DOCSLIB.ORG

Pollinator Diversity As a Buffer for Pollinator Disease

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pollinator Diversity As a Buffer for Pollinator Disease POLLINATOR DIVERSITY AS A BUFFER FOR POLLINATOR DISEASE Word count: 26,035 Tina Tuerlings Student number: 01306614 Promotors: Dr. Ivan Meeus, Prof. Dr. ir. Guy Smagghe Tutors: ir. Niels Piot, Matti Pisman A dissertation submitted to Ghent University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Bioscience Engineering: Cell and Gene Biotechnology Academic year: 2017 – 2018 PREFACE There are many people that played a part in making this thesis possible. First of all, and mostly, I would like to thank my tutor Niels Piot, for having a lot of patience and being a great mentor, both in the lab and with writing this thesis. From the beginning, when giving me lab training, until the end, when I was sometimes struggling with keeping an overview during writing, you were always happy to help as fast as you could. You fueled my passion for bees even more! Also a great appreciation for Ivan Meeus, who put a lot of time in guiding me through interpretation, analysis and formulation of the results, and for Matti Pisman, for helping me and giving lots of feedback. I also want to thank prof. Guy Smagghe for giving me the opportunity to do this thesis. Lastly, I would like to thank my friends and family for the eternal support, and always inform (and sometimes overwhelm) me about bee news and facts. Above all, I want to thank Jonas Vandicke for always being by my side, through all ups-and-downs of this process, and supporting me in everything. After a year of doing research on bees, I have learned an incredible amount about these little creatures. What will stay with me the most after this research is how complex the interaction of bees with the environment is, how much more we can learn about them but also how much we can learn fróm them. “Human beings have fabricated the illusion that in the 21st century they have the technological prowess to be independent of nature. Bees underline the reality that we are more, not less, dependent on nature’s services in a world of close to 7 billion people” - Achim Steiner, Executive Director UN Environment Programme (UNEP) TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Samenvatting .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Literature study ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3 2. Pollinator diversity ...................................................................................................................... 5 Importance of pollinator diversity .................................................................................................. 5 3. Pollinator pathogens ................................................................................................................... 7 3.1. Apidae pollinator pathogens ............................................................................................... 7 3.2. Pathogens in bumble bees .................................................................................................. 7 3.3. Transmission ...................................................................................................................... 12 3.4. Multi-host pathogens and multi-pathogen hosts ............................................................. 14 4. Biodiversity and disease ........................................................................................................... 17 Scope .................................................................................................................................................... 21 Material and methods .......................................................................................................................... 22 1. Sampling .................................................................................................................................... 22 Characterized locations ................................................................................................................ 22 Landscape analysis ........................................................................................................................ 23 Species determination .................................................................................................................. 23 2. DNA extraction .......................................................................................................................... 23 3. PCR ............................................................................................................................................ 24 4. qPCR .......................................................................................................................................... 25 5. Sequencing ................................................................................................................................ 26 DNA purification ........................................................................................................................... 27 6. Statistical analysis ..................................................................................................................... 27 7. Diversity indices ........................................................................................................................ 28 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 29 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 29 2. Sampling overview .................................................................................................................... 29 3. Pathogen screening .................................................................................................................. 29 3.1. Pathogen prevalence in species ........................................................................................ 29 3.2. Pathogen prevalence in apple orchards ............................................................................ 32 3.3. Focusing on pathogen screening in Bombus sp. ............................................................... 33 3.4. Genotyping ........................................................................................................................ 34 3.5. Pathogen load ................................................................................................................... 35 4. Species diversity ........................................................................................................................ 44 4.1. Four diversity indices ........................................................................................................ 44 4.2. Pathogen prevalence and diversity ................................................................................... 46 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 53 1. Species overview ....................................................................................................................... 53 2. Pathogen prevalence ................................................................................................................ 54 3. Semi-natural habitat and effect of diversity ............................................................................. 55 Conclusion and future perspective ...................................................................................................... 58 References ............................................................................................................................................ 59 Addendum ............................................................................................................................................ 69 1. PCR master mixes...................................................................................................................... 69 2. Sampling overview .................................................................................................................... 71 2.1. Species distribution ........................................................................................................... 71 2.2. Location distribution ......................................................................................................... 72 ABSTRACT Pathogens and their relationships with their hosts have been studied extensively, also in bees. The impact of diseases and the transmission of pathogens is a widely discussed topic, and the complex web of multi-host pathogens and multi-pathogen hosts has been acknowledged in many different disciplines. A lot of pathogens are able to infect multiple host species, but do not necessarily have the same virulence in all host species. Pathogens can have devastating effects in one species, and only subtle effects in the other. The interaction with the host partly determines pathogen transmission, the interactions with all host species together determine
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Implications of Habitat Restoration for Bumble Bee Population Dynamics, Foraging Ecology, and Epidemiology
    IMPLICATIONS OF HABITAT RESTORATION FOR BUMBLE BEE POPULATION DYNAMICS, FORAGING ECOLOGY, AND EPIDEMIOLOGY By Knute Baldwin Gundersen A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Entomology—Doctor of Philosophy Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior—Dual Major 2018 ABSTRACT IMPLICATIONS OF HABITAT RESTORATION FOR BUMBLE BEE POPULATION DYNAMICS, FORAGING ECOLOGY, AND EPIDEMIOLOGY By Knute Baldwin Gundersen Many insects provide valuable ecosystem services, including those that support our food supply. Beneficial insects such as pollinators fulfill part of this role by contributing to approximately one third of the global food crop production. Over the past few decades, pollinators have faced declining populations due to a variety of factors such as agricultural intensification, lack of floral and nesting resources, and disease. One method used in agricultural settings to help sustain pollinator populations is designating unfarmed habitat such as ditches and field margins for habitat enhancement in the form of hedgerows and wildflower strips. These floristically rich areas can be tailored to bloom both before and after crop bloom to help sustain pollinators during the time when crops are not in bloom. In turn, bee populations can benefit from the consistent availability of resources in these areas of habitat enhancement. This dissertation explores how habitat enhancement affects nesting density of a common wild pollinator, Bombus impatiens . Further, this research also aims to determine how foraging preferences change and how bumble bee disease transmission and prevalence respond to habitat enhancement. Research was conducted at 15 commercial highbush blueberry ( Vaccinium corymbosum ) fields in southwest Michigan containing either no restoration, a newly planted restoration, or a mature (5-8 year old) restoration in the field margin from 2015 to 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence for and Against Deformed Wing Virus Spillover from Honey Bees to Bumble Bees: a Reverse Genetic Analysis Olesya N
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Evidence for and against deformed wing virus spillover from honey bees to bumble bees: a reverse genetic analysis Olesya N. Gusachenko1*, Luke Woodford1, Katharin Balbirnie‑Cumming1, Eugene V. Ryabov2 & David J. Evans1* Deformed wing virus (DWV) is a persistent pathogen of European honey bees and the major contributor to overwintering colony losses. The prevalence of DWV in honey bees has led to signifcant concerns about spillover of the virus to other pollinating species. Bumble bees are both a major group of wild and commercially‑reared pollinators. Several studies have reported pathogen spillover of DWV from honey bees to bumble bees, but evidence of a sustained viral infection characterized by virus replication and accumulation has yet to be demonstrated. Here we investigate the infectivity and transmission of DWV in bumble bees using the buf-tailed bumble bee Bombus terrestris as a model. We apply a reverse genetics approach combined with controlled laboratory conditions to detect and monitor DWV infection. A novel reverse genetics system for three representative DWV variants, including the two master variants of DWV—type A and B—was used. Our results directly confrm DWV replication in bumble bees but also demonstrate striking resistance to infection by certain transmission routes. Bumble bees may support DWV replication but it is not clear how infection could occur under natural environmental conditions. Deformed wing virus (DWV) is a widely established pathogen of the European honey bee, Apis mellifera. In synergistic action with its vector—the parasitic mite Varroa destructor—it has had a devastating impact on the health of honey bee colonies globally1,2.
    [Show full text]
  • An Abstract of the Thesis Of
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Sarah A. Maxfield-Taylor for the degree of Master of Science in Entomology presented on March 26, 2014. Title: Natural Enemies of Native Bumble Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Western Oregon Abstract approved: _____________________________________________ Sujaya U. Rao Bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) are important native pollinators in wild and agricultural systems, and are one of the few groups of native bees commercially bred for use in the pollination of a range of crops. In recent years, declines in bumble bees have been reported globally. One factor implicated in these declines, believed to affect bumble bee colonies in the wild and during rearing, is natural enemies. A diversity of fungi, protozoa, nematodes, and parasitoids has been reported to affect bumble bees, to varying extents, in different parts of the world. In contrast to reports of decline elsewhere, bumble bees have been thriving in Oregon on the West Coast of the U.S.A.. In particular, the agriculturally rich Willamette Valley in the western part of the state appears to be fostering several species. Little is known, however, about the natural enemies of bumble bees in this region. The objectives of this thesis were to: (1) identify pathogens and parasites in (a) bumble bees from the wild, and (b) bumble bees reared in captivity and (2) examine the effects of disease on bee hosts. Bumble bee queens and workers were collected from diverse locations in the Willamette Valley, in spring and summer. Bombus mixtus, Bombus nevadensis, and Bombus vosnesenskii collected from the wild were dissected and examined for pathogens and parasites, and these organisms were identified using morphological and molecular characteristics.
    [Show full text]
  • Bumblebee Conservator
    Volume 2, Issue 1: First Half 2014 Bumblebee Conservator Newsletter of the BumbleBee Specialist Group In this issue From the Chair From the Chair 1 A very happy and productive 2014 to everyone! We start this year having seen From the Editor 1 enormously encouraging progress in 2013. Our different regions have started from BBSG Executive Committee 2 very different positions, in terms of established knowledge of their bee faunas Regional Coordinators 2 as well as in terms of resources available, but members in all regions are actively moving forward. In Europe and North America, which have been fortunate to Bumblebee Specialist have the most specialists over the last century, we are achieving the first species Group Report 2013 3 assessments. Mesoamerica and South America are also very close, despite the huge Bumblebees in the News 9 areas to survey and the much less well known species. In Asia, with far more species, many of them poorly known, remarkably rapid progress is being made in sorting Research 13 out what is present and in building the crucial keys and distribution maps. In some Conservation News 20 regions there are very few people to tackle the task, sometimes in situations that Bibliography 21 make progress challenging and slow – their enthusiasm is especially appreciated! At this stage, broad discussion of problems and of the solutions developed from your experience will be especially important. This will direct the best assessments for focusing the future of bumblebee conservation. From the Editor Welcome to the second issue of the Bumblebee Conservator, the official newsletter of the Bumblebee Specialist Group.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional and Temporal Parasite Loads in Bumble Bees Associated With
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst North American Cranberry Researcher and NACREW 2017 Extension Workers Conference Aug 29th, 12:00 PM - 1:15 PM Regional and temporal parasite loads in bumble bees associated with cranberry landscapes Noel Hahn University of Massachusetts Amherst Cranberry Station, [email protected] Andrea Couto UMass Amherst Cranberry Station, [email protected] Anne Averill University of Massachusetts - Amherst, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/nacrew Part of the Agriculture Commons Recommended Citation Hahn, Noel; Couto, Andrea; and Averill, Anne, "Regional and temporal parasite loads in bumble bees associated with cranberry landscapes" (2017). North American Cranberry Researcher and Extension Workers Conference. 11. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/nacrew/2017/posters/11 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Cranberry Station at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in North American Cranberry Researcher and Extension Workers Conference by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Regional and temporal parasite loads in bumble bees associated with cranberry landscapes Noel Hahn, Andrea C. Couto, Anne Averill Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA; University of Massachusetts Cranberry Station, Wareham, Massachusetts Abstract Objectives There are concerns that the fitness of bumble bees that provide pollination • Quantify the number of bumble bees that are services to cranberry could suffer within intensively managed agricultural Crithidia bombi Nosema bombi lands. In the cranberry region of Massachusetts, the crop occurs within parasitized by , , urbanized coastal and sand plains that generally lack floral resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Report for the Yellow Banded Bumble Bee (Bombus Terricola) Version 1.1
    Species Status Assessment (SSA) Report for the Yellow Banded Bumble Bee (Bombus terricola) Version 1.1 Kent McFarland October 2018 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Region Hadley, Massachusetts 1 Acknowledgements Gratitude and many thanks to the individuals who responded to our request for data and information on the yellow banded bumble bee, including: Nancy Adamson, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS); Lynda Andrews, U.S. Forest Service (USFS); Sarah Backsen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); Charles Bartlett, University of Delaware; Janet Beardall, Environment Canada; Bruce Bennett, Environment Yukon, Yukon Conservation Data Centre; Andrea Benville, Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre; Charlene Bessken USFWS; Lincoln Best, York University; Silas Bossert, Cornell University; Owen Boyle, Wisconsin DNR; Jodi Bush, USFWS; Ron Butler, University of Maine; Syd Cannings, Yukon Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada; Susan Carpenter, University of Wisconsin; Paul Castelli, USFWS; Sheila Colla, York University; Bruce Connery, National Park Service (NPS); Claudia Copley, Royal Museum British Columbia; Dave Cuthrell, Michigan Natural Features Inventory; Theresa Davidson, Mark Twain National Forest; Jason Davis, Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife; Sam Droege, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); Daniel Eklund, USFS; Elaine Evans, University of Minnesota; Mark Ferguson, Vermont Fish and Wildlife; Chris Friesen, Manitoba Conservation Data Centre; Lawrence Gall,
    [Show full text]
  • Long‐Term Prevalence of the Protists Crithidia Bombi And
    Long-term prevalence of the protists Crithidia bombi and Apicystis bombi and detection of the microsporidium Nosema bombi in invasive bumble bees Santiago PLISCHUK1,*, Karina ANTÚNEZ2, Marina HARAMBOURE1, Graciela M. MINARDI1, and Carlos E. LANGE1,3 1 Centro de Estudios Parasitológicos y de Vectores (CONICET – UNLP). La Plata, Argentina. 2 Instituto de Investigaciones Biológicas “Clemente Estable”. Montevideo, Uruguay. 3 Comisión de Investigaciones Científicas de la Provincia de Buenos Aires (CICPBA), Argentina. *Corresponding author: S. Plischuk. CEPAVE, Boulevard 120 # 1460 (B1902CHX) La Plata, Argentina. Tel./Fax: (0054) 0221 423 2140. E-mail: [email protected] Running title: Pathogens in invasive bumble bees This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as an ‘Accepted Article’, doi: 10.1111/1758-2229.12520 This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. Page 2 of 15 Summary An initial survey in 2009 carried out at a site in northwestern Patagonia region, Argentina, revealed for the first time in South America the presence of the flagellate Crithidia bombi and the neogregarine Apicystis bombi, two pathogens associated with the Palaearctic invasive bumble bee Bombus terrestris. In order to determine the long- term persistence and dynamics of this microparasite complex, four additional collections at the same site (San Carlos de Bariloche) were conducted along the following seven years. Both protists were detected in all collections: prevalence was 2% - 21.6% for C. bombi and 1.2% - 14% for A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pathogens Spillover and Incidence Correlation in Bumblebees and Honeybees in Slovenia
    pathogens Article The Pathogens Spillover and Incidence Correlation in Bumblebees and Honeybees in Slovenia Metka Pislak Ocepek 1,*, Ivan Toplak 2 , Urška Zajc 3 and Danilo Bevk 4 1 Institute of Pathology, Wild Animals, Fish and Bees, Veterinary Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Gerbiˇceva60, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia 2 Virology Unit, Institute of Microbiology and Parasitology, Veterinary Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Gerbiˇceva60, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; [email protected] 3 Bacteriology Unit, Institute of Microbiology and Parasitology, Veterinary Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Gerbiˇceva60, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; [email protected] 4 Department of Organisms and Ecosystems Research, National Institute of Biology, Veˇcnapot 111, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Slovenia has a long tradition of beekeeping and a high density of honeybee colonies, but less is known about bumblebees and their pathogens. Therefore, a study was conducted to define the incidence and prevalence of pathogens in bumblebees and to determine whether there are links between infections in bumblebees and honeybees. In 2017 and 2018, clinically healthy workers of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) and honeybees (Apis mellifera) were collected on flowers at four different locations in Slovenia. In addition, bumblebee queens were also collected in 2018. Several pathogens were detected in the bumblebee workers using PCR and RT-PCR methods: 8.8% on acute bee paralysis virus (ABPV), 58.5% on black queen cell virus (BQCV), 6.8% on deformed wing virus (DWV), 24.5% on sacbrood bee virus (SBV), 15.6% on Lake Sinai virus (LSV), 16.3% on Nosema bombi, Citation: Pislak Ocepek, M.; Toplak, 8.2% on Nosema ceranae, 15.0% on Apicystis bombi and 17.0% on Crithidia bombi.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Framework for the Study of Apicomplexan Diversity Across Environments
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/494880; this version posted December 12, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. An Original Article submitted to PLoS Pathogens A new framework for the study of apicomplexan diversity across environments Javier del Campo1,2*, Thierry Heger1,3, Raquel Rodríguez-Martínez4, Alexandra Z. Worden5, Thomas A. Richards4, Ramon Massana2 and Patrick J. Keeling1* 1University of British Columbia, 3529-6270 University Boulevard, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada. 2Department of Marine Biology and Oceanography, Institut de Ciències del Mar (CSIC), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain 3Soil Science Group, CHANGINS, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Nyon, Switzerland 4Living Systems Institute, Biosciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Stocker Road, Exeter, EX4 4QD, UK 5Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Moss Landing, CA 95039, US *Corresponding authors: University of British Columbia, 3529-6270 University Boulevard, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada. Phone +1 (604) 822-2845; Fax: +1 (604) 822-6089; E- mail: [email protected] / [email protected] bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/494880; this version posted December 12, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license. Abstract Apicomplexans are a group of microbial eukaryotes that contain some of the most well- studied parasites, including widespread intracellular pathogens of mammals such as Toxoplasma and Plasmodium (the agent of malaria), and emergent pathogens like Cryptosporidium and Babesia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Managed Bees and the Prevalence of Parasites in Bumblebees
    The relationship between managed bees and the prevalence of parasites in bumblebees Article (Published Version) Graystock, Peter, Goulson, Dave and Hughes, William O H (2014) The relationship between managed bees and the prevalence of parasites in bumblebees. PeerJ, 2. ISSN 2167-8359 This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/60193/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse: Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University. Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk The relationship between managed bees and the prevalence of parasites in bumblebees Peter Graystock1,3 , Dave Goulson2 and William O.H.
    [Show full text]
  • Apicystis Gen Nov and Apicystis Bombi (Liu, Macfarlane & Pengelly) Comb
    Apicystis gen nov and Apicystis bombi (Liu, Macfarlane & Pengelly) comb nov (Protozoa: Neogregarinida), a cosmopolitan parasite of Bombus and Apis (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Jj Lipa, O Triggiani To cite this version: Jj Lipa, O Triggiani. Apicystis gen nov and Apicystis bombi (Liu, Macfarlane & Pengelly) comb nov (Protozoa: Neogregarinida), a cosmopolitan parasite of Bombus and Apis (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Apidologie, Springer Verlag, 1996, 27 (1), pp.29-34. hal-00891321 HAL Id: hal-00891321 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00891321 Submitted on 1 Jan 1996 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Original article Apicystis gen nov and Apicystis bombi (Liu, Macfarlane & Pengelly) comb nov (Protozoa: Neogregarinida), a cosmopolitan parasite of Bombus and Apis (Hymenoptera: Apidae) JJ Lipa O Triggiani 1 Institute of Plant Protection, Miczurina 20, 60-318 Poznan, Poland; 2 Istituto di Entomologia Agraria, Universita degli Studi, via Amendola 165/A, 70125 Bari, Italy (Received 20 May 1995; accepted 22 December 1995) Summary — A new genus Apicystis and a new combination Apicystis bombi (Liu, Macfarlane & Pen- gelly) is proposed for a neogregarine parasitic on Bombus spp and Apis mellifera. The genus Apicys- tis is characterized by having navicular oocysts containing only four sporozoites and basically differs from the genus Mattesia which has spindle oocysts with eight sporozoites.
    [Show full text]
  • Pathogens Spillover from Honey Bees to Other Arthropods
    pathogens Systematic Review Pathogens Spillover from Honey Bees to Other Arthropods Antonio Nanetti , Laura Bortolotti * and Giovanni Cilia Council for Agricultural Research and Agricultural Economics Analysis, Centre for Agriculture and Environment Research (CREA-AA), Via di Saliceto 80, 40128 Bologna, Italy; [email protected] (A.N.); [email protected] (G.C.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-051-353103 Abstract: Honey bees, and pollinators in general, play a major role in the health of ecosystems. There is a consensus about the steady decrease in pollinator populations, which raises global ecological concern. Several drivers are implicated in this threat. Among them, honey bee pathogens are transmitted to other arthropods populations, including wild and managed pollinators. The western honey bee, Apis mellifera, is quasi-globally spread. This successful species acted as and, in some cases, became a maintenance host for pathogens. This systematic review collects and summarizes spillover cases having in common Apis mellifera as the mainteinance host and some of its pathogens. The reports are grouped by final host species and condition, year, and geographic area of detection and the co-occurrence in the same host. A total of eighty-one articles in the time frame 1960–2021 were included. The reported spillover cases cover a wide range of hymenopteran host species, generally living in close contact with or sharing the same environmental resources as the honey bees. They also involve non-hymenopteran arthropods, like spiders and roaches, which are either likely or unlikely to live in close proximity to honey bees. Specific studies should consider host-dependent pathogen modifications and effects on involved host species.
    [Show full text]