Necropsy of a Hive

Caron, Dewey M.

doi:10.1002/9781119583417.ch27

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on this study’s results, beekeepers reusing deadout combs and resources may be at risk of harming their colonies by exposing them to additional pesticides, increasing their risk of queen events 30 , and limiting their ability to produce functional queens. Beekeepers should refrain from reusing deadout resources if pesticide-associated colony failure is suspected or until a necropsy has been conducted on the colony 76 . Resources from colonies deemed pesticide kills should be disposed of and not recycled into active colonies 77 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Re-using food resources from failed honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies and their impact on colony queen rearing capacity

Tokach,

Smart,

Wu-Smart

2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For over a decade, beekeepers have experienced high losses of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies due to a variety of stressors including pesticide exposure. Some of these chemical stressors may residually remain in the colony comb and food resources (pollen and nectar) of failed colonies and be later re-used by beekeepers when splitting and building back new colonies. The practice of re-using comb from previously perished colonies (termed “deadout”) is common in beekeeping practice, but its role in affecting colony health is not well understood. Here, we evaluate the impact of reused, pesticide-contaminated “deadout” combs on colony function during the process of replacing a queen bee. Queenless microcolonies were established to monitor queen rearing capacity in two treatment groups: (1) colonies given frames containing food resources from deadout colonies in control “clean” apiaries and, (2) colonies given frames containing “contaminated” resources from deadout colonies originating from apiaries experiencing chronic pesticide exposure from widespread systemic pesticide pollution (including neonicotinoid insecticides: clothianidin and thiamethoxam). Results indicate that colonies given pesticide-contaminated resources produced fewer queen cells per colony and had a lower proportion of colonies successfully raising a functional, diploid egg-laying queen. This research highlights the deleterious effects of re-using deadout combs from colonies previously lost due to pesticide contamination.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Re-using food resources from failed honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies and their impact on colony queen rearing capacity

Tokach,

Smart,

Wu-Smart

2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1); other publications have provided more in-depth information on hive husbandry and pathogen assessment. 19,133,140 Samples for analytical chemistry should be ≥ 50 g, and include bees collected alive (~500 bees), pollen (~50 cells), bee bread, honey (50 cells scraped out with a metal or wooden spatula), and wax from empty cells. 140 Given that many xenobiotics are ubiquitous in colonies, it is best to collect these samples from unaffected as well as affected hives for comparison.…”

Section: Sample Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of the veterinary diagnostic toxicologist in apiary health

Bischoff,

Moiseff

2023

J VET Diagn Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Susceptibility of individuals and groups to toxicants depends on complex interactions involving the host, environment, and other exposures. Apiary diagnostic investigation and honey bee health are truly population medicine: the colony is the patient. Here we provide basic information on the application of toxicology to the testing of domestic honey bees, and, in light of recent research, expand on some of the challenges of interpreting analytical chemistry findings as they pertain to hive health. The hive is an efficiently organized system of wax cells used to store brood, honey, and bee bread, and is protected by the bee-procured antimicrobial compound propolis. Toxicants can affect individual workers outside or inside the hive, with disease processes that range from acute to chronic and subclinical to lethal. Toxicants can impact brood and contaminate honey, bee bread, and structural wax. We provide an overview of important natural and synthetic toxicants to which honey bees are exposed; behavioral, husbandry, and external environmental factors influencing exposure; short- and long-term impacts of toxicant exposure on individual bee and colony health; and the convergent impacts of stress, nutrition, infectious disease, and toxicant exposures on colony health. Current and potential future toxicology testing options are included. Common contaminants in apiary products consumed or used by humans (honey, wax, pollen), their sources, and the potential need for product testing are also noted.

show abstract

“…While beehives have been shown to be an effective elephant deterrent, Cook et al (2018) raised the point that supplementary feeding (a mixture of sugar water and nectar/pollen substitute) must be provided in the dry seasons or during drought periods to maintain beehive occupation and activity when key resources (e.g., water, nectar, and pollen) are scarce (Caron, 2021). Supplementary feeding mitigates the physiological constraints, such as temperature extremes and food/water scarcity, that reduce hive activity by increasing the risk of desiccation, starvation, and heat stress for bees (Abou‐Shaara et al, 2017; Tan et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interspecific competition between ants and African honeybees (Apis mellifera scutellata) may undermine the effectiveness of elephant beehive–deterrents in Africa

Thornley,

Cook,

Spencer

et al. 2023

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beehive deterrents are commonly used to mitigate human–elephant conflict and protect woody vegetation. To ensure hive activity, reduce abscondment risks, and maintain deterrent effectiveness, resident bee colonies require supplementary feeding during periods of low resource availability. However, our study found that ants frequently consume the supplementary feed in open feeders intended for bees. Anoplolepis custodiens was the most numerically dominant species that excluded bees from the feeders, followed by Camponotus and Crematogaster spp. With higher ant abundance, the predicted probability of zero bees being present at feeders increased up to 82%. This competition may undermine the efficacy of beehive deterrents as a conflict mitigation tool. We developed a simple and effective ant exclusion method that raised the overall predicted probability of bees' presence at supplementary feeding stations from 32% to 68%. Our findings suggest that innovative solutions to exclude ants from supplementary feed may improve the implementation and success of this conflict mitigation method across Africa.

show abstract

Necropsy of a Hive

Cited by 3 publications

References 8 publications

Re-using food resources from failed honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies and their impact on colony queen rearing capacity

Re-using food resources from failed honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies and their impact on colony queen rearing capacity

The role of the veterinary diagnostic toxicologist in apiary health

Interspecific competition between ants and African honeybees (Apis mellifera scutellata) may undermine the effectiveness of elephant beehive–deterrents in Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About