A leading cause of managed honey bee colony mortality in the US, Varroa destructor populations typically exceed damaging levels in the fall. One explanation for rapid population increases is ...migration of mite carrying bees between colonies. Here, the degree to which bees from high and low mite donor colonies move between apiaries, and the effect visitation has on Varroa populations was monitored. More bees from low mite colonies (n = 37) were detected in receiver apiaries than bees from high mite colonies (n = 10, p < 0.001). Receiver colony Varroa population growth was associated with visitation by non-natal bees (p = 0.03), but not high mite bees alone (p = 0.19). Finally, colonies lacking robbing screens experienced faster Varroa population growth than screened neighbors (p = 0.01). Results indicate visiting non-natal bees may vector mites to receiver colonies. These results do not support the current two leading theories regarding mite immigration - the "mite bomb" theory (bees from high mite colonies emigrating to collapsing colonies), or the "robbing" theory (natal robbing bees return home with mites from collapsing colonies). Potential host-parasite effects to bee behavior, as well as important management implications both for Varroa treatment regimens and breeding Varroa resistant bees are discussed.
The high loss rates of honey bee colonies drive research for solutions aimed to mitigate these losses. While honey bee colonies are superorganisms, experiments that measure the response to stressors ...often use caged individuals to allow for inference in a controlled setting. In an initial experiment, we showed that caged honey bees provisioned with various types of water (deionized, 1%NaCl in deionized, or tap) have greater median lifespans than those that did not. While researching the history of water provisioning in cage studies, we observed that the median lifespan of caged honey bees has been declining in the US since the 1970's, from an average of 34.3 days to 17.7 days. In response to this, we again turned to historical record and found a relationship between this trend and a decline in the average amount of honey produced per colony per year in the US over the last 5 decades. To understand the relationship between individual bee lifespan and colony success we used an established honey bee population model (BEEHAVE) to simulate the predicted effects of decreased worker lifespans. Declines in downstream measures of colony population, overall honey production, and colony lifespan resulted from reduced worker bee lifespans. Modeled colony lifespans allowed us to estimate colony loss rates in a beekeeping operation where lost colonies are replaced annually. Resulting loss rates were reflective of what beekeepers' experience today, which suggests the average lifespan of individual bees plays an important role in colony success.
Honey bees Apis mellifera forage in a wide radius around their colony, bringing back contaminated food resources that can function as terrestrial bioindicators of environmental pesticide exposure. ...Evaluating pesticide exposure risk to pollinators is an ongoing problem. Here we apply five metrics for pesticide exposure risk (prevalence, diversity, concentration, significant pesticide prevalence, and hazard quotient (HQ)) to a nation-wide field study of honey bees, Apis mellifera in the United States. We examined samples from 1055 apiaries over seven years for 218 different pesticide residues and metabolites, determining that bees were exposed to 120 different pesticide products with a mean of 2.78 per sample. Pesticides in pollen were highly prevalent and variable across states. While pesticide diversity increased over time, most detections occurred at levels predicted to be of low risk to colonies. Varroacides contributed most to concentration, followed by fungicides, while insecticides contributed most to diversity above a toxicity threshold. High risk samples contained one of 12 different insecticides or varroacides. Exposures predicted to be low-risk were nevertheless associated with colony morbidity, and low-level fungicide exposures were tied to queen loss, Nosema infection, and brood diseases.
Display omitted
•A US national survey of pesticide residues in bee pollen found only 18% of samples were pesticide free. .•In our 1055 samples we made 2933 pesticide detections, predominantly at low risk levels. .•However, some low risk residues like fungicides were linked to increased colony morbidity. .•Neonicotinoids were rarely detected (2.0%), but contributed significant risk when found. .
Recent declines in honey bee populations and increasing demand for insect-pollinated crops raise concerns about pollinator shortages. Pesticide exposure and pathogens may interact to have strong ...negative effects on managed honey bee colonies. Such findings are of great concern given the large numbers and high levels of pesticides found in honey bee colonies. Thus it is crucial to determine how field-relevant combinations and loads of pesticides affect bee health. We collected pollen from bee hives in seven major crops to determine 1) what types of pesticides bees are exposed to when rented for pollination of various crops and 2) how field-relevant pesticide blends affect bees’ susceptibility to the gut parasite Nosema ceranae . Our samples represent pollen collected by foragers for use by the colony, and do not necessarily indicate foragers’ roles as pollinators. In blueberry, cranberry, cucumber, pumpkin and watermelon bees collected pollen almost exclusively from weeds and wildflowers during our sampling. Thus more attention must be paid to how honey bees are exposed to pesticides outside of the field in which they are placed. We detected 35 different pesticides in the sampled pollen, and found high fungicide loads. The insecticides esfenvalerate and phosmet were at a concentration higher than their median lethal dose in at least one pollen sample. While fungicides are typically seen as fairly safe for honey bees, we found an increased probability of Nosema infection in bees that consumed pollen with a higher fungicide load. Our results highlight a need for research on sub-lethal effects of fungicides and other chemicals that bees placed in an agricultural setting are exposed to.
The parasitic mite Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) is a major cause of overwintering honey bee (Apis mellifera) colony losses in the United States, suggesting that beekeepers must control Varroa ...populations to maintain viable colonies. Beekeepers have access to several chemical varroacides and nonchemical practices to control Varroa populations. However, no studies have examined large-scale patterns in Varroa control methods in the United States. Here we used responses from 4 yr of annual surveys of beekeepers representing all regions and operation sizes across the United States to investigate use of Varroa control methods and winter colony losses associated with use of different methods. We focused on seven varroacide products (amitraz, coumaphos, fluvalinate, hop oil, oxalic acid, formic acid, and thymol) and six nonchemical practices (drone brood removal, small-cell comb, screened bottom boards, powdered sugar, mite-resistant bees, and splitting colonies) suggested to aid in Varroa control. We found that nearly all large-scale beekeepers used at least one varroacide, whereas small-scale beekeepers were more likely to use only nonchemical practices or not use any Varroa control. Use of varroacides was consistently associated with the lowest winter losses, with amitraz being associated with lower losses than any other varroacide product. Among nonchemical practices, splitting colonies was associated with the lowest winter losses, although losses associated with sole use of nonchemical practices were high overall. Our results suggest potential control methods that are effective or preferred by beekeepers and should therefore inform experiments that directly test the efficacy of different control methods. This will allow beekeepers to incorporate Varroa control methods into management plans that improve the overwintering success of their colonies.
Recent declines in honey bees for crop pollination threaten fruit, nut, vegetable and seed production in the United States. A broad survey of pesticide residues was conducted on samples from ...migratory and other beekeepers across 23 states, one Canadian province and several agricultural cropping systems during the 2007–08 growing seasons. We have used LC/MS-MS and GC/MS to analyze bees and hive matrices for pesticide residues utilizing a modified QuEChERS method. We have found 121 different pesticides and metabolites within 887 wax, pollen, bee and associated hive samples. Almost 60% of the 259 wax and 350 pollen samples contained at least one systemic pesticide, and over 47% had both in-hive acaricides fluvalinate and coumaphos, and chlorothalonil, a widely-used fungicide. In bee pollen were found chlorothalonil at levels up to 99 ppm and the insecticides aldicarb, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos and imidacloprid, fungicides boscalid, captan and myclobutanil, and herbicide pendimethalin at 1 ppm levels. Almost all comb and foundation wax samples (98%) were contaminated with up to 204 and 94 ppm, respectively, of fluvalinate and coumaphos, and lower amounts of amitraz degradates and chlorothalonil, with an average of 6 pesticide detections per sample and a high of 39. There were fewer pesticides found in adults and brood except for those linked with bee kills by permethrin (20 ppm) and fipronil (3.1 ppm). The 98 pesticides and metabolites detected in mixtures up to 214 ppm in bee pollen alone represents a remarkably high level for toxicants in the brood and adult food of this primary pollinator. This represents over half of the maximum individual pesticide incidences ever reported for apiaries. While exposure to many of these neurotoxicants elicits acute and sublethal reductions in honey bee fitness, the effects of these materials in combinations and their direct association with CCD or declining bee health remains to be determined.
Bees rely on floral pollen and nectar for food. Therefore, pollinator friendly plantings are often used to enrich habitats in bee conservation efforts. As part of these plantings, non‐native plants ...may provide valuable floral resources, but their effects on native bee communities have not been assessed in direct comparison with native pollinator friendly plantings. In this study, we performed a common garden experiment by seeding mixes of 20 native and 20 non‐native pollinator friendly plant species at separate neighboring plots at three sites in Maryland, USA, and recorded flower visitors for 2 years. A total of 3,744 bees (120 species) were collected. Bee abundance and species richness were either similar across plant types (midseason and for abundance also late season) or lower at native than at non‐native plots (early season and for richness also late season). The overall bee community composition differed significantly between native and non‐native plots, with 11 and 23 bee species being found exclusively at one plot type or the other, respectively. Additionally, some species were more abundant at native plant plots, while others were more abundant at non‐natives. Native plants hosted more specialized plant–bee visitation networks than non‐native plants. Three species out of the five most abundant bee species were more specialized when foraging on native plants than on non‐native plants. Overall, visitation networks were more specialized in the early season than in late seasons. Our findings suggest that non‐native plants can benefit native pollinators, but may alter foraging patterns, bee community assemblage, and bee–plant network structures.
We show that non‐native plants are similarly or even more attractive to native bees than native plants. However, foraging patterns, bee community assemblage, and bee‐plant network structures were different with lower levels of specialization at non‐native plants. Thus, adding non‐native plants to native pollinator friendly plantings can be beneficial to wild bees, but should be confined to already disturbed human‐dominated landscapes to exclude potentially negative effects on native plant communities.
The impacts of invertebrate RNA virus population dynamics on virulence and infection outcomes are poorly understood. Deformed wing virus (DWV), the main viral pathogen of honey bees, negatively ...impacts bee health, which can lead to colony death. Despite previous reports on the reduction of DWV diversity following the arrival of the parasitic mite Varroa destructor, the key DWV vector, we found high genetic diversity of DWV in infested United States honey bee colonies. Phylogenetic analysis showed that divergent US DWV genotypes are of monophyletic origin and were likely generated as a result of diversification after a genetic bottleneck. To investigate the population dynamics of this divergent DWV, we designed a series of novel infectious cDNA clones corresponding to coexisting DWV genotypes, thereby devising a reverse-genetics system for an invertebrate RNA virus quasispecies. Equal replication rates were observed for all clone-derived DWV variants in single infections. Surprisingly, individual clones replicated to the same high levels as their mixtures and even the parental highly diverse natural DWV population, suggesting that complementation between genotypes was not required to replicate to high levels. Mixed clone-derived infections showed a lack of strong competitive exclusion, suggesting that the DWV genotypes were adapted to coexist. Mutational and recombination events were observed across clone progeny, providing new insights into the forces that drive and constrain virus diversification. Accordingly, our results suggest that Varroa influences DWV dynamics by causing an initial selective sweep, which is followed by virus diversification fueled by negative frequency-dependent selection for new genotypes. We suggest that this selection might reflect the ability of rare lineages to evade host defenses, specifically antiviral RNA interference (RNAi). In support of this hypothesis, we show that RNAi induced against one DWV strain is less effective against an alternate strain from the same population.
Recent losses in honey bee colonies are unusual in their severity, geographical distribution, and, in some cases, failure to present recognized characteristics of known disease. Domesticated honey ...bees face numerous pests and pathogens, tempting hypotheses that colony collapses arise from exposure to new or resurgent pathogens. Here we explore the incidence and abundance of currently known honey bee pathogens in colonies suffering from Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), otherwise weak colonies, and strong colonies from across the United States. Although pathogen identities differed between the eastern and western United States, there was a greater incidence and abundance of pathogens in CCD colonies. Pathogen loads were highly covariant in CCD but not control hives, suggesting that CCD colonies rapidly become susceptible to a diverse set of pathogens, or that co-infections can act synergistically to produce the rapid depletion of workers that characterizes the disorder. We also tested workers from a CCD-free apiary to confirm that significant positive correlations among pathogen loads can develop at the level of individual bees and not merely as a secondary effect of CCD. This observation and other recent data highlight pathogen interactions as important components of bee disease. Finally, we used deep RNA sequencing to further characterize microbial diversity in CCD and non-CCD hives. We identified novel strains of the recently described Lake Sinai viruses (LSV) and found evidence of a shift in gut bacterial composition that may be a biomarker of CCD. The results are discussed with respect to host-parasite interactions and other environmental stressors of honey bees.
Honey bees are an essential component of modern agriculture. A recently recognized ailment, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), devastates colonies, leaving hives with a complete lack of bees, dead or ...alive. Up to now, estimates of honey bee population decline have not included losses occurring during the wintering period, thus underestimating actual colony mortality. Our survey quantifies the extent of colony losses in the United States over the winter of 2007-2008.
Surveys were conducted to quantify and identify management factors (e.g. operation size, hive migration) that contribute to high colony losses in general and CCD symptoms in particular. Over 19% of the country's estimated 2.44 million colonies were surveyed. A total loss of 35.8% of colonies was recorded; an increase of 11.4% compared to last year. Operations that pollinated almonds lost, on average, the same number of colonies as those that did not. The 37.9% of operations that reported having at least some of their colonies die with a complete lack of bees had a total loss of 40.8% of colonies compared to the 17.1% loss reported by beekeepers without this symptom. Large operations were more likely to have this symptom suggesting that a contagious condition may be a causal factor. Sixty percent of all colonies that were reported dead in this survey died without dead bees, and thus possibly suffered from CCD. In PA, losses varied with region, indicating that ambient temperature over winter may be an important factor.
Of utmost importance to understanding the recent losses and CCD is keeping track of losses over time and on a large geographic scale. Given that our surveys are representative of the losses across all beekeeping operations, between 0.75 and 1.00 million honey bee colonies are estimated to have died in the United States over the winter of 2007-2008. This article is an extensive survey of U.S. beekeepers across the continent, serving as a reference for comparison with future losses as well as providing guidance to future hypothesis-driven research on the causes of colony mortality.
PDF
