Prevalence and distribution of honey bee pests and pathogens in Uruguay

Anido, Matilde; Branchiccela, Belén; Castelli, Loreley; Harriet, Jorge; Campá, Juan; Zunino, Pablo; Antúnez, Karina

doi:10.1080/00218839.2016.1175731

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The causes of colony losses self-identified by beekeepers in this study were (1) queen failure, (2) disease and parasites, and (3) pesticides. Most beekeepers reported the presence of V. destructor in the colonies (96.8%), confirming a previous study that found a high prevalence (75.7%) and wide distribution of V. destructor nationally (Anido et al 2016). Half of responding beekeepers reported clinical signs of Nosema spp.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Many important honey bee parasites and pathogens are present and widely distributed in Uruguay including Varroa destructor , Nosema ceranae , and many RNA viruses (ABPV, BQCV, CBPV, DWV, and SBV) (Anido et al 2016;Antunez et al 2005Antunez et al , 2006Antunez et al , 2015Invernizzi et al 2009). Other bee pathogens, such as Paenibacillus larvae , the causative agent of American foulbrood, Melissococcus pluton , the causative agent of European foulbrood, and Ascosphaera apis , the causative agent of Chalkbrood disease, are also present.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Honeybee colony losses in Uruguay during 2013–2014

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High rates of honey bee colony losses have been reported worldwide; however, data about colony loss rates in South America is scarce. This study quantified colony losses experienced in Uruguay during the 2013-2014 season and identifies the self-diagnosed causes for these losses. An estimated 2.6% of all Uruguayan beekeepers, who collectively managed 5% of the estimated 550,000 colonies in the country, responded to this survey. We found that total summer and winter losses were similar (summer 19.0% (95% CI 13.26-24.77%), winter 20.2% (95% CI 14.98-25.39)), as were the average operational losses (summer 19.8% (95% CI 14.01-25.52), winter 18.3% (95% CI 13.15-23.56%)). The total annual loss was 28.5% (95% CI 22.42-34.51%), with each beekeeper losing, on average, 28.6% (95% CI 22.52-34.61%) of the colonies in their operation. Loss rates were similar across operations of different sizes. Queen failure, diseases and parasites, and pesticides were the leading self-reported and selfdiagnosed causes of colony losses. This study is the first to document honey bee colony losses in Uruguay, establishing a baseline for future long-term monitoring.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Honeybee colony losses in Uruguay during 2013–2014

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Real-time PCR reactions were performed as described by Anido et al [ 47 ] using a Rotor Gene 6000 (Corbett Research-Qiagen). The reaction mixture consisted of 1× QuantiTec SYBR Green PCR Master Mix, 0.5 µM of each primer (one pair of primers for each reaction), RNA-free water, and 5 µL cDNA in a final volume of 50 µL.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unraveling Honey Bee–Varroa destructor Interaction: Multiple Factors Involved in Differential Resistance between Two Uruguayan Populations

Mendoza

Tomasco

Antúnez

et al. 2020

Veterinary Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ectoparasite Varroa destructor is the greatest biotic threat of honey bees Apis mellifera in vast regions of the world. Recently, the study of natural mite-resistant populations has gained much interest to understand the action of natural selection on the mechanisms that limit the mite population. In this study, the components of the A. mellifera–V. destructor relationship were thoroughly examined and compared in resistant and susceptible honey bee populations from two regions of Uruguay. Mite-resistant honey bees have greater behavioral resistance (hygienic and grooming behaviors) than susceptible honey bees. At the end of the summer, resistant honey bees had fewer mites and a lower deformed wing virus (DWV) viral load than susceptible honey bees. DWV variant A was the only detected variant in honey bees and mites. Molecular analysis by Short Tandem Repeat showed that resistant honey bees were Africanized (A. m. scutellata hybrids), whereas susceptible honey bees were closer to European subspecies. Furthermore, significant genetic differentiation was also found between the mite populations. The obtained results show that the natural resistance of honey bees to V. destructor in Uruguay depends on several factors and that the genetic variants of both organisms can play a relevant role.

show abstract

“…Acute Bee Paralysis Virus infection, which can cause paralysis and death in bees, is common in many countries around the world. Altough Anido et al [48] found ABPV infection in their study, ABPV was not found in any materials in Chen et al [49] study. In this sudy, ABPV was not found in any samples.…”

Section: Bayrakal Eki̇ci̇ Akkaya Sezgi̇n Dümenmentioning

confidence: 79%

Kuzey Marmara Bölgesindeki Bal ve Arılardaki Patojenlerin Tespiti ve Moleküler İncelenmesi

Bayrakal¹,

Ekici²,

Akkaya³

et al. 2020

Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Honey, which has many positive health effects, is fondly consumed in our country and in the world. Although honey is considered to be a Öz Sağlık açısından birçok olumlu etkiye sahip bal ülkemizde ve dünyada severek tüketilmektedir. Antimikrobiyal ve bakteriyostatik etkileri sebebiyle bal mikroorganizma içermeyen bir gıda olarak düşünülmesine rağmen yapılan çalışmalar bunun aksini ispatlamaktadır. Primer kontaminasyonun yanısıra, arıcılık ve bal üretiminde kullanılan araç, gereçler ve personel potansiyel bir sekonder kontaminasyon kaynağıdır. Ayrıca çapraz kontaminasyonlar sonucunda da birçok mikroorganizmanın taşıyıcılığını yapabilen bal halk sağlığını tehdit edebilme potansiyeline sahip önemli gıdalar arasında yer almaktadır. Bu nedenle ballarda bulunabilecek patojenlerin taranmasının literatüre katkı sağlayacağı ve benzer çalışmalara temel oluşturacağı düşünülmüştür. Coğrafi konumu, iklim ve bitki örtüsü çeşitliliği sebebiyle Türkiye bal üretiminde üst sıralarda yer almaktadır. Çalışmamızda, Kuzey Marmara bölgemizde bulunan Kırklareli ilimizdeki 900 adet örneği incelenerek tüketici, arı, larva, koloni ve bal kalitesi açısından önem arz eden parazitolojik, bakteriyel, fungal ve viral parametrelerin varlığının araştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Hem bal üretiminde önemli iller arasında sayılması hem de sanayi bölgesinde yer alan bir sınır ilimiz olması sebebiyle araştırma alanı olarak Kırklareli bölgesi seçilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler doğrultusunda birçok parametrede pozitif sonuçlar bulunmuş ve istatistiksel olarak değerlendirildiğinde anlamlı sonuçlar elde edilmiştir.

show abstract

Prevalence and distribution of honey bee pests and pathogens in Uruguay

Cited by 19 publications

References 41 publications

Honeybee colony losses in Uruguay during 2013–2014

Honeybee colony losses in Uruguay during 2013–2014

Unraveling Honey Bee–Varroa destructor Interaction: Multiple Factors Involved in Differential Resistance between Two Uruguayan Populations

Kuzey Marmara Bölgesindeki Bal ve Arılardaki Patojenlerin Tespiti ve Moleküler İncelenmesi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About