”Co-author Professor Phil Stevenson (RBG Kew and Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich) added: "Honey bees are critically important pollinators for the production of crops such as almonds, apples, and cherries and so are present in some crop locations in very large numbers, which can put pressure on limited wildflowers. Our engineered supplement could therefore benefit wild bee species by reducing competition for limited pollen supplies."

So more honeybees reduce competition for limited pollen supply?

[–] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 7 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I see this as less of a way to overload populations but rather another tool to help struggling colonies.

That said, there's nothing there not saying that this won't be abused in some cases.

[–] Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That said, there's nothing there not saying that this won't be abused in some cases.

A rare triple negative!

[–] prettybunnys@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago

ladies and gentleman, we got him

[–] MolochHorridus@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago

There are other pollinators that might feel the pressure if human made colonies grow in numbers. Those pollinators will not get the booster nor it seems that humans are particularly interested in root causes of pollen not being nutritions enough any longer.

[–] jaycifer@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There is X amount of natural pollen. A amount is consumed by domesticated bees, and B amount by wild bees. If domesticated bees can be provided with synthetic pollen, now there is B+A amount of natural pollen available for wild bees.

[–] MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io 9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It’s trickle-down beeconomics!

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

you'd think there'd be more to share but no you just end up with

BEES WITH FAT ASSES [content warning BEES WITH FAT ASSES]

[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Underrated comment ^^