Progress 07/01/08 to 06/30/13
Outputs
Target Audience: Beekeepers in the Southern Region of the United States. Changes/Problems: As a result of this research, South Carolina beekeepers are more knowledgeable of the effects of variouspesticide treatments for varroa mite control on their honey bee colonies. Beekeepers are better informed of the efficiency of various small hive beetle traps that are currently marketed in the US. South Carolina beekeepers are better informed of the incidence of nosema disease in their honey bee colonies. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Many presentations and workshops of these research projects were conducted to publish the results of the investigations. State beekeeping association meetings and many local beekeeper associations meetings were held that informed beekeepers of the latest research findings of this research project. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Results of this research have been disseminated through professional apiculture publications including presentations at the annual American Bee Research Conference and the proceedings of these meetings published in the American Bee Journal. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
In a study replicated across two states and two years, we tested the sublethal effects on bees of the miticides Apistan (tau fluvalinate) and Check Mite+ (coumaphos) and the wood preservative copper naphthenate applied at label rates in field conditions. A continuous covariate, a colony Varroa mite index, let us disambiguate the effects of the chemicals on bees while adjusting for a presumed benefit of controlling mites. Experimental chemicals significantly decreased 3-day brood survivorship and increased construction of queen supercedure cells compared to non-treated controls. Bees exposed to Check Mite+ as immatures had higher legacy mortality as adults relative to non-treated controls, whereas bees exposed to Apistan had improved legacy mortality relative to non-treated controls. Relative to non-treated controls, Check Mite+ increased adult emergence weight. It was not possible to separate means in a chi square test, but bees treated with Apistan performed comparatively well in a test of associative learning. And finally, there were no effects of bee hive chemical detected for frames of bees, frames of brood, frames of honey, foraging rate, time required for marked released bees to return to their nest, percentage of released bees that return to the nest, and colony Nosema spore loads. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine sublethal effects of bee hive chemicals applied at label rates under field conditions while disambiguating the results from mite control benefits realized from the chemicals. Given the poor performance of the miticides at reducing colony mite levels and their inconsistent effects on the host, these results defend the use of reduced-chemical health management practices. In other research and in cooperation with other honey bee specialists, statewide surveys were conducted and published at various meetings on the incidence of the Nosema disease (Nosema apis and Noxema ceranae) in honey bees. In other research, various control strategies for small hive beetle were conducted in South Carolina. Three inside hive traps were evaluated and compared in their efficacy in controlling small hive beetles. TheFreeman Beetle Trap proved to be superior in controlling small hive beetles in mid-summer when compared to two other traps that are currrently marketed in the US. In other research,we investigated the theory of using a "sink-trap" procedure in apiaries to control small hive beetles. Small apiaries were set up and various numbers of honey bee colonies fitted with traps to test the idea of attracting adult beetles into strategically placed colonies fitted with traps. Thisproject failed to yield convincing results that beetles could be attracted into colonies having traps in the same apiary. However, this project was conducted using small apiaries and further research is needed to investigate this theory.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Berry,JA, Hood, WM, Pietravalle S, Delaplane KS.Field-Level effects of approved Bee Hive Chemicals on Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L). PLoS ONE 8(10): e76536, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076536.
|
Progress 01/01/12 to 12/31/12
Outputs
OUTPUTS: Data analysis of field work during project year #2 continued in early 2012 in preparation for publication of resarch. Graduate student Shannon Peterson gave an oral presentation titled "Investigations into "Trapping Sinks" to Control Small Hive Beetles, Aethina tumida, in Apiaries of Honey Bees, Apis mellifera" at the American Bee Research Conference held at USDA Headquarters, Beltline, Maryland on 6-7 February 2012. W.M. Hood gave an oral presentation titled "Research and Extension Activities at Clemson University" which included results of this project at the NC 1173 national research meeting held In Beltsville, Maryland on February 8, 2012. Graduate student Shannon Peterson gave an oral presentation on this project titled "Small Hive Beetle Research" at the South Carolina Beekeepers Association annual conference held at Clemson University on July 21, 2012. W.M. Hood gave a workshop on "Small Hive Beetle Management" at the South Carolina Beekeepers Association annual conferecne held at Clemson University on July 21, 2012. PARTICIPANTS: William M. Hood, Professor of Entomology; Shannon Peterson,Graduate Research Assistant; Barbara Tate, Research Assistant. All participants are members of the School of Agricultural, Forest, and Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. TARGET AUDIENCES: Beekeepers in the Southern Region of the United States where small hive beetles are a problem. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.
Impacts
The small hive beetle continues to be a significant honey bee pest in the US particularly the warmer regions of the country. Small hive beetle trapping measures offer beekeepers a safe alternative to manage this hive pest. Our research project evaluated various beetle traps and compared their effectiveness in managing this pest throughout two full seasons. One trap, the Freeman Trap, provided superior results in summer when beetle populations normally increase and become a problem in SEUS. Further research led to rejection of our "sink trap theory" of placement of traps in specific colonies to manage this pest in small apiraries. Further research is needed to investigate this theory in larger apiaries. If found to be effective in larger apiaries, this would significantly reduce cost and labor in managing this hive pest.
Publications
- Peterson, S.M., W.M. Hood. 2012. Investigations into "Trapping Sinks" to Control Small Hive Beetles, Aethina Tumida, in Apiaries of Honey Bees, Apis mellifera. In Proceedings of the American Bee Research Conference held in Beltsville, MD. on 6-7 February 2012. Published in American Bee Journal: 152, No.4. p. 405. Peterson, S.M. & W.M. Hood. Comparison of Three Traps to Control Small Hive Beetles, Aethina tumida in Honey Bee Colonies. Journal of Apicultural Research, In Review, Submitted 23 February 2012.
|
Progress 01/01/11 to 12/31/11
Outputs
OUTPUTS: Field tests were conducted in 2011 at Clemson University, Pickens County, South Carolina using the Freeman Beetle Trap and the Better Beetle Blaster Trap to investigate the small hive beetle "trapping sink" theory, as a result of prior years' research. To test this hypothesis, investigations were performed in the years 2010 and 2011 from April through November. In 2011, fifteen apiaries of three hives were established. For these investigations, a "trap sink colony" consisted of having a Freeman trap in the bottom of the colony and Better Beetle Blaster trap in the top of the same colony. The 2011 study had six apiaries with one trap-treated colony, six apiaries with two trapped colonies, and three control apiaries. The traps were emptied and restored, with the small hive beetles in the trap being counted every two weeks. There were surveys of the small hive beetle adult numbers in every colony in a twenty-four hour survey using a freeman trap in each colony every six weeks following a three day varroa mite drop. Measurements to monitor colony strength were performed by estimating percent of frame coverage of capped brood, honey, and adult bees every eight weeks. At the end of the project, in November, each hive was then shaken out and all the adult beetles killed and counted. The results from both years were combined to give a dataset of sixty colonies to investigate the "trapping sink" theory. The two-week surveys showed a significant difference (P>0.05) between the apiaries with one trapped colonies and the apiaries with two trapped colonies on one date comparison, but there was no significant difference overall. The twenty-four hour surveys showed a significant difference (P>0.05) in the number of beetles trapped between colonies with no traps and colonies with traps within each apiary. However, there was no significant difference (P>0.05) when either the trapped or not trapped colonies were compared with the control colonies. The end-of-project shakeout number of beetles showed significant difference (P>0.05) in the number of beetles trapped between colonies with no traps and colonies with traps within each apiary. However, there was no significant difference (P>0.05) when either the trapped or not trapped colonies were compared with the control colonies. The two-week surveys showed a significant difference (P>0.05) between the apiaries with one trapped colonies and the apiaries with two trapped colonies on one date comparison, but there was no significant difference overall. The twenty-four hour surveys showed a significant difference (P>0.05) in the number of beetles trapped between colonies with no traps and colonies with traps within each apiary. However, there was no significant difference (P>0.05) when either the trapped or not trapped colonies were compared with the control colonies. The end-of-project shakeout number of beetles showed significant difference (P>0.05) in the number of beetles trapped between colonies with no traps and colonies with traps within each apiary. However, there was no significant difference (P>0.05) when either the trapped or not trapped colonies were compared with the control colonies. PARTICIPANTS: William M. Hood, Professor of Entomology; Shannon Peterson, Graduate Research Assistant; Barbara Tate, research assistant. All participants are members of the School of Agricultural, Forest, and Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. TARGET AUDIENCES: Beekeepers in the Southern Region of the United States where small hive beetles are a problem. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.
Impacts
These results and observations are contradictory to the "trapping sink" theory since there were lower numbers of beetles within the trapped colonies. These results indicate that although installing traps in a colony will help to control the small hive beetle population, a trap must be installed in every colony in order to have an observable effect. However, we continue to analyze this data and observations, in an attempt to assess the possibility of successful beetle control in an apiary without having to place traps in every colony, particularly in larger apiaries having more than three colonies, as used in these investigations.
Publications
- Hood, W.M. & S. Peterson. 2011. Comparative Trapping Investigations of Small Hive Beetles Inside Honey Bee Colonies. In Proceedings of the 2011 American Bee Research Conference published in the American Bee Journal Vol. 151 No. 5. pp. 510-511.
- Hood, W.M. & Shannon Peterson. 2011. Oral presentation at the American Bee Research Conference held in Galveston, Texas on 6-7 January 2011. Presentation titled "Comparative Trapping Investigations of Small Hive Beetles Inside Honey Bee Colonies."
|
Progress 01/01/10 to 12/31/10
Outputs
OUTPUTS: Three small hive beetle traps which are currently marketed in the United States were compared for their trapping efficiency during a full season in 2010. Field tests were conducted at Clemson University, Pickens County, South Carolina using the Freeman Beetle Trap, the Better Beetle Blaster Trap, and the Hood Trap. The Freeman trap consists of a hive bottom made of wood and screen that allows beetles to freely enter a removable plastic tray (partially filled with vegetable oil) below. The Better Beetle Blaster trap (Cutts trap) is a plastic reservoir, half-filled with vegetable oil, and is designed to be fitted between two frame top bars in the hive. The Hood Trap is a small plastic box trap that is fastened inside a hive frame. The trap has three compartments, the middle compartment filled with cider vinegar as an attractant and the two side compartments half-filled with food grade mineral oil as the killing agent. The primary objective of this research project was to compare the number of adult beetles killed in the three traps when placed in new colonies that were established from package bees. The other objective was to measure and compare other colony parameters including adult bees, capped brood, honey, and varroa mites. Four apiaries were set up in the Clemson University Experimental Forest. Eight test colonies were established in each apiary with 2-lbs package bees on 6 April 2010. On 3 May, colonies were randomly selected in each apiary to receive one of four treatments: Cutts Trap, Freeman Trap, Hood Trap, or no trap (control). Treatments were replicated twice in each apiary. All 32 test colonies were fitted with Freeman trap hive bottoms. The Cutts, Freeman, and Hood traps were serviced at 2-week intervals through 2 November by removing and counting dead beetles and replenishing traps with vegetable oil, vinegar or mineral oil as appropriate. Each test colony received a 1-day survey for beetles and a 3-day varroa mite survey at 6-weeks intervals through 19 October by placement of a clean Freeman Trap tray with fresh vegetable oil and a varroa mite sticky board. Other colony parameters were measured at 8-week intervals through 19 October. An end of season total "colony shakeout" of beetles was conducted on all colonies on 8 November to count adult beetles remaining in colonies. An additional small hive beetle trapping investigation was begun in April 2010 to study the "trap sink" theory. More replications of this project will be conducted in 2011 to complete this investigation. Results of this research project have been disseminated to various beekeeper and scientists audiences including: oral presentation at the American Bee Research Conference held in Orlando, Fl. on 14-15 January 2010; oral presentation at the South Carolina Beekeepers Assoc. spring meeting held in Columbia, SC on 6 March 2010; oral presentation at the Georgia State Beekeepers Assoc. spring meeting held in Moultrie, GA on 12-13 February 2010; oral presentation at the Virginia State Beekeepers Assoc. spring meeting held in Wytheville, Va on 16-17 April 2010; oral presentation at the Edisto Beekeepers Assoc. meeting held in Blackville, SC on 27 April 2010. PARTICIPANTS: William M. Hood, Professor of Entomology; Shannon Peterson, Graduate Research Assistant; Barbara Tate, research assistant. All participants are members of the Department of Entomology, Soils, and Plant Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. TARGET AUDIENCES: Beekeepers in the Southern Region of the United States where small hive beetles are a problem. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.
Impacts
Thirteen 2-week trap counts of beetles killed were compared. Significantly more (P<0.05) beetles were killed in the Freeman traps versus the Cutts and Hood traps. There were no difference in number of beetles captured in the Cutts traps versus the Hood traps. There were no overall differences in the 1-day Freeman trap surveys. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) in the mean number of beetles counted during the total colony shakeout of beetles (Freeman/62, Cutts/75, Hood/82, and control/128). There were no overall treatment differences in the other colony parameters. This investigation suggests that the Freeman Trap proved to be a more efficient trap based upon the number of beetles removed from the colonies. The low mean number of beetles remaining in the control colonies at the end of these investigations suggests that traps in the remaining colonies may have provided "trapping sinks" in test apiaries. Trapping small hive beetles is an integrated management tool that beekeepers can safely use to control this pest inside beehives without the use of pesticides. This research project will provide the beekeeper an evaluation of three popular small hive beetle traps that are currently sold in the US.
Publications
- Lounsberry, Z., S. Spiewok, S. Pernal, T. Sonstegard, W. M. Hood, J. Pettis, P. Neumann, J. Evans. 2010. Worldwide Diaspora of Aethina tumida (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae), a Nest Parasite of Honey Bees. Annals of the Entomological Society of America Vol 103, No. 4. pp. 671-677.
- Delaplane, K.S., J.D. Ellis and W. M. Hood. 2010. A test for interactions between Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) and Aethina tumida (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) in colonies of honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 103(5): 711-715.
- Nolan, M.P., IV and W.M. Hood. 2010. Trapping Small Hive Beetles in Honey Supers and Brood Chambers of Honey Bee Colonies. Science of Bee Culture Vol. 2, No.1, pp 8-11.
- Hood, W.M. & B. Tate. 2010. Freeman Small Hive Beetle Trap Investigations. In Proceedings of the American Bee Research Conference published in the American Bee Journal Vol. 150 No. 5. p. 502.
|
Progress 01/01/09 to 12/31/09
Outputs
OUTPUTS: Year 2 of my project to test for possible pesticide sub-lethal dose effects on honey bee health was initiated in April 2009. One apiary was established with 24 colonies. Each colony was randomly selected to receive one of three treatments: Apistan, Check Mite+, and no treatment as control. Colonies were visited on 2-4 week intervals to determine colony parameters: bee population, brood production, honey production, and colony foraging rates. Worker survivability and longevity were tested. Proboscis extension response assays were conducted on bees from each colony to test the bees' learning ability. Year 1 of my project "Field investigations of the Freeman small hive beetle trap" was conducted beginning in April 2009. Four apiaries were established in the Clemson University Experimental Forest with six colonies per apiary. Two colonies from each apiary were randomly selected to receive one of three treatments: Freeman beetle trap, Hood beetle trap, or no trap as control. Beetles were removed from traps biweekly and counted. At six week intervals through November, a 3-day survey was conducted on each test colony using a Freeman beetle trap. At 8-week intervals through November, colony parameters were measured including adult bees, bee brood, honey, and varroa mites. In November, a complete colony shakeout was conducted on all test colonies to count beetles remaining in colonies at end of season. 2009 results of both projects were given at the 2010 American Bee Research Conference and proceedings of the conference will be published in the American Bee Journal. PARTICIPANTS: Research Collaborators: Keith Delaplane and Jennifer Berry at the University of Georgia. Clemson University research assistant Barbara Tate and undergraduate student Justin Cannon assisted in these projects. Roger Simonds, laboratory manager USDA National Science Laboratory in Gastonia, NC, assisted in analyzing pesticide residues in beeswax samples. TARGET AUDIENCES: Other US bee scientists and all beekeepers in the southern region of the US. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.
Impacts
The second year of the sub-lethal pesticide dose effect project has been completed but conclusions are still pending from the two years' data, which are currently being analyzed. Surprisingly, pesticide residues, particularly coumaphos, were reported in beeswax samples from control colonies that received no pesticide treatment. Beeswax samples were collected from colonies at the end of each year of this project and analyzed by USDA. The impact of this finding is that it will be practically impossible to prevent all possible pesticide residues in honey bee colonies, even when beekeepers do not use pesticides in colonies or use no contaminated beeswax foundation. Nosema sample analysis is currently being conducted at Kentucky State University for the statewide nosema survey. Year 1 of the Freeman Beetle trap investigations indicated that significantly more (P<0.05) beetles were removed from colonies containing the Freeman trap in early to mid-season and significantly more (P<0.05) beetles were removed from colonies containing a Hood trap in late season. There were no significant difference in colony parameters (bees, bee brood, honey, and varroa mites) measured in colonies receiving the three treatments. There were no significant treatment differences (P=0.06) in beetles captured during the end of season colony shakeout. The lack of significant differences in beetle numbers found at the end of season in colonies, particularly in control colonies receiving no traps, suggests the possibility of "trap sink" colonies having an overall effect on beetle populations within an apiary. However, two control colonies did not survive the season which may have affected this outcome. Additional research in years 2 and 3 of this project should address this question.
Publications
- Hood, W.M. 2009. Risk of feeding honey bee colonies pollen substitute patties in winter when small hive beetles, Aethina tumida Murray (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) are present. Science of Bee Culture Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 13-15.
|
Progress 01/01/08 to 12/31/08
Outputs
OUTPUTS: Year 2 of the small hive beetle IPM project was begun in April 2008 with establishment of eight test apiaries with four colonies each to receive various combinations of continuous trapping, soil nematodes, or hygienic queens for the next 12 months. Various colony measurements were taken and recorded quarterly. Eight other colonies were established in a separate apiary to receive no treatments but were used to test various small hive beetle sampling devices quarterly. The project to test for possible pesticide sub-lethal dose effects on honey bee health was initiated in April 2008. One apiary was established with 24 colonies. Each colony was randomly selected to receive one of three treatments: Apistan, Check Mite+, and no treatment as control. Colonies were visited on 2-4 week intervals to determine colony parameters: bee population, brood production, honey production, and colony foraging rates. Worker suvivability and longevity were tested. Proboscis extension response assay was conducted on bees from each colony to test the bees learning ability. Bee samples were collected throughout the state in spring 2008 for nosema analysis to be conducted at Kentucky State University. PARTICIPANTS: Collaborators: Keith Delaplane and Jennifer Berry at the University of Georgia,Clemson University graduate student and research assistant Barbara Tate assisted in this project. TARGET AUDIENCES: Beekeepers in the southern region of the USA. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.
Impacts
The small hive beetle IPM project is still ongoing and is scheduled to be terminated in May 2009. Conclusions of the project are pending till the end of the project. The first year of the sub-lethal pesticide dose effect project has been completed but no conclusions have been drawn from the first years' data, which is currently being analyzed. Nosema sample analysis is currently being conducted at Kentucky State University.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|
|