Please read your #2 source. That one says competition is fine in rural areas because carrying capacity is still sufficient. This might be different than your #3 source, hence the comment about contradictory sources.
Please read your #2 source. That one says competition is fine in rural areas because carrying capacity is still sufficient. This might be different than your #3 source, hence the comment about contradictory sources.
> read your #2 source. That one says competition is fine in rural areas because carrying capacity is still sufficient
Do you mean No. 3, the Oregon State University article?
No. 2, the USGS article, explicitly says "honey bees are also significant competitors of native bees and should not be introduced in conservation areas, parks, or areas where you want to foster the conservation of native plants and native bees."
(As for the Oregan State University article, the word rural never appears. It's focussed on urban areas, where honeybees have a smaller foraging radius and native bees are largely extinct. The carrying capacity argument only applies "during periods of abundant pollen and nectar.")
Yes,my prior comment reversed numbers 2 and 3.
"Only half of the studies pointed to a negative impact of competition, and most of the negative impacts were studies where wild bees changed their visitation rate on certain flowers. It has yet to be demonstrated how competition may result in a long-term change in the composition of bee species in an environment."
You wouldn't find the term rural because they use the term wildlands.
The studies used in the Oregon article are not all urban focused and included studies investigating increased competition in varying habitat, finding "As the California study demonstrated, increased competition may cause bee species to switch their foraging patterns, resulting in little impact on their overall reproductive success."
And yes, any conservation area will not promote the inclusion of non-native species regardless of their impact. Just becuase they are competitors doesn't show that they have negative impacts.
> wouldn’t find the term rural because they use the term wildlands
These are different environments. National parks are wildlands. Farms are rural. A lot more of America is rural than wildland.
"A lot more of America is rural than wildland."
Rural is a larger identifier which encompasses wildlands. It also depends on what you classify as wildland. According to the dictionary it's uncultivated land. If we were to measure uncultivated and undeveloped rural land, how would that compare to the cultivated and developed rural land? If 17% of US land is cultivated and less than 10% is urban, do you really think that the majority of the US or even the majority of the rural area are not wildlands? Either way, it makes no difference to the argument. Some of the sources in your links even look at various crop lands. It just seems at this point you're grasping at irrelevant and unsupported straws.