee. First, it is necessary to investigate the negative effects of each reason alone.

5.11 Impacts of Pesticides

When scientists first developed neonicotinoids, a form of pesticide, they were not aware of their full effects, particularly the negative consequences of releasing them into contact with honeybees. As outlined in detail in the literature review, neonicotinoids altered bee flights, caused colony losses, caused honeybees to eat less food, and were proven to be toxic, all the while being more attractive to honeybees than pollen not laced with neonicotinoids. Studies that have proven this information show that without a doubt, the introduction of such pesticides has had a negative impact on honeybees. However this conclusion is challenged by others, in particular companies that specialise in the manufacturing of these pesticides. For example, the company Bayer, maker of Gaucho, an imidacloprid introduced as a seed dressing for sunflowers in the area of France where bee mortality rate soared, claimed that the seed dressing had no negative effect on honeybee colonies. It was argued that bees did not even come into direct contact with it, because no quantifiable residues of the pesticide were found in parts of the sunflower visited by the bee when it was in blossom. Moreover, when Gaucho was banned, honeybee populations in France did not improve. Furthermore, pesticide-attributable bee deaths could have been caused by the careless application of pesticides or failure to adhere to the recommendations, and thus it was not the fault of the pesticide itself but its application by French farmers. This argument is however heavily biassed, as the company Bayer, which owned Gaucho, would lose profits on the pesticide it distributed to farmers if it were to be banned: a clear motive is present as the pesticide market is valued at hundreds of millions of dollars per year. In addition, even while removing one pesticide may appear to make a difference, there are many other different pesticides that are affecting honeybees negatively: just removing one may not have an immediate effect. Once numerous other pesticides were banned, including regent and other fipronil-based products, winter bee deaths in France during 2006-2007 were less than 10% (Benjamin and McCallum 2008), an astronomical decrease in comparison with previous years. Therefore, with scientific proof based on research that pesticides are toxic and negatively affect honeybees, as well as examples of where the removal of pesticides resulted in the rise of honeybee populations, it can be strongly argued that pesticides are one of the reasons for the decline in honeybee populations across the globe.

5.12 Impacts of parasites

As shown in my literature review, Varroa destructor and the numerous diseases that it transmits has an extremely negative impact on honeybees. It achieves this in many ways: through sucking on insect tissue that is integral to proper immune function, pesticide detoxification, overwinter survival; and by introducing over 14 different viruses which can continue to be present when the original parasite has gone, most significantly DWV. Furthermore, the new viral transmission pathway that the parasite has created has decreased the time needed to wipe out colonies, making it ever so threatening. However, it has been argued that there are many other parasites that have endangered the honeybee in the past, including the tracheal mite and the bee louse, which although may have slightly reduced honeybee populations, did not kill the entire honeybee species, and thus neither will the varroa mite. Moreover, the fact that the Eastern Honeybee resisted the Varroa destructor suggests that its relative, the Western honeybee, may also evolve to produce even more advanced defence mechanisms. Nevertheless, the reason for the rapid takeover of the honeybee colonies by the Varroa destructor is not only due to the amount of colony-threatening viruses it is a vector for, but also because of the viral transmission pathways it has created. This is the reason that often such small numbers of parasites, in comparison to the population number of one bee colony, produce such a high mortality rate: the parasite alters the naturally occurring transmission pathways of honeybee viruses and speeds them up highly by feeding on one honeybee then the next. This feature of the mite is what makes it so dangerous and is why no other parasitic mite that attacks honeybees has had such a dramatic effect on population numbers. In addition, the mites' original host, the Eastern honeybee, allowed them to reproduce only in drone cells, by removing its eggs from any other cells. The Western honeybee however has had no time to perfect such defence mechanisms thus leading to the increasingly serious epidemic of the varroa mite. However, it was found that certain viruses, such as the IAPV, were found in honeybee colonies when the varroa destructor was not, suggesting that the impact of the varroa as a vector of viruses had been exaggerated. However, this is contributed to the fact that once the virus is established by the varroa mite, it can endure without its presence; this means that the varroa can act as a vector of viruses throughout numerous honeybee colonies in its lifetime, and hence does not need to be present for viruses to act against the honeybee. Therefore, research on how the parasitic mite Varroa destructor lives and how it transmits diseases proves that parasites have had a disastrous effect on honeybee populations and are a reason for the decline of honeybee populations.

Figure 1 - The Varroa Destructor, ‘slayer of bees’ (Entomological Society of America 2020)

5.13 Impacts of changing environments

The changing environment and land mass available for honeybees to pollinate are now having an extremely dire effect on honeybees. This is due to scent molecules of flowers being produced less, aromas not being able to travel as far, and changing aromas, as well as flowers’ blooming patterns changing in relation to honeybees’ hibernation periods. Along with this, extreme weather and habitat loss are leading to honeybees struggling to find enough nectar and pollen (their food source as well as pollen being the reproductive element). This leads to less pollination occurring, and the malnourishment of honeybees. It is argued that changing environments of the honeybee cannot be a main reason for declining populations, as although it is evident that the environment is currently changing, it has been changing since the origination of the honeybee. Moreover, the honeybee has survived all changes throughout the 300,000-year lifetime of the species, where there have been up to 12 degrees changes in temperature (BBC, n.d.). If the honeybee was able to survive all these changes, there is no reason to suggest that it will be subject to extinction now. Although it may be true that more drastic environmental changes have occurred throughout the past 300,000 years, the difference between the current and previous events is the timeframe that the changes have occurred in. In the past, such events occurred over tens of thousands of years under natural processes, i.e due to orbital changes, volcanic activity and solar output. This gives all organisms on Earth, not only the honeybee, time to adapt to these circumstances; western honeybees might have previously migrated to colder areas in the north. The problem with the current changing climate is that it is changing under an extremely short timeframe, around 200 years, due to human causes such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In this way, the western honeybee is given no time to adapt to changing climates. Furthermore, honeybees are transported to areas that are known to produce the highest yield of crops, and although it may be more beneficial for the honeybee to be transported to other regions, this may not be done due to the priority for farmers being the environment that crops need, not the pollinators, which is secondary. Therefore, it is evident that changing environments alone have had a catastrophic effect on honeybees in decreasing their populations.

5.14 The ways in which the above factors act together against the honeybee

Now having discussed how each reason alone has a negative effect on honeybee populations, it is important to explore how they connect and intertwine. If these reasons were to act individually on the honeybee without acting together against her, one would not expect each of these factors summed together to produce honeybee deaths averaging 30% in the last decade. This is in comparison to the usual expected 5-10% deaths of populations. Honeybee populations are therefore faced with so many different threats that act in relation to each other, to increase their impacts, leading to high rates of stress in the organisms, due to biological and chemical attacks from so many different angles. One example of this is where it has been proven that neonicotinoid Clothianidin contributes to varroa mite proliferation, meaning that although the pesticide in itself has negative effects on the honeybee due to its toxicity, it also reduces the honeybee immune response. With the reduction of its immune response, the efficiency of the varroa parasite is increased as the honeybee is not able to make antibodies to identify and neutralise pathogens as effectively. Therefore, more honeybees that are in contact with Clothianidin will be infected and killed by the mite. In this way, a link between pesticides increasing the effects of the varroa destructor has been proven. Another example is increasingly prevalent extreme weather conditions, which cause honeybees to go into autumn hungry and malnourished. This leads to lower immune systems of honeybees, as with limited food and energy they are not able to defend themselves against pathogens. Once again, with lower immune systems of honeybees, parasites such as Varroa are able to infect and transmit viruses easier. Furthermore, increased temperatures have led to the increased activity of parasites, in particular Tropilaelaps, which has only recently started to impact honeybees in a negative manner, due to the fact that it previously was not able to function in climates that the honeybee was present in. In this way, it has been shown that changing environments have led to increased activity of parasites against honeybees.

Altogether, the main reasons for the catastrophic honeybee declines around the world include the heavy introduction of pesticides, especially neonicotinoids, into agricultural farming; pesticides, in particular, Varroa destructor and the diseases that it transmits into the organism; and changing environments. Although several diseases and other causes have acted upon honeybee populations in the past, the reason for the sudden drop in populations is the way in which each cause has intertwined with one another, causing the average western honeybee colony to be subjected to a much higher amount of stress than in previous years.

5.2 The consequences of the declining honeybee population

A summary of the consequences of the declining bee population has been presented in the literature review, and these will now be used to provide an answer to whether or not the absence of honeybees would lead to ecological and economic disaster. The definition of an ecological or economic disaster is a “serious disruption of the functioning of a society at any scale due to hazardous events … leading to … economic and environmental losses and impacts”. Although it is evident that numerous consequences will occur with the absence of the honeybee, these consequences must be of a certain magnitude and catastrophe that will accordingly fit the description above. It is also necessary to note that although the discussion is based on the consequences coming with the absence of honeybees, the honeybee is not yet extinct. It is more fitting if the absence of honeybees is discussed as a consequence of the decline, opposed to the discussion of consequences of the decline of honeybees, as ideas can be extrapolated further. Furthermore, there is evidence that the honeybee population is heading towards extinction, where, losses under 18.7% being sustainable, majorities of US beekeepers have been reporting losses high above this level in recent years. (Palmer 2022)

Primary ecological consequences of the absence of honeybees include the lack of pollination, where the main pollinator of plants is the honeybee. There are evidently species of plants that are wind-pollinated, counting for approximately 60% of the plant population, however even within the crops that are insect-pollinated, only 14.9% would not survive without the honeybee: the others simply use it as one source of pollination. These statistics however are slightly insignificant, as although more species of plants may be wind-pollinated than insect-pollinated, this is only taking in the number of species of plants - 80% of plants found in nature are insect-pollinated. When looking at impacts on the human population, it would be more useful to look at the plants most commonly found throughout the agricultural sector, as this statistic is directly proportional to the number of people who are provided with food from this crop. Moreover it is useful to note that although many species of ‘plants’ may be wind-pollinated, a more appropriate term to measure is a ‘crop’, a cultivated plant grown commercially on a large scale. However, even when looking at the most grown crops throughout the world, the major five being maize, wheat, water rice, cassava and potatoes, not one is insect-pollinated. This shows the foundation of agriculture does not rely on insects for pollination. However, although it is true that wind and self- pollinated plants play a large role in agriculture, one must not forget that famine is already affecting hundreds of millions of lives across the globe. With a decrease in food production of even 8%, which is substantial, this would have rippling effects on those already suffering with a lack of food, causing further starvation, illness and death for many.

It would be incorrect to ignore the consequences that the absence of honeybees would have on the human population. Insect-pollinated plants would become more rare and expensive to cultivate, and thus products from these plants would become more expensive if not disappearing. This includes apples, onions and berries, as well as often thought necessities such as coffee - this example will now be used to illustrate certain consequences. It is important to note that there are two levels to a ‘necessity’ in this case. Firstly, this refers to adults, especially in the west, who are often reliant on coffee and drink it several times daily. However, the more pressing subject is countries such as Columbia and Ethiopia who rely on the primary production of coffee for exportation in order to prop up their economy. Without the production of coffee being available, certain sectors within countries’ economies would collapse. Not only would these disasters have the potential to occur without insect pollinators, sources have also shown that crops that have the capability of being pollinated in numerous ways were of a higher quality when pollinated with honeybees. This stems from the fact that self pollination, another facet of pollination that plants may use, leads to no genetic variation in the offspring. This is as genetic material from the same plant is used to form both gametes, and thus the zygote; this allows for no adaptation to the changing environment or potential pathogenic attacks, as well as reduced health of species and potential inbreeding depressions caused by a higher risk of recessive mutations. Furthermore, wind-pollination is extremely random and is very often not as successful as insect-pollination. This shows that although bees may not directly be the only source of pollination for numerous crops, their effect is so widespread that their absence would affect the agricultural sector in so many ways, therefore leading to higher levels of food insecurity.

Figure 2 - Produce choices with and without honeybees (Pearson 2014)

Having discussed the food yield that would be impacted with the absence of honeybees, it is vital to note that the amount of income that would be lost with low yields would be considerable, where many of the crops that depend on honeybees are relied on by farmers from low income developing countries (LIDCs). Examples include soybeans, cocoa and avocado, crops that are heavily depended on by LIDCs for trade. The threat of the loss of these crops would have disastrous economic impacts on certain countries, as exports of these crops may be relied on for a certain level of economic security. As well as poorer countries being negatively affected, it is also important to investigate the higher economically developed countries. Although these countries may not be as impacted by some of the consequences as discussed above, richer countries tend to grow food which is more nutrient-rich, such as fruits, vegetables and nuts. These crops rely on insect pollination more than staple crops, thus the absence of honeybees would also have an economic impact on certain countries such as Spain and the USA. This shows that not only the poor would be affected by the absence of the honeybee.

There are a lot of insects such as butterflies, wasps, moths and even bats that play a part in pollination, and they are often capable of pollinating the same crops that honeybees do. This means that certain plants that would be predicted to have been completely unable to reproduce as they rely fully on insect pollination would be able to maintain population numbers to a certain extent. However, the honeybee is the ‘superior pollinator’, with such high rates of pollination which could not be replicated by any other organism. It can be argued however that simply the maintenance of certain plants and crops that cannot sustain themselves at all without insects would mean that certain products that are vital could remain in global circulation. When investigating this matter one must not forget that although flower-pollinating insects are intricately unique, they will be impacted by similar phenomenons, including pesticides and changing environments, as reviewed in detail in sections 4.21 and 4.23.

Therefore if the honeybee would become extinct there is a very high probability that other insect pollinators would follow, as they undergo similar biological processes and live in similar manners. Furthermore, there may even be certain impacts that act against other insects that did not affect honeybees. One example is the nocturnal elephant hawkmoth, which pollinates wildflowers, is also decreasing in populations. This is because of the high increase in artificial lighting across the globe reaching 25% of the world. This artificial lighting affects the visual ecology of the moth, in ways including not being able to distinguish between natural foliage and its own body throughout the night when choosing a resting place for the day. This means that the moth would be less likely to camouflage against the background to hide from its predators, one being the blue tit, along with being impacted by changing environments and pesticides. This shows how although this dissertation is focusing on the impacts on the honeybee, there are numerous different species that are facing similar impacts, if not more numerous and severe. Therefore it is not correct to argue that with the absence of the honeybee there would be other insects present to carry out pollination.

However, pollination can be mechanised through the use of drones, where studies have shown that they can be effective and have the potential to work on a large scale: they have the same ability to pollinate as the honeybee would. Furthermore, one has the ability to control them to pollinate the most important crops for the agricultural sector - this is something that cannot be achieved as easily when a honeybee pollinates plants, as it travels where most nectar is present. Although this is true and the drone shows a large potential to play a major part in pollination in years to come, such drones are simply too low in numbers as not enough time has been given to manufacture and introduce such machines across the globe. Furthermore, the programming of the drone is still yet to be perfected, and due to its high-quality machinery, the drone is extremely expensive and LIDCs, where most of the agricultural sector is based, would not be able to buy these machines in high quantities. Also problems may arise with the introduction of such expensive machines: in less developed countries drones may be attacked by locals and stripped for parts. Furthermore they could cause more harm than good: drones flying low but at high speeds could get tangled in plants, hit birds and generally interfere with wildlife. This shows that the drone cannot act as a replacement for the honeybee.

It is also possible to hand-pollinate plants, however, many problems arise with this, where studies have shown that it is an extremely inefficient method of pollination. In addition, if people were to constantly step around crops to reach flowers, crops would become trampled on rapidly, damaging the structure of the plant, and reducing its reproductive ability. The main problem is that the amount of people needed for this hard labour could never meet the sheer amount of crops needed to be pollinated. This shows the inefficiency of hand pollination of crops, and yet again highlights the importance of the honeybee.

As well as this, the honeybee and the plants it pollinates have a huge effect on the surrounding ecosystem: if they were to disappear, the biodiversity of the world would be greatly impacted. Many organisms rely on the honeybee and its pollinated plants for food and habitats. Plants species that the honeybee pollinates are a necessity in numerous food webs, in particular the soil food web, as shown in Figure 3, where the plant provides energy for fungi and nematodes, which then pass the energy onto the other trophic levels, including birds, animals and arthropods. With the absence of the plant, the following levels of the food web would have a lack of energy provided to them. Figure 3 is a general food web, meaning that it is replicated across the globe in high numbers. This would mean numerous animals would suffer a lack of food, have a higher chance of dying, and the speed of extinction of species would thus increase, already at a very high rate, at approximately 1,000-10,000 species per year (National Geographic 2019). Many may however argue that events following the absence of bees would not be as catastrophic as just described. It is true that there are other forms of plants other than insect-pollinated plants(wind-pollinated, self-pollinated): this means that many food webs found throughout nature would be undisturbed with the absence of honeybees. Moreover, there are other methods of energy supply to animals, i.e fourth trophic levels and higher; an example of this is organic matter, which mainly transfers energy towards bacteria and fungi. This energy can then be translated towards higher trophic levels. Although to a certain extent this may be true, it is important to note that there are still billions of plants across the globe found in nature that are insect-pollinated. As previously stated, 80% of plants found in nature are insect-pollinated, and their absence would still rid a multitude of animals of energy.

Figure 3 - The soil food web (Ersek 2017)

Furthermore, although organic matter may provide certain organisms with energy, this is often insubstantial and organisms rely on both plants and organic matter for such energy. Thus, the absence of plants would still lead to less energy being provided to higher trophic levels in food webs: overall this would lead to ecological catastrophe, as millions of species would have less food to consume, and mass extinction of species would follow. Furthermore, the lack of plants in some cases, especially trees, would lead to habitats of animals being lost, where birds, possums, squirrels, racoons, and many more can be found to reside in their habitats as provided by plants. With the lack of these plants, the balance of the ecosystem would be overturned, as animals would find themselves with a lack of domain, often meaning that they would be hunted by predators easier as they would have less places to hide and rest. Once again, this would lead to dropping populations of organisms, which would produce a further knock-on effect of predators’ populations dropping as they would have less prey. This creates a higher chance of extinction of species found in nature. Although many may try to argue that plants that are not insect-pollinated may increase in population and take over space that insect-pollinated plants resided in, this would take a long period of time, and in this space of time the extinction of animals could reach great numbers.

6 Conclusion

Based on the findings of this project, the answer to the question “Would the absence of honeybees lead to ecological and economic disaster” is as follows. It is very likely that an ecological catastrophe would occur, along with a substantial loss in biodiversity, where innumerable species would lose their habitats and food, thus dying out. The answer is more complex however for the economic side of this question, in particular effects on the human agricultural sector. There would be a rippling effect on the diversity of produce available to buy as a consumer in supermarkets, and it is highly likely that formerly thought ‘necessities’ such as fruits, vegetables and coffee would become ‘luxuries’ where they would either increase in price as never seen before or would not be distributed globally. However, major food production would not be affected highly due to wind-pollinated plants accounting for a large number of major species of crops. Thus the effects on the economic branch would not be great enough to place it under the heading of a ‘disaster’. Prior to this project, the hypothesis was that the absence of honeybees would impact humans more than the surrounding biodiversity, however due to the agricultural world mainly consisting of wind-pollinated crops, as well as insect-pollinated plants being so inextricably linked with surrounding nature, the opposite was found.

Furthermore, this project concluded that the main reasons for the decrease in honeybee populations were: pesticides affecting honeybee behaviours; parasites, specifically Varroa destructor; and the changing environments that honeybees find themselves in. When looking forward, there are different solutions to each reason. Firstly, and most simply, all pesticides that are toxic or affect honeybee behaviour in any form must be banned from agricultural use. Although this has been fought for by beekeepers for decades and has been partly successful, the methods of banning such chemicals must change. It is unacceptable that years of investigations and studies, as well as legal battles, must occur before such dangerous chemicals are banned. Politics, greed and corruption must be set aside for the good of the planet. Secondly, the root of the problem regarding the changing environments must be examined: the answer lies in climate change - the cause of so many worldwide issues. Rapidly changing temperatures are what is causing the environment to react accordingly, however, the honeybee is not able to adapt to such changes under such a short time scale. Once again, to solve this problem, although individual lifestyles changing to become more eco-friendly may have a certain impact, major corporations and businesses must stop taking advantage of the Earth’s finite resources. Finally, such drastic methods are not needed to rid the honeybee of its eternal pest, the Varroa: there now are numerous methods to remove the mite from honeybee colonies when spotted. This includes sugar dusting, traps and chemical control in the worst-case scenario, as such chemicals can affect honeybees as well, as seen with pesticides.

Although more complex research should be done in these areas to understand the reasons for the declining honeybee populations in a deeper manner so that more effective solutions can be provided rather than those discussed in this study, there is already enough evidence on which world leaders and businesses can act to save the honeybee. As shown throughout this paper, the consequences of the absence of the honeybee will have a global effect, impacting both the human population and all surrounding nature.

7 Bibliography

Adams, Gryphon. n.d. “Weeping Willow Trees as a Habitat for Wildlife.” Home Guides. Accessed February 15, 2023. https://homeguides.sfgate.com/weeping-willow-trees-habitat-wildlife-99822.html.

Annoscia, di Prisco. 2020. “Neonicotinoid Clothianidin reduces honey bee immune response and contributes to Varroa mite proliferation.” Nature.

Apis Information Resource Center. n.d. “A history of the Varroa mite. It's introduction and effects around the world.” Apis Information Resource Center. Accessed February 12, 2023. https://beekeep.info/a-treatise-on-modern-honey-bee-management/managing-diseases-and-pests/varroa-short-history/.

Atmospheric Journal. 2008. (April).

BBC. n.d. “Explaining climate change and global warming - Climate change - Eduqas - GCSE Geography Revision - Eduqas.” BBC. Accessed February 13, 2023. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zcn6k7h/revision/1.

BeeAware. n.d. “Varroa mites « Bee Aware.” Bee Aware. Accessed February 12, 2023. https://beeaware.org.au/archive-pest/varroa-mites/.

BeeBase. 2020. “Tropilaelaps.” Beebase. https://nationalbeeunit.com/index.cfm?pageid=92.

BeeBase. 2021. “Varroa.” Beebase. https://nationalbeeunit.com/index.cfm?pageid=93.

BeeGood. n.d. “Skin Benefits Of Honey, Propolis & Beeswax.” Wikipedia. Accessed February 20, 2023. https://beegood.co.uk/hive/skin-benefits-honey-propolis-beeswax/?msclkid=aae42ddff9ce17910ca14e2c4ca1b282.

Benjamin, Alison, and Brian McCallum. 2008. A world without bees. London: Guardian Books.

Best, Shivali. 2022. “Number of droughts has surged 29% since 2000, UN warns.” Daily Mail, May 11, 2022. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10805363/Number-droughts-surged-29-2000-mitigation-needed-urgently-warns.html.

Briercliffe, Sylvia M. n.d. “David A. Cushman.” Willow as a diverse habitat benefiting pollinating insects in early spring. Accessed December 6, 2022. https://www.bing.chttp://dave-cushman.net/bee/pollenthesis.html#:~:text=Willow%20is%20zoophilous%20-%20insect%20pollinated%2C%om/search?q=is+willow+insect+pokkinated&cvid=111948b8822a4de39b2f650f5c11e51d&aqs=edge..69i57.5558j0j1&pglt=43&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=U531.

Briggs, Helen. 2022. “Climate change: UK plants now flowering a month earlier.” BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60220661.

Briolat. 2021. “Artificial nighttime lighting impacts visual ecology links between flowers, pollinators and predators.” Nature, (July).

Britannic editors. 1998. “Industrial Revolution | Definition, History, Dates, Summary, & Facts.” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Industrial-Revolution.

Business Insider. 2019. “Without Bees, Foods Would Become Rare, Less Nutritious, More Expensive.” Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/world-without-bees-food-less-nutritious-more-expensive-2019-8?r=US&IR=T#bee-pollination-also-improves-the-quality-of-crops-a-study-in-burkina-faso-found-that-cotton-and-sesame-plants-pollinated-by-bees-had-an-average-of-62-h.

Casey, Michael. 2015. “40 percent of U.S. bee colonies died in past year.” CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/40-percent-of-u-s-bee-colonies-died-in-past-year/.

Cheng, Yan-Ping. 2014. “Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus: Epidemiology, Pathogenesis and Implications for Honey Bee Health.” Pubmed.

Craddock, and Huang. 2019. “Trends in neonicotinoid pesticide residues in food and water in the United States, 1999–2015 - Environmental Health.” Environmental Health. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-018-0441-7.

di Prisco, Jennaro. 2010. “Varroa destructor is an effective vector of Israeli acute paralysis virus in the honeybee, Apis mellifera.” Pubmed.

Entomological Society of America. 2020. “Varroa destructor mite.” Entomology Today. https://entomologytoday.org/2020/02/07/varroa-mites-new-guide-outlines-integrated-pest-management-options/varroa-destructor-mite/.

Ersek, Kaitlyn. 2017. “What is the Soil Food Web?” Holganix. https://www.holganix.com/blog/soil-food-web.

Florez, Francisco. 2020. “Varroa destructor mites vector and transmit pathogenic honey bee viruses acquired from an artificial diet.” Pubmed.

Hadley, Debbie. 2008. “10 Possible Causes of Colony Collapse Disorder.” ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/possible-causes-colony-collapse-disorder-1968109.

Hill, Ansley. 2018. “12 Potential Health Benefits of Royal Jelly.” Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/royal-jelly.

Ilievski, Stevce. 2020. “43 Frightening Bee Statistics to Know (2022 UPDATE).” Petpedia. https://petpedia.co/bee-statistics/.

Jaworski, Coline, Benoît Geslin, and Catherine Fernandez. 2019. “Climate change: bees are disorientated by flowers' changing scents.” Phys.org. https://phys.org/news/2019-06-climate-bees-disorientated-byflowers-scents.html.

Kessler, Sebastien. 2015. “Bees prefer foods containing neonicotinoid pesticides.” Nature.

Milbrath, Meghan. 2016. “Why did my honey bees die? – Bee Informed Partnership.” Bee Informed Partnership. https://beeinformed.org/2016/03/08/why-did-my-honey-bees-die/.

National Geographic. 2019. “Extinct species, facts and information.” National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/extinct-species.

Palmer, Brian. 2022. “A World Without Bees? Here's What Happens If Bees Go Extinct.” NRDC. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/world-without-bees-heres-what-happens-if-bees-go-extinct.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/world-without-bees-heres-what-happens-if-bees-go-extinct.

Pearson, Gwen. 2014. “Will We Still Have Fruit if Bees Die Off?” WIRED. https://www.wired.com/2014/05/will-we-still-have-fruit-if-bees-die-off/.

Petruzzello, Melissa, and John P. Rafferty. n.d. “What Would Happen If All the Bees Died?” Encyclopedia Britannica. Accessed December 6, 2022. https://www.britannica.com/story/what-would-happen-if-all-the-bees-died.

Pollinator Partnership. n.d. “About Pollinators | Pollinator.org.” Pollinator Partnership. Accessed February 15, 2023. https://pollinator.org/pollinators.

Queen Right Colonies. 2020. “Varroa mites and Viruses.” Queen Right Colonies. https://www.queenrightcolonies.com/2020/03/04/varroa-mite/.

Ramsey, Samuel. 2019. “Varroa destructor feeds primarily on honey bee fat body tissue and not hemolymph.” Pubmed.

Ritchie, Hannah. 2021. “How much of the world's food production is dependent on pollinators?” Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/pollinator-dependence.

Roberts, John. 2017. “Absence of deformed wing virus and Varroa destructor in Australia provides unique perspectives on honeybee viral landscapes and colony losses.” Nature.

RSPB. n.d. “Honey Bees | Facts About Honey Bees - The RSPB.” RSPB. Accessed February 11, 2023. https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/wildlife-guides/other-garden-wildlife/insects-and-other-invertebrates/bees-wasps-ants/honey-bee/.

Science Info. 2018. “The main food crops of the world.” Wikipedia. https://scienceinfo.net/the-main-food-crops-of-the-world.html.

Simmonds, Michael. 2022. “How Many Honeybees Live in a Colony?” BeeKeepClub. https://beekeepclub.com/how-many-honeybees-live-in-a-colony/.

Temming, Maria. 2020. “Bubble-blowing drones may one day aid artificial pollination.” Science News. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/bubble-blowing-drones-may-one-day-aid-artificial-pollination.

Thany, Steeve H. 2022. “Clothianidin.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothianidin.

Theo. 2022. “How much does a bee fly?” TeddyBearsHoney. https://teddybearshoney.com/how-much-does-a-bee-fly/.

Thompson, Helen. 2019. “Thiamethoxam: Long-term effects following honey bee colony-level exposure and implications for risk assessment.” PubMed, (March).

Tosi, Simone. 2017. “A common neonicotinoid pesticide, thiamethoxam, impairs honey bee flight ability.” Nature.

Traynor, Kirsten S. 2020. “Varroa destructor: A Complex Parasite, Crippling Honey Bees Worldwide.” Pubmed.

Tree Guide UK. n.d. “Willows.” Tree Guide UK. Accessed February 15, 2023. https://www.treeguideuk.co.uk/willows/.

UNDRR. n.d. “Disaster | UNDRR.” UNDrr. Accessed January 23, 2023. https://www.undrr.org/terminology/disaster.

“Us.” 2019. YouTube. http://www.greenandgrowing.org/bee-population-decline-facts/.

USGS. 2016. “Land-Use Change Rapidly Reducing Critical Honey Bee Habitat in Dakotas | U.S. Geological Survey.” USGS.gov. https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/land-use-change-rapidly-reducing-critical-honey-bee-habitat-dakotas.

Walsh, Bryan. 2013. “The Bee, Magnified: Microscopic Photography by Rose-Lynn Fisher.” TIME. https://time.com/3801423/the-bee-magnified-microscopic-photography-by-rose-lynn-fisher/.

WHO. 2021. “Fact sheets - Malnutrition.” World Health Organization (WHO). https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malnutrition.

“Why are Bees Important?” 2021. Friends of the Earth. https://foe.org/blog/why-are-bees-important/.

Wikipedia. 2022. “List of crop plants pollinated by bees.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_by_bees.

Wikipedia. 2023. “Thiamethoxam.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiamethoxam.

Wright, Geraldine. 2015. “Low doses of neonicotinoid pesticides in food rewards impair short-term olfactory memory in foraging-age honeybees.” Nature.

WWF. n.d. “What is Erosion? Effects of Soil Erosion and Land Degradation.” WWF. Accessed February 15, 2023. https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/soil-erosion-and-degradation.

Yale School of Environment. 2020. “Extreme Weather Events Have Increased Significantly in the Last 20 Years.” Yale E360. https://e360.yale.edu/digest/extreme-weather-events-have-increased-significantly-in-the-last-20-years.

Zunino, Anthony. 2019. “More Than Just Pollinators: Honey Bees in Medicine | The Urban Beekeeping Laboratory and Bee Sanctuary, Inc.” Urban Beekeeping Laboratory & Bee Sanctuary. https://urbanbeelab.org/more-than-just-pollinators-honey-bees-in-medicine/.

8 Source Analysis

[1] This article was published in the website of TIME magazine, one of the most authoritative and informative guides to current affairs, politics and science. The writer, Bryan Walsh, is an established senior writer of the TIME, covering the environment regularly and therefore has a strong level of expertise on this subject. Although a relatively old source, this information is well-known by entomologists as it relays basic physiology of the honeybee. In the same source, there is a microscopic photograph of the honeybee’s head, which is direct evidence of the fact used from this source. The photographer Rose-Lynn Fisher is well known and respected, focusing mainly on bee photography and completing years-long projects. Although the source is not likely to be up-to-date, this is insignificant as new discoveries of the physiology of the honeybee are highly improbable, leading to the fact that this source is very reliable.

[2] This book is co-written by two respectable biologists, who are well known in the beekeeping industry. However the book is highly America centric, which means that most or all statistics or examples are based on America: this is a slight problem as I am researching the global impacts and causes for the decline of honeybees, not just from one country. Furthermore, it is an old source which proves a problem especially in the theme of the decline of honeybees as research is currently ongoing. Altogether, although a trustworthy source in the aspect of its renowned writers, its date means that certain statistics are not as useful as they focus on older dates, and the information presented may need to be checked against newer sources in the case of new discoveries and propositions in more recent sources.

[3] This is a very recent website article and can therefore be guaranteed to be very up-to-date. The writer is however relatively unknown, only referring to himself as ‘Theo the Beekeeper’. Furthermore, on the writer’s description, he claims that he has gained his knowledge through previously beekeeping, as well as his own research online - this in comparison to other article writers who often have degrees and doctorates in this field. The article itself is not extremely scientific and is relatively surface-level, and through the writer’s background it can be assumed that it should not be relied on for in-depth scientific information. However its need was simply to describe the trip of the honeybee, and therefore is reliable for its purpose in my Literature review.

[4] The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is a charitable organisation that works to promote conservation of the environment. It was founded in 1889, highlighting the prestige of the charity due to the fact that it has been present for centuries. Although no publishing date is shown, this is often the case with website articles and a prestigious charity as RSPB can be relied to update any information due to regulatory oversight in order for them to maintain this patronage; furthermore the information it provides is relatively simple, stating the lifetime of a worker bee. However, the main purpose of the organisation is to protect wildlife, meaning that it may hold a bias for making statistics more dramatic: this is irrelevant providing the fact that the information it is providing gives no reason to have a bias. Due to the reputation of the organisation, this source is very trustworthy.

[5] Michael Simmonds is a reputable beekeeper with a huge passion for the subject of honeybees, which led him to being described as ‘one of the most respected beekeepers in the country’ - this quote was provided by the website he appears on, which downplays the reliability of the quote itself as a bias is likely to be present. He owns a reputable beekeeping business and is sought after for his high level of expertise. The information that is needed from this source is limited, only looking at the food sources in a colony, meaning it is unlikely an error has been made. Furthermore the article is very recent, having been written in 2022 and although this source does not go into detail on the subject, the information provided is very reliable and up-to-date.

[6] The writer of this article, Meghan Milbrath is extremely qualified, as an assistant professor of entomology, a coordinator of the Michigan Pollinator Initiative and performs pollinator related research at Michigan state University. Although the article was not published so recently, due to the information provided which describes the processes that occur in the life of a honeybee colony, it is unlikely that new discoveries would be made in this area. Overall, the article is reliable, mainly due to the esteemed reputation of the writer.

[7] The writer, Steve Iliesky, is a doctor of veterinary medicine with over 25 years of experience working in the field of veterinary medicine, however only has a few years of experience in article research. This website article offers numerous statistics that include references, as to show what studies they originated from. The website that it has been posted on is ‘Petpedia’, suggesting that the information provided is less scientifically detailed as it mainly posts ways to care for pet animals, such as cats or dogs. The title of the source suggests that it may be slightly biassed into making statistics seem more dramatic for the viewers. Overall, although the source is very likely to be up-to-date because of its recent publishing date, the seemingly unqualified and dramatic website means that it cannot be guaranteed to contain accurate information, which proves the source to be unreliable.

[8] The writer, Michael Casy, covers the environment, science and technology for CBS news, however more is not known about him. Casey provides a reference for the statistic I used, which came from 'Bee Informed', a non-profit organisation which uses a science based approach to long-term sustainability, suggesting that the statistic is unlikely to to be misused, seeing as the entire organisation runs on the data that is provided. Although the source was not published very recently, and may contain certain information that has not been updated, this is irrelevant as the statistic used describes honey bee deaths in 2014/15, where this information cannot change, unless an error occurred in assimilating the data needed for this statistic. Overall, due to the reference of this source, it is highly reliable.

[9] This is a journal article posted to ‘BioMed Central’ , a well-respected journal. The main writers of the article, one of whom had a PHD in Environmental Health Sciences, and the other from the Department of Epidemiology, are esteemed researchers who have together published over 40 articles. The article itself has received over 16,000 accesses and 100 citations, referencing 65 different sources, showing that it has received popular attention from the biological world. Furthermore this article is relatively recent, having been published in 2019, and is therefore likely to be up-to-date. Altogether, this article is trustworthy, less due to its metrics, and more because of its head writers and the fact that it was published in a reputable journal.

[10] This is a journal article published in the well-respected and peer-reviewed journal ‘Nature’, arguably the most reputable international-leading journal in the field of biological sciences. Its writers, both post-doctoral researchers, have written an article with numerous respectable references. It was published in 2020, meaning that information provided is up-to-date. This source is very reliable, due to the expertise of its main writers, the recent publishing date, and the prestige of the journal it was published in.

[11] Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers through open collaboration, where editors must meet certain regulations. Although Wikipedia is often criticised as a very unreliable source, a study by Nature in 2005 showed that its contents were as reliable as Encyclopaedia Britannica, ‘the most scholarly of encyclopaedias’, proving its trustworthiness overall as a website, contrary to popular belief. Nothing however could be found on this article’s editor, Steve Thany. This article was recently updated in 2022, and includes numerous references from where the information it provides originated. The statistic that was used in this project originated from a research article led by the company ‘Sumitomo Chemical Co’, a major Japanese Chemical company. Although one may be wary of the contents of Wikipedia due to its large number of ‘unqualified’ editors, by delving into the references the reliability of this source can be shown.

[12] This article was published in Nature: for source evaluation of this journal, see footnote 10. Simone Tosi, the head writer, is an assistant professor at the Bee health and behaviour Lab at the University of Turin, which shows her interest and knowledge in the subject of entomology, in particular honeybees. This article is quite successful, with over 117 citations since its publishing in 2017 - due to the relatively recent publishing date, the majority of information will be up-to-date. Altogether, due to the reputation of the head writer and the fact that the article was published in the journal Nature, it is a trustworthy source.

[13] This is an article from the archives of biomedical and life sciences journal literature ‘Pubmed’, an online repository for digital journal articles, however this article was published in the peer-reviewed journal ‘Science of the Total Environment’, a more recent journal established in 1972. This article has been headed by H. Thompson, who has helped write over a hundred journal articles, proving the reliability of sources he has produced due to the multitude of them in circulation. However, this specific article was only cited by 7 others, slightly downplaying its credibility - this may be however due to its relatively recent publishing date in 2019, which shows that this source is likely to be up-to-date. Overall, this source is reliable, mainly due to the experience and expertise of the head writer.

[14] For source evaluation of Wikipedia, see footnote 11. This article, most recently updated in 2023, provides over 20 reputable sources in its references, where the statistic that was used originated from the UK government Environmental Protective Agency, an organisation which works closely with gov.uk, a public sector information website, to ensure all information is up-to-date. The editors of the source are not mentioned, however this Wikipedia article is not only up-to-date, but is also very detailed and well explained, suggesting that the editors are well known in this subject. Overall, this article is trustworthy mainly because the information needed originally came from a UK government page, unlikely to provide any political bias.

[15] This article was published in Nature: for source evaluation of this journal, see footnote 10. The head writers, Sebastian Kessler and Erin Jo Tiedeken, are not as well known and little is known of them when researched on the internet: furthermore combined they have only published 8 articles on the Nature journal. The date of the article is not as recent, published in 2015, suggesting it may not be fully up-to-date. The article has received extremely positive feedback, with over 270 citations and 30,000 accesses. Although this is not always a direct measure of reliability, and this source is older, with little known of the writers, the fact that it was published to a peer-reviewed journal such as Nature suggests its trustworthiness.

[16] This article was published in Nature: for source evaluation of this journal, see footnote 10. The head writer of this research article, Geraldine Wright, is from the Institute of Neuroscience at the University of Newcastle, and has published 34 articles, just on Nature, showing her wide breadth of knowledge of the sciences. Although as a researcher, Wright has been majorly successful, this article has received relatively average access numbers of less than 3,800 at the time of writing. However, it has received over 45 citations: the ratio of accesses to citations is quite unusual, as this is a high number of citations per access. This suggests that although the article has not been read by many and has not been in such circulation, those who have read it have received it very positively, which shows that this article is of a high standard and is scientifically accurate. However, it is not as recent, being published in 2015, which may show that it may not be as up-to-date. Overall, although the article has not been read by many and may contain information that is out of date, its high ratio of citations:accesses and the prestige of the head writer proves the source to be reliable.

[17] This article is from the Apis Information Resource Center, a database on beekeeping that is relatively unknown. Although the date of the article was not provided, the information that I used from this source was a date of when the Varroa was first sighted, therefore the date is not as important as it is extremely unlikely that such information would change. Overall, this source is not trustworthy, as the database that the article was published to is not familiar, and neither the date nor the writer is known, however I only required one statistic from this source, which would likely not have varied with a different writer or date published.

[18] This article, published on the website ‘BeeBase’, is under the control of the ‘Animal and Plant Health Agency’, an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the United Kingdom, formed in 2014. Therefore, due to the fact that the article is headed by a government agency, it is very likely to be trustworthy and unbiased, as publicly accountable agencies such as this must meet stringent standards, where numerous layers of editors are in place to ensure the information provided is correct. Furthermore, the article was last updated in 2021, meaning all provided information will be up-to-date. Overall, mainly due to the high reputation of the government agency that heads the organisation of this article, this source is very reliable.

[19] This article, although under the website ‘Bee Aware’, is officially headed and funded by ‘Plant health Australia’, the national coordinator of the government-industry partnership for plant biosecurity in Australia. This is an esteemed government organisation that is unlikely to help publish any website articles that are not accurate, as organisations such as this hold themselves to high standards, where numerous layers of editors are in place (e.g. junior editors, senior editors) to maintain the reliability of the source. This article provides a detailed summary of the Varroa mite, and the information that was extracted for this project described the breeding cycles that the parasites undertake yearly. The fact that the publishing date is not shown is relatively insignificant, due to the information that I required from this source being quite simple, unlikely to change with time; moreover the fact that a government agency is heading the website suggests that any new information would be updated. Therefore, due to the esteemed reputation of the organisation that heads the website which the article was published from, this source is trustworthy.

[20] This article is from Pubmed: for source evaluation on this website, see footnote 13. The article originates from peer-reviewed journal ‘PLOS ONE’, where it was published in late 2020. The writer of this journal article, Francisco Florez, is a current researcher who has published nine articles on the behaviour and life of the bee. This article has been only cited 15 times since its publishing three years ago in 2020, which although highlights that the article is very likely to be up-to-date, it also poses a worrying question of whether the propositions that were suggested by Florez were as scientifically accurate as previously thought. Statistics suggest that citations of this article are stagnating, with most occurring in 2021, meaning that citation numbers are not increasing rapidly. However, citations are not a direct measure of trustworthiness, and overall this source is reliable due to its recent publishing date and the fact that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

[21] This article was published in Nature: for source evaluation of this journal, see footnote 10. This source is relatively recent and likely to be up-to-date, with the head writer of the article, John Roberts, being extremely distinguished, having written numerous articles, where this article received over 60 citations since its publishing. Furthermore, it has over 72 references from likewise reputable journal articles, showing that the information that it has provided is of a high standard. Overall, it can be assured that the article is reliable and scientifically precise, due to its metrics and the fact that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal as Nature.

[22] This article is from Pubmed: for source evaluation on this website, see footnote 13. The journal that this article originates from is ‘Trends in Parasitology’, a peer reviewed journal launched in 1985 that describes itself as ‘a highly regarded review journal of international importance, reflecting the global significance of medical and veterinary parasites’. The head writer of this journal article, Kirsten Traynor, is a well known entomologist, having obtained her PHD and working as an expert as the director of the state institute for bee research, at the University of Hohenheim. This article has been cited by 55 different journal articles throughout 2021 and 2022, where the article itself was published in late 2020, calling attention to the fact that it is highly likely to be up-to-date. The team that worked on this article consisted of 8 well-achieved biologists, a number having helped publish over 70 articles each prior to this. This article is extremely reliable, due to the expertise of the team, the metrics of the article and the fact that it was published from a peer-reviewed journal..

[23] This article is from Pubmed: for source evaluation on this website, see footnote 13. The journal that this article was published from is the Journal of General Virology, publishing peer-reviewed research for more than 50 years. The head writer of this article, Gennaro di Prisco, is a well achieved researcher based at the Institute for Sustainable Plant Protection, National Research Council, where he has helped publish 173 journal articles throughout his time as a researcher. However this article was published in the year 2010, making it a relatively old source, where there is a high likelihood that information provided is out-of-date. Therefore, although this article is from a peer-reviewed journal and has a reputable head writer, the publishing date lowers its reliability, where information provided must be checked with other more trustworthy sources.

[24] This article is from Pubmed: for source evaluation on this website, see footnote 13. The journal which this article originates from is the Plos Pathogens journal, which is peer-reviewed and open access. The head writer of this research article, Yan Ping Chen, has written over 130 journal articles, where he had a group of over 30 scientists to lead in this project, leading to the article being published in numerous Journals, including ‘research gate’ and ‘Public health Columbia’. However, this article was published in 2014, making it not as recent and with information not being as up-to-date. Altogether, although a ground breaking team, led by a very reputable researcher, published an article that was present in many of the world’s top journals, the publishing date makes it relatively unreliable.

[25] The organisation that produced this article, ‘Britannica’, was built as a student resource for key subjects, therefore there is almost no reason that information would be provided in a biassed manner for a reason other than to educate school children. It is a reputable organisation that was founded in the 18th Century, further proving its high status. Although the editors of the article are not known, and the publishing date was in 1998, it is stated that the article was last updated in 2023; furthermore such an important organisation as this can be trusted to ensure that only high quality editors would be hired. Altogether, although no information of editors was provided, this source is very reliable due to the prestige of the organisation it comes from.

[26] This source is originally from the Atmospheric Journal, a reputable organisation that provides scientific articles on the atmospheric sciences, however was has an old publishing date of 2008: this is what causes this source to be untrustworthy, as so many, countless, scientific discoveries have occurred since this date that any statistics or approaches put forward by the source are unreliable due to their old age.

[27] This source is a website article from ‘Phys.org’, a database that provides readers with news and articles on science and technology. Although it may seem worrying that the database that this source comes from provides such a wide range of sources, and is not as focused on the particular subject of ecology, or going deeper, entomology, it must be noted that an organisation as large as this will have many editors and writers that specialise in their respective areas. This source dates to 2019, meaning that it is relatively recent and up-to-date. This source was only needed for the idea of aromas of plants changing, and altogether is reliable, due to the status of the organisation it originates from.

[28] This source is from the British Broadcasting Corporation, the world’s oldest broadcaster and the national broadcaster of the United Kingdom. The fact that this organisation is a public service broadcaster means that it is publicly funded and does not have to rely on advertising for revenue; this means that the article is less driven by making headlines and contents dramatic so more people view it. Furthermore, it is regulated by a public charter and a board of governors to ensure the credibility of its contents. This study however did not source directly from the BBC, however by Cambridge University, a research university that was founded in 1209, one of the most internationally known universities in the world. Although Helen Briggs, the writer of the source, environmental correspondent, did not go into scientific detail about the findings, this was due to the fact that the BBC article was a simple summary of the research so that many could understand it. When looking at the Cambridge study itself, it was very scientifically detailed and dove into the reasons for the findings. The status of both these organisations prove the reliability of the source, as well as the fact that the article itself is recent, published in 2022.

[29] The writer of this article, Shivali Best, is well known as an executive science and technology editor of the Daily Mail, however the fact that she is in charge of such a broad spectrum of all the sciences suggests that she may not be aware of such scientific findings that may become present. Furthermore, the Daily mail is a ‘tabloid newspaper’, and is associated with stirring drama and news in a dramatic fashion in order to sustain high numbers of readers. Moreover, it is well known for its clear political leanings, and has a reputation of publishing fake news. In 2017, it had to post an apology for publishing fake news on Climate Change, where a complaint was originally made to the Independent press Regulatory Body. This also suggests that statistics that I took from this newspaper may be slightly exaggerated in order to prove any particular point. However, the article is recent in its publishing date of 2022. Overall, this source is highly unreliable due to the publisher, the Daily Mail, being well-known for presenting biases and fake news into its works.

[30] The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is a scientific agency of the United States and is a science bureau within the United States department of the Interior. The website that this source comes from, is headed by the USGS and is also an official website of the United States government. The article is said to have been written by ‘Communications and Publishing’, otherwise known as the ‘front door’ to USGS, where they present research of scientists of the USGS in a presentable manner. The article is scientifically detailed, with numerous useful statistics, however was published not as recently, in 2016, meaning it is likely to not be fully up-to-date. With other websites, this may be seen as a problem, however due to the high reputation of the USGS as working for the government of arguably the most powerful country in the world, it can be assured that any information would be updated if necessary. This source is thus very reliable, mainly because of the fact that the organisation that the website comes under is linked with the US government, which is unlikely to hold any bias on an article on crop yields.

[31] The writer of this article, Gwen Pearson, is a science writer in the department of entomology at Purdue University; she is an award-winning science communicator and has a PhD in entomology. This shows the high level of expertise in the field of entomology of this writer, as well as the fact that she is published in ‘Wired’, an established magazine in Technology, Science and Culture. However, the article was not published as recently, suggesting certain factors may be out-of-date. Overall, this source is reliable, due to the expertise of the writer, but due to its publishing date this is slightly undermined.

[32] This article has been published in respected bi-weekly magazine ‘ScienceNews’, which is devoted to articles about new scientific and technical developments, where the writer, Maria Temming, is the assistant editor at this institution. The fact that the writer is mainly focused on the physical sciences, having received her undergraduate degree in physics and english, and having previously been the staff writer for physical sciences could suggest that her main focus of interest is not in biology. This is however relatively insignificant, seeing as the content is not extremely scientifically detailed, sources are provided, and there is little evidence to suggest that the writer does not understand the topic. Therefore, due to the fact that the article is up-to-date and published to a respectable magazine, this source is reliable.

[33] For source analysis of Wikipedia, see footnote 11. Unlike other Wikipedia articles which often have a large number of reputable references, this article only contains 2 references which are not from well known sites or journals, suggesting that the information was not obtained from reliable sources themselves. The information is up-to-date however, and when checked against other sources no striking differences were found that would further cause one to distrust the source. Moreover, the information provided in the article is not very scientific based, however it is composed of simple factual knowledge, highlighting that one does not have to be an expert or a researcher in the field of biology to compose an article like this. Overall, this source is trustworthy due to the simplicity of material provided, and its recent publishing date.

[34] This source is from the website ‘Treeguide UK’, which was originally a tree and flower identification guide designed to aid gardeners. The author is unknown except for an email that is to be written to ‘alan@treeguide.co.uk’ for any comments, however this does not give enough information to describe ‘Alan’ as the author. This tree guide provides detail on each species of tree in great detail, with images to aid one, however neither references nor dates were provided - this could be due to the fact that this is not an article, however part of a website. Overall, this source is not reliable as little is known of the writer, no date is provided, and there is no way of knowing where the article got its information from, seeing as no references were given.

[35] This article originates from the news article ‘SFGATE’, a San Francisco newspaper which was founded in 1865. Nothing is known about the writer except his name, ‘Gryphon Adams’, and no date is provided, which is unusual for a newspaper: this brings down the trustworthiness of the source greatly as it has a high likelihood of being out-of-date. Furthermore, the newspaper is not scientific, but is more of a tabloid and the writer does not seem to have a large array of knowledge in the theme that he was writing in, as the article has little detail and does not provide many explanations. Furthermore, no dates or references were provided. Overall, due to the fact that the source is from a tabloid newspaper, nothing is known of the writer and no date nor references were provided, this article is very unreliable and any information taken from it must be checked against more reliable sources.

[36] The organisation which is behind this website is ‘Friends of the Earth International’, which is an international network of 73 countries, founded in 1969 by environmental conservationist David Brower, and is dedicated to protect the natural world. Although this proves the legitimacy of the source, as it stems from a well known international organisation, this also brings into view any biases that may be present in the article: at the bottom of the website page one is requested to donate money towards the cause of helping the planet. Although this may seem positive, one must be aware that this article will be geared towards making the honeybee seem extremely important for both humans and the nature surrounding, in order to show that money is needed to solve such problems. However, the article is detailed and well-formatted, with scientific statistics based throughout the text. Furthermore, it was published in 2021, meaning it is extremely up-to-date. Altogether, this source is reliable and trustworthy, due to the reputation of the organisation and its recent publishing date, however when assimilating knowledge from this source one must be careful of biases that may be present, positively so towards the honeybee.

[37] This article is written by the ‘World Health Organisation’ (WHO), a specialised agency of the United Nations, established in 1948 to promote health and control communicable diseases. With its main headquarters in Geneva, it has six regional offices and 150 field offices worldwide. This shows the elite status and reputation of the WHO, where it is composed of countries across the globe. Furthermore, the article is extremely detailed, with numerous statistics and data provided throughout, as well as being up-to-date, published recently. Due to the prestigiousness of the institution that this article comes from, it is very trustworthy.

[38] This article is under the organisation of the National Defense Resource Council (NRDC), an american based non-profit international environmental advocacy group, with the purpose of environmental activism. The writer himself, Brian Palmer, is a reputable science writer who has written for Slate, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and many other publications. The article itself, although being up-to-date, is relatively informal and does not include a lot of statistics, however could be seen as more of a ‘casual discussion’, between the writer and the reader. Although this does reduce the reliability of the source, as this makes the source more opinion-based and less factual, this is outweighed by the prestige of the internationally-accredited organisation, and is thus relatively trustworthy.

[39] This article is published in ‘Our world in Data’, a scientific online publication that focuses on large global problems such as poverty, disease, hunger, climate change, war, existential risks, and inequality. The writer, Hannah Ritchie, is extremely well-known and prestigious, as she is a British data scientist, senior researcher at the University of Oxford and head of research at this organisation. This is mirrored in the high scientific level of the article, which not only provides numerous statistics in different forms, i.e charts, numbers, etc, it also contains the references that the article has received its information from, where very reputable sources have been used. Furthermore, the article was published in 2021, showing that it is up-to-date. Overall, due to the expertise and prestigiousness of the writer, this source is highly reliable

[40] The corporation that this article is posted on is ‘Business Insider’, a New York city based international financial and business newspaper founded in 2007. Although one might think that due to the fact that it is mainly a business newspaper that the article would be relatively undetailed and basic, the article includes a lot of researches and studies that are not only very relevant to the topic of the article, but are scientifically accurate and very reputable; moreover detailed explanations are provided by the authors. The article has a relatively recent publishing date of 2019 and is most likely to be up-to-date: if there were to be any new discoveries that would prove certain aspects of the article to be false, this can be relied on to be changed, due to the status of the organisation heading the article. Overall, the article is very trustworthy due to the prestige of the newspaper it originates from.

[41] For source analysis on the BBC see footnote 28. Not only is this source from the BBC website, it is a revision source for Geography GCSE, a nation-wide exam taken by students at the age of 15/16 who study Geography. Although no sources, no writer and no date has been provided by the website, this source remains extremely reliable due to the fact that it is a revision source for an exam board; this means that the information provided is almost certain to be correct, with thousands of students using this website’s data to revise for exams. A national scandal would occur if it was found out that students were assimilating information that was intentionally inaccurate, making this source trustworthy.

[42] The National Geographic, a popular monthly magazine founded in 1888 known especially for its surreal photography, is a world leader in adventure, science, photography, environment, history and space exploration. It is arguably the world’s most celebrated magazine, which shows the elite status of the organisation. Although this does not directly prove the article’s reliability, hyperlinks are provided throughout the article to show where the information provided originated from. Furthermore, this source is relatively recent and up-to-date, published in 2019. Due to a combination of reasons, however mainly being the prestige of ‘National Geographic’, this source is extremely trustworthy and reliable.