Scientific Papers, Mostly with Abstracts, Relating to Near-Natural Beekeeping
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Scientific papers, mostly with abstracts, relating to near-natural beekeeping Compiled by David Heaf and revised May 2020 david (at) dheaf.plus.com Since this compilation was created Peter Neumann and Tjeerd Blacquière have published a paper in Evolutionary Applications which succinctly covers many of the issues raised here. The authors point out that although several factors have been put forward as causes of the decline in honey bee health and colony numbers, the role of beekeeping practices in this decline has been largely ignored. Bibliographic data of this paper and a full abstract are presented at the head of the list of papers below. Many of the papers mentioned are available through open access on the Internet, especially those published in PLoS ONE. If a desired paper is not on the journal publisher's own web site it is sometimes downloadable from the web site of one of the authors, usually within a university department web site. Another useful source of downloadable publications is researchgate.net. Failing all else, most authors of papers are pleased to send a PDF copy to people who are interested in their work. Commonly, the corresponding author's email address is on the web page for the article on the journal publisher's web site. Failing that, a contact e-address usually can be found on the web site of the author or of one of the co-authors. These are traceable through the author affiliations given on the web page for the article on the journal publisher's web site. There is no topic below that is devoted specifically to natural comb. However, some of the topics covered are tangentially relevant to natural comb: 1. feral nests have about 17% drone cells whereas only worker foundation is commonly used; 2. worker cell sizes in natural comb range from about 4.6 to 5.6 mm whereas foundation has a uniform cell size; 3. recycled beeswax in foundation contains pesticides; 4. natural comb provides a free hanging medium for vibration communication whereas wired foundation in frames dampens the vibrations. 5. Natural comb is usually fixed in its full width at the top of the cavity and part way down at the edges, whereas framed combs have gaps across the top and down the sides. This undermines Nestduftwärmebindung (retention of nest scent and heat). 6. Natural comb has a lower ecological footprint than comb built on plastic or wax foundation. Suggestions for additional material on natural comb would be welcomed. Topics covered: Colony density and the lesson from ferals Bees can co-adapt with Varroa, and/or develop tolerance to Varroa and its vectored viruses Pesticide residues including acaricides (miticides) in brood comb, beeswax, foundation etc. Toxicity of acaricides used against Varroa Feral nest structure and criteria for nest selection by swarms Advantage of intracolonial genetic diversity obtained through plentiful drone populations enabling adequate multiple mating and consequent fitness Role of drones in nest thermoregulation Importance of species-specific behaviours, e.g. 'social immunity', in disease resistance Hive magnetic materials and ambient electromagnetic radiation Pheromone integrity and distribution Pollen nutrition and diversity; forage quality and abundance Regulation of temperature and humidity Suppression of reproductive swarming and associated beekeeping practices may adversely affect bee health Foul brood incidence is higher in managed colonies compared with ferals Comb with small cell foundation is ineffective against Varroa Mesh floors – pros and cons as regards Varroa elimination Queen production, mating, artificial insemination and physiology Queen breeding, genetic diversity and local adaptation Beneficial bacteria versus pathogens Beekeeper applied antibiotics and antibiotic resistance in gut microbiota Presence of organic acids in the hive atmosphere (cf. Johann Thür's Nestduftwärmebindung – retention of nest scent and heat) Swarm lures and bait hives for swarm management where swarm suppression is not practised Effect of feeding sugar or not feeding honey; role of self-medication Comb as a vibration communication medium Beekeeping contributes to rather than detracts from conservation biology International trade in honey bees spreads pests and pathogens Non-invasive colony monitoring Health impacts of migratory beekeeping Antimicrobial properties of brood comb (propolis) Comparison of extensive v. intensive apiculture "The Darwin cure for apiculture? Natural selection and managed honey bee health" Peter Neumann1 and Tjeerd Blacquière2 1 Institute of Bee Health, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland 2 Bees@wur, Bio-interactions and Plant Health, Wageningen UR, Wageningen, The Netherlands Recent major losses of managed honey bee, Apis mellifera, colonies at a global scale have resulted in a multitude of research efforts to identify the underlying mechanisms. Numerous factors acting singly and/or in combination have been identified, ranging from pathogens, over nutrition to pesticides. However, the role of apiculture in limiting natural selection has largely been ignored. This is unfortunate, because honey bees are more exposed to environmental stressors compared to other livestock and management can severely compromise bee health. Here, we briefly review apicultural factors that influence bee health and focus on those most likely interfering with natural selection, which offers a broad range of evolutionary applications for field practice. Despite intense breeding over centuries, natural selection appears to be much more relevant for the health of managed A. mellifera colonies than previously thought. We conclude that sustainable solutions for the apicultural sector can only be achieved by taking advantage of natural selection and not by attempting to limit it. Open access: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eva.12448/abstract COMMENT: The above paper cites the following review in which again natural selection is mentioned as a possible cause of the relatively good state of health of honey bees in Africa. Honeybee health in Africa—a review ChristianW.W.PIRK, Ursula STRAUSS, Abdullahi A. YUSUF, Fabien DÉMARES, Hannelie HUMAN Social Insects Research Group, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield, 0028, Pretoria, South Africa Received 30 April 2015–Revised 9 October 2015–Accepted 26 October 2015–Published online 30 November 2015 Abstract– Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) pathogens and parasites and the negative effects thereof on honeybee populations remain an issue of public concern and the subject of active research. Africa with its high genetic diversity of honeybee sub-species and large wild population is also exposed to various factors responsible for colony losses in other parts of the world. Apart from the current American foulbrood epidemic in the Western Cape of South Africa, no large-scale colony losses have been reported elsewhere on the continent. We discuss the presence of pathogens, parasites, pests and predators of African honeybees as well as the threats they face in relation to habitat changes arising from the impact of increased human populations. In addition, we discuss current efforts aimed at protecting and promoting the health of African honeybees. Apidologie Review article *INRA, DIB and Springer-Verlag France, 2015, DOI:10.1007/s13592-015-0406- 6 Why Gentle Honeybee Hives Are Less Resilient Burke, Katie L. American Scientist; Research Triangle Park Vol. 108, Iss. 2, (Mar/Apr 2020): 69-70. ARTICLE PREVIEW Animal behaviorist Clare Rittschof of the University of Kentucky has been studying honeybee aggression for more than 10 years, so it might come as no surprise that she's lost count of the number of times she's been stung. But she used to keep count. "I got 88 honeybee stings just in one summer/' she recalls. That's because it can actually be better for her and the bees if she does occasionally get stung. "I don't really go for 100 percent no sting," she says. "I don't wear gloves or anything on my hands, because I find it easier to handle the bees. Also, if you get a few stings here and there, it can help maintain a lower reaction level." Safety comes first in her lab, of course, and sting management is a part of it. "You're going into the nest, into the lion's den. You don't necessarily observe from a safe distance," she says. "It takes a long time to train students." But experiencing honeybee aggression is not just a byproduct of her research--it's a focus. Studies have shown that low-aggression hives have higher mortality rates than high-aggression ones. Scientists across many disciplines are trying to figure out why honeybee colonies are dying at historically high rates. Many stressors--such as infections, pesticides, and a lack of nutritious food--contribute to this mortality. Understanding those synergistic effects of stress, and what they have to do with low aggression, could help curb colony losses. In a recent study published in BMC Genomics, Rittschof identified the molecular reasons that low-aggression bee hives are more susceptible to stressors. (In this case, Rittschof is not talking about "killer bees," which are especially aggressive hybrids between the European honeybee and the East African lowland honeybee.) Colony density and the lesson from ferals Contribution of European forests to safeguard wild honeybee populations Fabrice Requier, Yoan Paillet, Fabien Laroche, Benjamin Rutschmann, Jie Zhang, Fabio Lombardi, Miroslav Svoboda., Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/conl.12693 ABSTRACT Recent studies reveal the use of tree cavities by wild honeybee colonies in Europeanforests. This highlights the conservation potential of forests for a highly threatenedcomponent of the native entomofauna in Europe, but currently no estimate of poten-tial wild honeybee population sizes exists. Here, we analyzed the tree cavity densitiesof 106 forest areas across Europe and inferred an expected population size of wildhoneybees. Both forest and management types affected the density of tree cavities.Accordingly, we estimated that more than 80,000 wild honeybee colonies could besustained in European forests.