The longevity and reproductive success of newly emerged, unfed adult Aethina tumida Murray assigned different diets (control = unfed; honey-pollen; honey; pollen; empty brood comb; bee brood; fresh Kei apples; and rotten Kei apples) were determined. Longevity in honey-fed small hive beetle adults (average maximum: 167 d) was significantly higher than on other diets. Small hive beetles fed empty brood comb lived significantly longer (average maximum: 49.8 d) than unfed beetles (average maximum: 9.6 d). Small hive beetle offspring were produced on honey-pollen, pollen, bee brood, fresh Kei apples, and rotten Kei apples but not on honey alone, empty brood comb, or in control treatments. The highest reproductive success occurred in pollen fed adults (1773.8 +/- 294.4 larvae per three mating pairs of adults). The data also show that A. tumida can reproduce on fruits alone, indicating that they are facultative parasites. The pupation success and sex ratio of small hive beetle offspring were also analyzed. Larvae fed pollen, honey-pollen, or brood had significantly higher pupation success rates of 0.64, 0.73, and 0.65 respectively than on the other diets. Sex ratios of emerging adults fed diets of pollen or brood as larvae were significantly skewed toward females. Because small hive beetle longevity and overall reproductive success was highest on foodstuffs located in honey bee colonies, A. tumida are efficient at causing large-scale damage to colonies of honey bees resulting in economic injury for the beekeeper. Practical considerations for the control of A. tumida are briefly discussed.

-Cape honeybee workers show important pre-adaptations for social parasitism and can cause the dwindling colony syndrome of host colonies. Parasitic workers may drift or actively disperse into host colonies. They may also join absconding swarms, which can merge with host colonies. After transmission, parasitic workers have to establish themselves in the host, which is probably promoted by their spatial distribution, their readiness to gain trophallactic dominance and their ability to survive worker-worker aggression. Established parasitic workers have to evade egg removal by other workers in host colonies. The resulting offspring is preferentially fed, can be expected to be highly virulent and may show different behaviour in the course of infestation. It is unknown why and how the host queen is lost. High numbers of parasitic workers are reared until the host colony dies or absconds. This offspring can infest new host colonies, thereby completing the social parasitic life cycle.Apis mellifera capensis / Apis mellifera scutellata / honeybee / social parasitism / worker reproduction

In many species of social Hymenoptera, unmated workers can lay eggs that will produce males by parthenogenesis. Nevertheless, in queenright honey bee colonies (Apis mellifera), worker reproduction is low. One possible mechanism for this difference is worker policing, the removal of worker-laid eggs by other workers. This behavior can evolve in species in which queens are multiply mated, where workers are more closely related to the sons of their mother than those of their sisters. Another possible mechanism of the low level of worker reproduction is worker-laid eggs being less viable than queen-laid eggs. We show that this difference in quality is the case for honey bees. W orker reproduction is low in honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies with a queen (1, 2), because a suite of pheromones derived from the queen and the brood inhibits ovarian development in workers (3). Moreover, workers with developed ovaries are attacked by other workers (4). Nevertheless, a considerable proportion (Ϸ4%) of workers can have functional ovaries (5) and can lay a substantial number (7%) of male eggs (6). Therefore, a crucial factor restricting successful worker reproduction in honey bees seems to be the removal of workerlaid eggs by other workers (worker policing) (7). Worker policing has been the focus of many theoretical and empirical studies in a wide range of species of social Hymenoptera (7-12). This behavior is considered adaptive in species in which queens mate multiply, causing workers to be on average more closely related to the son's of the queen than with sons of other workers (8,9).It has been postulated that queen honey bees mark their eggs with a queen-specific pheromonal label, providing the proximate cue for worker discrimination between queen-laid and workerlaid eggs (13). However, neither the source nor chemical nature of this postulated label has yet been identified (14-16). In contrast, the removal of diseased and dead brood by workers (hygienic behavior) is more fully understood (17). Workers remove dead brood within a few hours of death, an important factor in resisting disease (18). If there is a high mortality rate in worker-laid eggs, this alone would plausibly explain the removal of worker-laid eggs.The question of a difference in the viability of queen-laid and worker-laid male eggs has been addressed in an in vitro incubation experiment (7) and yielded no significant differences between the two types of eggs. However, the egg viability was extremely, and probably abnormally, low for both types of eggs because of the in vitro experimental conditions in this study (7). This low viability may have masked normal differences in egg viability. We therefore examined the relative viability of queenlaid and worker-laid male eggs in vivo in natural brood nests of honey bee colonies. We also compared our viability data with egg removal data for queen-laid and worker-laid male eggs in the same colonies. The data show a striking correspondence between egg viability and egg removal, suggesting that hygienic behavior m...

-This study identifies differences in the effects of small hive beetles on flight activity and nests of European-derived honey bees (Apis mellifera) in the United States and Cape honey bees (Apis mellifera capensis) in South Africa. Treatments consisted of control colonies (< 5 beetles/colony) and experimental colonies receiving beetles (treatment). Absconding day did not differ significantly between treatment or bee race but absconding was greater between the two treatments in European colonies than in Cape ones. Cape bees used significantly more propolis than European bees. Honey stores were significantly greater in Cape honey bee colonies than in European ones. Bee weight did not differ significantly between treatments or bee race. Treatment did not significantly affect bee populations, brood area, or average flight activity in Cape colonies but it did significantly lower all of these in European colonies. The effects of treatment in European colonies are symptomatic of absconding preparation. Treatment significantly lowered the amount of pollen stores in Cape colonies, but this effect was not found in European colonies. The number of beetles in control colonies was significantly higher in European colonies than Cape ones while the percentage of beetles remaining in non-absconding treated colonies was higher in Cape colonies than European ones. These data indicate that adult small hive beetles are sufficient to cause significant harmful effects on colonies of European, but not Cape, honey bees.Aethina tumida / Apis mellifera / Apis mellifera capensis / flight activity / honey bee nests