NCDC210: A Regional Effort to Maintain the Health and Survival of the Honey Bee, the Most Important Pollinator.
(Multistate Research Coordinating Committee and Information Exchange Group)
Status: Inactive/Terminating
NCDC210: A Regional Effort to Maintain the Health and Survival of the Honey Bee, the Most Important Pollinator.
Duration: 09/01/2006 to 09/30/2008
Administrative Advisor(s):
NIFA Reps:
Non-Technical Summary
Statement of Issues and Justification
Honey bees are the most important pollinating insect in North America. The value of the increased crop yield and quality achieved by honey bees is estimated at $14.6 billion (Morse and Calderone, 2000). The value of commercial crops directly pollinated by bees (almonds, apples, cranberries, alfalfa and vegetable seed, etc.) is estimated at $5.8 billion annually. Nearly $9 billion worth of agricultural goods indirectly benefit from pollinating bees (e.g., alfalfa hay, meat, and milk). In addition, honey bees make a significant contribution to enhancing the environment by pollinating wildflowers, home gardens and ornamentals (Buchmann and Nabham, 1996), which is difficult to assess a monetary value.
Two parasitic mite pests of honey bees were introduced into the US: the tracheal mite, Acarapis woodi, in 1984; and the varroa mite, Varroa destructor, in 1987. These mites have had a devastating effect on honey bee colonies and beekeeping businesses throughout the US. Control measures for the mites have dramatically increased operating costs for beekeepers. Feral colonies (living in trees and abandoned structures) have been virtually eliminated by the mites, placing enormous pressure on the beekeeping industry to cope with the challenges of pollination and honey production. With the reduction of feral colonies, more growers throughout the nation are seeking out beekeepers to transport managed colonies into their fields and orchards. However, mites and economic pressures on beekeepers have resulted in a decline in national honey bee colony counts from an 4.3 million in 1985 to 2.5 million in 2005 (National Agriculture Statistics Service, 2005).
To control tracheal and varroa mites, beekeepers use in-hive pesticides and other compounds. Tracheal mite infestations are reduced by applications of menthol crystals within the hive, however, menthol has limited effectiveness in cold climates. Resistant bee stocks are becoming available for controlling tracheal mites. Since 1990, one product has been registered to control Varroa mites, a synthetic pyrethroid, fluvalinate (Apistan®). Mite populations became resistant to fluvalinate in Italy (Lodesani et al. 1995), and in 1997, fluvalinate resistance was discovered in the United States (Baxter et al, 1998; Elzen et al, 1998, 2000). A second pesticide, the organophosphate coumaphos (Check Mite +®) recently received Section 18 (emergency) registration status for use in cases where the mites are resistant to fluvalinate. In some states, mites are also beginning to show resistance to this pesticide (Spreafico et al, 2001). In-hive use of these pesticides could contaminate honey, beeswax, and pollen. It is therefore highly urgent to develop an integrated and sustainable approach to mite control through education of beekeepers and research on alternative methods.
Recently, another problem emerged. The most virulent bee brood disease is American foulbrood, caused by the bacterium Paenibacillus larvae. The disease leaves highly infectious, long-lived spores in the combs in the hive. For the last 50 years, this disease has been controlled by the use of one antibiotic, Terramycin. However, in 1996 and 1997, strains of bacteria were found in the Upper Midwest that were not inhibited by the antibiotic. The extent of the problem is not yet known, but if not contained, colony mortality could be severe.
Nosema disease, a disease caused by a protozoan unicellular parasite, Nosema apis, also causes many problems in beekeeping, especially in cold and humid regions as is typical of the North Central region. Nosema infection decrease worker longevity, decrease their nursing ability so queen quality and worker larvae suffer, causes queens to be superceded early, and colonies with high spore loads show dysentery during winter and often die before spring (Wang and Moeller 1969, 1970; Pickard and El-Shemy, 1989). Survival colonies also are weak and cannot provide adequate pollination or produce a good honey crop as healthy colonies (Fries, 1993). An antibiotic, Fumidil, has been used since 1950s. There is the fear that Nosema might become resistant and as a result causing more damages to beekeeping in the North Central region. Studying the epidemiology and mode of action of this parasite on honey bees will give us insights for its control.
It is critical to maintain the vitality of honey bees and of the beekeeping industry in the North Central Region. This region contains the 3rd, 4rth, and 5th largest honey producing states. Furthermore, special problems in survival of honey bee colonies during cold winters are unique to this region. Beekeepers typically operate on narrow profit margins and are leaving the business at a time when needs for pollination have increased due to the loss of feral colonies. Regional coordination is needed in research and extension efforts in this area.
Objectives
-
Implement integrated pest management strategies to reduce disease and parasitic mite injury to honey bee colonies
-
Develop and improve honey bee stocks through selective breeding
-
Educate the public and growers on the value and protection of honey bees as pollinators
-
Facilitate the improvement of honey bee management through extension and outreach
Procedures and Activities
Because this is mainly a coordination mechanism for a regional effort, no specific procedures and activities are provided here. Specific procedures will vary for each researcher as he or she obtains funding for a particular project within the objectives of this regional proposal. This committee will meet annually and traditionally the meeting is with the American Bee Research Conference (ABRC) where procedures and research results are shared in detail.
Expected Outcomes and Impacts
- Objective 1. Resistance management plans will be developed for protecting the efficacy of chemical tools used in beekeeping. These will rely on coordination of survey efforts to determine the extent of populations of Varroa mites resistant to fluvalinate and of American foulbrood bacteria resistant to Terramycin. Molecular techniques may be useful for determining the mode of resistance of mites to fluvalinate as well as for precisely measuring the frequency of resistant alleles, if we know the precise genetic changes that cause resistance. Economic injury levels and thresholds will be developed and used in published management recommendations. Alternative products will be evaluated for controlling Varroa mites (e.g. aromatic oil derivatives, fungus, sugar dusting, and the Mitezapper) and American foulbrood (antibiotics).
- Objective 2. We will evaluate and promote the use of honey bee stocks showing tolerance to Varroa mites. Promising stocks have been identified with different mechanisms of resistance, including a behavioral trait known as hygienic behavior that causes bees to remove mite-infested pupae from the comb, and SMRD (suppression of mite reproduction in a delayed fashion) traits. SMRD bees was thought to have an undetermined mechanism that prevents mites from reproducing successfully on worker brood, but recently was discovered to remove only mites that actively reproducing, therefore leaving non-reproducing mites behind, causing an illusion that mite reproduction was suppressed. Stocks with mite tolerance will be shared among the participating states to maintain genetic diversity. Basic research on genetics of mite tolerance will be shared prior to publication. Technology transfer to bee breeders will be accomplished by providing annual workshops and short courses for beekeepers and breeders in participating states. This will include stock evaluation and artificial insemination techniques. This should result in transfer of stocks to the beekeepers that are most able to maintain the lines.
- Objective 3. In regards to pollination needs, we will 1) Attempt to develop ways to estimate the value of honey bee pollination. 2) Educate growers on the efficient use honey bee as pollinators. 3) Promote and research judicious pesticide use in order to protect remaining honey bee pollinators, and 4) Keep the public informed about the relationship between beekeepers and growers. Key to this area will be research-based pollination and pesticide-use recommendations, extension of recommendation by participation in grower meetings and cooperation in the development of fact-sheets, videos, web pages and commodity journal articles. A survey will be used to assess the relationship between growers and pollinators.
- Objective 4. Sharing of extension materials will be coordinated among participating states. We will coordinate regional workshops and exchange ideas through email, web-based forum, and national meetings. We expect to produce the following regional publications, either using traditional means (bulletins) or through the internet:
Projected Participation
View Appendix E: ParticipationEducational Plan
A major venue of our communication to our cliental and stakeholders (beekeepers, people interested in becoming beekeepers) is through the Heartland Apicultural Association (HAS) Conference, which attracts an audience mainly in the North Central States. Usually held in June, this conference now has an annual attendance of 300-400 people. All our members are active participants of this conference and some were involved in its conception and founding (Tom Webster, Greg Hunt, and Zachary Huang). Research findings of this committee will also be communicated to beekeepers through regional fact sheets, web site (http://ncr202.bees.net), field days and other educational offerings in meeting format. We will also devise ways to survey the impact of information delivered, possibly through pre- and post- tests before and after an educational seminar, workshop or meeting.
Organization/Governance
Will be standard with committee electing its own leadership
Literature Cited
Baxter, J. Eischen, F. Pettis, J. Wison, WT. Shimanuki, H. 1998. Detection of fluvalinateresistant Varroa mites in U.S. honey bees, Am. Bee J. 138: 291.
Buchman, S. L., Nabham, G. P. 1996. The Forgotten Pollinators. Island Press: Washington, D.C., Elzen, P.J., Eischen, F.A., Baxter, J.R., Pettis, J., Elzen, G.W., Wilson, W.T. 1998. Fluvalinate-resistance in Varroa jacobsonii from several geographic locaitons. Am. Bee J. 138: 674-676.
Elzen, P.J., Baxter, J.R., Spivak, M., Wilson, W.T. 2000. Control of Varroa jacobsoni Oud. resistant to fluvalinate and amitraz using coumaphos. Apidologie 31: 437-441.
Fries, I. 1993. Nosema apis - a parasite in the honey bee colony. Bee World 74: 5-19
Lodesani, M., A. Pellacani, S. Bergomi, E. Carpana, T. Rabitti, and P. Lasagni. 1992. Residue determination from some products used against Varroa infestation in bees. Apidologie 23: 257-272.
Morse, R.A., Calderone, N.W. 2000. The value of honey bees as pollinators of U.S. crops in 2000. Bee Cult. 128(3): 2-15.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1999. Honey Report, February. USDA, Washington, D.C. (http://www.usda.gov/nass/).
Pickard, R.S. and A.A.M. El-Shemy. 1989. Seasonal variation in the infection of honeybee colonies with Nosema apis Zander. Journal of Apicultural Research 28: 93-100
Wang, D.I. and F.E. Moeller. 1969. Histological comparisons of the development of hypopharyngeal glands in healthy and Nosema-infected worker honey bees. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 14: 135-142
Wang, D.I. and F.E. Moeller. 1970. The division of labor and queen attendance behavior of Nosema-infected worker honey bees. Journal of Economical Entomology 63: 1539-1541