Perspectives on hygienic behavior in Apis mellifera and other social insects

Spivak, Marla; Danka, Robert G.

doi:10.1007/s13592-020-00784-z

Cited by 60 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 97 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the results of the present study show that the AWD bees removed significantly less infested brood cells in 2018 compared to 2015. Since non-removed pupae in VSH colonies are able to suppress mite reproduction [ 52 ] and worker and drone pupae of AWD bees may interfere with mite oogenesis ([ 39 ]; our data), less costly brood resistance traits might have been favored [ 53 , 54 ]. In honey bee populations in which the removal of infested brood appears to be a major trait of resistance, its expression is known to be dependent on seasonal conditions and the availability of environmental resources (i.e., nectar) [ 38 , 55 ], as well as the proportion of infested brood cells [ 56 ], which results in the need to perform multiple measurements to reliably assess VSH expression [ 57 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Host-Parasite Co-Evolution in Real-Time: Changes in Honey Bee Resistance Mechanisms and Mite Reproductive Strategies

Moro

Blacquière

Panziera

et al. 2021

Insects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Co-evolution is a major driving force shaping the outcome of host-parasite interactions over time. After host shifts, the lack of co-evolution can have a drastic impact on novel host populations. Nevertheless, it is known that Western honey bee (Apismellifera) populations can cope with host-shifted ectoparasitic mites (Varroa destructor) by means of natural selection. However, adaptive phenotypic traits of the parasites and temporal variations in host resistance behavior are poorly understood. Here, we show that mites made adaptive shifts in reproductive strategy when associated with resistant hosts and that host resistance traits can change over time. In a fully-crossed field experiment, worker brood cells of local adapted and non-adapted (control) A.mellifera host colonies were infested with mites originating from both types of host colonies. Then, mite reproduction as well as recapping of cells and removal of infested brood (i.e., Varroa Sensitive Hygiene, VSH) by host workers were investigated and compared to data from the same groups of host colonies three years earlier. The data suggest adaptive shifts in mite reproductive strategies, because mites from adapted hosts have higher probabilities of reproduction, but lower fecundity, when infesting their associated hosts than mites in treated colonies. The results confirm that adapted hosts can reduce mite reproductive success. However, neither recapping of cells nor VSH were significantly expressed, even though the latter was significantly expressed in this adapted population three years earlier. This suggests temporal variation in the expression of adaptive host traits. It also appears as if mechanisms not investigated here were responsible for the reduced mite reproduction in the adapted hosts. In conclusion, a holistic view including mite adaptations and studies of the same parasite/host populations over time appears overdue to finally understand the mechanisms enabling survival of V.destructor-infested honey bee host colonies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Host-Parasite Co-Evolution in Real-Time: Changes in Honey Bee Resistance Mechanisms and Mite Reproductive Strategies

Moro

Blacquière

Panziera

et al. 2021

Insects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results suggest that selection of hygienic behaviour towards dead brood may not be adapted to select for resistance against V. destructor [ 190 ] (see SM3-4). It is currently recommended that this trait can be used to pre-select colonies, but that more V. destructor -specific traits also need to be applied to ascertain the resistance potential of a given stock [ 191 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances and perspectives in selecting resistance traits against the parasitic mite Varroa destructor in honey bees

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In spite of the implementation of control strategies in honey bee (Apis mellifera) keeping, the invasive parasitic mite Varroa destructor remains one of the main causes of colony losses in numerous countries. Therefore, this parasite represents a serious threat to beekeeping and agro-ecosystems that benefit from the pollination services provided by honey bees. To maintain their stocks, beekeepers have to treat their colonies with acaricides every year. Selecting lineages that are resistant to infestations is deemed to be a more sustainable approach. Review Over the last three decades, numerous selection programs have been initiated to improve the host–parasite relationship and to support honey bee survival in the presence of the parasite without the need for acaricide treatments. Although resistance traits have been included in the selection strategy of honey bees, it has not been possible to globally solve the V. destructor problem. In this study, we review the literature on the reasons that have potentially limited the success of such selection programs. We compile the available information to assess the relevance of selected traits and the potential environmental effects that distort trait expression and colony survival. Limitations to the implementation of these traits in the field are also discussed. Conclusions Improving our knowledge of the mechanisms underlying resistance to V. destructor to increase trait relevance, optimizing selection programs to reduce environmental effects, and communicating selection outcomes are all crucial to efforts aiming at establishing a balanced relationship between the invasive parasite and its new host.

show abstract

“…For instance, hygienic behaviour towards dead brood is assessed with a pin test, which is an affordable test routinely performed by many European beekeepers. However, the correlation of the results of this test with V. destructor infestation levels is still under discussion [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. On the other hand, most currently applied resistance traits are both time consuming and costly to assess [ 8 ]: for instance, the evaluation of suppressed mite reproduction requires the dissection of several hundred brood cells under a stereomicroscope [ 12 ], which can only be processed by a limited number of highly qualified beekeepers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Two Honey Bee Traits for Improving Resistance Against Varroa destructor: Development and Genetic Evaluation

Guichard

Droz

Brascamp

et al. 2021

Insects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the development of novel selection traits in honey bees, applicability under field conditions is crucial. We thus evaluated two novel traits intended to provide resistance against the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor and to allow for their straightforward implementation in honey bee selection. These traits are new field estimates of already-described colony traits: brood recapping rate (‘Recapping’) and solidness (‘Solidness’). ‘Recapping’ refers to a specific worker characteristic wherein they reseal a capped and partly opened cell containing a pupa, whilst ‘Solidness’ assesses the percentage of capped brood in a predefined area. According to the literature and beekeepers’ experiences, a higher recapping rate and higher solidness could be related to resistance to V. destructor. During a four-year field trial in Switzerland, the two resistance traits were assessed in a total of 121 colonies of Apis mellifera mellifera. We estimated the repeatability and the heritability of the two traits and determined their phenotypic correlations with commonly applied selection traits, including other putative resistance traits. Both traits showed low repeatability between different measurements within each year. ‘Recapping’ had a low heritability (h2 = 0.04 to 0.05, depending on the selected model) and a negative phenotypic correlation to non-removal of pin-killed brood (r = −0.23). The heritability of ‘Solidness’ was moderate (h2 = 0.24 to 0.25) and did not significantly correlate with resistance traits. The two traits did not show an association with V. destructor infestation levels. Further research is needed to confirm the results, as only a small number of colonies was evaluated.

show abstract

Perspectives on hygienic behavior in Apis mellifera and other social insects

Cited by 60 publications

References 97 publications

Host-Parasite Co-Evolution in Real-Time: Changes in Honey Bee Resistance Mechanisms and Mite Reproductive Strategies

Host-Parasite Co-Evolution in Real-Time: Changes in Honey Bee Resistance Mechanisms and Mite Reproductive Strategies

Advances and perspectives in selecting resistance traits against the parasitic mite Varroa destructor in honey bees

Exploring Two Honey Bee Traits for Improving Resistance Against Varroa destructor: Development and Genetic Evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About