A national survey of managed honey bee 2013–2014 annual colony losses in the USA

Lee, Kathleen V.; Steinhauer, Nathalie; Rennich, Karen; Wilson, Michael E.; Tarpy, David R.; Caron, Dewey M.; Rose, Robyn; Delaplane, Keith S.; Baylis, Kathy; Lengerich, Eugene J.; Pettis, Jeff; Skinner, John; Wilkes, James; Sagili, Ramesh; vanEngelsdorp, Dennis

doi:10.1007/s13592-015-0356-z

Cited by 241 publications

(198 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

175

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar values of colony losses were reported in other parts of the world. For example, in the USA, vanEngelsdorp et al (2008 reported colony losses for fall/winter -2008to be 31 % and 36 %, respectively (vanEngelsdorp et al 2008 Lee et al (2015) reported colony losses in the USA to be 19.8 % during the summer, 23.7 % during the winter, and 34.1 % for the whole year. Average losses were 15.1 % during the summer, 44.8 % during the winter, and 51.1 % for the whole year.…”

Section: Final Remarks and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Honeybee health in South America

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Final Remarks and Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Honeybee health in South America

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Honey bees are a non-target organism that frequently encounters pesticides especially when colonies are located in and around agroecosystems (Mullin et al 2010). Exposure to sublethal levels of pesticides might be contributing to colony losses (Dively et al 2015) that can average 30 % or more each year (Lee et al 2015b). Preventing colony losses from encounters with pesticides requires more judicious and careful use of these chemicals, and a greater understanding of the harm they might pose.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Honey bee gut microbial communities are robust to the fungicide Pristine® consumed in pollen

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Honey bees that consume pollen with sublethal levels of the fungicide Pristine® can have reduced pollen digestion, lower ATP synthesis, and in many ways resemble malnourished bees. Reduced nutrient acquisition in bees exposed to Pristine® might be due to the effects of this fungicide on the composition of gut microbial communities. Two experiments were conducted in two separate years to test for the effects of Pristine® on the composition and diversity of bacteria in nurse bee midguts. In the low-dose experiment, bees fed the fungicide had a reduced relative abundance of Gilliamella sp. and the number of bacterial taxa within each individual bee was lower. In the high-dose experiment, the fungicide treatment led to increased relative abundance of Lactobacillus sp. Firm 4 and Firm 5 relative to the control. Presence of the fungicide did not impact the distribution of bacteria among individuals on either the low-or high-dose experiments. Considerable differences in gut microbial communities existed between the two experiments perhaps due to environmental and dietary factors. The effects of Pristine® on the gut microbiota were inconsistent between experiments indicating that exposure rate and environmental conditions can influence the effects of this fungicide on gut microbial communities.respiration / nutrition / boscalid / pyraclostrobin / microbiome

show abstract

“…Reliance on insects for pollination services is growing even as populations of native and managed pollinators exhibit concurrent declines (4,5). For example, in 2013−2014, total US honey bee colony losses were 34%, but beekeepers on average lost 51% of their colonies (6). Declines in managed honey bees and native bees put significant pressure on global food supplies, plant-pollinator networks, agricultural producers, and ecosystem function (7,8).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Land-use change reduces habitat suitability for supporting managed honey bee colonies in the Northern Great Plains

Otto

Roth

Carlson

et al. 2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

170

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human reliance on insect pollination services continues to increase even as pollinator populations exhibit global declines. Increased commodity crop prices and federal subsidies for biofuel crops, such as corn and soybeans, have contributed to rapid land-use change in the US Northern Great Plains (NGP), changes that may jeopardize habitat for honey bees in a part of the country that supports >40% of the US colony stock. We investigated changes in biofuel crop production and grassland land covers surrounding ∼18,000 registered commercial apiaries in North and South Dakota from 2006 to 2014. We then developed habitat selection models to identify remotely sensed land-cover and land-use features that influence apiary site selection by Dakota beekeepers. Our study demonstrates a continual increase in biofuel crops, totaling 1.2 Mha, around registered apiary locations in North and South Dakota. Such crops were avoided by commercial beekeepers when selecting apiary sites in this region. Furthermore, our analysis reveals how grasslands that beekeepers target when selecting commercial apiary locations are becoming less common in eastern North and South Dakota, changes that may have lasting impact on pollinator conservation efforts. Our study highlights how land-use change in the NGP is altering the landscape in ways that are seemingly less conducive to beekeeping. Our models can be used to guide future conservation efforts highlighted in the US national pollinator health strategy by identifying areas that support high densities of commercial apiaries and that have exhibited significant land-use changes.apiary selection models | Apis mellifera | land use | land-cover trends | pollinators A nimal pollination service is critical for sustaining ecosystem health and human well-being (1, 2). In many terrestrial systems, plant-pollinator interactions provide the basic framework for all other trophic interactions. Globally, about one-third of crop production depends on animal pollination (3). US agricultural production relies heavily on managed and native insects for pollination services, with an estimated economic value of $15 billion annually (2). Reliance on insects for pollination services is growing even as populations of native and managed pollinators exhibit concurrent declines (4, 5). For example, in 2013−2014, total US honey bee colony losses were 34%, but beekeepers on average lost 51% of their colonies (6). Declines in managed honey bees and native bees put significant pressure on global food supplies, plant-pollinator networks, agricultural producers, and ecosystem function (7,8).Proposed reasons for the declines include parasites, diseases, agro-chemical use, forage availability, and land-use change (9, 10). Much of the research investigating anthropogenic disturbance effects on managed and native pollinators focuses on pesticides and less so on habitat fragmentation, land-use, and loss of forage. Although a paucity of data exists for most parts of the world, recent research indicates that land use influences honey ...

show abstract

A national survey of managed honey bee 2013–2014 annual colony losses in the USA

Cited by 241 publications

References 40 publications

Honeybee health in South America

Honeybee health in South America

Honey bee gut microbial communities are robust to the fungicide Pristine® consumed in pollen

Land-use change reduces habitat suitability for supporting managed honey bee colonies in the Northern Great Plains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About