DOCSLIB.ORG

Varroa Mite Management Among Small-Scale Beekeepers: Characterizing Factors That Affect IPM Adoption, and Exploring Drone Brood Removal As an IPM Tool

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Varroa Mite Management Among Small-Scale Beekeepers: Characterizing Factors That Affect IPM Adoption, and Exploring Drone Brood Removal As an IPM Tool Varroa mite management among small-scale beekeepers: Characterizing factors that affect IPM adoption, and exploring drone brood removal as an IPM tool THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science In the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Hannah R. Whitehead Graduate Program in Environmental Science The Ohio State University 2017 Master’s Examination Committee: Dr. Casey Hoy, Advisor Dr. Reed Johnson Dr. Anna Willow Copyrighted by Hannah R. Whitehead 2017 ABSTRACT Varroa mites (Varroa destructor) are the most damaging pest in modern beekeeping, and have been linked with elevated levels of colony loss. Experts increasingly recommend an integrated pest management (IPM) strategy to manage Varroa, which incorporates both preventative and therapeutic controls. However, Varroa IPM is complicated and knowledge-intensive. Small-scale beekeepers in particular seem to have difficulty adopting effective Varroa control strategies, and suffer especially high rates of colony loss. This study took an interdisciplinary approach to understanding the adoption of Varroa IPM among small-scale beekeepers. First, I used surveys and interviews to characterize mite management strategies among Ohio small-scale beekeepers, and to explore the effect of experience and risk perception on behavior. Second, as a case study, I took a closer look at the efficacy and adoption of one complex IPM tool – drone brood removal (DBR) – through interviews, surveys, and an on-farm trial. Overall, I found no relationship between beekeeping experience and mite management strategies, but sampling (risk perception) was associated with the use of “soft” miticides (organic acids/essential oils) and DBR. I also found that most beekeepers who used DBR combined it with drone sampling (adjusting DBR based on sampled mite levels), and that labor was the biggest barrier to DBR use. In the on-farm trial, DBR significantly reduced mites in year one but not year two. These results suggest that mite management failures ii among small-scale beekeepers are not due to inexperience and may indicate a broader communication breakdown. They also suggest that risk perception – beekeepers’ understanding that they even have mites – may be a key factor driving adoption of mite management practices. Finally, they point to the fact that DBR is already being used in nuanced ways as a combined management and sampling strategy. They suggest that DBR is not a silver bullet, but can be an effective tool to reduce mites if used consistently, intensively, and in combination with other management tactics. iii Dedicated to my family iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project would not have been possible without help from so many people. Thanks first to my advisor, Casey Hoy, who was open to advising a project outside his typical area of research, and who offered endless support, thoughtful edits and a systems perspective all along the way. Many thanks also to my committee members: Reed Johnson, who introduced me the beekeeping scene in Ohio and allowed me to become an honorary member of the Bee Lab – borrowing equipment, attending bee events, and tagging along for beekeeping activities. And Anna Willow for providing thoughtful feedback and pushing me to consider the broader social implications of this research. Thanks also to fellow graduate students – Natalie, Julie, Fred, Matt, as well as the entomology crew – with whom I’ve had many passionate discussions about sustainable agriculture and beekeeping, and who made graduate school much more fun. Many thanks to the beekeepers who volunteered their bees, their knowledge and their time in order to make the field experiment a reality: Dave Noble, Phil Young, Laura Urban, Al Blyth, Randall Westfall and Rod and Dru Pritchard. Thanks to Chia Hua Lin for help with research design and set-up, to Alia Dietsch for help with survey analysis, and to Meghan Blackson, Sreelakshmi Suresh, Laura Bond, Natalie Riusech and Andrea Wade for patiently helping me collect data. Special thanks to Willi for invaluable support and insightful feedback throughout this v project and to my family, for their support and encouragement in all of my academic endeavors. Finally, this work would not have been possible without funding from an Ohio State SEEDS grant. vi VITA 2007……………………Hawken High School, Gates Mills, OH 2007-2011……………...B.A. History, The University of Chicago 2011-2012……………..Administrative Assistant, Common Threads 2012……………………Intern, Coonridge Organic Goat Cheese 2013-2014……………...Research Assistant, Agroecosystem Management Program, The Ohio State University 2014……………………Farm Manager, Muddy Fork Farm 2014-2016……………..Graduate Fellow, Environmental Science Graduate Program, The Ohio State University 2016……………………Graduate Teaching Associate, Environmental Science Graduate Program, The Ohio State University Fields of Study: Major Field: Environmental Science Specialization: Agroecosystem Science vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. v VITA ..................................................................................................................................................................... vii TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. viii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................ x LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................. xi CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The big picture: why we should care about honey bees ......................................................... 6 1.3 Ecology of honey bees and Varroa destructor ........................................................................... 8 1.4 Varroa mite IPM (integrated pest management) .................................................................... 13 1.5 The beekeeping industry ................................................................................................................ 16 1.6 Varroa management among backyard beekeepers ................................................................ 20 1.7 Varroa IPM and the Diffusion of Innovation Framework .................................................. 22 1.8 Drone brood removal ...................................................................................................................... 25 1.9 Research Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 31 CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 34 2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 34 2.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS .................................................................................................... 41 2.2.1 Study Region ................................................................................................................................ 41 2.2.2 Interview Process ........................................................................................................................ 42 2.2.3 Survey Administration ............................................................................................................... 43 2.2.4 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 44 2.3 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................... 45 2.3.1 Survey Response ......................................................................................................................... 45 2.3.2 Demographic Characteristics .................................................................................................. 46 2.3.3 Characterize mite management strategies (Objective 1) ................................................ 48 2.3.4 Effect of years beekeeping on management and sampling (Objective 2) ................ 55 2.3.5 Effect of sampling on mite management (Objective 3) .................................................. 57 2.4 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................... 59 CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 63 3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 63 3.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Estimating the Density of Honey Bee (Apis Mellifera) Colonies Using
    Apidologie Original article * INRA, DIB and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature, 2019 DOI: 10.1007/s13592-019-00671-2 Estimating the density of honey bee (Apis mellifera ) colonies using trapped drones: area sampled and drone mating flight distance Patsavee UTAIPANON , Michael J. HOLMES, Nadine C. CHAPMAN, Benjamin P. OLDROYD Behaviour and Genetics of Social Insects Laboratory, Ecology and Evolution, University of Sydney, Macleay Building A12, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Received 12 December 2018 – Revised 20 April 2019 – Accepted 24 June 2019 Abstract – Reliable information on Western honey bee colony density can be important in a variety of contexts including biosecurity responses, determining the sufficiency of pollinators in an agroecosystem and in determining the impacts of feral honey bees on ecosystems. Indirect methods for estimating colony density based on genetic analysis of sampled males are more feasible and cost efficient than direct observation in the field. Microsatellite genotypes of drones caught using Williams drone trap are used to identify the number of colonies (queens) that contributed drones to a mating lek. From the number of colonies, the density of colonies can be estimated based on assumptions about the area from which drones are drawn. This requires reliable estimates of drone flight distance. We estimated average minimum flight distance of drones from feral colonies along two 7-km transects in Southern NSW, Australia. We found that drones from feral colonies flew at least 3.5 km to drone traps. We then determined that the maximum distance that drones flew from a focal colony to a trap was 3.75 km.
    [Show full text]
  • Honey Bees Identification, Biology, and Lifecycle Speaker: Donald Joslin  Hive Consists of Three Types of Bees ◦ Queen, Drone and Worker
    Honey Bees Identification, Biology, and Lifecycle Speaker: Donald Joslin Hive consists of three types of bees ◦ Queen, Drone and Worker For Year Color: Ending In: White 1 or 6 Yellow 2 or 7 Red 3 or 8 Green 4 or 9 Blue 5 or 0 Queen Marking Colors Queen Only Fertile female in the Hive Can lay 2000 eggs each day She can live 5 years, 3-years average One per colony usually Mates in flight with 7-150 drones Queen Her thorax is slightly larger No pollen baskets or wax glands Stinger is smoother and curved (and reusable) The Honey Bee Colony Queen Pheromones ◦ The “social glue” of the hive ◦ Gives the colony its identity and temperament ◦ Sends signals to the workers Mates once, in flight, with 7 to 150 drones Lays both fertilized and unfertilized eggs Fertilized eggs become workers or Queens Unfertilized eggs become drones How does an egg become a queen instead of a worker? ◦ Royal Jelly is fed to the larvae for a much longer period of time ◦ Royal Jelly is secreted from the hypopharynx of worker bees Royal Jelly Supercedure Cell (Never cut these unless you have a replacement queen ready) Basic Anatomy Worker ◦ Sterile female ◦ Does the work of the hive ◦ Have specialized body structures Brood food glands – royal jelly Scent glands (pheromones) Wax glands Pollen baskets Barbed stingers – Ouch! The Honey Bee Colony Worker Bees Perform Roles ◦ Nurse ◦ Guard ◦ Forager Castes Worker bees progress through very defined growth stages ◦ When first hatched they become Nurse Bees Clean cells, keeps brood warm, feed larvae Receive
    [Show full text]
  • The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School Entomology Department HONEY BEES and INTESTINAL DISEASE
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School Entomology Department HONEY BEES AND INTESTINAL DISEASE: MOLECULAR, PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES OF HONEY BEES (APIS MELLIFERA) TO INFECTION WITH MICROSPORIDIAN PARASITES A Dissertation in Entomology by Holly L. Holt 2015 Holly L. Holt Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2015 The dissertation of Holly L. Holt was reviewed and approved* by the following: Christina Grozinger Professor of Entomology, Director of The Center for Pollinator Research Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Diana Cox-Foster Professor of Entomology Kelli Hoover Professor of Entomology James H. Marden Professor of Biology Gary W. Felton Professor of Entomology Head of the Department of Entomology *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT Pollinators are integral to modern agricultural productivity and the continued survival and vitality of natural ecosystems. However, recent declines in pollinator populations and species diversity threaten both food security and the architecture of natural habitats. Due to their vital role in agriculture, honey bees (Apis mellifera) have served as a model organism for investigating the alarming and widespread diminution of pollinator populations. Indeed, surveys from both North America and Europe report large annual colony losses. Parasites along with chemical exposure, poor nutrition, climate change and habitat destruction are frequently cited as leading causes of colony loss. Honey bee colonies are assaulted by a battery of bacterial, fungal and viral pathogens in addition to other parasitic arthropods including mites and beetles. Novel, cost- effective disease management practices are desperately needed to preserve colony health. Basic studies investigating honey bee immunity and disease pathology lay the groundwork for developing efficacious diagnostic tools and treatments.
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts Beekeepers Association's
    MASSACHUSETTS BEEKEEPERS ASSOCIATION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Disclaimer This document is intended solely as guidance. This document does not confer, and is not intended to create legal rights or impose legal duties or obligations. The general descriptions provided here reflect the Massachusetts Beekeepers Association’s current views regarding reasonable considerations for safe and healthy management of honeybees in Massachusetts and may not apply to particular situations based on the circumstances. This document may be revised periodically. Introduction It has often been observed that if you ask ten beekeepers the same question, you will get at least ten different answers. This adage reflects, in part, the great diversity of practice that has grown up around beekeeping. For every beginning beekeeper, there is inevitably another beekeeper, whose enthusiasm to share his or her personal observations and techniques provides the spark for the new beekeeper’s own venture into beekeeping. Diversity of ideas and practices among beekeepers is essential to the continued success of honeybees and beekeeping. Yet, it must also be recognized that beekeepers do not exist separately and apart from the communities in which they live, and as beekeeping becomes more popular, particularly in suburban and urban areas, the potential for misunderstandings with neighbors and local officials also grows. Thus, responsible management of one’s hives within the community in which they are located is also essential. For this reason, the Massachusetts Beekeepers Association has developed these Best Management Practices to provide a framework for determining appropriate, site- specific management practices to promote healthy bees and avoid potential conflicts between beekeepers and others.
    [Show full text]
  • Swarming Artical.Wps
    SWARMING, ITS CAUSES AND STEPS THAT CAN PREVENT IT There have been many books written with chapters about swarming and what causes the bees to swarm. A few of the books that I have reviewed recently and gathered information about swarms and swarming from are: ABC and XYZ of Bee Culture by the A.I Root Co. A Guide to Bees and Honey by Ted Cooper The New Complete Guide to Beekeeping by Roger A. Morse A Year In The Beeyard by Roger A. Morse Beekeeping for Gardeners by Richard Taylor There is an article posted on our web site under the heading "For Our Members" that deals with swarms. It's title is "Are Your Bees Going To Swarm". You may find it helpful. Also, the leading beekeeping magazines often have articles about swarming and one of the most recent I think is very good and well worth reading appears in the April 2015 edition of "The American Bee Journal" authored by Roy Hendrickson. From the sources above and many others, the following notes represent a short summary about swarming, the causes and some preventative measures that can be considered. WHEN BEES ARE PREPARING TO SWARM Prior to swarming the hive will construct multiple queen cells, usually at the bottom of the comb into each the queen will lay an egg. Once the cells are capped the hive is likely to swarm. The queen will lose weight so that she can fly. The hive will often limit or cease foraging The bees will engorge themselves with honey which will sustain them as they build a new home.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded From
    HoneybeeLives.org Honeybees are insects, and like all insects, bees have six legs, a three-part body, a pair of antennae, compound eyes, jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton. The three body parts are the head, thorax, and abdomen (the tail end). Honeybees live in a highly evolved social structure called a colony, with each bee working towards the good of the hive as a whole. The bees in the colony must be considered as one organism. Within this organism are three distinct kinds of bees. Worker Drone Queen Queen Bee There is only one queen per hive. The queen is the only bee with fully developed ovaries. A queen bee can live for 3-5 years. At the beginning of her life, the queen takes one, or two, “mating flights.” She is inseminated by several male (drone) bees, not necessarily from her hive, and requires no other input of sperm during her life. At the height of her laying season each year, from early spring into mid-summer, she lays up to 2000 eggs per day. Fertilized eggs become female (worker bees) and unfertilized eggs become male (drone bees). When she dies, or becomes unproductive, the other bees will "make" a new queen, sometimes two or three, by selecting a young larva and feeding it a diet solely of "royal jelly". For queen bees, it takes 16 days from egg to emergence. The queen bee will only sting another queen bee in a struggle for dominance in the hive Worker Bee All worker bees are female, but they are not able to reproduce.
    [Show full text]
  • Keeping of Honey Bees Applicants Must
    KEEPING OF HONEY BEES LICENSE APPLICATION ORIGINAL APPLICATION LICENSE FEE: $45.00 RENEWAL APPLICATION PRE-INSPECTION FEE: $95.00 Address where bees will be located Name of property owner (please print) Phone Street City State Zip Email address APPLICANT INFORMATION (IF DIFFERENT FROM OWNER) Name of applicant (please print) Phone Street City State Zip Email address If this is a renewal, have there been any changes from the previous year? YES NO APPLICANTS MUST: 1. Attach a detailed diagram of the beekeeping equipment location including the distances to property lines and from nearby structures on neighboring properties according to Chapter 6.14.030(F)(1). If no changes, this is not required for renewal. 2. List on the reverse side the number and location of the hives. 3. Once the 14-day waiting period is complete and no objections have been received by the city, contact the Eau Claire City/County Health Department for inspection at 715-839-4718. APPLICANT’S STATEMENT I hereby certify that this application is complete, true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I agree, in the consideration of the issuing of this license, to comply with the laws of the State of Wisconsin, and to the provisions of the Municipal Code of Ordinances of the City of Eau Claire. ____________________________________________________________________ Date: ______________ Signature of owner _____________________________________________________________________Date: ______________ Signature of applicant if different from owner Required inspector’s signature Inspector
    [Show full text]
  • Melissa 6, January 1993
    The Melittologist's Newsletter Ronald J. McGinley. Bryon N. Danforth. Maureen J. Mello Deportment of Entomology • Smithsonian Institution. NHB-105 • Washington. DC 20560 NUMBER-6 January, 1993 CONTENTS COLLECTING NEWS COLLECTING NEWS .:....:Repo=.:..:..rt=on~Th.:..:.=ird=-=-PC=A..::.;M:.:...E=xp=ed=it=io:..o..n-------=-1 Report on Third PCAM Expedition Update on NSF Mexican Bee Inventory 4 Robert W. Brooks ..;::.LC~;.,;;;....;;...:...:...;....;...;;;..o,__;_;.c..="-'-'-;.;..;....;;;~.....:.;..;.""""""_,;;...;....________,;. Snow Entomological Museum .:...P.:...roposo.a:...::..;:;..,:=..ed;::....;...P_:;C"'-AM~,;::S,;::u.;...;rvc...;;e.L.y-'-A"'"-rea.:o..=s'------------'-4 University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66045 Collecting on Guana Island, British Virgin Islands & Puerto Rico 5 The third NSF funded PCAM (Programa Cooperativo so- RESEARCH NEWS bre Ia Apifauna Mexicana) expedition took place from March 23 to April3, 1992. The major goals of this trip were ...:..T.o..:he;::....;...P.:::a::.::ra::.::s;:;;it:..::ic;....;;B::...:e:..:e:....::L=.:e:.:.ia;:;L'{XJd:..::..::..::u;,;;:.s....:::s.:..:.in.:..o~gc::u.:.::/a:o.:n;,;;:.s_____~7 to do springtime collecting in the Chihuahuan Desert and Decline in Bombus terrestris Populations in Turkey 7 Coahuilan Inland Chaparral habitats of northern Mexico. We =:...:::=.:.::....:::..:...==.:.:..:::::..:::.::...:.=.:..:..:=~:....=..~==~..:.:.:.....:..=.:=L-.--=- also did some collecting in coniferous forest (pinyon-juni- NASA Sponsored Solitary Bee Research 8 per), mixed oak-pine forest, and riparian habitats in the Si- ;:...;N:..::.o=tes;.,;;;....;o;,;,n:....:Nc..:.e.::..;st;:.;,i;,:,;n_g....:::b""-y....:.M=-'-e.;;,agil,;;a.;_:;c=h:..:..:ili=d-=B;....;;e....:::e..::.s______.....:::.8 erra Madre Oriental. Hymenoptera Database System Update 9 Participants in this expedition were Ricardo Ayala (Insti- '-'M:.Liss.:..:..:..;;;in..:....:g..;:JB<:..;ee:..::.::.::;.:..,;Pa:::..rt=s=?=::...;:_"'-L..;=c.:.:...c::.....::....::=:..,_----__;:_9 tuto de Biologia, Chamela, Jalisco); John L.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Hive Beetle Management in Mississippi Authors: Audrey B
    Small Hive Beetle Management in Mississippi Authors: Audrey B. Sheridan, Research/Extension Associate, Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Entomology and Plant Pathology, Mississippi State University; Harry Fulton, State Entomologist (retired); Jon Zawislak, Department of Entomology, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service. Cover photo by Alex Wild, http://www.alexanderwild.com. Fig. 6 illustration by Jon Zawislak. Fig. 7 photo by Katie Lee. All other photos by Audrey Sheridan. 2 Small Hive Beetle Management in Mississippi CONTENTS Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Where in the United States Do Small Hive Beetles Occur? .................................. 1 How Do Small Hive Beetles Cause Damage? .......................................................... 1 How Can Small Hive Beetles Be Located and Identifi ed in a Hive? .............................................................................................. 2 Important Biological Aspects of Small Hive Beetles ............................................. 5 Cleaning Up Damaged Combs ................................................................................ 8 Preventing Small Hive Beetle Damage in the Apiary ............................................ 9 Managing Established Small Hive Beetle Populations ....................................... 12 Protecting Honey Combs and Stored Supers During Processing ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CSBA's Best Management Practices for Urban, Suburban and Small
    Colorado State Beekeepers Association’s Best Management Practices for Urban, Suburban and Small Scale Beekeeping DISCLAIMER This document is, and always will be, a work in progress intended for regular update and revision. It offers guidelines for responsible hobby beekeeping in Colorado. It is not an instructional text. We strongly urge anyone interested in beekeeping to take a course on beekeeping. See the Colorado State Beekeepers Association (CSBA) website: www.coloradobeekeepers.org for class and course listings as well as information and links to regional associations. Furthermore, this document is not intended to provide legal advice. It does not address practices related to selling honey or any other farm product; moving colonies, bees, or beekeeping equipment; or liability /insurance issues. Finally, this document represents the Best Practices advocated by the CSBA, not the State of Colorado or its Department of Health. INTRODUCTION Hobby beekeeping has become increasingly popular in Colorado. Although generally docile, honeybees (Apis mellifera) can and may sting. As part of a hive’s reproductive process, a healthy hive may attempt to divide and swarm. Responsible management is, therefore, necessary to avoid creating problems for neighbors. This document is intended as a reference and standard for small scale urban and suburban honeybee management in Colorado. It may serve as a resource for information to reinforce community confidence in the safety of beekeeping activities; a standard reference for addressing complaints or conflicts about beekeeping activities in Colorado; and a compendium of best management practices that CSBA members are encouraged to follow. CONSULT AND FOLLOW LOCAL REGULATIONS REGARDING BEEKEEPING Beekeeping law varies among communities in Colorado.
    [Show full text]
  • 10. Production and Trade of Beeswax
    10. PRODUCTION AND TRADE OF BEESWAX Beeswax is a valuable product that can provide a worthwhile income in addition to honey. One kilogram of beeswax is worth more than one kilogram of honey. Unlike honey, beeswax is not a food product and is simpler to deal with - it does not require careful packaging which this simplifies storage and transport. Beeswax as an income generating resource is neglected in some areas of the tropics. Some countries of Africa where fixed comb beekeeping is still the norm, for example, Ethiopia and Angola, have significant export of beeswax, while in others the trade is neglected and beeswax is thrown away. Worldwide, many honey hunters and beekeepers do not know that beeswax can be sold or used for locally made, high-value products. Knowledge about the value of beeswax and how to process it is often lacking. It is impossible to give statistics, but maybe only half of the world’s production of beeswax comes on to the market, with the rest being thrown away and lost. WHAT BEESWAX IS Beeswax is the creamy coloured substance used by bees to build the comb that forms the structure of their nest. Very pure beeswax is white, but the presence of pollen and other substances cause it to become yellow. Beeswax is produced by all species of honeybees. Wax produced by the Asian species of honeybees is known as Ghedda wax. It differs in chemical and physical properties from the wax of Apis mellifera, and is less acidic. The waxes produced by bumblebees are very different from wax produced by honeybees.
    [Show full text]
  • Drone Engorgement in Honey Beet Swarms2
    Drone Engorgement in Honey Beet Swarms2 H. MICHAEL BURGETT Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14850 ABSTRACT Male Apis mel/if era L. (drones) accompanying repro- swarming. No evidenceor engorgentenl was tound. A ductive swarms were analyzed for honey stomach contentsdiurnal feeding rhythm in drones was observed in non- to determine if they engorge honey prior to or duringswarming colonies. t1\Torker honey bees, Apis melliferaL.,engorge intervals from colonies in a nonswarming cond:tion, prior to swarming (Maeterlinck1901,Garifullina starting at 0900 h and continuing until 1700 li. 1960, Combs 1972). Caront citedengorgement as To determine a niaximuni honey stomach content probably facilitatingthe processofselecting andin vivo. drones were captured just prior to afternoon settling in a new location. The object of the presentmating flight. Drones returning from mating fliglsts investigation was to determine if the drone honey bee 11150 Were sampled. could serve as a possible carrier of food reserves during swarming. RESULTS Young drones receive food from workers rather Sixty drones, 1-3 days old, reared in the laboratory, than feeding directly from colony stores. Older drones had a mean honey stomach weight of 2.0 nlg. Drones take honey from food storage cells and seldom receivesampled at 2-h intervals from coloniesina non- food from workers (Free 1957). Mindt (1962, re-swarming state had an increase in stomach content ported that drones capable of mating flights receiveduring the day, A diurnal rhythm of feeding was additional food from workers. Worker-to-drone tro- noted,Tile honey stomach weight was minimal in phallaxisis a necessary condition for drone flight the early morning (0900 h , it increased to a maxi- from swarm clusters, as I have shown (Burgett ) mum between 1230 and 1330 h, then decreasedFig, 1).
    [Show full text]