# Feral Beekeeping Map



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Feral beekeeping? 

I have a problem with the word feral. Is there a consensus of opinion about the definition of the word feral as to honeybees? 

I just don't think tha it is correct to use the word feral when talking about honeybees. Unless they are all feral, those in managed hives and those "in the wild".

So, maybe you could tell me what you mean by feral. When I use the term feral honeybees I mean honeybees that aren't in managed hives. Such as trees or buildings.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Given the usage in BeeSource discussions, the term
"feral" can apparently be conjugated as follows:

_*My*_ feral bees are "feral survivors".
_*Your*_ feral bees are likely swarms from another beekeeper's hives.
_*His*_ feral bees are swarms from his _own_ hives.

...and lest we forget, there are special cases...

_*Dee's*_ feral bees are direct 
descendants of the honeybees that were 
(somehow) established in North American before 
the whites arrived.

Hehehe


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

I'm with Jim here... we discussed some of this some time back.... definition of "feral".

Funny thing is everyone seemed to have a different definition of what that meant to them.

To some it was a hive that had survived 1 year on its own... origin unknown.

To others it meant two or more years etc etc etc...

Just go with it... if its "feral" it must somehow be better! LOL 

Sorry guys... my thoughts on the way the term is used here is becoming apparent. Now if we could just establish some sort of standard criteria maybe we could all understand what the term means.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{established in North American before 
the whites arrived.}

You mean those Inca bees that migrated from the Andes!

Jim you certainly have a way of hitting the nail on the head with the big hammer!

I though we defined Ferals last year. Anyone with high speed going to the search and post it.
I think we can at least work on the map based on theoretical.

[ January 16, 2007, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Thirty five years ago the "feral bees" that I caught locally were very vicious. After 35 years of my losing swarms from gentle bees that I bought, the local ferals are now generally pretty gentle. I never thought that I would influence the envirnment that much in my short lifetime.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--So, maybe you could tell me what you mean by feral. When I use the term feral honeybees I mean honeybees that aren't in managed hives. Such as trees or buildings.--(Mark)

Hello Mark!

When I use the term feral honeybees I am referring to bees living outside of mans control, and or bees acquired from the feral population and NOT from domestic source. 

When I am saying I keep feral bees, I am saying that I keep bees having been acquired from feral populations and NOT from a domestic source.

Consider that many beekeepers say:
I keep Italians, I keep dark bees, my bees are productive.

Have you ever said? 

1)
So, maybe you could tell me what you mean by Italians? When I use the term Italian honeybees I mean honeybees that are verified by genetic analysis to be Italian. 

2)
So, maybe you could tell me what you mean by dark bees. When I use the term dark honeybees I mean honeybees that black not shades gray.

3)
So, maybe you could tell me what you mean by productive. When I use the term productive honeybees I mean honeybees that that produce 200 pounds of honey per season.


As in the above examples, there are different degrees of feral which probably contribute to the grief that many seem to have about the term. Im not after stray bees from domestic colonies with marked queens etc that many like to call ferals. Im after ferals that are breeding and existing in a wild state, and the more remote from the domsetics, the better.

IMO, Ferals are also NOT survivors because beekeepers often define their survivors as having spotty patterns and poor performance. Most ferals I find tend to have full patterns and I find them to be thriving as opposed to just surviving, so the definition of survivors dosen;t fit for describing ferals. There is a big difference between just surviving and thriving. 

I am content and completely comfortable with the fact, that others may grieve over the definition of feral for the rest of their lives, or until they die.

[ January 17, 2007, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

See for me Joe, the problem is not in talking about ferals.  It is simply a matter of definition. If we are always talking about something of which there is no common definition then I don't know how to evaluate the discussion.

Its is the same witht the above mentioned "examples". I don't disagree with you there. Dark is subjective, good producer is subjective etc. 

For me some seem to want to breed "feral" queens and charge a premium or talk about "feral" genetics as a help in whatever problem exists (ie mites, wintering, etc...)

I just need to understand a basis or point of reference to start with so I can evaluate the discussion or validity of comments made.

It isn't intended to be a personal issue against anyone discussing "feral honeybees".


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--See for me Joe, the problem is not in talking about ferals. It is simply a matter of definition. If we are always talking about something of which there is no common definition then I don't know how to evaluate the discussion.--(DW)

Hello Dan!

The definition is Existing in a wild or untamed state.
IMO, a pretty good definition to start a feral discussion.

--For me some seem to want to breed "feral" queens and charge a premium or talk about "feral" genetics as a help in whatever problem exists (ie mites, wintering, etc...)--(DW)

Perhaps, we should look at the feral population as one would look at any breeder of bees, when we are looking for traits of specific value for a particular problem. Does it always have to be either garbage can or heirloom? Perhaps, we can seek ferals when we need traits of specific need, same as you would select a commercial breeder for traits of specific need. 

Brother Adam refers in his writings domestic beekeeping selects for traits of economic value, and honeybees in the wild are selected for traits of survival. The examples that you listed as problem s are ALL survival traits. Over time, in selecting to the above criteria, there is a higher potential that the survival traits you describe as the problem would be found naturally in the feral population without having a beekeeper perform intense selection for the trait. Perhaps, locally adapted feral genetics not having been selected for traits of economic value might be of extreme value in a breeding program that seems to have a severe deficit of essential traits needed for survival. 

--I just need to understand a basis or point of reference to start with so I can evaluate the discussion or validity of comments made.--(Dw)

My point of reference is that ferals are defined as Existing in a wild or untamed state. And you can bring those genetics into your bee yard and breed these ferals. If I were to dig up the feral chestnut tree on my property that is surviving the blight and plant it in my yard, the genetics that made that tree survive stay the same, and I can breed from that tree. Wild flowers, for example are still called wild flowers when they are planted by gardeners. 

--It isn't intended to be a personal issue against anyone discussing "feral honeybees".--(DW)

I appreciate your questions and they are not taken personal. In my view, from my experience catching ferals and assessing them along side swarms caught near to domestic beekeeping, I am seeing that there is a difference in ferals. A swarm escaping with a marked queen is not the same as a feral captured in the woodlands when they are assessed side by side. That I am seeing a difference in ferals and commercial bees is why I use the word feral to differentiate my bees from commercial bees, because they are so different.


Good Article on Ferals, that shows populations of ferals can be significantly different from that of commercial bees:

http://www.beesource.com/news/article/floridaferalsurvivor.htm 

Schiff & Sheppard (1995) report that "commercial 
bees...[are] significantly different than the feral population of the 
southern United States, where 36.7% of 692 feral colonies had the A.m. mellifera/iberica haplotype (Schiff et al. 1994).

[ January 17, 2007, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Maybe I should have built a map for feral cats. As beekeepers we could probably narrow the definition down real fast. But it might not be so easy on a cat list :>)))

As far as the bees go, I'll let every beekeeper decide for himself. Stick a pin on the feral map if you are so inclined. Leaving a little additional would help others, if the need arises.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Jim you certainly have a way of hitting the 
> nail on the head with the big hammer!

Danke.

The trick is being able to use a hammer
as one's only tool, yet not view every 
problem as a *thumb*.

> The definition is Existing in a wild 
> or untamed state. IMO, a pretty good 
> definition to start a feral discussion.

OK, you're on... a show of hands please...
anyone have "tame" bees? If so, can I
buy them?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--As far as the bees go, I'll let every beekeeper decide for himself. Stick a pin on the feral map if you are so inclined.--(DM)

Hello Dennis!

Sounds good to me!
Nice site! Keep up the good work!


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

Joe...

I don't have a problem with you having that criteria as your "basis". I may or may not agree with them all but at least it is a starting point.

That is "your" definition. If everyone agreed I'd say we have a point of reference. But based on previous discussions on this topic, there were alot of different definitions presented. The term "feral" gets thrown around alot here (along with alot of other terms). 

I'll never claim to be intelligent...I just have difficulty using a term or terms where different people have different definitions of what the term means. 

I'm sitting here beating a dead horse.... Think I'll stop now... the horse aint gonna get up anytime soon! 

[ January 18, 2007, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Dan Williamson ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"OK, you're on... a show of hands please...
anyone have "tame" bees? If so, can I
buy them?







" -Jim Fischer

I've got some that seem pretty tame to me. Some of them follow me around, especially after I've been disturbing their homes. You'd think they'd just leave if they're disturbed, but, no, some of them follow me instead.

I'd be willing to sell you those "tame" bees, Jim, but I'll have to charge you a premium price for 'em. After all, they're "tame."


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Here's an interesting research article (published in 2005) about the distribution of "feral honey bee colonies" in a coastal prairie landscape. Ref: http://kelab.tamu.edu/coulson/Pdf_pub/Baum_05.pdf

According to this paper there are 12.5 feral colonies per square km. Since the USA is about 9 million sqkm, that means there could be as many as a 100 million feral colonies. Even if off by an order or mangnitude, there are probably millions more "feral' colonies than "domestic"/managed. The genetic selection and/or adaptation of both bees and mites in such a hugh population has occurred with little impact of what beeks have or have not done in the past 20 years of the varroa wars. (The study examined the mtDNA of feral/domestic bees and concluded that for some unknown reason there has been little exchange of DNA between the populations). Bottom line: the odds are very high that a mite adapted honey bee already exists in the feral population: all we have to do is identify and domesticate it.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Nice article, db_land! Thanks for sharing it.

I think you misinterpreted a couple of points from the link, though. First, the "12.5 feral colonies per square km" is the highest such figure ever published, and the authors actually said, "The colony densities of UP TO [emphasis mine] 12.5 colonies per km2 were the highest reported in the literature for an area including both suitable and unsuitable patches of nesting habitat." 

If you read the paper, they actually "sampled" by determining how many "suitable" hive sites were available in their given study area, counting how many of those "suitable" sites were occupied by honey bees each year, and calculating the number of occupied sites divided by the total area in which they scouted for "suitable" sites.

If you look at their data over the number of years they collected it, the average was 7.8 colonies/km2, still higher than any previously documented density, according to their paper.

Besides, they seem to be in a very favorable location for "feral" colonies. Most of South Dakota doesn't have 7.8 "suitable" sites, much less 7.8 feral colonies/km2.

Try this: find one square mile in your vicinity, and locate as many "feral" colonies as you can within that one square mile. Do you come up with as many as the authors did? Maybe we should start a thread just to see how many will give this a try. . . . I think I'll start one; we'll see how many will post their results.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Hello Dan!

I just have difficulty using a term or terms where different people have different definitions of what the term means.--(Dan)

FWIW, and is meant in a nice way. Why would you or anyone else want others to think for them, and make decisions based on the consensus of other peoples thinking, many with NO experience with breeding ferals? Different people think different things, where would you expect to get any sort of consensus on any definition from a beekeeping gabbing list of all places, somtimes having persons engaging in sabotage of discussion? Basing decisions like the game show ? Family Feud And the survey says? 

It would be a good idea to ask these guys with multitudes of definitions for feral what is your experience with ferals? I have experience with ferals since 1992, Ive been selecting from ferals this entire time. Ask feral beekeepers Michael Bush and others about ferals. Ask those who know about ferals what you want to know about ferals. 

--I'll never claim to be intelligent....--(Dan)

Again, investigate and think for yourself then. Drop the surveys. If I had listened to surveys and nay Sayers, I would not be having the success with small cell and ferals that I am now. Ask those making comments to explain their experience.

When somebody says something like:

--Just go with it... if its "feral" it must somehow be better! LOL--(Dan) 

You ask them,,,
OK Dan, Please tell me what experience do you have with ferals?

[ January 18, 2007, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Kieck, I don't believe I mis-interpreted the article at all. The paper concluded that there were 12.5 hives per sqkm in the area studied. It's not surprising (to me at least) this density (determined in 2000) is much higher than the densities reported earlier (between 1987 and 1994) that you refer to. The feral bee pop was recovering from near extinction during this period. Also, the 7.1 value was for an area only 10% suitable for bee cavities. As I indicated before, even if off by an order of magnitude (i.e. there's only 1.2 feral colonies per sqkm) then there are still millions and far outnumber beeyard colonies and, therefore, IMO overwhelm the genetic selection efforts of beekeepers. We beeks will get varroa-mite adapted bees whether we want them or not (i.e. we can't stop nature from fixing the parasite-host imbalance that we created). I don't know about N. Dakota, but bee habitat in coastal areas and the western states probably make up for it in terms of feral bee colony density. On the other hand, bees are extremely adaptable. I did live in Eagan, Minnesota from 1985 through 1993: there were always bees in the yard but no known beekeepers. If they were thriving in Minnesota then South Dakota must bee paradise.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

The nice thing about semantics, is you can say anything means anything you like.









The point, though, is that there are bees surviving with no help from humans. This is the basis for some people's stock. You can argue all you want about how anyone can tell if they are feral enough, but the size of the bees is a simple enough test. Domestic bees are large. If they have been surviving and then swarming and then swarming, after two or three generations they are noticeably smaller. You can do the same thing by regressing them, but unless there are small cell beekeepers around, the size is an immediate give a way. If you want more evidence, just look at their behavior. The feral survivors I've found do not look like typical Italians, nor do they act like them. They are more frugal than the Carnis, they often propolize like the Caucasians. Sometimes they are runny. Sometimes they are nice. Sometimes they are mean. Yes, I know, sometimes you see this in domestic bees, but I haven't seen a lot of runny domestic bees and I seldom see domestic bees, other than Caucasians, that propolize like that. I HAVE seen a lot of runny and propolizing feral bees. "Runny" is not a hard trait to breed out, so that's what I try to do.

If you want to believe that all bees are feral. That's fine. If you want to believe that no feral bees are left, that's your prerogative. If you want to believe that there is no difference between "feral" and "domestic" bees, fine.

But the simple fact that they are alive is fair evidence that they have the right traits to survive. The ones I've caught and bred (and many others have caught and bred) are surviving without treatments now. So in that sense they are still feral. They are not being coddled and kept alive despite their inability to do so themselves like the typical "domestic" bees.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"The paper concluded that there were 12.5 hives per sqkm in the area studied." -db_land

Yes, in 2000. Actually, 12.48, based on the number of suitable sites occupied by bees during the study. What about sites that the researchers didn't consider "suitable" that may have been used by bees anyway?

And, what about the same area (the study area never changed, after all, just the year) in 1998, say? In 1998, the same area had 6.56 colonies per km2. The number fluxuates a lot from year to year, even in exactly the same study area.

". . .is much higher than the densities reported earlier (between 1987 and 1994) that you refer to." -db_land

No, I didn't refer to any time frame. The authors of the article provided the reports of earlier densities, including several publications from the mid- to late-1970s (well before any decrease due to Varroa), and seem to have studied previously publications thoroughly, so I would believe that this instance may in fact be the highest density recorded.

"Also, the 7.1 value was for an area only 10% suitable for bee cavities." -db_land

Like most larger areas. Look around. South Dakota isn't "10% suitable for bee cavities." I doubt it's even "1% suitable." No structures, no trees, just grasslands in much of South Dakota. Where would the cavities be? Underground, perhaps, but are those "suitable?"

"I don't know about N. Dakota. . . ." -db_land

I didn't say anything about N. Dakota, because I haven't traveled very much in N. Dakota. In SOUTH Dakota, bee habitat isn't existant in much of the state. Of course, beekeepers make up for that by covering the state pretty thoroughly with managed colonies.

"I did live in Eagan, Minnesota from 1985 through 1993: there were always bees in the yard but no known beekeepers. If they were thriving in Minnesota then South Dakota must bee paradise." -db_land

Eagan, Minnesota is considerably different than South Dakota. Did you ever happen to get out to South Dakota while you were living in Minnesota? How do you figure that SD must be bee paradise? The lack of trees? The lack of structures? Overall, I'd say SD is pretty good if you're managing colonies, but I don't see "feral" colonies around here. Check out the "Removals" section. See how many are listed from South Dakota? Why do you suppose that is? I've contacted all the local people in several towns around here for swarms or cut-outs, and how many would you guess I've gotten? Zero. The big operators manage colonies pretty carefully to prevent swarming, and most colonies don't come back into South Dakota until June after being built up in California and Florida and Texas. If they're likely to swarm, they'll probably swarm while they're still down south. And if they do swarm, where would they go?

Anyway, have you gone out to take a census of the feral bees around your area? I'd appreciate hearing what you find.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

So, Joe, if I collect a swarm that issued from the tree in my front yard (it has been occupied for quite a few years now, not necessarily by the same bees) that would be an example of feral bees?

I'm pretty sure that they came from swarms from my own colonies when I bring bees back from SC in the spring. So, how long does that collected swarm remain feral?

"Existing in a wild or untamed state."? That's what I read in the dictionary too. So, if my bees go wild (live in a tree for a couple years) and then I reacquire them from a swarm they are no longer in a state of being wild or untamed, aren't they?

If feral bees are just a matter of not selectivly breeding for desired characteristics then most of my colonies are already feral since most of them raise their own queens each year, right?

I'm going to put a couple pins in the map where I know that there are feral colonies of bees. 

These colonies won't be "kept", they will be wild and untamed. Swarms collected from them will be managed bees and therefore not feral anymore.

Dennis, are you just interested in where bee trees and bees in buildings are?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Joe, if I collect a swarm--M

Mark, what ever you do is fine with me.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Thanks Joe.









If you collected a swarm that issued from the tree in my front yard would you call those bees feral?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Mark,

Sure I would,








but I find that when I catch ferals in an area too close to domestic beekeeping areas, I would say that 90% of these types of ferals FAIL the initial 18 weeks of assessment being far too influenced by domestic genetics. ferals are not created equal, so they do need assessed, the further away from beekeeping with bees shipped in from who knows where, and treatments proping up genetics the better.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

>Dennis, are you just interested in where bee trees and bees in buildings are?...

I had a passing thought concerning this. It would be interest to use a GPS and record feral locations. Especially if they are on public land. Then the conditions of the colonies could be monitored and the information shared as different people visit the sites. It would be a takeoff on the geocaching(sp) sport.

But I had second thoughts about it. A feral colony in my area would just be too rare and valuable. If the info were public, someone with a chainsaw, would probably try to get some free honey.

Any thoughts?

Regards
Dennis


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

<A feral colony in my area would just be too rare and valuable. If the info were public, someone with a chainsaw, would probably try to get some free honey.>

Out where I live there is still a lot of gold in them thar hills. Once in a while you run into someone who actually has found some and if you ask where he found it he will send you and a goose chase over about a thousand miles of the roughest terrain in the country, which is all well seperated from his claim.

A wild bee tree is a beekeepers gold strike. Treat it the same way.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

"Yes, in 2000. Actually, 12.48, based on the number of suitable sites occupied by bees during the study. What about sites that the researchers didn't consider "suitable" that may have been used by bees anyway?"

The density calc does include non-suitable area.

"And, what about the same area (the study area never changed, after all, just the year) in 1998, say? In 1998, the same area had 6.56 colonies per km2. The number fluxuates a lot from year to year, even in exactly the same study area."

Of course the colony density fluctuates year to year. That's precisely what one would expect given the predations of varroa, traechael, SHB, etc and the natural selection that's occurring. It's about achieving equilibrum between parasite and host. 

"". . .is much higher than the densities reported earlier (between 1987 and 1994) that you refer to." -db_land

No, I didn't refer to any time frame. The authors of the article provided the reports of earlier densities, including several publications from the mid- to late-1970s (well before any decrease due to Varroa), and seem to have studied previously publications thoroughly, so I would believe that this instance may in fact be the highest density recorded."

You referred to densities reported during that timeframe. The earliest density referenced in the article is from 1987. Where are you getting mid- to late-1970s? Since the feral bees in the study area are adapting to varroa, the higher colony density is what one would expect.

""Also, the 7.1 value was for an area only 10% suitable for bee cavities." -db_land

Like most larger areas. Look around. South Dakota isn't "10% suitable for bee cavities." I doubt it's even "1% suitable." No structures, no trees, just grasslands in much of South Dakota. Where would the cavities be? Underground, perhaps, but are those "suitable?""

On the contrary. Most states would be closer to 90% suitable for bee cavities. I.e. there are millions of sqkm that are suitable habitat for feral bee colonies. IMO, the article supports the many anecdotal observations that the feral bee population in the USA is making a comeback. The point is that there is a massive, on-going natural selection process which will ultimately benefit domestic beeks - even those in S. Dakota.

"Anyway, have you gone out to take a census of the feral bees around your area? I'd appreciate hearing what you find."

IMO that would be a waste of my precious time. There are too many to locate and track. As an experienced bee remover, I know there are hundreds of "feral" colonies in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area. Last season (March through August and a few in September) I got more calls than I could handle. The removal/swarm pickup calls have increased every year since 2000. I do keep records, so if Dennis wants me to put some points on a map showing where colonies were found, I'd be happy to.


----------



## Troy (Feb 9, 2006)

I am coming into this thread kinda late, but I read thru the whole thing.

I've been doing some beelining, and I gotta say there are way more bees out there than I ever would have guessed. The day before yesterday was nice and warm 77 and I had two bait stations out in the woods I went and checked on my lunch hour. I was tracking bees in as many as 5 different directions from those 2 bait stations. It looked like that scene in Star Wars on the Home World of the Republic. I can believe that there are 5 or more colonies in that 400 Acre patch I was in, and there are not too many trees with cavities out there. I am constantly amazed.

Second thing - Have you used Google Earth? That is what I am using to track my feral colonies down. I could email you the KMZ info file and it would open up right in your copy of Google Earth.

[ January 24, 2007, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Troy ]


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

Google Earth sounds interesting. Tell us more about it.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"You referred to densities reported during that timeframe. The earliest density referenced in the article is from 1987. Where are you getting mid- to late-1970s?" -db_land

From the body of the manuscript, not from the abstract. The authors cite studies from 1976, 1978, 1979 and 1982, as well as later in the 1980s and throughout the 1990s. The authors go on to say that their survey found the highest densities published to date. That means that the densities they found were higher than densities found in the papers published previously. Ever. Including the papers from 1976 to 1982 that they cited.

"On the contrary. Most states would be closer to 90% suitable for bee cavities. I.e. there are millions of sqkm that are suitable habitat for feral bee colonies. IMO, the article supports the many anecdotal observations that the feral bee population in the USA is making a comeback." -db_land

I was just down to the Kansas City area. Around there, I could believe a much higher density of "feral" colonies exist. However, I've also seen much of western Kansas, and I doubt it has very many suitable cavities for hives.

Keep in mind that we're not talking "available forage" here. We're talking about "suitable nesting sites." If you don't have trees or man-made structures, where will the bees build colonies? Underground? In grass?

If the bees have no place to build colonies, they won't be present, regardless of the quality and quantity of forage available.

"IMO that would be a waste of my precious time. There are too many to locate and track. As an experienced bee remover, I know there are hundreds of "feral" colonies in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area. Last season (March through August and a few in September) I got more calls than I could handle." -db_land

Wow! Perfect opportunity to get some idea of how dense the colonies in your area are, if you were interested! All you'd have to do is mark points on a map for the year from the calls you get (whether or not you do the removals), then figure out the area you're dealing with. Number of colonies divided by number of square miles equals colonies per square mile. No "tracking" is necessary.

"I can believe that there are 5 or more colonies in that 400 Acre patch I was in, and there are not too many trees with cavities out there. I am constantly amazed." -Troy

I can easily believe that. Five colonies in 400 acres works out to just over 3 colonies per square kilometer, far fewer than the 12.5 reported in the publication as the highest number on record. Interesting find -- thanks for sharing! If you find more or try a different area, please keep us posted.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

"From the body of the manuscript, not from the abstract. The authors cite studies from 1976, 1978, 1979 and 1982, as well as later in the 1980s and throughout the 1990s."

Kieck, the 1976-1982 references are not about bee colony density. 

Troy, thanks for the tip about Google Earth. I think I'll use it to track my removals and swarm pickups along with know beeyards (mine and others). It will be interesting to see if any patterns emerge. What do you use as markers? I'm thinking it would be great to have a very small beehive and swarm markers.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Kieck, the 1976-1982 references are not about bee colony density." -db_land

Right you are, db_land. However, the Kerr paper that they claimed over estimated the density of colonies is from 1971.

The point I was attempting to make -- and obviously failed to make clearly -- was that the authors apparently reviewed literature on unmanaged bee colony densities going back as far as they could find, not just from 1987 and later. Also, the paper from 1991 (Ratnieks et al.) provided a table of previously-documented population densities.

By the way, did you read the "Discussion" portion of the paper? Did you notice that several of the densities they cited as previous "highs" were actually surveys of unmanaged bee populations in Australia? Interesting stuff, but I wouldn't assume that densities of bees in Australia and North America are necessarily similar.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Here's another very interesting and relatively recent article indicating that "feral" bees are making a comeback. The study area was the Arnot forest in New York. Evidently the bees and mites have there have adapted to one-another - when subjected to natural selection.

http://www.edpsciences.org/10.1051/apido:2006055

Ironically, IMO by omitting the use of small/natural cell (the researcher/author doesn't seem to know about SC) lends support to the theory that SC inhibits varroa populations.


----------



## ox (May 15, 2004)

Hi folks. It's been a while since I've posted but couldn't resist chiming in on this thread.
Last year I spent the better part of summer and fall in wilderness areas of SW Oregon. In years past there wasn't a sign of a bee anywhere. This year I saw bees working stands of California Spikenard and also many bees working areas that were heavily populated with beavers. It was very encouraging for me to see them many miles away from any domestic situations.


----------



## Albert (Nov 12, 2006)

Evening all!

Yeah Google Earth is a fantastic asset; as long as you have broadband. Otherwise you will be there forever, and a day. It also depends on whether or not they have a current Sat Pic of your area. The newer one's resolution is so good that you can almost make out the numbers on a licence plate laying on the ground. How do I know?
We pulled up our home and on the day that Satelite took a picture, there was a tag sitting on the ground behind my truck.

While looking at Havana, Cuba I also noticed that some of the pictures were taken at a lower angle than others. But again the resolution was superb. Same with North Korea BTW...

I hope I can get out this weekend and do some lineing.

Thanks,
Albert


----------



## Riki (Jan 31, 2007)

"No structures, no trees, just grasslands in much of South Dakota. Where would the cavities be? Underground, perhaps, but are those "suitable?"" (Kieck)
I don't know of european bees, but here in Brazil (mostly AHB), yes, those are suitable, we can see it very often.


----------



## Chrissy Shaw (Nov 21, 2006)

It all depends on where in South Dakota you are as to what is available for nest sites. Even in south-western South Dakota there are groves of trees in the gullies and valleys of creeks and rivers. In the east and center of the state, a common practice of using plum, ash and other types of trees as wind-rows were developed in earlier days. In the most western section of the state there are the Black Hills and Badlands with shear rock faces and some caves in limestone, broken piles of granite, which also offer habitable sites for honeybee swarms. 

My guess would be that the size of occupied cavity large enough for winter stores to be made. In one season of South Dakota beekeeping i did not see one feral colony, but i was not seeking such either.

In Hawaii i discover a couple of feral colonies in rock piles on hillsides. These and some feral colonies i have seen in boxes, barrels and the like are an indication that even European races will nest near the ground or actually in the ground.

Here, before i brought bees in here last year, there were a couple of workers who flew in a March warm spell and around me are no beekeepers. My assupmtion is that in the National Forest, to my north and perhaps at a higher elevation than i am at, exists a feral colony, or perhaps a number of them above my 4000 foot elevation.

CS


----------



## Dave D. (Jan 12, 2006)

My area once teemed with wild colonies in hollow trees but all the mites took care of that. Then we went for years after Varoa with hardly a bee. I sorely doubt if WE have any long term "feral survivor" stocks of bees. Most of the big old trees have been cut or pushed out and the abandoned farm houses have been demolished leaving few sites for colonies any more. Beekeeping has almost become a lost art, with very few managed hives scattered over many sq miles of crop land. Probably less than 50 managed hives in 400 sq miles. In spite of this, wild colonies are coming back in a big way. These are most likely decendents of swarms from the few managed colonies through the years, which have flourished without care from us. I love catching swarms that are a long way from any managed hives and doing cut outs where the bees seem to be surviving the mites on their own. I don't know if any of these bees have been wild long enough to be "feral" by anyone else's definitions but they are what I have to work with. I will probably buy a few queens this year to try to breed with my own "survivors" and queens derived from feral populations will get the first look. Wild colonies are coming back and they seem to have characteristics worth capturing in our selection processes. We need to grade our bees by performance not pedigree. My hat is off to the people who are trying to bring us more diversity in our bee populations.


----------



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

Google Earth

Wow, I've been looking for something like this. What is the best version for someone who wants to do some habitat management and surveying? I studied wildlife management in college and we used areal photography and IR maps to assess properties. Would the free type suffice? As a near-future newly wed, we won't have the budget for broadband for a few more years (I don't even have it as a bachelor, but only due to location). Can I use this at all on dialup?

Do you know of another imagery source that would serfice? Topozone and our courthouse only has images that are a decade old, and our land has been clearcut since then...

Waya


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>Google Earth

Ayuh. Good application.

>What is the best version for someone who wants to do some habitat management and surveying?

I use it extensively for land surveying and reconnaissance. I've been thinking of upgrading to the $20 version. The "professional" version is pricy for what I want to do.

>Can I use this at all on dialup?

Very tough. I wouldn't bother. It would be an exercise in futility without a broadband connection and a VERY high-end computer with a multi-gigahertz processor and advanced video hardware. I have both broadband AND a kick-butt computer at work. On dialup you'd spend a lot more time waiting and a lot less time actually googling. It would be painful.

>Do you know of another imagery source that would serfice? Topozone and our courthouse only has images that are a decade old, and our land has been clearcut since then...

Google earth utilizes local/regional aerial photography from a huge variety of sources. Here in Maine they use the Maine Office of GIS photographic database which itself is a patchwork of variously dated photos taken at differing resolutions. Some are just a few years old, others look like they're 10 or more years old. On some you can see people and dog houses, on others you're hard pressed to tell what you're looking at. Somehow they've managed to more or less seamlessly stitch everything together. It's the same for the rest of the world.

What I find most amazing is how they've managed to overlay all these different photographs onto the Mother of all Digital Terrain Models providing a very realistic 3D view.

You're probably going to have to pay $$ to get current high quality high-resolution photography. It's out there.


----------

