Winter Losses of Honeybee Colonies (Hymenoptera: Apidae): The Role of Infestations With Aethina tumida (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) and Varroa destructor (Parasitiformes: Varroidae)

2010 ◽  
Vol 103 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc O. Schäfer ◽  
Wolfgang Ritter ◽  
Jeff S. Pettis ◽  
Peter Neumann
Keyword(s):  
Varroa Destructor ◽  
Aethina Tumida ◽  
Winter Losses

Use of Chemical and Nonchemical Methods for the Control of Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) and Associated Winter Colony Losses in U.S. Beekeeping Operations

2019 ◽  
Vol 112 (4) ◽  
pp. 1509-1525 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariela I Haber ◽  
Nathalie A Steinhauer ◽  
Dennis vanEngelsdorp
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Varroa Destructor ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
The United States ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Control Methods ◽  
Colony Losses ◽  
Potential Control ◽  
Winter Losses ◽  
Varroa Control

Abstract 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.

scholarly journals Immunolocalization of deformed wing virus particles within the mite Varroa destructor

2008 ◽  
Vol 89 (7) ◽  
pp. 1685-1689 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ma. Teresa Santillán-Galicia ◽  
Raffaella Carzaniga ◽  
Brenda V. Ball ◽  
Peter G. Alderson
Keyword(s):  
Varroa Destructor ◽  
Laboratory Experiments ◽  
Field Observations ◽  
Pupal Development ◽  
Deformed Wing Virus ◽  
Faecal Pellets ◽  
Virus Particles ◽  
Midgut Lumen ◽  
Wing Deformation

Deformed wing virus (DWV) induces wing deformation when bees are infected during their pupal development. Field observations and laboratory experiments suggest that the mite Varroa destructor is a vector of the virus. Moreover, it has been stated that DWV replicates within this mite. In order to understand the role of V. destructor in the transmission of DWV, the objective of this work was to locate the sites of retention and/or replication of DWV within the mite by immunohistochemistry. There was no evidence that DWV was replicating in the mite as no tissues showed specific antibody binding to DWV. Also, there were no specific structures that could be suggested as retention sites. DWV was found only in the midgut lumen of V. destructor in structures resembling large, dense spheres, which were presumably faecal pellets.

scholarly journals Can colony size of honeybees (Apis mellifera) be used as predictor for colony losses due to Varroa destructor during winter?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Coby van Dooremalen ◽  
Frank van Langevelde
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Colony Size ◽  
Varroa Destructor ◽  
Warning Signs ◽  
Colony Losses ◽  
Early Warning Signs ◽  
Parasitic Mite ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Early Predictor

AbstractFor more than three decades, honeybee colonies (Apis mellifera) experience high losses during winter, and these losses are still continuing. It is crucial that beekeepers monitor their colonies closely and anticipate losses early enough to apply mitigating actions. We tested whether colony size can be used as early predictor for potential colony losses, in particular due to the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. V. destructor is one of the most important causes for these losses. Such early predictor for potential V. destructor induced losses is especially relevant as measuring V. destructor load in colonies is difficult and cumbersome. During three years, we monitored colonies with high and low V. destructor load from July until March of the next year. We found that differences in colony size were only visible after November, even though we lost almost all colonies every winter in the group with high V. destructor load. In the Northern hemisphere, November is considered to be too late for beekeepers to strengthen colonies in preparation for winter. We therefore argue that early-warning signs for potential colony losses due to V. destructor are urgently needed to allow beekeepers preventing winter losses. We discuss the role of precision apiculture to monitor the health and productivity of honeybee colonies.

scholarly journals Can Colony Size of Honeybees (Apis mellifera) Be Used as Predictor for Colony Losses Due to Varroa destructor during Winter?

Agriculture ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 529
Author(s):  
Coby van Dooremalen ◽  
Frank van Langevelde
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Colony Size ◽  
Varroa Destructor ◽  
Warning Signs ◽  
Colony Losses ◽  
Early Warning Signs ◽  
Parasitic Mite ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Early Predictor

For more than three decades, honeybee colonies (Apis mellifera) have experienced high losses during winter and these losses are still continuing. It is crucial that beekeepers monitor their colonies closely and anticipate losses early enough to apply mitigating actions. We tested whether colony size can be used as early predictor for potential colony losses, in particular due to the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. V. destructor is one of the most important causes of these losses. Such an early predictor for potential V. destructor induced losses is especially relevant as measuring V. destructor load in colonies is difficult and cumbersome. Over three years, we monitored colonies with high and low V. destructor loads from July until March of the next year. We found that differences in colony size were only visible after November, even though we lost almost all colonies every winter in the group with a high V. destructor load. In the Northern hemisphere, November is considered to be too late for beekeepers to strengthen colonies in preparation for winter. We therefore argue that early warning signs for potential colony losses due to V. destructor are urgently needed to allow beekeepers to prevent winter losses. We discuss the role of precision apiculture in monitoring the health and productivity of beehive colonies.

scholarly journals Behavioral modulation of the coexistence between Apis melifera and Varroa destructor: A defense against colony collapse?

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joyce F Santos ◽  
Flávio C Coelho ◽  
Pierre-Alexandre J Bliman
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bees ◽  
Varroa Destructor ◽  
Colony Collapse Disorder ◽  
Hygienic Behavior ◽  
Colony Losses ◽  
Africanized Honey Bee ◽  
Multiple Factors ◽  
Colony Collapse ◽  
Different Parts

Colony Collapse Disorder has become a global problem for beekeepers and for the crops which depend on bee polination. Multiple factors are known to increase the risk of colony colapse, and the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor that parasitizes honey bees (Apis melifera) is among the main threats to colony health. Although this mite is unlikely to, by itself, cause the collapse of hives, it plays an important role as it is a vector for many viral diseases. Such diseases are among the likely causes for Colony Collapse Disorder. The effects of V. destructor infestation are disparate in different parts of the world. Greater morbidity - in the form of colony losses - has been reported in colonies of European honey bees (EHB) in Europe, Asia and North America. However, this mite has been present in Brasil for many years and yet there are no reports of Africanized honey bee (AHB) colonies losses. Studies carried out in Mexico showed that some resistance behaviors to the mite - especially grooming and hygienic behavior - appear to be different in each subspecies. Could those difference in behaviors explain why the AHB are less susceptible to Colony Collapse Disorder? In order to answer this question, we propose a mathematical model of the coexistence dynamics of these two species, the bee and the mite, to analyze the role of resistance behaviors in the overall health of the colony, and, as a consequence, its ability to face epidemiological challenges.

scholarly journals Behavioral modulation of the coexistence between Apis melifera and Varroa destructor: A defense against colony collapse?

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joyce F Santos ◽  
Flávio C Coelho ◽  
Pierre-Alexandre J Bliman
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bees ◽  
Varroa Destructor ◽  
Colony Collapse Disorder ◽  
Hygienic Behavior ◽  
Colony Losses ◽  
Africanized Honey Bee ◽  
Multiple Factors ◽  
Colony Collapse ◽  
Different Parts

Colony Collapse Disorder has become a global problem for beekeepers and for the crops which depend on bee polination. Multiple factors are known to increase the risk of colony colapse, and the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor that parasitizes honey bees (Apis melifera) is among the main threats to colony health. Although this mite is unlikely to, by itself, cause the collapse of hives, it plays an important role as it is a vector for many viral diseases. Such diseases are among the likely causes for Colony Collapse Disorder. The effects of V. destructor infestation are disparate in different parts of the world. Greater morbidity - in the form of colony losses - has been reported in colonies of European honey bees (EHB) in Europe, Asia and North America. However, this mite has been present in Brasil for many years and yet there are no reports of Africanized honey bee (AHB) colonies losses. Studies carried out in Mexico showed that some resistance behaviors to the mite - especially grooming and hygienic behavior - appear to be different in each subspecies. Could those difference in behaviors explain why the AHB are less susceptible to Colony Collapse Disorder? In order to answer this question, we propose a mathematical model of the coexistence dynamics of these two species, the bee and the mite, to analyze the role of resistance behaviors in the overall health of the colony, and, as a consequence, its ability to face epidemiological challenges.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document