Progress 04/01/23 to 03/31/24
Outputs
Target Audience:Target audiences are undergraduate students at Central State University, individuals, and groups of beekeepers and communities in Ohio. Students at Central State University are racial and ethnic minorities who are African-Americans, most of which are socially, economically, or educationally disadvantaged. We have delivered science-based knowledge of honey bee grooming behavior to students, beekeepers, and stakeholders through formal or informal educational programs. We created a new class as formal classroom instruction at Central State University, created new laboratory instructions on the grooming assay; developed curriculum and innovative teaching methodologies for bee biology and beekeeping; created summer research internships for CSU students. We also held online webinars and workshops to talk about honey bee queen biology with CSU extension team. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?We have provided training for CSU undergraduate students Keiana Briscoe, and Jarius Burrows, on how to conduct scientific research. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We have presented our research to local beekeepers in nearby county including Warren county beekeeper association, and the American Bee Reserch Conference for the national audience of beekeepers in Jan 2023, because ABRC is a joint meeting with the American Beekeeping Federation. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We plan to do more q-PCRs onthe viral prevalence among honeybee and small carpenter bees, finish the data analysis ofthe pesticide residue in the pollen samples of two bee models from the year 2021-2023, data analysis of the diversity of pollen and flowering resources between two bee models; and submit a manuscript for publication. We are waiting for Ohio state university to provide access to the pollen barcoding data. We also plan to submit a new manuscript to report our findings on theoxidative stress levels of larvae and adults in both bee species.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Pollen diversity We identified 36 different pollens from 27 samples collected by A. mellifera whereas 35 different pollens from 22 samples collected by C. calcarata from three different landscapes in 2021. Pollen from Trifolium and Plantago was the most abundant in the pollen collected by both species (Fig. 1). Identification of pesticide residues in pollen We identified 6 (2 herbicides, 3 fungicides and 1 synergist), 6 (5 fungicides and 1 insecticide), and 12 (1 herbicide, 9 fungicides and 2 insecticides) different pesticide residues, respectively from the pollen collected by honeybees from roadsides, organic and conventional landscapes in 2021. In 2022, we identified 5 (2 herbicides and 3 fungicides), 7 (2 herbicides, 2 fungicides and 3 insecticides), and 12 (6 herbicides, 2 fungicides, 1 insecticide and 1 fertilizer) different pesticide residues, respectively from the pollen collected by honeybees from the same landscapes. In 2023, we identified 6 (4 herbicides, 1 fungicide and 1 insecticide), 7 (4 herbicides and 3 insecticides), and 7 (6 herbicides and 1 fertilizer) different pesticide residues, respectively from the pollen collected by honeybees from the same landscapes (Table 1). Herbicide and fungicide residues were the most common occurring pesticide residues, which occupied 43.4 and 42.5%, respectively in the all AIs detected (Fig. 2A). Overall, we detected 28 different pesticide residues in pollen collected by honeybees over 3 years. Five different pesticide residues including atrazine, metolachlor, fluoxastrobin, azoxystrobin and pyraclostrobin were detected from the all three different landscapes whereas pendimethalin, thifloxystrobin and tebufenozide were detected from both roadside and conventional landscapes and acetochlor, picoxystrobin and clothianidin were detected from both organic and conventional landscapes. Four, seven and six different pesticide residues were detected from roadside, organic and conventional landscape, respectively (Fig. 3A). Three different pesticide residues, atrazine, metolachlor and fluoxastrobin were detected in all three years and 4 different pesticide residues, azoxystrobin, pyraclostrobin, fluopyram and picoxystrobin were detected in both 2021 and 2022 whereas 2 different pesticide residues, acetochlor and clothianidin were detected in both 2022 and 2023. Seven, seven and five different pesticide residues were detected in 2021, 2022 and 2023, respectively (Fig.4A). In 2022 and 2023, we also analyzed pesticide residues from pollen collected by the carpenter bee. In 2022, we identified 1 fungicide, 4 (1 herbicide and 3 fungicides), and 6 (4 herbicides and 2 fungicides) different pesticide residues, respectively from the pollen collected by the carpenter bees from roadsides, organic and conventional landscapes whereas in 2023, we identified 7 (3 herbicides, 2 fungicides and 2 insecticides), 4 (3 herbicides and 1 insecticides), and 5 (3 herbicides, 1 fungicide and 1 insecticide) different pesticide residues, respectively from the pollen collected by carpenter bees the same landscapes (Table 1). Herbicide, fungicide and insecticide residues were 61.1, 16.7 and 22.2%, respectively in the pollen collected by the small carpenter bees (Fig. 2B). Overall, we detected 11 different pesticide residues in pollen collected by the small carpenter bees over 2 years. Three different pesticide residues including atrazine, metolachlor, and acetochlor were detected from the all three different landscapes whereas boscalid was detected from both roadside and conventional landscapes and pyraclostrobin was detected from both organic and conventional landscapes. Three, two and one different pesticide residues were detected from roadside, organic and conventional landscape, respectively (Fig. 3B). Five different pesticide residues, atrazine, metolachlor, acetochlor, pyraclostrobin and boscalid were detected in both 2022 and 2023 whereas three different pesticide residues, fluopyram, picoxystrobin and pendimethalin were detected in 2022 and three different pesticide residues, griseofulvin, chlorantraniliprole and clothianidin were detected in 2023 (Fig.4B). Quantification of pesticide residues in pollen Total amount of pesticide residues in pollen collected by both bee species was not significantly different among years and the different landscapes (Fig. 5). Hazardous quotient Hazardous quotient values were calculated based on the highest concentration of the pesticide residues in the pollen from the different landscapes for three years. All HQ values of the pesticide residues were <1 (Table 2). Diversity of pesticide residues in a pollen sample Multiple pesticide residues were detected from the pollen collected by honeybees. Six different pesticide residues including atrazine, diuron, fluoxastrobin. Azoxystrobin, pyraclostrobin and PBO were detected in a pollen sample form a roadside landscape and 5 different pesticide residues including atrazine, metolachlor, acetochlor, clothianidin and carbaryl were detected from a pollen sample from an organic farm whereas six different pesticide residues including atrazine, metolachlor, acetochlor, metrubuzin, pendimethalin and azoxystrobin (Fig. 6). Table 1. The number of different pesticide residues in pollen collected by honeybees and carpenter bees in the different landscapes Tables and Figs. Roadside Organic Conventional Roadside Organic Conventional 2021 Honey bee Herbicide 2 0 1 Fungicide 3 5 9 Insecticide 0 1 2 Synergist 1 0 0 Total 6 6 12 2022 Honey bee 2022 Carpenter bee Herbicide 2 2 6 0 1 4 Fungicide 3 2 2 1 3 2 Insecticide 0 3 1 0 0 0 Fertilizer 0 0 1 0 0 0 Total 5 7 12 1 4 6 2023 Honey bee 2023 Carpenter bee Herbicide 4 4 6 3 3 3 Fungicide 1 0 0 2 0 1 Insecticide 1 3 0 2 1 1 Fertilizer 0 0 1 0 0 0 Total 6 7 7 7 4 5 HMC: Highest measured concentration; MAIB: Maximum amount injected by bee; PHQ: Pollen hazardous quotient. Table 2. Acute oral risk assessment for honeybees Figure 1. Diversity of pollen collected by honeybees (A) and the small carpenter bees (B) in the different landscapes in 2021. A B
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2021
Citation:
Morphological changes in the mandibles accompany the defensive behavior of Indiana mite biting honey bees against Varroa destructor
J Smith, XL Cleare, K Given, H Li-Byarlay
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 243
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2023
Citation:
Keiana Briscoe and Hongmei Li-Byarlay, 2023. Oxidative Stress in Honey Bees and Small Carpenter Bees from Three Different Landscapes. American Bee Research, New Orleans, LA.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2023
Citation:
Keiana Briscoe and Hongmei Li-Byarlay, 2023. Oxidative Stress in Honey Bees and Small Carpenter Bees from Three Different Landscapes. International Conference on Pollinator Biology, Health, Policy, University Park, Pennsylvania.
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2023
Citation:
Keiana Briscoe and Hongmei Li-Byarlay, 2023. Oxidative stress and landscapes. Purdue University Entomology Ceremony for Alumni Award, West Lafayette, IN.
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2023
Citation:
https://sites.google.com/view/libyarlaybee/Home/landscape-ecology?authuser=0
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2023
Citation:
Jairus T. Burrows, Hongmei Li-Byarlay, 2023. Investigation of Viral Presence in Bees from Different Ecological Landscapes. Central State University Undergraduate Internship and Research Review Symposium.
|
Progress 04/01/22 to 03/31/23
Outputs
Target Audience:Target audiences are undergraduate students at Central State University, individuals, and groups of beekeepers and communities in Ohio. Students at Central State University are racial and ethnic minorities who are African-Americans, most of which are socially, economically, or educationally disadvantaged. We have delivered science-based knowledge of honey bee grooming behavior to students, beekeepers, and stakeholders through formal or informal educational programs. We created a new class as formal classroom instruction at Central State University, created new laboratory instructions on the grooming assay; developed curriculum and innovative teaching methodologies for bee biology and beekeeping; created summer research internships for CSU students. We also held online webinars and workshops to talk about honey bee queen biology with CSU extension team. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?We provided research training and leadership in science discovery training for 3 black students at Central State University. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?PI presented the recent research at bee research conference and beekeeper association meetings. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We plan to continue on the data analysis and writing several manuscripts to be published as peer reviewed papers.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
We used the honeybees and small carpenter bees to investigate i) the viral prevalence among colonies and nests, ii) the pesticide residue in the pollen samples of two bee models; iv) the diversity of pollen and flowering resources between two bee models; and v) oxidative stress levels of larvae and adults of both bee species.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2022
Citation:
Ward K and Li-Byarlay H, 2022. The Lifespan and Levels of Oxidative Stress in Foragers Between Feral and Managed Honey Bee Colonies. Journal of Insect Sciences 22: 1-6.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2021
Citation:
Smith J, Cleare X, Given K, Li-Byarlay H@, 2021. Morphological changes in the mandibles accompany the defensive behavior of Indiana mite biting honey bees against Varroa destructor, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.638308
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Submitted
Year Published:
2023
Citation:
Type of Submission
On-Demand (Virtual) Poster
Submission Status:
Complete
Submission ID:
1551981
Submission Title:
Oxidative Stress Levels in Two Pollinators from Three Different Landscapes
Author(s)
1.
Keiana Briscoe (she/her/hers)
(Role: Presenting Author)
2.
Sandra Rehan
(Role: Co-Author)
3.
Hongmei Li-Byarlay
(Role: Co-Author)
Submission Information
ESA Section:
Plant-Insect Ecosystems
Sub Topic(s)
Chemical Ecology
Pollinators and Pollination - Honey Bees and Native Pollinators
Social Insects
Abstract Text
It is well known that different environments can lead to stress in pollinators. Two
important pollinators in agriculture are honey bees (Apis mellifera) and small carpenter
bees (Ceratina calcarata). Different landscapes: conventional, organic, roadside utilize
different pesticides and management practices for pest control. The roadside
landscape is a control for minimum application of herbicides and management.
Oxidative stress (OX) is a state of imbalance between antioxidants and reactive
oxygen species, which are the byproducts of oxidative phosphorylation in the
mitochondria. It is unknown whether the differences in these landscapes affect the
oxidative stress of pollinators. Conventional farms offer the most exposure to
pesticides, which have been related to increased stress levels. We hypothesized that
honey bees and small carpenter bees (SCB) from conventional farms would
experience the highest levels of OX. Results from the Thio Barbituric Acid Reactive
Substances (TBARS) assay indicated that honey bees and SCB of organic,
conventional, and roadside landscapes experienced lowest to highest OX levels.
While this is not representative of the presumed outcome, previous research has
shown that feral bees have a tolerance to high stress levels. The same could be true
of honey bees and SCB from roadside landscapes, where the conditions imitate
natural habitats. Organic farms use naturally derived pesticides and moderate
management practices, likely contributing to their lower levels. Examining how these
pollinators are affected by different farm landscapes can reveal the benefits and
detriments of their corresponding management practices. This will hopefully lead to
streamlined practices that are healthier for pollinators.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Submitted
Year Published:
2023
Citation:
2023 Central State University Bee Research Symposium, Wilberforce, OH.
Title:
Investigation of Viral Presence in Bees from Different Landscapes
Author(s)
Jairus Burrows
Hongmei Li-Byarlay
Abstract Text
Honeybee decline has been an issue that beekeepers have faced around the globe. It has been
known that different biotic and abiotic factors have led to a decrease in honeybee health.
Factors include lack of necessary nutrition, pesticide use, pests, pathogens, temperature,
viruses, etc. All these factors play a role in the health of honeybees. In this study we aimed to
investigate the viral presence in honeybee colonies on organic farms, conventional farms, and
roadside landscapes by employing Direct zol RNA Miniprep Kit, cDNA Synthesis Kit and PCR
assays to identify viruses. The viruses that were focused on are Acute Bee Paralysis Virus (ABPV),
Black queen cell virus (BQCV), Deformed Wing Virus (DWV), Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV),
Lake Sini Virus 2 (LSV 2), and Chronic Bee Paralysis Virus (CBPV). It is expected for samples
collected from organic farms to have less viral presence than those collected from conventional
farms. This difference can be explained due to the composition of pesticides used on these
farms.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Submitted
Year Published:
2023
Citation:
Pesticide Reside in the Pollen
Authors:
Geremiah Rodgers
Hongmei Li-Byarlay
Abstract: In my different pesticides in pollinators experiments I was testing the pesticides in pollinators.
Studying , examining , and observing bee colonies to see the behaviors of bees. We took samples
from flowers, stems, and pollen in bee hives. For us to collect the samples we had used three
types of nine farms being conventional, organic, and roadside. We collected the samples at the
beginning of July. Collecting Samples from each farm we had approximately at least two
beehives at each farm while there being at least 120 stems as well. Now we used pollen
collectors in beehives to collecting the pollen. We used raspberry sticks to collect the carpenter
bees hives( scb ) in the stems we had to carefully cut through the sticks with a small box cutter
like knife taking pollen, larvae , and adult carpenter bees. We placed two feet long sticks in the
ground tied to a bamboo stick. Now at certain farms in varies but a lot of sticks where took by
different bugs such as ants and spiders as well. For the most part approximately 15% of sticks
where successful hives having larvae, pollen, and bees . But results did vary of how many where
took and strength of the hive. While majority of high numbers being conventional farms but the
highest number of larvae being at an Organic farm.
|
Progress 04/01/21 to 03/31/22
Outputs
Target Audience:Undergraduate students in CESTA, bee farmers, beekeepers, land users, Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?We have provided 5 African-American students with learning opportunities on pollinator health, microbiology, ecology, and chemistry. One student was able to work withOhio State University tobe trained on pollinator biology, with cutting-edge researchtools and topics. These research opportunities prepare CSU students to enter sustainable agriculture careers and gain growth opportunities for a future in sustainable agriculture and the agricultural economy. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?International and national conferences, seminar talks, student posters What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?continue on all 5 aims, and publish our results.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
i) the viral prevalence among colonies and nests, 1600 samples have been collected from the field season of 2022, ii) produce 3D-printed bee virus models for education on bee disease, bee viruses models were printed for deformed wing virus, black queen cell virus, iii) the pesticide residue in the pollen samples of two bee models; below is the results of GC/MS we have received, Organic farm 1 Dieldrin 0.036 ppm Conven farm 1 Atrazine 0.03 ppm Conven farm 1 Trifloxystrobin 0.021 ppm Conven farm 1 Azoxystrobin 0.018 ppm Roadside 1 Atrazine 0.016 ppm Roadside 2 Atrazine 0.0056 ppm Organic farm 1 Atrazine 0.0055 ppm Conven farm 1 Propiconazole 0.0053 ppm Conven farm2 Atrazine 0.0032 ppm and LC/MS results we have received: Conven farm 1 Pyraclostrobin 0.024 ppm Conven farm 1 Tetraconazole 0.013 ppm Conven farm 2 Pyraclostrobin 0.01 ppm Conven farm 1 Fluoxastrobin 0.0061 ppm Organic farm 1 Pyraclostrobin 0.0048 ppm Conven farm 2 Fluopyram 0.0046 ppm Organic farm 1 Fluoxastrobin 0.0046 ppm iv) the diversity of pollen and flowering resources between two bee models, we have sequenced pollen samples of 2021, and in the middle of data analysis, v) oxidative stress levels of larvae, we have collected 1000 samples of larvae from both bee species and will start on this experiment this fall. We have trained 5 students on bee biology, stress, pollinator health, disease ecology, and landscape ecology.
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2022
Citation:
Hongmei Li-Byarlay, Research Seminar Presentation at Department of Entomology, Ohio State University
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2022
Citation:
Jayla Marvin, Sandra Rehan, Hongmei Li-Byarlay, 2022, Viral Prevalence of Small Carpenter Bees among Different Farm Landscapes, Poster at International Congress of International Union for Studies of Social Insects (IUSSI)
|