Source: UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA submitted to NRP
HONEY BEE IPM FOR HONEY PRODUCTION AND POLLINATION
Sponsoring Institution
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Project Status
COMPLETE
Funding Source
Reporting Frequency
Annual
Accession No.
0184270
Grant No.
(N/A)
Cumulative Award Amt.
(N/A)
Proposal No.
(N/A)
Multistate No.
(N/A)
Project Start Date
Nov 1, 1999
Project End Date
Nov 1, 2003
Grant Year
(N/A)
Program Code
[(N/A)]- (N/A)
Recipient Organization
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
200 D.W. BROOKS DR
ATHENS,GA 30602-5016
Performing Department
ENTOMOLOGY
Non Technical Summary
The beekeeping industry in the Southeast is threatened by a new exotic bee hive pest, the small hive beetle. The beetle has killed thousands of colonies since its introduction in 1998. There is ongoing need to improve varroa mite control and bee hive management practices to optimize bee health. The purpose of the project is to identify practices that optimize honey bee health in light of ongoing problems with small hive beetles and varroa mites.
Animal Health Component
70%
Research Effort Categories
Basic
30%
Applied
70%
Developmental
(N/A)
Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)Subject of Investigation (SOI)Field of Science (FOS)Percent
21130101130100%
Goals / Objectives
(1) Determine basic life history parameters of the small hive beetle in the Southeast. (2) Determine sampling methodology for small hive beetles and economic thresholds in bee hives. (3) Determine the effects of comb age on colony growth and development. (4) Determine the comparative effects of the screened bottom board and bee stocks selected for mite non-reproduction on colony mite population growth and mite-induced colony pathology.
Project Methods
Determine basic life history parameters of the small hive beetle in the Southeast. Adults and larvae will be reared on known food substrates such as bee brood, honey, and pollen. The time of first egg laying will be noted and constitute hour=0. Adults will be removed from the test containers and the immatures monitored for development times. Larvae will be provided with one of two soil substrates in which to pupate: sandy loam and a heavy clay. Percentage of larvae successfully completing development will be compared. Adult dispersal patterns will be studied in field tests. Adults will be trapped at identified bee colonies, marked with distinguishing paint dots, and monitored with colony observations. (2) Determine sampling methodology for small hive beetles and determine economic thresholds in bee hives. Candidate methods include (A) dislodging and trapping beetles on hive lids with a sharp bump onto a device that funnels beetles into alcohol and (B) the same as above but instead sampling beetles from the hive bottom board. Selected colonies will be destructively sampled to count actual numbers of beetle adults and larvae and correlate to sampled values. Beetle-infested colonies from a number of apiaries will then be sampled to determine bee brood, bee populations, and brood pathology and to estimate beetle populations with the newly-derived methods. Colonies will be treated with coumaphos to kill resident beetles. Some treated colonies will be moved to non-infested apiaries to control for the effects of beetle reinvasion. Colonies will be sampled after four weeks to test the effects of (1) beetle population at time of treatment and (2) colony relocation on colony brood area, bee population, and brood pathology. (3) Determine the effects of comb age on colony growth and development. Investigators propose to compare bee brood area, colony populations, and average daily bee mortality of colonies housed and reared on new combs or old combs of unknown age. Brood area (cm2) and colony bee populations will be determined at day 21. Additionally, we will compare average daily mortality of young bees reared in the two comb substrates. Daily mortality will be counted for 15 days. Finally, we will compare average daily mortality of bees (1) reared in old comb and housed on new comb, (2) reared in old and housed on old, (3) reared in new and housed on new, and (4) reared in new and housed on old. (4) Determine the comparative effects of the screened bottom board and bee stocks selected for mite non-reproduction on colony mite population growth and mite-induced colony pathology. Test colonies will assigned one of four treatments: (1) a queen from selected stock and bottom screen, (2) selected stock and no screen, (3) non-selected stock and screen, and (4) non-selected stock and no screen. Colonies will be started up in spring with empty combs and a homogenous mixture of bees and varroa mites. Initial varroa mite populations will be determined by sampling adult bees. Colonies will be sampled in August to determine bee brood area, bee populations, brood pathology, mite populations, and mite levels with ether roll and sticky sheets.

Progress 11/01/99 to 11/01/03

Outputs
The project successfully completed a four-year initiative to develop sustainable honey bee IPM practices holistically framed in the context of honey production and crop pollination. Eleven refereed scientific papers are the tangible record of this productivity. Two exotic honey bee pests Ire our chief subjects: the blood-feeding parasitic mite Varroa destructor and hive scavenging small hive beetle (SHB) Aethina tumida. North America's first economic threshold for varroa is shown to be 60-190 mites in standard overnight sticky sheets, and genetically resistant queen bees and screened bottom boards are shown to significantly slow mite population growth and delay economic threshold. Small hive beetles are shown to be omnivorous, feeding on honey bee eggs as well as stored honey and pollen. In a comparative study between South Africa and Georgia it was shown that that average adult beetle numbers ranging from 409.3 plus or minus 95.8 to 589.3 plus or minus 150.3 Ire sufficient to significantly reduce colony bee populations, brood, foraging activity (returning bees / min), and honey yields in European-derived honey bees in Georgia. A modified hive entrance - 1.5-inch PVC pipe - significantly reduces ingress of SHB adults into hives, but secondary ventilation problems are only partly overcome with screened bottoms. In a crop pollination syndrome only poorly understood, honey bees are shown unambiguously to linearly increase fruit-set in rabbiteye blueberry as bee flower visitation rates increase. Moreover, honey bees effectively set fruit in this crop even when they engage in high rates of secondary nectar thievery (they preferentially visit holes in flowers made by the primary nectar thief, Xylocopa virginica). Collectively these studies support the continued use of honey bees as commercial blueberry pollinators and suggest that current standard hive densities should be increased. One peripheral experiments demonstrate that honey yields are not significantly increased in 'bottom supering' - a traditional practice in which empty honey boxes (supers) are placed on hives during nectar season below ones already partially filled by bees. Another peripheral study showed that colony brood production is significantly reduced in colonies housed on old combs. This is a powerful warrant for beekeepers to regularly cull old brood combs from their operations.

Impacts
Expected Impact: The benefits accruing to the Southeastern states from IPM practices growing from this project should over a five-season period translate to: 1. 1,023,400 fewer chemical applications for varroa control 2. 190,890 fewer chemical applications for SHB control 3. 719 kg reduction in the active ingredient fluvalinate (assuming it comprises 50% of varroa chemical treatments) 4. 1651 kg reduction in the active ingredient coumaphos (assuming it comprises 50% of varroa treatments and 100% [one strip only] for SHB) 5. 179 kg reduction in the active ingredient permethrin 6. $4,488,047 savings in chemical applications (16% of average 5-year honey revenues) 7. reduced risk of contaminated honey 8. reduced risk to the environment and handler 9. improved reproductive performance of queen bees produced in the region (in-hive chemicals reduce sperm loads of drones and longevity of queens) Concerning blueberry pollination, our data indicate that fruit-set increases 15% over ambient conditions when pollinator densities are maximized. Although we have not extrapolated our controlled densities to actual hive field densities, I conservatively believe that increasing the current recommendation from 3 hives per acre to 5 would be economically viable. Based on 2002 NASS production data for Georgia I estimate that optimizing honey bee pollinator densities in blueberry translates to a revenue increase of $2,613,000. This value, combined with the chemical savings detailed above, result in a societal benefit of $7,101,047 from this project.

Publications

  • Delaplane, K.S. 1999. Effects of the slatted rack on brood production and its distribution in the brood nest. American Bee Journal 139(6): 474-476
  • Delaplane, K.S. & W.M. Hood. 1999. Economic threshold for Varroa jacobsoni Oud. in the southeastern USA. Apidologie 30: 383-395
  • Elzen, P.J., J.R. Baxter, D. Westervelt, C. Randall, K.S. Delaplane, F.A. Eischen, L. Cutts, & W.T. Wilson. 1999. Field control and biology studies of a new pest species, Aethina tumida Murray (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae), attacking European honey bees in the Western Hemisphere. Apidologie 30: 361-366
  • Berry, J.A. & K.S. Delaplane. 2000. Effects of top- versus bottom-supering on honey yield. American Bee Journal 140(5): 409-410
  • Berry, J.A. & K.S. Delaplane. 2001. Effects of comb age on honey bee colony growth, brood survivorship, and adult mortality. Journal of Apicultural Research 40(1): 3-8
  • Ellis, J.D., Jr., R. Hepburn, K.S. Delaplane, P. Neumann, & P.J. Elzen. 2003. The effects of adult small hive beetles, Aethina tumida (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae), on nests and foraging activity of Cape and European honey bees (Apis mellifera). Apidologie, 34: 399-408
  • Dedej, S. & K.S. Delaplane. 2003. Honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) pollination of rabbiteye blueberry Vaccinium ashei var. 'Climax' is pollinator density-dependent. Journal of Economic Entomology 96(4): 1215-1220
  • Ellis, J.D., Jr., K.S. Delaplane, R. Hepburn, & P.J. Elzen. Efficacy of modified hive entrances and a bottom screen device for controlling Aethina tumida (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) infestations in Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies. Journal of Economic Entomology, in press August 2003


Progress 01/01/02 to 12/31/02

Outputs
In 2002 the project made diverse and significant advances in the areas of honey bee management and integrated control of beekeeping pests. We demonstrated that restricted hive entrances (with 1.5-inch pvc pipe) reduced the infestation rate of adult small hive beetles, but it was necessary to offset the lost hive ventilation with screen hive floors. Work at our lab demonstrated that small hive beetles oviposit in capped cells of honey bee brood at the terminal stages of beetle-induced colony collapse. Collaborative work between our lab and Rhodes University (S. Africa) demonstrated that adult small hive beetles are sufficient to cause significant harmful effects on colonies of European, but not Cape, honey bees. A separate study was continued on IPM practices that delay onset of economic threshold for varroa mites in honey bee colonies. Apiary isolation, hygienic-selected queens, and screen bottom boards failed to delay economic threshold for V. destructor. However, the pooled data for 14 months support earlier evidence that bottom screens reduce colony mite levels. Moreover, hygienic behavior significantly reduced average mite drop, but its expression varied independently of the reported selection status of the queens. Finally, rabbiteye blueberry var. 'Climax' was shown to respond favorably to increases in density of honey bee pollinators.

Impacts
This research confirms small hive beetles as serious scavengers of weakened honey bee colonies and demonstrates a simple and effective practice for reducing their numbers - hive entrance reduction. Similarly, our project has demonstrated that screen bottom boards reduce varroa mites in bee colonies. Both of these hive modifications are being put into practice by beekeepers. In fact, screen bottom boards are already being marketed by bee supply manufacturers, a situation prompted in part by work from this lab. Our research confirms honey bees as valuable pollinators of rabbiteye blueberry, supporting the use of this practical pollinator wherever these popular blueberries are grown.

Publications

  • Ellis, J.D., Jr., K.S. Delaplane, H.R. Hepburn, & P.J. Elzen. 2002. Controlling small hive beetles (Aethina tumida Murray) in honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies using a modified hive entrance. American Bee Journal 142(4): 288-290
  • Ellis, J.D., Jr., K.S. Delaplane, & W.M. Hood. 2002. Small hive beetle (Aethina tumida Murray) weight, gross biometry, and sex proportion at three locations in the Southeastern United States. American Bee Journal 142(7): 520-522
  • Dedej, S., K.S. Delaplane, & H. Scherm. 2002. Effectiveness of honey bees in pollinating rabbiteye blueberry and in delivering the biocontrol agent Bacillus subtilis to control mummy berry disease. In Proceedings of the Georgia Blueberry Conference 2002: 13-23
  • Delaplane, K.S. & J.D. Ellis, Jr. 2002. The small hive beetle (Aethina tumida) in the United States: Reduced hive entrances are a promising IPM strategy. In Proceedings of 6th European Bee Conference, Cardiff, Wales, in press


Progress 01/01/01 to 12/31/01

Outputs
A study was begun for testing the efficacy of various published IPM practices in delaying onset of the economic thresholds for varroa mites developed for the Southeast by Delaplane & Hood (J. Apic. Res. 36:125-132, Apidologie 30: 383-395). The IPM methods under investigation are colony isolation, hygienic queens, and hive bottom screens. Data from 2001-early 2002 suggest that the strongest benefit is realized by hygienic queens and bottom screens. Unexpectedly, mite drops tended to be highest in isolated apiaries. A 2001 field study examined the pollination efficacy and interactions of honey bees and nectar-thieving carpenter bees, Xylocopa virginica. When the numbers of Xylocopa tented with honey bees and blueberry plants increased from one to two, there were significant reductions in the average number of seeds, speed of ripening, and weight of berries. However, increasing the number of Xylcopa from one to two also increased fruit-set. At this point it appears that carpenter bees contribute to blueberry fruit-set, but their net effects are negative. A study was conducted to test whether colony invasion by adult small hive beetles can be reduced by replacing the regular entrance of a hive with a 3/4-inch (2-cm) PVC pipe located 3-4 inches (7.6-10.2 cm) above the bottom board. Colonies with pipe entrances had significantly fewer adult beetles (46.9 beetles / colony) than open colonies (107.7 beetles / colony). However, there was a tendency for reduced brood in colonies with pipes. This experiment shows that modifying a colony's entrance may help control small hive beetles, but more work is needed to offset unwanted effects of reduced colony entrances.

Impacts
It is expected that the project will demonstrate practical ways to combat two serious honey bee enemies - the varroa mite and small hive beetle - with practices that minimize hard chemicals and improve profitability of beekeeping. Additionally, the project is demonstrating the value of honey bees as pollinators of rabbiteye blueberry, an important commercial crop in the Southeast.

Publications

  • Webster, T.C. & K.S. Delaplane (editors). 2001. Mites of the honey bee. Dadant & Sons, Hamilton, Illinois, 280 pp.
  • Hood, W.M. & K.S. Delaplane. 2001. Treatment thresholds for Varroa. In Mites of the honey bee. (T.C. Webster & K.S. Delaplane, eds.). Dadant & Sons, Hamilton, Illinois, pp. 229-239
  • Ellis, J.D., Jr., K.S. Delaplane, & W.M. Hood. 2001. Efficacy of a bottom screen device, Apistan, and Apilife VAR in controlling Varroa destructor. American Bee Journal 141(11): 813-816
  • Ellis, J.D., Jr. & K.S. Delaplane. 2001. A scientific note on Apis mellifera brood attractiveness to Varroa destructor (Anderson & Trueman) as affected by the chemotherapeutic history of the brood. Apidologie 32: 603-604
  • Delaplane, K.S. 2001. Varroa destructor: Revolution in the making. Bee World (in press)
  • Delaplane, K.S. & S. Dedej. 2001. Pollination of blueberry (Vaccinium ashei) by honey bees (Apis mellifera) and nectar-thieving carpenter bees (Xylocopa virginica). In Proceedings of Apimondia Congress, Durban, South Africa. pp. 133-147
  • Delaplane, K.S. 2001. Progress report: Integrating mite mitigation measures with published economic thresholds for Varroa destructor. In Proceedings of the American Bee Research Conference. American Bee Journal 141(12): 888


Progress 01/01/00 to 12/31/00

Outputs
It was determined that gross biometry of small hive beetle adults varies in three populations of the Southeast: Wadmalaw Island and Clemson, SC and Richmond Hill, GA. Adult females are significantly longer than males, but width does not vary by sex. This implies that the package bee industry could benefit by standardizing the screen diameter of its cages , effectively excluding the beetles. Wadmalaw Island beetles weigh significantly more than beetles in the other populations which is congruent with mitochondrial DNA from other studies. The screened bottom board was shown to numerically decrease colony populations of varroa mites and numerically increase brood production.

Impacts
Our data will help characterize populations of exotic small beetle in the Southeast and indicate methods for effectively excluding this pest from mail-order bee packages. The bottom screen appears to be an effective cultural control for parasitic varroa mites.

Publications

  • Ellis, J.D., Jr., K.S. Delaplane, & W.M. Hood. 2001. Efficacy of a bottom screen device, Apistan, and Apilife VAR in controlling Varroa populations in honey bee colonies. ms in prep
  • Ellis, J.D., Jr., K.S. Delaplane, & W.M. Hood. 2001. A scientific note on small hive beetle (Aethina tumida Murray) weight, gross biometry and sex proportion at three locations in the southeastern United States. Journal of Apicultural Research, submitted December 15, 2000