Flowers' Smell Not Traveling As Far 113
Ant writes in to note a study indicating that, because of air pollution, the smell of flowers is not wafting as far as it once did. Pollutants from power plants and automobiles destroy flowers' aromas, the study suggests: "The scent molecules produced by flowers in a less polluted environment, such as in the 1800s, could travel for roughly 1,000 to 1,200 meters; but in today's polluted environment downwind of major cities, they may travel only 200 to 300 meters." The finding could help explain why some pollinators, particularly bees, are declining in certain parts of the world.
from the bambi dept (Score:1, Insightful)
Dumb conclusion... (Score:4, Insightful)
The finding could help explain why some pollinators, particularly bees, are declining in certain parts of the world.
I don't need to RTFA to point out how this conclusion does not bare up to even superficial examination. We have two types of bees in this world - domestic and wild. Bees in the wild are likely far from sources of pollution - by definition of "in the wild". Domestic bees are well known to be currently suffering a crises due a disease (or is it bee mites - or both?). What bees remain that are both not "in the wild" and not domestic are the only ones to potentially fit to the above conclusion. I would suggest that this is a very small group. I suppose other pollinators - like butterflies, etc, may find it a bit more difficult to find their flowers these days, but on the other hand, one would logically find these insects near flowers in the first place - their place of birth. Same goes for domestic bees, which are cultivated near flowering crops.
Horse shit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dumb conclusion... (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:If it looks like a duck and smells like a duck. (Score:3, Insightful)
These scientists have tested a postulate in a computer simulation, that scents are diminished by the scent chemicals reacting with pollutants (especially ozone). Now they have to test that in the real world.
The stupid .... it burns..... (Score:1, Insightful)
"The person dismissing this scientific study does not even know the difference between bear and bare and yet you value his opinion on the on the effect of pollution on pollinators?"
I am not so sure that you can so easily dismiss somebody's comment because it contains a typo. If we do that, we would dismiss your response, since clearly you failed to proof read your own comment. If you had, you would have noticed that you repeated "on the" in "on the on the effect of pollution...". Obviously you are clueless and we should disregard your point of view, if we follow your way of thinking.
Then you cite the study upon which the FA was based, but it is a useless citation because only those with a subscription to that journal could read that study. There is certainly no information in the abstract that has any bearing on the comment to which you respond. You conclude that the author of the post is "clueless", but you give no rebuttal to his conclusion. Since you obviously RTFA, you should easily be able to find something to back up your critique. Finally, your implication is we cannot not criticize the FA because "The study is published in the journal Atmospheric Environment". That is dangerous thinking. Any intelligent person needs to question anything he reads as a matter of routine. The more prestigious the journal, the more we need to keep our eyes open sometimes.
Finally, contrary opinions such as yours can be quite valuable to a discussion if they contain well formed arguments. It may be that there are times when it is appropriate to call somebody out as being "clueless". If you are going to take such a bold position, and want to be taken seriously, you should not hide as AC. You should stand up proudly attaching your name to your point of view.
Re:So without reading the article you're the exper (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense...there's no good reason to immediately jump to the conclusion that the problem mentioned in the study isn't a major or even dominant factor in colony collapse disorder.
I don't see how you so easily can say "nonsense". I see it differently - that there is no good reason to immediately jump to the conclusion that the problem of Colony Collapse Disorder is caused by pollution. Colony Collapse Disorder seems to happen in sporadic bursts, whereas I believe pollution can be graphed with long graceful curves.
Wikipedia says "...late in the year 2006 and in early 2007 the rate of attrition was alleged to have reached new proportions, and the term "Colony Collapse Disorder" was proposed to describe this sudden rash of disappearances." To me, that implies that there is no correlation between Colony Collapse Disorder and pollution, since I don't think there was a sudden spike in pollution that corresponds with declines in bee populations.
Interestingly, I was just reading Boeing 787 Dreamliner Delayed Again [slashdot.org], which links to a Wired Science article [wired.com], which points to a Dan Rather video, which has a segment at the end that states that the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder has been determined to be caused by some Israeli bee virus. First time I heard that. I am certainly no expert, nor do I pretend to be. I was merely stating that for me, on the surface, the conclusion does not bear up to close scrutiny. In fact, I was implying that one doesn't need to be an expert, or even to RTFA to formulate a plausible critique.
Re:try different flowers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Coming soon - stronger scents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Coming soon - stronger scents? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wildflowers probably will develop stronger scents. I doubt that cultivated flowers will though, unless there is a radical change of attitude among breeders. I like gardening, and I especially like gardening with fragrant flowers. I can tell you that planting for scent is a lot harder than it was when I gardened with my grandmother as a kid; the vast majority of breeders just don't care about fragrance. Many, many types of tea roses have had no scent at all or just a very faint scent for decades. They breed for bigger blooms and longer blooming times. Scent isn't even on the list of priorities for them. This is partly to accommodate florists, but most breeds of tea roses bred for and sold to the public are like this too nowadays. Unfortunately, this attitude has spread to the breeding of other types of flowering plants that are normally quite fragrant, such as lilacs and wisteria.
There are exceptions, of course. English roses have the forms and fragrance of old-fashioned roses but are fairly difficult to find; most gardening supply places have only a few of them, if any at all. If you want to garden for scent you will have to do some diligent searching. Also be prepared to change things after a couple of years, because some of your fragrant flowers that die off will be impossible to replace with equally fragrant specimens of the same species.
Re:No sense of smell (Score:5, Insightful)
Our noses kinda make the decision about whether something is good/bad, for a dog any smell is just information. Like how our eyes just give us info about colours/shapes - we wouldn't recoil from a blue triangle in the way we do from sour milk.
I suspect the smells dogs like are just the strongest smells or the ones with the most useful information to impart, which would explain the ass-sniffing and rolling in fox crap.