Impact of Honey Bee Migratory Management on Pathogen Loads and Immune Gene Expression is Affected by Complex Interactions With Environment, Worker Life History, and Season

A colony health and economic comparison of Varroa-resistant Varroa destructor (Mesostigmata: Varroidae) and commercial honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)

Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) are the premier agricultural pollinators with direct ecological value and are key to some agro-economies. Major factors have negatively impacted honey bee health in the past 2 decades with Varroa (Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman) infestation rising as a principal predictor of colony mortality. A key strategy deployed in Varroa management is breeding for resistant honey bee populations that can maintain comparable levels of productivity as nonresistant populations. In this study, we examine one such population, Hilo honey bees, within the context of a common garden contrast with a commercial population in a stationary honey production operation. We compare colony survival, health, yield, and profit outcomes to show how this specific breeding population retains a profit value in honey production operations while maintaining higher survival and lower Varroa infestation levels than the commercial population. This information can be used by commercial beekeepers to make best management practice decisions and inspire further work examining what trade-offs, if any, are present in this Varroa-resistant population.

Thinking inside the box: Restoring the propolis envelope facilitates honey bee social immunity

When wild honey bee colonies (Apis mellifera) nest in hollow tree cavities, they coat the rough cavity walls with a continuous layer of propolis, a substance comprised primarily of plant resins. Studies have shown that the resulting "propolis envelope" leads to both individual- and colony-level health benefits. Unfortunately, the smooth wooden boxes most commonly used in beekeeping do little to stimulate propolis collection. As a result, most managed bees live in hives that are propolis-poor. In this study, we assessed different surface texture treatments (rough wood boxes, boxes outfitted with propolis traps, and standard, smooth wood boxes) in terms of their ability to stimulate propolis collection, and we examined the effect of propolis on colony health, pathogen loads, immune gene expression, bacterial gene expression, survivorship, and honey production in both stationary and migratory beekeeping contexts. We found that rough wood boxes are the most effective box type for stimulating propolis deposition. Although the use of rough wood boxes did not improve colony survivorship overall, Melissococcus plutonius detections via gene expression were significantly lower in rough wood boxes, and viral loads for multiple viruses tended to decrease as propolis deposition increased. By the end of year one, honey bee populations in migratory rough box colonies were also significantly larger than those in migratory control colonies. The use of rough wood boxes did correspond with decreased honey production in year one migratory colonies but had no effect during year two. Finally, in both stationary and migratory operations, propolis deposition was correlated with a seasonal decrease and/or stabilization in the expression of multiple immune and bacterial genes, suggesting that propolis-rich environments contribute to hive homeostasis. These findings provide support for the practical implementation of rough box hives as a means to enhance propolis collection and colony health in multiple beekeeping contexts.

“Migratory beekeeping and its influence on the prevalence and dispersal of pathogens to managed and wild bees”

Demand for food is growing along with the human population, leading to an increase in plant production. Many crops are pollinated by insects, so the global demand for managed pollinators is also increasing. The honey bee has traditionally been considered the main provider of crop pollination services. For providing it beekeepers seasonally transport hives to different locations after the flowering of different crops. These movements could be detrimental to pollinators by: i) stressing honey bees, making them more susceptible to pathogens and parasites; ii) spreading bee parasites and pathogens across locations; iii) increasing the transmission of parasites and pathogens between managed and wild pollinators and vice versa (spillover and spillback, respectively). To understand the impact of migratory beekeeping on bee health, we conducted a systematic review to identify the main trends and provide a complete picture of existing knowledge on the subject. We found 52 studies analysing pathogen-related impacts of migratory beekeeping on honey bees. However, only 16 investigations tested the effect of migratory practices on the prevalence and spread of pathogens and parasites. We found no studies that assessed the impact of migratory beekeeping on the occurrence and spread of pests and diseases in wild bees. In general, migratory beekeeping tends to increase the prevalence of pathogens and parasites in honey bee colonies. However, the results were very heterogeneous, probably due to several uncontrolled underlying factors such as management, biological and geographical factors, and the interactions between them. In conclusion, there is an urgent need for studies to assess the impact of migratory beekeeping on bee health, given the current global bee decline and the expected increase in migratory beekeeping due to climate change and crop pollination demand.

•

Migratory beekeeping may affect the health of both managed and wild bees.

•

Only 16 studies compare the prevalence of pathogens between migratory and stationary hives.

•

Results are heterogeneous due to the complex interaction of the underlying factors.

•

Overall, the prevalence of pathogens and parasites increased in migratory honey bees.

•

The impact of migratory beekeeping on the health of wild bees is unknown.