The "What they found" section refines the central idea by providing additional nuance that helps readers understand how complex the issue is. It illustrates the relationship between the proximity of wild bumblebees to managed honeybee colonies and the viruses they may carry, highlighting specific findings about the prevalence of different viruses and the way they are transmitted. This adds depth to the initial claims about the impact of commercial honeybees on wild bees, revealing that the situation is more complicated than simply assuming that managed honeybee populations are solely to blame for the decline of wild bee populations.
Use the Article to answer the question: "Are Commercial Honeybees Making Wild Bees Sick?" by Berly McCoy Everyone wants to save the bees. But as populations decline every year, we may be saving them to death. Human efforts to breed more of these insects in artificial beehives and plant more flowers may seem the obvious way to stave off heavy losses. New research shows the answer is not that clear cut, because viruses may be spilling over from commercial honeybee colonies into wild bee populations, according to a study from the University of Vermont published Wednesday in PLOS One. Like honeybees, which are invaluable for agriculture, wild bumblebees also play a significant role in crop pollination. Though people are more familiar with honeybee die-offs — such as with colony collapse disorder — wild bumblebees have been struggling too. A handful of bumblebee species have declined by up to 96 percent in the U.S., according to the National Agricultural Library’s website. The causes have been largely understudied, although pesticides, infectious disease and shrinking habitat due to climate change have been suspected, said Samantha Alger, an ecologist from the University of Vermont who led the new research. Filling in one piece of the puzzle, the study revealed wild bumblebees pick up more viruses the closer they forage to managed honeybee colonies. But if bumblebees don’t venture into the commercial hives, how are they picking up viruses? Flowers have been suspected as reservoirs for bee viruses, but no researcher had linked virus deposits on flowers to bumblebee infections in the wild until this study. And the results could have implications for how we lend our inter-species help. What the scientists did The team plucked wild bumblebees from 19 sites around northern Vermont. Some sites were close to a commercial apiary — within 0.2 miles or a short city block — while others were farther away — at least 0.6 miles. If honeybees were present, the researchers collected them too. The team then measured the number of viruses stuck to each bee. Just because an animal has a virus on its outside doesn’t mean it has an infection. You may have touched your friend’s influenza-soaked tissue, but washed your hands before the flu infected you. So the researchers also tested each bee for virus genetic material, which is only made once the virus infects a host. The team looked at two viruses — deformed wing virus and black queen cell virus — both of which infect honeybees and bumblebees. These infections can potentially cause significant colony damage in honeybees, but researchers don’t know yet what they do to bumblebee colonies. To figure out how honeybee viruses are jumping to bumblebees, the researchers collected flower samples. Back in the lab, they tested ground-up flowers for viruses and mapped how close the contaminated flowers were to apiaries. They suspected that bees shed virus pieces on flowers during foraging. What they found All of the honeybee colonies tested by the researchers were positive for both viruses, an unfortunate but common occurrence for commercial colonies. But the number of wild bumblebees carrying viruses varied depending on the proximity to the domesticated hives. There was also variation between the two viruses. More than 90 percent of bumblebees collected close to apiaries carried black queen cell virus. In sites farther from apiaries, and where no honeybees were foraging, just under 40 percent were positive for this virus. When the researchers checked for actual infections, they found that the proximity to an apiary wasn’t telling of whether a bumblebee was infected with black queen cell virus. That means sites near and far from a commercial beehive had the same abundance of black queen cell virus infections. The connection was clearer for deformed wing virus infections. Twenty percent of bumblebees foraging close to apiaries carried the virus on their outsides and 10 percent had active infections. But in sites more than a half mile away from an apiary, where honeybees were absent, not a single bumblebee tested positive for deformed wing virus — as a carrier or with an infection.. When the researchers looked at infected flowers, they noticed a similar trend. Of the 20 percent of flowers that tested positive for viruses, all were picked close to apiaries. And the denser the flower patch in these areas, the higher the rate of deformed wing virus infection in bumblebees. Why it matters If human-managed bees and bee-friendly flowers are acting as hotspots for pathogens, keeping more bees and planting more flowers may be contributing to the steep losses in commercial pollinators seen in the U.S. each year, as well as fueling the decline of wild bees. The more that bees are transported and concentrated for larger-scale pollination events, the more opportunities for diseases to spread. And it’s not just a one-way street. “It’s likely the transmission is going both ways,” said Scott McArt, a pollinator ecologist at Cornell University who was not involved in the study. Even if diseases in commercial bees are eliminated, new infections from the wild bee population, which are known to harbor pathogens, could spill back into managed populations, making disease eradication even tougher than it is now. From the urban gardener to the rural farmer, people are encouraged to grow “bee-friendly” plants. “But in some cases you might actually be increasing disease levels when you plant those flowers,” said Sheila Colla, a conservation biologist at York University who was not involved in the study. “Maybe we need to have a [buffer] area without flowers to stop diseases from spreading to wild bees.” Nobody is suggesting we stop planting flowers altogether. “We know that habitat loss is already a big problem for bees,” said Alger. Instead, she’s now investigating if increasing plant diversity, or culling certain plants could help decrease disease transmission. She added that beekeepers and farmers need to take a long, hard look at how they are managing bees. How does the “What they found” section refine the central idea? (1 point) Responses It suggests the author’s initial claims were not completely accurate and adjusts them. It suggests the author’s initial claims were not completely accurate and adjusts them. It reveals the advances that have been made on the topic since the studies began. It reveals the advances that have been made on the topic since the studies began. It uncovers the specifics of what makes wild bees sick and answers the question in the title. It uncovers the specifics of what makes wild bees sick and answers the question in the title. It provides additional nuance that helps readers understand how complex the issue is.
5 answers
so to that question I asked How does the “What they found” section refine the central idea? (1 point) Responses It suggests the author’s initial claims were not completely accurate and adjusts them. It suggests the author’s initial claims were not completely accurate and adjusts them. It reveals the advances that have been made on the topic since the studies began. It reveals the advances that have been made on the topic since the studies began. It uncovers the specifics of what makes wild bees sick and answers the question in the title. It uncovers the specifics of what makes wild bees sick and answers the question in the title. It provides additional nuance that helps readers understand how complex the issue is.
The most accurate response to the question "How does the 'What they found' section refine the central idea?" is: It provides additional nuance that helps readers understand how complex the issue is.
This choice captures how the findings detail the intricate relationship between managed honeybee colonies and wild bumblebee populations, highlighting the complexity of virus transmission and its implications for both bee types.
Use the article to answer the question. "Biodegradable Plastic Bags, Not So Biodegradable" by Vicky Stein The average person uses a typical plastic bag for as short a time as 12 minutes before throwing it away, never thinking of where it may end up. Yet once consigned to a landfill, that standard grocery store tote takes hundreds or thousands of years to break down — much more than a human lifetime. Bags make up an alarming amount of the plastic found in whale stomachs or bird nests, and it’s no wonder — globally, we use between 1 and 5 trillion plastic bags each year. Biodegradable plastic bags are marketed as more eco-friendly solutions, able to break down into harmless material more quickly than traditional plastics. One company claims their shopping bag “will degrade and biodegrade in a continuous, irreversible and unstoppable process” if it ends up as litter in the environment. In a study published this week in Environmental Science and Technology, researchers put supposedly eco-friendly bags made from various organic and plastic materials and sourced from U.K. stores to the test. After three years buried in garden soil, submerged in ocean water, exposed to open light and air or stashed in a laboratory, none of the bags broke down completely in all the environments. In fact, the biodegradable bags that had been left underwater in a marina could still hold a full load of groceries. “What is the role of some of these really innovative and novel polymers?” asked Richard Thompson, a marine biologist from the University of Plymouth and the study’s senior author. A polymer is a repeating chain of chemicals that makes up a plastic’s structure, whether biodegradable or synthetic. “They’re challenging to recycle and are very slow to degrade if they become litter in the environment,” Thompson said, suggesting these biodegradable plastics may be causing more problems than they solve. What the scientists found Even in a tough marine environment, where algae and animals quickly covered the plastic, three years wasn’t long enough to break down any of the plastics except for the plant-based compostable option, which did disappear underwater within three months. The plant-derived bags, however, remained intact but weakened when buried under garden soil for 27 months. The only treatment that consistently broke down all of the bags was exposure to open air for more than nine months, and in that case even the standard, traditional polyethylene bag disintegrated into pieces before 18 months had passed. “I would take that timescale to be too long for these products to be regarded as providing an environmental advantage,” Thompson said. Even if these bags take less time to break down than traditional plastic bags, as litter they would still have enough time to become potentially deadly food for ocean animals like seabirds, whales, turtles or fish. Moreover, they would still be an eyesore and take up space at waste facilities for months or years. And when some of the plastic bags did seem to break down, such as the bags left to the open air, it was unclear if the disintegration was complete. “Did the plastic that was lost just become smaller pieces of plastic?” Kalow asked, “Or did it become molecules that could dissolve in water and be consumed?” Future studies, she said, should dig into the fate of those disintegrated plastic particles, to ascertain whether they truly break down and disappear — or become microplastics and harmful chemicals. Why it matters Even standard plastic bags can’t be recycled from your home recycling bin, so most end up in landfill or are swept away by water or wind, becoming litter. Biodegradable and compostable bags are meant to solve these problems, but the study indicates that’s not the case so far. These alternative bags aren’t meant to end up as litter in the street or in the natural environment — ideally, they’d all be treated just as manufacturers expect. Biodegradable bags would be landfilled or, in some cases, recycled into new plastics — at least in theory. But “even if we can make something that’s recyclable, that doesn’t mean any commercial recycling plant would be interested in dealing with it,” Kalow said. Biodegradable plastics can’t generally be recycled with other plastics — in fact, they can ruin other batches of recyclable plastic, degrading the product until it becomes unusable. Meanwhile, the eco-conscious should hope their compostable bags end up in industrial composting facilities where high temperatures and favorable conditions for bacteria and other living things would break them down. (Compostable bags in chilly, oxygen-starved landfills can actually be preserved rather than destroyed. These are the real problems, Thompson said. Labels like “biodegradable,” “compostable” or even “recyclable” are theoretical — they don’t reflect the reality of what happens to the materials we throw away or litter into the oceans, and they don’t help people accurately understand how to get rid of them. Three years after the researchers’ plastic bags were buried or submerged, they were nearly as useful — and as harmful — as the day they were made. Some simple solutions might help. Thompson suggested that standardized products, made of the same sets of materials, could streamline our waste management systems and allow much more of our waste to be profitably recycled. Kalow, the polymer chemist, said there may yet be hope for new, improved biodegradable plastics if only we could discover that technology. In the meantime, it doesn’t hurt to remember your reusable bag on your way to the store. Which section provides the most evidence supporting the need for new, improved biodegradable plastics? (1 point) Responses “Why it matters” “Why it matters” “What the scientists found” “What the scientists found” “What the researchers did” “What the researchers did” “How biodegradable plastic bags don’t live up to their name”
The section that provides the most evidence supporting the need for new, improved biodegradable plastics is “What the scientists found.”
This section details the outcomes of the study on various biodegradable bags in different conditions and illustrates how those bags failed to break down effectively, emphasizing the shortcomings of current biodegradable plastics. The findings demonstrate that even in ideal conditions, many biodegradable options do not provide a significant environmental advantage, which underscores the need for improved alternatives.