Where Does Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Pollen Come from? A Study of Pollen Collected from Colonies at Ornamental Plant Nurseries

Environmental metagenetics unveil novel plant-pollinator interactions

Honey bees are efficient pollinators of flowering plants, aiding in the plant reproductive cycle and acting as vehicles for evolutionary processes. Their role as agents of selection and drivers of gene flow is instrumental to the structure of plant populations, but historically, our understanding of their influence has been limited to predominantly insect-dispersed flowering species. Recent metagenetic work has provided evidence that honey bees also forage on pollen from anemophilous species, suggesting that their role as vectors for transmission of plant genetic material is not confined to groups designated as entomophilous, and leading us to ask: could honey bees act as dispersal agents for non-flowering plant taxa? Using an extensive pollen metabarcoding dataset from Canada, we discovered that honey bees may serve as dispersal agents for an array of sporophytes (Anchistea, Claytosmunda, Dryopteris, Osmunda, Osmundastrum, Equisetum) and bryophytes (Funaria, Orthotrichum, Sphagnum, Ulota). Our findings also suggest that honey bees may occasionally act as vectors for the dispersal of aquatic phototrophs, specifically Coccomyxa and Protosiphon, species of green algae. Our work has shed light on the broad resource-access patterns that guide plant-pollinator interactions and suggests that bees could act as vectors of gene flow, and potentially even agents of selection, across Plantae.

Pesticide residues in honey bee (Apis mellifera) pollen collected in two ornamental plant nurseries in Connecticut: Implications for bee health and risk assessment

Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) are one of the most important managed pollinators of agricultural crops. While potential effects of agricultural pesticides on honey bee health have been investigated in some settings, risks to honey bees associated with exposures occurring in the plant nursery setting have received little attention. We sought to identify and quantify pesticide levels present in honey bee-collected pollen harvested in two ornamental plant nurseries (i.e., Nursery A and Nursery B) in Connecticut. From June to September 2018, pollen was collected weekly from 8 colonies using bottom-mounted pollen traps. Fifty-five unique pesticides (including related metabolites) were detected: 24 insecticides, 20 fungicides, and 11 herbicides. Some of the pesticide contaminants detected in the pollen had not been applied by the nurseries, indicating that the honey bee colonies did not exclusively forage on pollen at their respective nursery. The average number of pesticides per sample was similar at both nurseries (i.e., 12.9 at Nursery A and 14.2 at Nursery B). To estimate the potential risk posed to honey bees from these samples, we utilized the USEPA's BeeREX tool to calculate risk quotients (RQs) for each pesticide within each sample. The median aggregate RQ for nurse bees was 0.003 at both nurseries, well below the acute risk level of concern (LOC) of ≥0.4. We also calculated RQs for larvae due to their increased sensitivity to certain pesticides. In total, 6 samples had larval RQs above the LOC (0.45-2.51), resulting from the organophosphate insecticide diazinon. Since 2015, the frequency and amount of diazinon detected in pollen increased at one of our study locations, potentially due to pressure to reduce the use of neonicotinoid insecticides. Overall, these data highlight the importance of considering all life stages when estimating potential risk to honey bee colonies from pesticide exposure.

Gut microbiota variation of a tropical oil-collecting bee species far exceeds that of the honeybee

Introduction

Interest for bee microbiota has recently been rising, alleviating the gap in knowledge in regard to drivers of solitary bee gut microbiota. However, no study has addressed the microbial acquisition routes of tropical solitary bees. For both social and solitary bees, the gut microbiota has several essential roles such as food processing and immune responses. While social bees such as honeybees maintain a constant gut microbiota by direct transmission from individuals of the same hive, solitary bees do not have direct contact between generations. They thus acquire their gut microbiota from the environment and/or the provision of their brood cell. To establish the role of life history in structuring the gut microbiota of solitary bees, we characterized the gut microbiota of Centris decolorata from a beach population in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico. Females provide the initial brood cell provision for the larvae, while males patrol the nest without any contact with it. We hypothesized that this behavior influences their gut microbiota, and that the origin of larval microbiota is from brood cell provisions.

Methods

We collected samples from adult females and males of C. decolorata (n = 10 each, n = 20), larvae (n = 4), and brood cell provisions (n = 10). For comparison purposes, we also sampled co-occurring female foragers of social Apis mellifera (n = 6). The samples were dissected, their DNA extracted, and gut microbiota sequenced using 16S rRNA genes. Pollen loads of A. mellifera and C. decolorata were analyzed and interactions between bee species and their plant resources were visualized using a pollination network.

Results

While we found the gut of A. mellifera contained the same phylotypes previously reported in the literature, we noted that the variability in the gut microbiota of solitary C. decolorata was significantly higher than that of social A. mellifera. Furthermore, the microbiota of adult C. decolorata mostly consisted of acetic acid bacteria whereas that of A. mellifera mostly had lactic acid bacteria. Among C. decolorata, we found significant differences in alpha and beta diversity between adults and their brood cell provisions (Shannon and Chao1 p < 0.05), due to the higher abundance of families such as Rhizobiaceae and Chitinophagaceae in the brood cells, and of Acetobacteraceae in adults. In addition, the pollination network analysis indicated that A. mellifera had a stronger interaction with Byrsonima sp. and a weaker interaction with Combretaceae while interactions between C. decolorata and its plant resources were constant with the null model.

Conclusion

Our data are consistent with the hypothesis that behavioral differences in brood provisioning between solitary and social bees is a factor leading to relatively high variation in the microbiota of the solitary bee.

Honey Bees Prefer Pollen Substitutes Rich in Protein Content Located at Short Distance from the Apiary

The availability of floral resources is crucial for honey bee colonies because it allows them to obtain protein from pollen and carbohydrates from nectar; typically, they consume these nutrients in the form of bee bread, which has undergone fermentation. However, the intensification of agriculture, urbanization, changes to the topography, and harsh environmental conditions are currently impacting foraging sites due to habitat loss and scarcity of food resources. Thus, this study aimed to assess honey bee preference for various pollen substitute diet compositions. Bee colonies perform poorly because of specific environmental problems, which ultimately result in pollen scarcity. Pollen substitutes located at various distance from the bee hive were also investigated in addition to determining the preferences of honey bees for various pollen substitute diets. The local honey bee (Apis mellifera jemenitica) colonies and different diets (four main treatments, namely, chickpea flour, maize flour, sorghum flour, wheat flour; each flour was further mixed with cinnamon powder, turmeric powder, flour only, flour mixed with both cinnamon and turmeric powder) were used. Bee pollen was used as a control. The best performing pollen substitutes were further placed at 10, 25, and 50 m distances from the apiary. Maximum bee visits were observed on bee pollen (210 ± 25.96) followed by chickpea flour only (205 ± 19.32). However, there was variability in the bee visits to the different diets (F (16,34) = 17.91; p < 0.01). In addition, a significant difference in diet consumption was observed in control (576 ± 58.85 g) followed by chickpea flour only (463.33 ± 42.84 g), compared to rest of the diets (F (16,34) = 29.75; p < 0.01). Similarly, foraging efforts differed significantly (p < 0.01) at the observed time of 7-8 A.M., 11-12 A.M., and 4-5 P.M. at the distance of 10, 25, and 50 m away from the apiary. Honey bees preferred to visit the food source that was closest to the hive. This study should be very helpful for beekeepers in supplementing their bee colonies when there is a shortage or unavailability of pollens, and it is much better to keep the food source near the apiary. Future research needs to highlight the effect of these diets on bee health and colony development.