(1) Background: Bees are the primary animal pollinators in most ecosystems, and honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) are important providers of pollination ecosystem services and products. Climate change is one of the major threats for honey bees. (2) Objectives and methods: Qualitative research using focus group discussions was carried out in northwestern Italy, to investigate the beekeepers’ perceptions of climate change effects, the relevant management adaptations, and the main issues affecting the sector. (3) Results: Beekeepers reported several consequences related to severe weather events (weakening or loss of colonies; scarcity of nectar, pollen, and honeydew; decrease or lack of honey and other bee products; greater infestation by varroa; decline in pollination), making it necessary to provide supplemental sugar feeding, intensive transhumance, more effective and sustainable techniques for varroa control, and increased production of nuclei. A strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis was completed, displaying the factors able to strengthen or weaken the resilience of the beekeeping sector to climate change. (4) Conclusions: Thanks to their strong motivation and collaborative attitude, beekeepers succeed in adopting farm and bee hive adaptation strategies that are able to limit the climatic adverse effects. However, these findings highlight how the institutional and financial support for the beekeeping sector should be strengthened and better targeted.

(1) Background: Pammene fasciana (L.), Cydia fagiglandana (Zeller), and C. splendana (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) are considered key moth pests of chestnut in Europe. (2) Methods: Investigations were performed in 2018–2019 in northern Italy. Sticky traps and commercially available pheromones were used for monitoring; moreover, two experimental pheromone blends were tested. All specimens were identified according to male genitalia and molecular analyses. Newly formed chestnut husks and fruits were randomly collected to evaluate the presence of larvae and/or feeding damage, by comparing it to trap catches. (3) Results: P. fasciana was present in all the sites, whereas Cydia species were recorded in three sites of six, with differences in abundance related to pheromone blends studied. Several non-target species, such as Oegoconia novimundi (Busck) and Cydia ilipulana (Walsingham), were present. Data about the seasonal flight activity are provided. (4) Conclusions: This research contributes to ascertaining the presence and abundance of tortrix moths in Italian chestnut groves, and the presence of non-target species highlights the risk of overestimating catches. Fruit damage recorded did not always reflect catches made by pheromone traps, suggesting that monitoring may underestimate the real size of moths’ populations. All of the data acquired are important for planning specific control measures.

(1) Background: Pheromone-based devices are successfully used to control insect pests in agriculture. (2) Methods: Investigations were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of mating disruption (MD) to control the chestnut tortrix moths, Cydia fagiglandana and Cydia splendana. Surveys were performed in northern Italy in 2019–2020. MD was carried out using the pheromone dispenser Ecodian® CT. The effectiveness of MD was assessed by recording male adult catches in pheromone-baited sticky traps and larvae in chestnut fruits, comparing MD and control plots. (3) Results: The total number of trapped males was significantly lower in MD plots than in control ones, for all sites and years. Trap catch suppression in MD plots averaged 89.5% and 93.8% for C. fagiglandana and 57.4% and 81% for C. splendana in 2019 and 2020, respectively. The larval infestation rate in fruits did not vary between plots except for one site where a reduction of about 71% in the MD plot was recorded in 2019. (4) Conclusions: Low catches in MD plots turned out to be a good measure of the effectiveness of communication disruption, but no satisfactory data have been obtained regarding fruit infestation, highlighting how the reduction of male catches cannot always be considered as a reliable indicator of successful control. Specific investigations about background population density, dispersal and mating/oviposition behavior are thus essential for a viable management strategy.