Progress 10/01/99 to 09/30/04
Outputs
Work continued on the quality of different food sources for rearing small hive beetles under laboratory conditions. Fecundity was greatest for beetles reared on honey bee brood and pollen as compared to other natural food sources. Non-chemical methods for reducing varroa mite populations in hives were completed and terminated. Screened bottom boards, pollen combs, and other techniques, alone or in combination, reduced populations of mites, but not always below economic damage levels.
Impacts
Research from this project has provided information that will promote studies on the small hive beetle in the future by providing a lab diet that allows the beetles to be reared independently of bee products. This opens the possibilities of conducting a wide range of experiments under controlled conditions that will aide our understanding of beetle biology and management. Research on pollen traps as a means of varroa mite control has shown this to be a viable means of partially reducing mite load in colonies, and may be combined with other passive technologies to reduce use of and independence on chemicals for mite management.
Publications
- Stanghellini, M. S., J. R. Schultheis, and J. T. Ambrose. 2002. Pollen mobilization in selected Cucurbitaceae and the putative effects of pollinator abundance on pollen depletion rates. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 127(5): 729-736.
- Stanghellini, M. S., J. T. Ambrose, and J. R. Schultheis. 2002. Diurnal activity, floral visitation, and pollen deposition comparisons between honey bees and bumble bees on field-grown cucumber and watermelon. Journal of Apicultural Research 40(1-2): 27-34.
|
Progress 10/01/01 to 09/30/02
Outputs
Work continues on the biology of the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida Murray), the most recent exotic pest of honey bee colonies. Laboratory tests have been completed, with more underway, on the ovipositional response of female beetles to selected natural and artificial diets. Specifically, we determined that beetles will lay differential numbers of eggs based on what diet they are offered. A rich diet of honey bee brood and pollen will result in a large ovipositional response (500 eggs/female), whereas a poor diet (e.g., banana) resulted in a lower egg-laying response (30-50 eggs/female). This suggests that A. tumida has some mechanism for gauging the quality of food. In addition, the presence of existing beetle larvae appeared to lower egg-laying response, which also suggests that beetle populations are subject to density-dependence based on resource abundance. The above two studies derived information that may be useful in the development of bait-stations and
trapping devices for the beetle to limit its presence in managed apiaries. Additional studies have been completed on the use of commercial pollen traps to passively reduce populations of the parasitic bee mite, Varroa destructor, in managed honey bee colonies. Pollen traps consistently lowered the overall varroa mite population; however, the number of bee colonies still retaining mite levels at or above the economic threshold level (ca. 10% infestation) were variable. Thus, pollen traps may be used as a component of a larger Integrated Pest Management strategy, but pollen traps are not stand-alone treatments for varroa control.
Impacts
The dietary work conducted on small hive beetles will allow researchers to rear populations of this pest for experimental purposes without having to feed the beetles honey bee brood, pollen, and honey. This may eliminate the need of removing brood and resources from active bee colonies in order to maintain experimental beetle populations. Repeated removal of resources from active bee colonies has a negative effect on the bee colony's overwintering success. Using pollen traps for the partial control of varroa mites is now considered by us to be a viable means of reducing varroa populations in managed honey bee colonies and, when used with other IPM tools, provides yet another step towards the reduction in the beekeeping industry's dependence on chemical controls. Chemicals registered for control of bee mites are beset with problems, including mite populations that have become resistant to fluvalinate and coumaphos, the active ingredients of both current registered hard
chemicals for controlling varroa mites.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
Progress 10/01/00 to 09/30/01
Outputs
Work continues on the biology of the small hive beelte (Aethina tumida Murray), the most recent exotic pest of honey bee colonies. Laboratory tests have been completed, with more underway, on the dietary biology of this pest. Specifically, it has been demonstrated that small hive beetles are capable of sustaining populations and reproducing new populations on non-honey bee food items such as various fruit crops (e.g., banana and pineapple) and artifical insect-rearing media (modified wheat germ). These findings may help resolve the route by which small hive beeltes entered the United States, as it is currently unknown, and could provide alternative diets with which to rear new beetle populations for experimental purposes. Studies have been completed on the use of screened hive bottom boards and pollen traps as passive, non-chemical control strategies for varroa mite infestation in managed honey bee colonies. Mite samples are still being processed at the time of this
report submission, so no overall concluding remarks are included herein. However, preliminary data suggest that both tools have some level of varroa control, but neither tool will likely be a stand alone measure. These tools, and others like them, are to be implemented into an Integrated Pest Management system for mite control in managed honey bee colonies.
Impacts
The dietary work conducted on small hive beetles will allow researchers to rear populations of this pest for experimental purposes without having to feed the beetles honey bee brood, pollen, and honey. This may eliminate the need of removing brood and resources from active bee colonies in order to maintain experimental beetle populations. Repeated removal of resources from active bee colonies has a negative effect on the bee colony's overwintering success. The non-chemical control tools being evaluated for varroa mite control will help offer more diverse, practical, and efficient approaches to dealing with this parasite. Total dependence on chemical control should be tempered and included as one aspect of a greater IPM program for varroa control.
Publications
- (2001)None completed at this time; several in progress.
|
Progress 10/01/99 to 09/30/00
Outputs
Work continues on the biology and behavior of the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida Murray) and the introduced pest's potential impact on non honey bee hosts. Laboratory tests have been completed that clearly demonstrate that the beetle can reproduce on bumble bee (Bombus impatiens Cressons) colonies. In these laboratory tests 10 adult beetles were introduced to commercial bumble bee colonies with appropriate non-treated controls. Within three weeks, the treated bumble bee colonies had died and beetle populations of 3,000 plus larvae were observed. Further work is underway to determine if the beetles can detect and infest bumble bee colonies under natural conditions. Studies have been completed on the effectiveness of heat treatment for the control of varroa mites (Varroa jacobsoni) under various heat regimes. Temperatures of 40 degrees C for approximately 24 hours reduce mite populations by over 90% without any increase in bee mortality. These tests will be expanded
to the treatment of whole bee colonies. Studies on the effectiveness of non-chemical control approaches to varroa mite control have indicated that the use of screened bottom boards will reduce mite populations but bee colony death will still occur unless chemical controls are also utilized.
Impacts
The research showing that the newly introduced honey bee pest, the small hive beetle, may also be a pest of bumble bees is important to beekeepers and to growers who rely on insect pollination. The ability of the beetle to complete an entire life cycle on bumble bee colonies means that the pest may become more widely distributed because it can utilize two different host species (honey bees and bumble bees).
Publications
- Ambrose, J.T. and M.S. Stanghellini. 2001. A scientific note on the threat of small hive beetles(Aethina tumida Murray) to bumble bee (Bombus spp.) colonies in the United States. Apidologie 31:455-456.
- Stanghellini, M.S., J.T. Ambrose and D. L. Hopkins, 2000. Bumble bee colonies as potential alternative hosts for the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida Murray). American Bee Journal 128: 71-75.
|
Progress 01/01/99 to 12/31/99
Outputs
Studies have been completed that clearly indicate that the use of pollen traps and supplemental pollen feeding to honey bee colonies can significantly reduce bee losses due to the use of microencapsulated pesticides applied in apple orchards after the period of apple bloom. Research continues on the effectiveness of using bumble bees (Bombus spp.) as alternative pollinators to honey bees in the pollination of vine crops such as cucumbers (Cucumis sativus) and watermelons (Citrullus lanatus). These studies have clearly indicated that bumble bees are more effective pollinators than honey bees in that they move larger amounts of total pollen and of viable pollen over longer periods of time and are less afected by environmental conditions. Tests on the effectiveness of whole bumble bee vs honey bee colonies are underway as is work on the value of bumble bees in the pollnation of seedless watermelon varieties which do not seem to be adequately pollinated by honey bees.
Preliminary work has been completed that demonstrate the ability of the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida), an introduced pest of honey bees, to produce an entire life cycle of the beetle on bumble bee colonies under labroratory conditions. Previously, it was thought that the beetle was limited to one host, the honey bee. These findings will be used to develop field studies to determine if the beetles can detect, enter, and utilize bumble bee colonies under both feral and managed bumble bee situations.
Impacts
The research showing that the newly introduced honey bee pest, the small hive beetle, may also be a pest of bumble bees is important to beekeepers and to growers who rely on insect pollination. The ability of the beetle to complete an entire life cycle on bumble bee colonies means that the pest may become more widely distributed because it can utilize two different host species (honey bees and bumble bees).
Publications
- Ambrose, J.T. and M.S. Stanghellini. 2000. Small hive beetles (Aethina tumida) as potential pests of bumble bees. Apimondia. Accepted for publications in Spring issue.
|
Progress 01/01/98 to 12/31/98
Outputs
Additional studies continue on the effectiveness of using bumble bees (Bombus spp.) as alternative pollinators to honey bees (Apis mellifera) in the pollination of various vine crops (cucumber, Cucumis sativus, and watermelon, Citrullus lanatus). Earlier studies have demonstrated the superiority of bumble bees over honey bees in the pollination of the selected vine crops at the individual bee level. The present work provides some of the explanation for that superiority. These factors include the findings that bumble bees begin foraging activities approximately 30-60 minutes earlier than do honey bees, that bumble bees deposit 1.98 more pollen grains on female flowers than do honey bees, and that bumble bees visit approximately two times as many blossoms per unit time as do honey bees. These findings will be very valuable in determining if whole bumble bee colonies can be economically justified as alternative pollination units for honey bee colonies. Work has also
continued on identifying the cause of "purple brood" (an affliction of honey bee brood that occurs in the southeastern U.S.). Our earlier work demonstrated that the plant, Cyrilla racemiflora, is the source of the problem. We have now determined that the plant nectar carries the agent (s) involved in the bee infliction. Studies have also been initiated on non-chemical control of Varroa jacobsoni, a mite parasite of honey bees, in which heat, humidity, and trapping mechanisms are being evaluated as control measures. In addition, further work is under way to evaluate the effectiveness of using pollen traps and supplemental pollen feeding to reduce the impact of microencapsulated pesticides on honey bees in and around apple orchards.
Impacts
(N/A)
Publications
- STANGHELLINI, M.S., J.T. AMBROSE, AND J.R. SCHULTHEIS. 1998. Using commercial bumble bee colonies as backup pollinators for honey bees to produce cucumbers and watermelons. HortTechnology 8(4): 590-594.
- STANGHELLINI, M.S., J.T. AMBROSE, AND J.R. SCHULTHEIS. 1998. Seed production in watermelon: a comparison between two commercially available pollinators. HortScience 33(1): 28-30.
|
Progress 01/01/97 to 12/31/97
Outputs
Work continues on the effectiveness of using bumble bees (Bombus spp.) as alternative pollinators to honey bees (Apis mellifera) in the pollination of vine crops (i.e., cucumber, Cucumis sativus) and watermelons (Citrullus lanatus). Our field studies have clearly demonstrated that individual bumble bees are more efficient than individual honey bees in the pollination of both cucumber and watermelons based on fruit set, fruit abortion and seed development. The work has been expanded to compare the effectiveness of whole bumble bee colonies versus honey bee colonies in vine crop pollination. Studies have also been completed on positively identifying the cause/source of purple (blue) brood disease which affects honey bee colonies in the southeastern United States. A series of tests in which honey bee colonies were caged with various plant species has definitively shown that Cyrilla racemiflora (southern leatherwood) is the source of the purple brood phenomenon.
Additional studies are planned to determine the methodology by which this plant species causes the death of honey bee larvae.
Impacts
(N/A)
Publications
- STANGHELLINI, M.S., J.T. AMBROSE, and J.R. SCHULTHEIS. 1997. The effect of honey bee and bumble bee pollination on fruit set and abortion of cucumber and watermelon. Amer. Bee J. 137:386-391.
|
Progress 01/01/96 to 12/30/96
Outputs
Studies have been completed on the effectiveness of bumble bees (Bombus impatiens) vs honey bees (Apis mellifera) in the pollination of cucumber (Cucumis sativus) and watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) at the individual bee level. Significant differences were observed in seed set and abortion rates for both plant species based on bee type (bumble bee or honey bee), visit and the number of bee visits. In all cases, none of the blossoms set any fruit if no bee visit occurred. Seed set in both the cucumber and watermelon tests were significantly higher when comparing bumble bee to honey bee visits. In addition, there were significantly fewer abortions in cucumbers when comparing bumble bee to honey bee visits; but bee type was not a significant factor in watermelon abortion. The results of this study in conjunction with the decreased number of honey bee colonies in North Carolina and the United States due to the impact of introduced mite pests (Varroa jacobsoni and Acarapis
woodi) support the hypothesis that bumble bee colonies might serve as alternate or back-up pollinators to honey bees in the pollination of selected crops. Additional work at the whole colony level for both honey bees and bumble bees is underway.
Impacts
(N/A)
Publications
- STANGHELLINI, M.S. 1996. The effect of bee type and bee visit number in the pollination of cucumber and watermelon. "M.S. Thesis." N.C. State University, Raleigh. 147p.
|
Progress 01/01/95 to 12/30/95
Outputs
Additional studies have been completed on the effectiveness of two commercially available honey bee attractants that were promoted as olfactory and feeding stimulants. The products were shown to be ineffective in increasing bee pollination of either cucumbers (Cucumis sativus) or watermelons (Citrullus lanatus) as grown under North Carolina conditions. Studies continue on the seasonal occurrence of the tracheal mite, a parasite of honey bees, and the variation in the mite cycles. Work has been initiated on the effectiveness of bumble bees as alternative pollinators of cucumbers and watermelons as grown under typical field conditions in North Carolina. Preliminary data confirms that bumble bee visits to both crops are more effective in seed set when comparing equal number honey bee and bumble bee visits to cucumbers and watermelons. These studies will be expanded to compare the economics of bumble bee vs honey bee pollination of those crops.
Impacts
(N/A)
Publications
- AMBROSE, J.T., SCHULTHEIS, J.R., BAMBARA, S.B. and MANGUM, W.A. 1995. An evaluation of selected commercial bee attractants in the pollination of cucumbers and watermelons. Amer. Bee J. 135: 267-272.
|
Progress 01/01/94 to 12/30/94
Outputs
Work continues on the impact of tracheal mites (Acarapis woodi) and the Varroa mite (Varroa jacobsoni) on honey bees and the control of these two pests. Data is being analyzed which describes the seasonal occurrence of the tracheal mite as a honey bee parasite. Studies have been completed on the effectiveness of a group of commercially available bee attractants that were claimed to function as either olfactory or feeding stimulants. These products were tested in the pollination of cucumbers and watermelons and shown to be ineffective in increasing bee efficiency in the pollination of those crops. In response to the concerns of the queen and package bee industry, a study was conducted on the possibility that Apistan) queen tabs might have a lethal or a derogatory impact on queen and/or worker honey bees that were shipped with the subject material. Tests of the affects of Apistan queen tabs at various temperature regimes indicated that the product had no affect on queen
or worker survivability, subsequent queen acceptance by new bee colonies, queen supersedure, or bee brood production.
Impacts
(N/A)
Publications
|
|