|
Third European Congress
on Social Insects
St. Petersburg, Russia,
22-27 August 2005
Abstract for Symposium Talk
The exciting potential of
remote feral bee colonies for Varroa coexistence
Adrian M. Wenner1
1Department of Ecology,
Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa
Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, USA, 93106. E-mail: wenner@lifesci.ucsb.edu
Keywords: honey bees, varroa, controls, survival
When varroa mites first became
a problem, concerned parties immediately turned (A) to the use
of chemicals as a control measure. That happened, despite earlier
abundant evidence that chemical treatments: 1) are at best a
short term measure, 2) result in an intense pressure that can
lead to resistant mites, 3) keep susceptible bee strains in the
gene pool, 4) can have both lethal and sublethal effects on bee
colonies (e.g.,queen failure), 5) may damage favorable microfauna,
6) result in ever higher costs, and 7) may lead to residue problems
in wax and honey. Seemingly, all those reservations have been
borne out. Mechanical procedures (B) against varroa have gained
some following, including: 1) periodic destruction of infested
drone brood (labor intensive), 2) small cell size foundation,
3) screen bottom boards, and 4) mineral oil (of questionable
value). Breeding programs (C) have become more prominent, involving
detection, selection, and propagation of favorable traits. In
the USA we now have hygienic and SMR/Russian bees under continuing
development. During the past few decades, after varroa arrival,
feral colonies in remote areas (D) experienced a catastrophic
decline, followed by resurgence in population density. A deliberate
programmed effort could have been instituted upon first varroa
arrival in the United States (that is, establish experimental
apiaries and wait for "survival of the fittest"), but
that didn't happen. Some individuals have now begun to exploit
the potential that feral colonies provide. (By feral, I include
managed colonies in remote areas that have had no treatment against
varroa mites.) John Kefuss and colleagues, for example, have
had success with Apis mellifera intermissa queens from
Tunisia and their naturally mated descendants. Erik Osterlund
in Sweden promoted a mix (the "Elgon" stock) between
Buckfast bees and the east African mountain bee, A. m. monticola.
Some selected bee strains (at times along with the use of small
cell size foundation) have proved promising. Of special interest
is the fact that some strains of Elgon bees exude an odor that
apparently repels varroa mites, a trait that would likely not
have become apparent in a chemical treatment regime. In the Santa
Barbara area we instituted two programs; 1) deliberate introduction
of varroa to a large offshore, uninhabited, island, as well as
2) monitoring varroa impact on bee colonies next to or within
isolated wilderness areas or nature preserves. Results were mixed.
Feral colonies composed of mixed genetic traits have survived
for several years, but colonies of genetically uniform bees perished
in an island ecosystem. Feral colonies located remote from beekeeper
activity could now have strains quite resistant to varroa mites
and should be investigated.
References
Harbo, J.R. and J.W. Harris.
2003. An evaluation of commercially produced queens that have
the SMR trait. Am. Bee J. 143:213-216.
Kefuss, J., J. Vanpoucke, J.
D. de Lahitte, and W. Ritter. 2004. Varroa tolerance in France
of Intermissa bees from Tunisia and their naturally mated
descendants: 1993-2004. Am. Bee J. 144: 563-568.
Osterlund, E. 2001. The Elgon
bee and varroa mites. Am. Bee J. 141: 174-177.
Wenner, A.M. and R.W. Thorp.
2002. Collapse and resurgence of feral colonies after Varroa
arrival. Pp. 159-166 in Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Africanized Honey Bees and Bee Mites (E.H. Erickson
Jr., R.E. Page Jr., and A.A. Hanna, eds.). The A.I. Root Co.,
Medina, OH.
See also: (http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/meetlusby.htm)
|