Simulating Honey Bee Large-Scale Colony Feeding Studies Using the BEEHAVE Model-Part II: Analysis of Overwintering Outcomes

Simulation of Varroa mite control in honey bee colonies without synthetic acaricides: Demonstration of Good Beekeeping Practice for Germany in the BEEHAVE model

The BEEHAVE model simulates the population dynamics and foraging activity of a single honey bee colony (Apis mellifera) in great detail. Although it still makes numerous simplifying assumptions, it appears to capture a wide range of empirical observations. It could, therefore, in principle, also be used as a tool in beekeeper education, as it allows the implementation and comparison of different management options. Here, we focus on treatments aimed at controlling the mite Varroa destructor. However, since BEEHAVE was developed in the UK, mite treatment includes the use of a synthetic acaricide, which is not part of Good Beekeeping Practice in Germany. A practice that consists of drone brood removal from April to June, treatment with formic acid in August/September, and treatment with oxalic acid in November/December. We implemented these measures, focusing on the timing, frequency, and spacing between drone brood removals. The effect of drone brood removal and acid treatment, individually or in combination, on a mite-infested colony was examined. We quantify the efficacy of Varroa mite control as the reduction of mites in treated bee colonies compared to untreated bee colonies. We found that drone brood removal was very effective, reducing mites by 90% at the end of the first simulation year after the introduction of mites. This value was significantly higher than the 50-67% reduction expected by bee experts and confirmed by empirical studies. However, literature reports varying percent reductions in mite numbers from 10 to 85% after drone brood removal. The discrepancy between model results, empirical data, and expert estimates indicate that these three sources should be reviewed and refined, as all are based on simplifying assumptions. These results and the adaptation of BEEHAVE to the Good Beekeeping Practice are a decisive step forward for the future use of BEEHAVE in beekeeper education in Germany and anywhere where organic acids and drone brood removal are utilized.

The BEEHAVEecotox Model-Integrating a Mechanistic Effect Module into the Honeybee Colony Model

Mechanistic effect models are powerful tools for extrapolating from laboratory studies to field conditions. For bees, several good models are available that can simulate colony dynamics. Controlled and reliable experimental systems are also available to estimate the inherent toxicity of pesticides to individuals. However, there is currently no systematic and mechanistic way of linking the output of experimental ecotoxicological testing to bee models for bee risk assessment. We introduce an ecotoxicological module that mechanistically links exposure with the hazard profile of a pesticide for individual honeybees so that colony effects emerge. This mechanistic link allows the translation of results from standard laboratory studies to relevant parameters and processes for simulating bee colony dynamics. The module was integrated into the state-of-the-art honeybee model BEEHAVE. For the integration, BEEHAVE was adapted to mechanistically link the exposure and effects on different cohorts to colony dynamics. The BEEHAVEecotox model was tested against semifield (tunnel) studies, which were deemed the best study type to test whether BEEHAVEecotox predicted realistic effect sizes under controlled conditions. Two pesticides used as toxic standards were chosen for this validation to represent two different modes of action: acute mortality of foragers and chronic brood effects. The ecotoxicological module was able to predict effect sizes in the tunnel studies based on information from standard laboratory tests. In conclusion, the BEEHAVEecotox model is an excellent tool to be used for honeybee risk assessment, interpretation of field and semifield studies, and exploring the efficiency of different mitigation measures. The principles for exposure and effect modules are portable and could be used for any well-constructed honeybee model. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:2870-2882. © 2022 Bayer AG & Sygenta, et al. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

Dance-communicated distances support nectar foraging as a supply-driven system

Much like human consumers, honeybees adjust their behaviours based on resources' supply and demand. For both, interactions occur in fluctuating conditions. Honeybees weigh the cost of flight against the benefit of nectar and pollen, which are nutritionally distinct resources that serve different purposes: bees collect nectar continuously to build large honey stores for overwintering, but they collect pollen intermittently to build modest stores for brood production periods. Therefore, nectar foraging can be considered a supply-driven process, whereas pollen foraging is demand-driven. Here we compared the foraging distances, communicated by waggle dances and serving as a proxy for cost, for nectar and pollen in three ecologically distinct landscapes in Virginia. We found that honeybees foraged for nectar at distances 14% further than for pollen across all three sites (n = 6224 dances, p < 0.001). Specific temporal dynamics reveal that monthly nectar foraging occurs at greater distances compared with pollen foraging 85% of the time. Our results strongly suggest that honeybee foraging cost dynamics are consistent with nectar supply-driven and pollen demand-driven processes.

A critical review of effect modeling for ecological risk assessment of plant protection products

A wide diversity of plant protection products (PPP) is used for crop protection leading to the contamination of soil, water, and air, which can have ecotoxicological impacts on living organisms. It is inconceivable to study the effects of each compound on each species from each compartment, experimental studies being time consuming and cost prohibitive, and animal testing having to be avoided. Therefore, numerous models are developed to assess PPP ecotoxicological effects. Our objective was to provide an overview of the modeling approaches enabling the assessment of PPP effects (including biopesticides) on the biota. Six categories of models were inventoried: (Q)SAR, DR and TKTD, population, multi-species, landscape, and mixture models. They were developed for various species (terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates, primary producers, micro-organisms) belonging to diverse environmental compartments, to address different goals (e.g., species sensitivity or PPP bioaccumulation assessment, ecosystem services protection). Among them, mechanistic models are increasingly recognized by EFSA for PPP regulatory risk assessment but, to date, remain not considered in notified guidance documents. The strengths and limits of the reviewed models are discussed together with improvement avenues (multigenerational effects, multiple biotic and abiotic stressors). This review also underlines a lack of model testing by means of field data and of sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. Accurate and robust modeling of PPP effects and other stressors on living organisms, from their application in the field to their functional consequences on the ecosystems at different scales of time and space, would help going toward a more sustainable management of the environment. Graphical Abstract Combination of the keyword lists composing the first bibliographic query. Columns were joined together with the logical operator AND. All keyword lists are available in Supplementary Information at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5775038 (Larras et al. 2021).

Review on mathematical modeling of honeybee population dynamics

Honeybees have an irreplaceable position in agricultural production and the stabilization of natural ecosystems. Unfortunately, honeybee populations have been declining globally. Parasites, diseases, poor nutrition, pesticides, and climate changes contribute greatly to the global crisis of honeybee colony losses. Mathematical models have been used to provide useful insights on potential factors and important processes for improving the survival rate of colonies. In this review, we present various mathematical tractable models from different aspects: 1) simple bee-only models with features such as age segmentation, food collection, and nutrient absorption; 2) models of bees with other species such as parasites and/or pathogens; and 3) models of bees affected by pesticide exposure. We aim to review those mathematical models to emphasize the power of mathematical modeling in helping us understand honeybee population dynamics and its related ecological communities. We also provide a review of computational models such as VARROAPOP and BEEHAVE that describe the bee population dynamics in environments that include factors such as temperature, rainfall, light, distance and quality of food, and their effects on colony growth and survival. In addition, we propose a future outlook on important directions regarding mathematical modeling of honeybees. We particularly encourage collaborations between mathematicians and biologists so that mathematical models could be more useful through validation with experimental data.

A systems-based approach to the environmental risk assessment of multiple stressors in honey bees

The European Parliament requested EFSA to develop a holistic risk assessment of multiple stressors in honey bees. To this end, a systems-based approach that is composed of two core components: a monitoring system and a modelling system are put forward with honey bees taken as a showcase. Key developments in the current scientific opinion (including systematic data collection from sentinel beehives and an agent-based simulation) have the potential to substantially contribute to future development of environmental risk assessments of multiple stressors at larger spatial and temporal scales. For the monitoring, sentinel hives would be placed across representative climatic zones and landscapes in the EU and connected to a platform for data storage and analysis. Data on bee health status, chemical residues and the immediate or broader landscape around the hives would be collected in a harmonised and standardised manner, and would be used to inform stakeholders, and the modelling system, ApisRAM, which simulates as accurately as possible a honey bee colony. ApisRAM would be calibrated and continuously updated with incoming monitoring data and emerging scientific knowledge from research. It will be a supportive tool for beekeeping, farming, research, risk assessment and risk management, and it will benefit the wider society. A societal outlook on the proposed approach is included and this was conducted with targeted social science research with 64 beekeepers from eight EU Member States and with members of the EU Bee Partnership. Gaps and opportunities are identified to further implement the approach. Conclusions and recommendations are made on a way forward, both for the application of the approach and its use in a broader context.

Simulating Honey Bee Large-Scale Colony Feeding Studies Using the BEEHAVE Model-Part I: Model Validation

In pesticide risk assessments, semifield studies, such as large-scale colony feeding studies (LSCFSs), are conducted to assess potential risks at the honey bee colony level. However, such studies are very cost and time intensive, and high overwintering losses of untreated control hives have been observed in some studies. Honey bee colony models such as BEEHAVE may provide tools to systematically assess multiple factors influencing colony outcomes, to inform study design, and to estimate pesticide impacts under varying environmental conditions. Before they can be used reliably, models should be validated to demonstrate they can appropriately reproduce patterns observed in the field. Despite the recognized need for validation, methodologies to be used in the context of applied ecological models are not agreed on. For the parameterization, calibration, and validation of BEEHAVE, we used control data from multiple LSCFSs. We conducted detailed visual and quantitative performance analyses as a demonstration of validation methodologies. The BEEHAVE outputs showed good agreement with apiary-specific validation data sets representing the first year of the studies. However, the simulations of colony dynamics in the spring periods following overwintering were identified as less reliable. The comprehensive validation effort applied provides important insights that can inform the usability of BEEHAVE in applications related to higher tier risk assessments. In addition, the validation methodology applied could be used in a wider context of ecological models. Environ Toxicol Chem 2020;39:2269-2285. © 2020 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.