Accelerated Varroa destructor population growth in honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies is associated with visitation from non-natal bees

Managing the parasitic honey bee mite Tropilaelaps mercedesae through combined cultural and chemical control methods

The western honey bee (Apis mellifera) is severely impacted by the parasitic Tropilaelaps mercedesae mite, which has the capacity to outcompete Varroa destructor mites (the current leading cause of colony losses) and more rapidly overwhelm colonies. While T. mercedesae is native to Asia, it has recently expanded its geographic range and has the potential to devastate beekeeping worldwide if introduced to new regions. Our research exploited the dependence of T. mercedesae on developing honey bees (brood) by combining a cultural technique (brood break) with U.S. registered chemical products (oxalic acid or formic acid) to manage T. mercedesae infestation. To evaluate this approach, we compared four treatment groups: (1) Brood Break; (2) Brood Break + Formic Acid (FormicPro®); (3) Brood Break + Oxalic Acid dribble (Api-Bioxal®); and (4) untreated Control. We found that the mite infestation rate of worker brood in Control colonies rose from 0.4 to 15.25% over 60 days, whereas all other treatment groups had infestation rates under 0.11% on Day 60. Mite fall assessments showed similar results, whereby Control colonies had 15.48 mites fall per 24 h on day 60 compared to less than 0.2 mites for any other treatment group. Evaluation of colony strength revealed that Brood Break + Formic Acid colonies had slightly reduced adult honey bee populations. No treatment eliminated all mites, so additional measures may be needed to eradicate T. mercedesae if detected in countries that do not currently have T. mercedesae.

Do Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) mite flows between Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies bias colony infestation evaluation for resistance selection?

Since the global invasion of the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor (Anderson and Trueman), selection of mite-resistant honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies appears challenging and has to date not broadly reduced colony mortality. The low published estimated heritability values for mite infestation levels could explain the limited genetic progresses obtained so far. We hypothesize that intercolonial horizontal mite transmission could differentially affect the single colonies located in a given apiary and therefore invisibly bias colony infestation phenotypes. This bias may be lower in regions with lower colony density, providing suitable conditions to set up evaluation apiaries. To verify these hypotheses, we monitored mite infestation and reinvasion in experimental colonies, as well as infestation in neighboring colonies belonging to beekeepers in three areas with variable colony densities in the canton of Bern, Switzerland during three consecutive beekeeping seasons. Mite immigration fluctuated between apiaries and years and significantly contributed to colony infestation level. Depending on apiary and year, 17-48% of the mites present in the experimental colonies at the time of the summer oxalic acid final treatment potentially derived from mite immigration that had occurred since mid-spring. Mite immigration was not linked to local colony density or the infestation levels of beekeepers' colonies located within 2 km. Our results do not prove that apiaries for colony evaluation should necessarily be established in areas with low colony density. However, they highlight the high impact of beekeeping management practices on mite colony infestation levels.

Case Report: Emerging Losses of Managed Honey Bee Colonies

United States commercial beekeepers prepare honey bee colonies for almond pollination in California each year in late January to early February. This represents the largest managed pollination event in the world and involves more than half of all U.S. honey bee colonies. In winter 2023, numerous colonies in Florida, which were graded as suitable for almonds (larger than ten frames of bees), dwindled suddenly or altogether died within several weeks, just prior to movement for almonds. The timing of these losses and the resulting morbidity caused severe economic harm to affected operations. This study reports interviews with affected stakeholders, their economic harm, and analyses of pathogens and parasites found in their colonies.

A survey of UK beekeeper's Varroa treatment habits

The global spread of the parasitic mite Varroa destructor instigated a substantial decline in both managed and feral honeybee (Apis mellifera) colonies mainly across the Northern hemisphere. In response, many beekeepers began to treat their colonies with chemical acaricides to control mite populations in managed colonies. However, some countries or beekeepers allowed their bees to develop mite-resistance by adopting a "treatment-free" approach, rather than using selective breeding programs. Yet, the distribution and proportion of beekeepers either treating or not within the United Kingdom (UK) is unknown, as it is in most Northern hemisphere countries. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a beekeeper survey to determine the current treatment strategies within the UK. We gathered 2,872 beekeeper responses from an estimated 30,000 UK beekeepers belonging to 242 bee-associations in the winter of 2020/21. The survey indicated that the majority (72-79%) of UK beekeepers are still treating their bees for Varroa, typically twice-yearly using chemical-based methods. Six percent or 1,800 UK beekeepers were treatment-free for six years or more. This is reflected by our finding that 78 associations out of 242 consist of responders who entirely treated, while only four associations had more than 75% of their members that were non-treating. Overall treatment status was not affected by association currently. Using the baseline data from this survey it will be possible in the future to observer if a shift towards treatment-free beekeeping occurs or not.

Spatial analysis of Varroa destructor and the relationship with surrounding landscape types in Southern Ontario

Elevated colony losses have continued to be an issue for Canadian beekeepers for more than a decade. Numerous studies have identified unmanaged Apis mellifera colony infestation by the Varroa destructor mite as a main cause of the problem. V. destructor spread externally of the hive through a phoretic stage in their life cycle. Consequently, their movement outside the hive is influenced by honey bee flight behaviours, which can range to multiple kilometers from the originating hive in any direction. V. destructor are therefore of regional concern as neighboring colonies and yards share nearby forage which can serve as fomites. Additionally, mites can be transmitted through bee behaviours such as robbing and drifting, thus impacting surrounding colonies. Understanding the distribution of mites across a population is key for surveillance and equitable allocation of resources. Spatial patterns of V. destructor infestations in Southern Ontario, Canada, were investigated using a combination of cluster analysis, scan statistics, and geostatistical modelling, using 5 years of provincial apiary inspection data, from 2015 to 2019. A collection of disease clusters of V. destructor infestations was identified and found to be stable over multiple years with several other individual clusters occurring sporadically throughout Southern Ontario during the same study period. Universal kriging was applied to the V. destructor data in combination with regional colony density, and land use data as covariates, producing an isopleth map of the prevalence risk for V. destructor infestation. No substantial link between V. destructor infestation and environmental factors was found. This study highlights the need for more data and investigation to determine the cause of the identified clusters and areas of elevated risk. These results are hypothesis-generating but simultaneously provide information for government agencies, industry organizations, and beekeepers into the spatial distribution of V. destructor at a macro scale.

Transmission of deformed wing virus between Varroa destructor foundresses, mite offspring and infested honey bees

Background

Varroa destructor is the major ectoparasite of the western honey bee (Apis mellifera). Through both its parasitic life-cycle and its role as a vector of viral pathogens, it can cause major damage to honey bee colonies. The deformed wing virus (DWV) is the most common virus transmitted by this ectoparasite, and the mite is correlated to increased viral prevalence and viral loads in infested colonies. DWV variants A and B (DWV-A and DWV-B, respectively) are the two major DWV variants, and they differ both in their virulence and transmission dynamics.

Methods

We studied the transmission of DWV between bees, parasitic mites and their offspring by quantifying DWV loads in bees and mites collected in in vitro and in situ environments. In vitro, we artificially transmitted DWV-A to mites and quantified both DWV-A and DWV-B in mites and bees. In situ, we measured the natural presence of DWV-B in bees, mites and mites’ offspring.

Results

Bee and mite viral loads were correlated, and mites carrying both variants were associated with higher mortality of the infected host. Mite infestation increased the DWV-B loads and decreased the DWV-A loads in our laboratory conditions. In situ, viral quantification in the mite offspring showed that, after an initially non-infected egg stage, the DWV-B loads were more closely correlated with the foundress (mother) mites than with the bee hosts.

Conclusions

The association between mites and DWV-B was highlighted in this study. The parasitic history of a mite directly impacts its DWV infection potential during the rest of its life-cycle (in terms of variant and viral loads). Regarding the mite’s progeny, we hypothesize that the route of contamination is likely through the feeding site rather than by vertical transmission, although further studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Graphical Abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13071-022-05463-9.

Nemeth T, Baldo M, Jochym M, Felman C, Goodwin M, Lumsden M, Pattemore D, Jeanplong F. Marker assisted selection for Varroa destructor resistance in New Zealand honey bees

Varroa destructor is a honey bee (Apis mellifera) parasite identified as one of the leading causes of overwintering colony loss in New Zealand. It has been shown that a naturally occurring heritable trait, “Varroa Sensitive Hygiene” (VSH), confers an advantage to colonies by increasing behaviours that limit the survival and reproduction of Varroa mites. The SNP 9–9224292 is an adenine/guanine (A/G) polymorphism on chromosome 9 of Apis mellifera where the G allele was observed to be associated with VSH behaviour in North American honey bees. In this study, we sought to determine if selection for the G allele of SNP 9–9224292 could decrease Varroa mite infestation of New Zealand honey bee (Apis mellifera ligustica) colonies. We genotyped queens and tracked their colonies over summer before measuring Varroa levels at the point of autumn Varroa treatment. The mean Varroa population level in colonies headed by queens that carry two copies of VSH associated G allele of SNP 9–9224292 was 28.5% (P<0.05) lower compared with colonies headed by queens with two copies of non-VSH associated A alleles. Although a significant reduction in mite infestation was achieved in treatment colonies, conventional Varroa treatment was still required for adequate Varroa control. Considering the open mating of queens used and a lack of drift control in this study, this VSH SNP shows promise for marker assisted selection of New Zealand honey bees when aiming for innate Varroa control traits.

The Diversity Decline in Wild and Managed Honey Bee Populations Urges for an Integrated Conservation Approach

Many parts of the globe experience severe losses and fragmentation of habitats, affecting the self-sustainability of pollinator populations. A number of bee species coexist as wild and managed populations. Using honey bees as an example, we argue that several management practices in beekeeping threaten genetic diversity in both wild and managed populations, and drive population decline. Large-scale movement of hive stocks, introductions into new areas, breeding programs and trading of queens contribute to reducing genetic diversity, as recent research demonstrated for wild and managed honey bees within a few decades. Examples of the effects of domestication in other organisms show losses of both genetic diversity and fitness functions. Cases of natural selection and feralization resulted in maintenance of a higher genetic diversity, including in a Varroa destructor surviving population of honey bees. To protect the genetic diversity of honey bee populations, exchange between regions should be avoided. The proposed solution to selectively breed all local subspecies for a use in beekeeping would reduce the genetic diversity of each, and not address the value of the genetic diversity present in hybridized populations. The protection of Apis mellifera’s, Apis cerana’s and Apis koschevnikovi’s genetic diversities could be based on natural selection. In beekeeping, it implies to not selectively breed but to leave the choice of the next generation of queens to the colonies, as in nature. Wild populations surrounded by beekeeping activity could be preserved by allowing Darwinian beekeeping in a buffer zone between the wild and regular beekeeping area.