Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Methods for Testing Behavioural Parameters
Material and Method
Experiment Design
Data Processing and Statistical Analysis
Results
Discussion
References
All Topics
Biology
Zoology

Swarming, defensive and hygienic behaviour in honey bee colonies of different genetic origin in a pan-European experiment

Profile image of Sreten AndonovSreten AndonovProfile image of Beata PanasiukBeata PanasiukProfile image of Ralph BüchlerRalph BüchlerProfile image of Maria BougaMaria Bouga

2014, Journal of Apicultural Research

https://doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.53.2.06Last updated
visibility

…

description

13 pages

Abstract

Honey bee colonies exhibit a wide range of variation in their behaviour, depending on their genetic origin and environmental factors. The COLOSS Genotype-Environment Interactions Experiment gave us the opportunity to investigate the phenotypic expression of the swarming, defensive and hygienic behaviour of 16 genotypes from five different honey bee subspecies in various environmental conditions. In 2010 and 2011, a total of 621 colonies were monitored and tested according to a standard protocol for estimation of expression of these three behavioural traits. The factors: year, genotype, location, origin (local vs. non-local) and season (only for hygienic behaviour) were considered in statistical analyses to estimate their effect on expression of these behaviours. The general outcome of our study is that genotype and location have a significant effect on the analysed traits. For all characters, the variability among locations was higher than the variability among genotypes.

Related papers

Influence of colony genotypic composition on the performance of hygienic behaviour in the honeybee, Apis mellifera L
Marla Spivak

Animal Behaviour, 2001

View PDFchevron_right
Genotypic effects of honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) defensive behavior at the individual and colony levels: the relationship of guarding, pursuing and stinging
Greg Hunt

Apidologie, 2004

We analyzed the relationships of the guarding, stinging, pursuing and alarm pheromone responses of two types of bees: European (EHB) and Africanized honey bees (AHB). Single type (source colonies) and two-type (EHB and AHB co-fostered) colonies were used. Of co-fostered bees, AHB comprised 81% of those that stung during the first 10 s. But from 10 to 30 s, AHB and EHB were equally likely to sting. However, when tested in their own colonies, two of the three EHB types did not sting and did not pursue in any of the eight trials conducted, whereas all three AHB types did in all trials. Moreover, AHB represented 90% of bees that stung observers during an 18-day observation period (25% of which were recently seen guarding). There was a relationship between pursuing and stinging of the six source colonies and the guarding behavior of co-fostered individuals from those sources. Results suggest that the more defensive bee types guard longer and may affect the thresholds of response of less defensive bees, recruiting them to sting. Results also suggest that the individual performance of different defensive tasks cause interactions that result in increased colony response. Apis mellifera / genotypic effects / guarding behavior / Africanized bees / defensive behavior

View PDFchevron_right
Evaluation of Hygienic Behaviour in Different Status of Managed Honey Bee
Mohamed kandel, Ramy E. El-Ansary

Mohamed Kandel, 2024

Hygienic behaviour is a desirable trait in honey bees and involves the detection of diseased, infected broods and their quick removal from the nest by worker honey bees. The pin-killed test and gene expressions of five primers for hygienic behaviour using Real-Time PCR were used to compare colonies from swarming, queen-less colonies, and dividing headed by a queen unifying the beekeeping process, colony strength, and genetic origin of the three types of studying nuclei and returning the hygienic behaviour differentiation to the colonies' population status. Our findings revealed that the removal of dead broods in swarming colonies was significantly higher than that of both dividing colonies headed by queen and queen-less dividing colonies. Swarming colonies exhibiting different rates of hygienic behaviour using pin killed test (HB %) correlated with its different genetic structures using gene expression. We recommend that this trait be considered in queen-rearing programs and that hives be left to swarm, which is a stimulant and promotes the genes of hygienic behaviour inductions associated with swarming.

View PDFchevron_right

References (85)

  1. ARATHI, H S; BURNS, I; SPIVAK, M (2000) Ethology of hygienic behaviour in the honey bee Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae): behavioural repertoire of hygienic bees. Ethology 106(4): 365-379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0310.2000.00556.x BĄK, B; WILDE, J; SIUDA, M (2010) Comparison of hygienic behaviour between five honey bee breeding lines Journal of Apicultural Science 54(2): 17-24.
  2. BIGIO, G; SCHURCH, R; RATNIEKS, F L W (2013) Hygienic behaviour in honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae): effects of brood, food, and time of the year. Journal of Economic Entomology 106(6): 2280- 2285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/EC13076
  3. BOECKING, O; SPIVAK, M (1999) Behavioural defences of honey bees against Varroa jacobsoni Oud. Apidologie 30(2-3): 141-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/apido:19990205
  4. BOUGA, M; ALAUX, C; BIENKOWSKA, M; BÜCHLER, R; CARRECK, N L; CAUIA, E; CHLEBO, R; DAHLE, B; DALL'OLIO, R; DE LA RÚA, P; GREGORC, A; IVANOVA, E; KENCE, A; KENCE, M; KEZIC, N; KIPRIJANOVSKA, H; KOZMUS, P; KRYGER, P; LE CONTE, Y; LODESANI, M; MURILHAS, A M; SICEANU, A; SOLAND, G; UZUNOV, A; WILDE, J (2011) A review of methods for discrimination of honey bee populations as applied to European beekeeping. Journal of Apicultural Research 50(1): 51-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.3896/ibra.1.50.1.06
  5. BREED, M D; GUZMAN-NOVOA, E; HUNT, G J (2004) Defensive behaviour of honey bees: organization, genetics, and comparisons with other bees. Annual Review of Entomology 49: 271-98.
  6. BÜCHLER, R; BERG, S; LE CONTE, Y (2010) Breeding for resistance to Varroa destructor in Europe. Apidologie 41: 393-408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/apido/ 2010011
  7. BÜCHLER, R; ANDONOV, S; BIENEFELD, K; COSTA, C; HATJINA, F; KEZIC, N; KRYGER, P; SPIVAK, M; UZUNOV, A; WILDE, J (2013) Standard methods for rearing and selection of Apis mellifera queens. In V Dietemann; J D Ellis; P Neumann (Eds) The COLOSS BEEBOOK, Volume I: standard methods for Apis mellifera research. Journal of Apicultural Research 52(1): http://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.52.1.07
  8. BÜCHLER, R; COSTA, C; HATJINA, F; ANDONOV, S; MEIXNER, M D; LE CONTE, Y; UZUNOV, A; BERG, S; BIENKOWSKA, M; BOUGA, M; DRAZIC, M; DYRBA, W; KRYGER, P; PANASIUK, B; PECHHACK- ER, H; PETROV, P; KEZIC, N; KORPELA, S; WILDE, J (2014) The influence of genetic origin and its interaction with environmental effects on the survival of Apis mellifera L. colonies in Europe. Journal of Apicultural Research 53(2): 205-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.53.2.03
  9. COLLINS, A M; RINDERER, T E; TUCKER, K W; SYLVESTER, H A; LACKETT, J A (1980) A model of honey bee defensive behaviour. Journal of Apicultural Research 19: 224-231.
  10. than non-local ones. We interpret this as an expression of adaptation References ADAM, B (1968) In search of the best strains of bees. Walmar Verlag Zell; Weierbach, Germany.
  11. ARECHAVALETA-VELASCO, M E; HUNT, G J (2003) Genotypic variation in the expression of guarding behaviour and the role of guards in the defensive response of honey bee colonies. Apidologie 34: 439
  12. COSTA, C; BERG, S; BIENKOWSKA, M; BOUGA, M; BUBALO, D; BÜCHLER, R; CHARISTOS, L; LE CONTE, Y; DRAZIC, M; DYRBA, W; FILLIPI, J; HATJINA, F; IVANOVA, E; KEZIC, N; KIPRIJANOVSKA, H; KOKINIS, M; KORPELA, S; KRYGER, P; LODESANI, M; MEIXNER, M; PANASIUK, B; PECHHACKER, H; PETROV, P; OLIVERI, E;
  13. RUOTTINEN, L; UZUNOV, A; VACCARI, G; WILDE, J (2012) A Europe-wide experiment for assessing the impact of genotype- environment interactions on the vitality of honey bee colonies: methodology. Journal of Apicultural Science 56: 147-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10289-012-0015-9
  14. COOPER, B A (1986) The honey bees of the British Isles. British Isles Bee Breeders Association; Derby, UK.
  15. CRANE, E E (1990) Bees and beekeeping: science, practice and world resources. Cornell University Press; Ithaca, NY, USA.
  16. DALL'OLIO, R; MARINO, A; LODESANI, M; MORITZ, R F A (2007) Genetic characterization of Italian honey bees, Apis mellifera ligustica, based on microsatellite DNA polymorphisms. Apidologie 38: 207-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/apido:2006073
  17. DALL'OLIO, R; MUÑOZ, I; DE LA RÚA, P; LODESANI, M (2008) Estimating introgression in Apis mellifera sicula populations: are the conservation islands really effective? In Proceedings of the Third European Conference of Apidology, Belfast UK, 8-11 September 2008. pp 23-24.
  18. DELAPLANE, K S; VAN DER STEEN, J; GUZMAN, E (2013) Standard methods for estimating strength parameters of Apis mellifera colonies. In V Dietemann; J D Ellis; P Neumann (Eds) The COLOSS BEEBOOK, Volume I: standard methods for Apis mellifera research. Journal of Apicultural Research 52(1): http://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.52.1.03
  19. DE LA RÚA, P; FUCHS, S; SERRANO, J. (2005) Biogeography of European honey bees. In M Lodesani; C Costa (Eds). Beekeeping and conserving biodiversity of honey bees. Northern Bee Books: Hebden Bridge, UK. pp. 15-52.
  20. DE LA RÚA, P; JAFFÉ, R; DALL'OLIO, R; MUÑOZ, I; SERRANO, J (2009) Biodiversity, conservation and current threats to European honey bees. Apidologie 40(3): 263-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/apido/2009027
  21. FRANCIS, R M; KRYGER, P; MEIXNER, M; BOUGA, M; IVANOVA, E; ANDONOV, S; BERG, S; BIENKOWSKA, M; BÜCHLER, R; CHARISTOS, L; COSTA, C; DYRBA, W; HATJINA; F; PANASIUK, B; PECHHACKER, H; KEZIĆ, N; KORPELA, S; LE CONTE, Y; UZUNOV, A; WILDE, J (2014b) The genetic origin of honey bee colonies used in the Genotype-Environment-Interactions experiment: a comparison of methods. Journal of Apicultural Research 53(2): 188-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.53.2.02
  22. FREE, J B (1987) Pheromones of social bees. Comstock Publishing Associates; Ithaca, NY, USA.
  23. FRESNAYE, J ; LAVIE, P (1976) Selection et hybridation de 1'abeille en France. Symp. Génétique, selection et reproduction de 1'abeille. Bulletin Technique Apicole OPIDA 3 15-20.
  24. 258 Uzunov and Costa et al.
  25. GALLMAN, P (2014) SICAMM 2012, Landquart, Switzerland. Mellifera. Ch Magazin Proceedings and Reports. http://www.sicamm.org/documents/2012_proceedings.pdf.
  26. GARCIA, R C; OLIVEIRA, N T E; CAMARGO, S C; PIRES, B G; OLIVEIRA, C A L; TEIXEIRA, R A; PICKLER, M A (2013) Honey and propolis production, hygiene and defence behaviours of two generations of Africanized honey bees. Scienta Agricola 70(2): 74-81.
  27. GERVAN, N L; WINSTON, M L; HIGO, H A; HOOVER, S E R (2005) The effects of honey bee (Apis mellifera) queen mandibular pheromone on colony defensive behaviour. Journal of Apicultural Research 44: 175-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.44.4.09
  28. GILLIAM, M; TABER, S III; RICHARDSON, G V (1983) Hygienic behaviour of honey bees in relation to chalkbrood disease. Apidologie 14(1): 29-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/apido:19830103
  29. GILLIAM, M; TABER, S III; LORENZ, B J; PREST, D B (1988) Factors affecting development of chalkbrood disease in colonies of honey bees Apis mellifera, fed pollen contaminated with Ascosphaera apis. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 52: 314-325. h ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-2011(88)90141-3
  30. GREGORC, A; LOKAR, V (2010) Selection criteria in an apiary of Carniolan honey bee (Apis mellifera carnica) colonies for queen rearing. Journal of Central European Agriculture 11: (401-408). http://dx.doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/11.4.848
  31. GÜLER, A; TOY, H (2013) Relationship between dead pupa removal and season and productivity of honey bee (Apis mellifera, Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 37: 462-467. http://dx.doi.org/10.3906/vet-1205-48
  32. GUZMÁN-NOVOA, E; PRIETO-MERLOS, D; URIBE-RUBIO, J L; HUNT, G J (2003) Relative reliability of four field assays to test defensive behaviour of honey bees (Apis mellifera). Journal of Apicultural Research 42(3): 42-46.
  33. HATJINA, F; COSTA, C; BÜCHLER, R; UZUNOV, A; DRAZIC, M; FILIPI, J; CHARISTOS, L; RUOTTINEN, L; ANDONOV, S; MEIXNER, M D; BIENKOWSKA, M; DARIUSZ, G; PANASIUK, B; LE CONTE, Y;
  34. WILDE, J; BERG, S; BOUGA, M; DYRBA, W; KIPRIJANOVSKA, H; KORPELA, S; KRYGER, P; LODESANI, M; PECHHACKER, M;
  35. PETROV, P; KEZIC, N (2014) Population dynamics of European honey bee genotypes under different environmental conditions. Journal of Apicultural Research 53(2): 233-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.53.2.05
  36. JOHNSON, B R (2003) Organization of work in the honey bee: a compromise between division of labour and behavioural flexibility. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London. 270: 147-152.
  37. JENSEN, A B; PALMER, K A; BOOMSMA, J J; PEDERSEN, B V (2005) Varying degrees of Apis mellifera ligustica introgression in protected populations of the black honey bee, Apis mellifera mellifera, in northwest Europe. Molecular Ecology 14: 93-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02399.x KEFUSS, J; TABER, S; VANPOUCKE, J; REY, F (1996) A practical method to test for disease resistance in honey bees. American Bee Journal 136(1): 31-32.
  38. LE CONTE, Y; DE VAUBLANC, G; CRAUSER, D; JEANNE, F; ROUSSELLE, J C; BECARD, J M (2007) Honey bee colonies that have survived Varroa destructor. Apidologie 38: 566-572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/apido:2007040
  39. LONGO, S (1984) "L'apicoltura in Sicilia orientale. Stato attuale e prospettive di viluppo." Apitalia 1-7.
  40. MATTILA, H R; OTIS, G W (2006) Influence of pollen diet in spring on development of honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidea) colonies. Journal of Economic Entomology 99(3): 604-613.
  41. MEIXNER, M D; PINTO, M A; BOUGA, M; KRYGER, P; IVANOVA, E;
  42. FUCHS, S (2013) Standard methods for characterising subspecies and ecotypes of Apis mellifera. In V Dietemann; J D Ellis; P Neumann (Eds) The COLOSS BEEBOOK, Volume I: standard methods for Apis mellifera research. Journal of Apicultural Research 52(4): http://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.52.4.05
  43. MEIXNER, M D; FRANCIS, R M; GAJDA, A; KRYGER, P; ANDONOV, S; UZUNOV, A; TOPOLSKA, G; COSTA, C; AMIRI, E; BERG, S; BIENKOWSKA, M; BOUGA, M; BÜCHLER, R; DYRBA, W; GURGULOVA, K; HATJINA, F; IVANOVA, E; JANES, M; KEZIC, N; KORPELA, S; LE CONTE, Y; PANASIUK, B; PECHHACKER, H; TSOKTOURIDIS, G; VACCARI, G; WILDE, J (2014) Occurrence of parasites and pathogens in honey bee colonies used in a European genotype -environment -interactions experiment. Journal of Apicultural Research 53(2): 215-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.53.2.04
  44. MOMOT, J P; ROTHENBUHLER, W C (1971) Behaviour genetics of nest cleaning in honey bees. VI. Interactions of age and genotype of bees, and nectar flow. Journal of Apicultural Research 10(1): 11-21.
  45. MORITZ, R F A; SOUTHWICK, E E; HARBO, J B (1987) Genetic analysis of defensive behaviour of honey bee colonies (Apis mellifera L.) in a field test. Apidologie 18: 27-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/apido:19870103
  46. MORITZ, R F A; SOUTHWICK, E E (1992) Bees as superorganisms: an evolutionary reality. Springer-Verlag; Berlin, Germany.
  47. MÖBUS, B (1983) Bee breeding in Germany. In B Möbus, B; J van Praagh (Eds). Pedigree bee breeding in western Europe. British Isles Bee Breeders Association; Derby, UK. pp. 6-12.
  48. NAUMANN, K; WINSTON, M L; SLESSOR, K N; PRESTWICK, G D;. WEBSTER, F X (1991) Production and transmission of honey bee queen (Apis mellifera L.) mandibular gland pheromone. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 29: 321-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00165956
  49. PAGE, R E; MITCHELL, S D (1998) Self organization and the evolution of division of labour. Apidologie 29: 171-190.
  50. PALEOLOG, J (2009) Behavioural characteristics of honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies containing mix of workers of divergent behavioural traits. Animal Science Papers and Reports (3): 237-248.
  51. The COLOSS GEI Experiment: behavioural traits 259 PANASIUK, B; SKOWRONEK, W; BIEŃKOWSKA, M (2008) Influence of genotype and method of brood killing on brood removal rate in honey bee. Journal of Apicultural Science 52(2): 55-65.
  52. PANASIUK, B; SKOWRONEK, W; GERULA, D (2009) Effect of period of the season and environmental conditions on rate of cleaning cells with dead brood. Journal of Apicultural Science 53(1): 95-103.
  53. PANASIUK, B; SKOWRONEK, W; BIEŃKOWSKA, M; GERULA, D; WĘGRZYNOWICZ, P (2010) Age of worker bees performing hygienic behaviour in a honey bee colony. Journal of Apicultural Science 54 (2): 109-115.
  54. PANKIW, T; WINSTON, L; SLESSOR, K N (1994) Variation in worker response to honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) queen mandibular pheromone (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Journal of insect behaviour 7: 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01989823
  55. PETROV, P (2010) Organization and principles of queen selection and rearing in Bulgaria. Biotechnology and Biotechnological Equipment 24(2): 375-378.
  56. PINTO, M A; HENRIQUES, D; CHÁVEZ-GALARZA, J; KRYGER, P; GARNERY, L; VAN DER ZEE, R; DAHLE, B; SOLAND-RECKEWEG, G; DE LA RÚA, P; DALL' OLIO, R; CARRECK, N L; JOHNSTON, J S (2014) Genetic integrity of the Dark European honey bee (Apis mellifera mellifera) from protected populations: a genome-wide assessment using SNPs and mtDNA sequence data. Journal of Apicultural Research 53(2): 269-278. http://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.53.2.08
  57. POKLUKAR, J (1999) Izboljašanje odbire čebel na proizvodne lastnosti z uporabo selekcijskega indeksa. Zb. Biotehniške fak. Univ. v Ljubljani. Kmetijstvo. Zootehnika, 74.
  58. RINDERER, T E (1986) Bee genetics and breeding. Academic Press; Orlando, FL, USA.
  59. RINDERER, T E; HARRIS, J W; HUNT, G J; DE GUZMANN, L I (2010) Breeding for resistance to Varroa destructor in North America. Apidologie 41: 409-424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/apido/2010015
  60. ROBINSON, G E (1992) Regulation of division of labour in insect socie- ties. Annual Review of Entomology 37: 637-665.
  61. ROTHENBUHLER, W C (1964) Behaviour genetics of nest cleaning in honey bees. I. Responses of four inbred lines to disease killed brood. Animal Behaviour 12: 578-583.
  62. R UTTNER, H (1972) TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR METH- ODS OF EVALUATING PERFORMANCE OF BEE COLONIES. IN F RUTTNER (ED.). CONTROLLED MATING AND SELECTION OF THE HONEY BEE. APIMONDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE; BUCHAREST, ROMANIA. PP. 87-92.
  63. RUTTNER, F (1986) Geographical variability and classification. In T E Rinderer (Ed.). Bee genetics and breeding. Academic Press, Inc;
  64. London, UK. pp. 23-56.
  65. RUTTNER, F (1988a) Biogeography and taxonomy of honey bees. Springer-Verlag;
  66. Berlin, Germany.
  67. RUTTNER, F (1988b) Breeding techniques and selection for breeding of the honey bee. British Isles Bee Breeders Association; Derby, UK.
  68. RUTTNER, F; MILNER, E; DEWS, J E (1990) The dark European honey bee Apis mellifera mellifera Linnaeus 1798. British Isles Bee Breeders Association; Derby, UK.
  69. RUTTNER, F (1992) Naturgeschichte der Honigbienen. Ehrenwirth Verlag; Münich, Germany.
  70. SHEPPARD, W S; MEIXNER, M D (2003) Apis mellifera pomonella, a new honey bee subspecies from Central Asia. Apidologie 34: 367-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/apido:2003037
  71. SHEPPARD, W S; ARIAS, M C; GRECH, A; MEIXNER, M D (1997) Apis mellifera ruttneri, a new honey bee subspecies from Malta. Apidologie 28: 287-293.
  72. SOUTHWICK, E E; MORITZ, R F A (1987) Social control of air ventilation in colonies of honey bees, Apis mellifera. Insect Physiology 33: 623-626.
  73. SPIVAK, M (1996) Honey bee hygienic behaviour and defence against Varroa jacobsoni. Apidologie 27: 245-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/apido:19970505
  74. SPIVAK, M; GILLIAM, M (1998a) Hygienic behaviour of honey bees and its application for control of brood diseases and varroa mites. Part I: Hygienic behaviour and resistance to American Foulbrood. Bee World 79: 124-134.
  75. SPIVAK, M; GILLIAM, M (1998b) Hygienic behaviour of honey bees and its application for control of brood diseases and varroa mites. Part II: Studies on hygienic behaviour since the Rothenbuhler era. Bee World 79: 165-182.
  76. SPIVAK, M; REUTER, G S (1998) Performance of hygienic honey bee colonies in a commercial apiary. Apidologie 29(3): 291-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/apido:19980308
  77. 260 Uzunov and Costa et al.
  78. SPIVAK, M; REUTER, G S; LAMB, M (1995) Frequency of hygienic behaviour in naturally mated daughters of a hygienic breeder. American Bee Journal 135(12): 830-831
  79. STRANGE, J P; GARNERY, L; SHEPPARD, W S (2008) Morphological and molecular characterization of the Landes honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) ecotype for genetic conservation. Journal of Insect Conservation 12: 527-537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10841-007-9093-6
  80. THOMPSON, V C (1964) Behaviour genetics of nest cleaning in honey bees. III. Effect of age of bees of a resistant line on their response to disease-killed brood. Journal of Apicultural Research 3(1): 25-30.
  81. TIEMANN, K; BRÜCKNER, D (1993) Zum Schwarmverhalten der Sizilianischen Honigbiene Apis mellifera sicula (Montagano 1911). Apidologie 24: 365-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/apido:19930402
  82. TOFTS, C; FRANKS, N R (1992). Doing the right thing: ants, honey bees and naked mole-rats. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7: 346 -349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(92)90128-x UZUNOV, A [Узунов, А] (2013) Biological and productive characteristics of native honey bee (Apis mellifera macedonica) on the territory of Republic of Macedonia, PhD thesis, Faculty for Agricultural Sciences and Food -Skopje, Macedonia, pp 107. [Биолошки и производни карактеристики на автохтоната медоносна пчела (Apis mellifera macedonica) на територијата на Република Македонија. Докторска дисертација, Факултет за земјоделски науки и храна -Скопје, Република Македонија].
  83. VILLUMSTAD, E (1983) Bee breeding in Germany. In B Möbus; J van Praagh (Eds). Pedigree bee breeding in western Europe. British Isles Bee Breeders Association; Derby, UK. pp. 16-22.
  84. WINSTON, M L (1987) The biology of the honey bee. Harvard University Press; USA. 281 pp.
  85. WINSTON, M L (1995) No matter how long I live, things I'll never see. Bee Culture 123(5): 273-274.
About the authors
Sreten Andonov
Ralph Büchler
Maria Bouga
Agricultural University of Athens, Department Member

Related papers

A EUROPE-WIDE EXPERIMENT FOR ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF GENOTYPE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS ON THE VITALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF HONEY BEE COLONIES: EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND TRAIT EVALUATION
Per Kryger, Maria Bouga, Fani HATJINA

An international experiment to estimate the importance of genotype-environment interactions on vitality and performance of honey bees and on colony losses was run between July 2009 and March 2012. Altogether 621 bee colonies, involving 16 different genetic origins of European honey bees, were tested in 21 locations spread in 11 countries. The genetic strains belonged to the subspecies A. m. carnica, A. m. ligustica, A. m. macedonica, A. m. mellifera, A. m. siciliana. At each location, the local strain of bees was tested together with at least two “foreign” origins, with a minimum starting number of 10 colonies per origin. The common test protocol for all the colonies took into account colony survival, bee population in spring, summer and autumn, honey production, pollen collection, swarming, gentleness, hygienic behaviour, Varroa destructor infestation, Nosema spp. infection and viruses. Data collection was performed according to uniform methods. No chemical treatments against Varroa or other diseases were applied during the experiment. This article describes the details of the experiment set-up and the work protocol.

View PDFchevron_right
Heritabilities and genetic correlations for honey yield, gentleness, calmness and swarming behaviour in Austrian honey bees
Piter Bijma

Apidologie, 2016

Heritabilities and genetic correlations were estimated for honey yield and behavioural traits in Austrian honey bees using data on nearly 15,000 colonies of the bee breeders association Biene Österreich collected between 1995 and 2014. The statistical models used distinguished between the genetic effect of workers and that of the queen of the colony. Heritability estimates for worker effect were larger than those for queen effect. Genetic correlations between both effects were negative. Heritability estimates for the sum of both effects (i.e. selection criterion) were 0.27, 0.37, 0.38 and 0.06 for honey yield, gentleness, calmness and swarming behaviour, respectively, indicating that meaningful genetic improvement is possible. Genetic correlations between these traits were generally small to medium, with large standard errors, with the exception of the high genetic correlation between gentleness and calmness. The models we present here can be used to estimate breeding values in honey bees. honey bee / genetic parameter / heritability / genetic correlation / estimated breeding value

View PDFchevron_right
Honey bee genotypes and the environment
norman Carreck, Ralph Büchler, Per Kryger

J. of Api. Res, 2014

View PDFchevron_right
Genotypic variation in the expression of guarding behavior and the role of guards in the defensive response of honey bee colonies
Greg Hunt

Apidologie, 2003

This study was conducted to identify genotypic variation in the expression of guarding behavior between defensive and gentle backcross colonies and to determine the role of guards in the defensive response of a colony. No differences were found between backcross types for the average time that a bee behaves as a guard. Differences were found between backcross types and between colonies for the number of bees that guard for at least one day and for at least two days. Variation between colonies for these two variables was partially genetic in origin. A small proportion of the bees that stung during stinging assays were guards, and only a small proportion of the guards stung. Positive correlations were found between the number of stings and both the number of guards in the colony and the proportion of guards that stung in relation to the total number of guards in the colony. Colonies responded with fewer stings when guards were removed in comparison to when guards were present in the colonies. guarding behavior / stinging behavior / defensive behavior / Apis mellifera

View PDFchevron_right
A Europe-wide experiment for assessing the impact of genotype-environment interactions on the vitality and performance of honey bee colonies: Experimental design and trait evaluation | Określenie wpływu interakcji genetyczno-środowiskowych na wydajność i witalność rodzin pszczelich w europie: Pro...
Cecilia Maria Lima da Costa

Journal of Apicultural Science, 2012

C e c i l i a C o s t a 1 * , R a l p h Büchler 2 * , S t e f a n B e r g 3 * , M a l g o r z a t a B i e n k o w s k a 4 * , M a r i a B o u g a 5 , D r a g a n B u b a l o 6 , L e o n i d a s C h a r i s t o s 7 , Y v e s Le Conte 8 * , M a j a D r a z i c 9 , W i n f r i e d D y r b a 1 0 * , J a n j a F i l l i p i 1 1 , F a n i H a t j i n a 7 * , E v g e n i y a I v a n o v a 1 2 , N i k o l a K e z i c 6 * , H r i s u l a K i p r i j a n o v s k a 1 3 , M i c h a l i s K o k i n i s 1 4 , S e p p o K o r p e l a 1 5 * , P e r K r y g e r 1 6 * , M a r c o L o d e s a n i 1 , M a r i n a Meixner 2 , B e a t a P a n a s i u k 4 , H e r m a n n P e c h h a c k e r 1 7 * , P l a m e n P e t r o v 1 8 * , E u g e n i a O l i v e r i 1 9 , L a u r i R u o t t i n e n 1 5 , A l e k s a n d a r U z u n o v 1 3 * , G i a c o m o V a c c a r i 1 , J e r z y Wilde 2 0 *

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Zoology

    • Cited by

    The influence of genetic origin and its interaction with environmental effects on the survival of Apis mellifera L. colonies in Europ
    Sreten Andonov, Beata Panasiuk, Ralph Büchler, Nikola Kezić, Maria Bouga

    Journal of Apicultural Research, 2014

    The survival and performance of 597 honey bee colonies, representing five subspecies and 16 different genotypes, were comparatively studied in 20 apiaries across Europe. Started in October 2009, 15.7% of the colonies survived without any therapeutic treatment against diseases until spring 2012. The survival duration was strongly affected by environmental factors (apiary effects) and, to a lesser degree, by the genotypes and origin of queens. Varroa was identified as a main cause of losses (38.4%), followed by queen problems (16.9%) and

    View PDFchevron_right
    Occurrence of parasites and pathogens in honey bee colonies used in a European genotype-environment interactions experiment
    Beata Panasiuk, Fani HATJINA, Ralph Büchler, Maria Bouga, Marina Meixner, Esmaeil Amiri

    Journal of Apicultural Research, 2014

    Diseases are known to be one of the major contributors to colony losses. Within a Europe-wide experiment on genotype -environment interactions, an initial 621 colonies were set up and maintained from 2009 to 2012. The colonies were monitored to investigate the occurrence and levels of key pathogens. These included the mite Varroa destructor (mites per 10 g bees), Nosema spp. (spore loads and species determination), and viruses (presence/absence of acute bee paralysis virus (ABPV) and deformed wing virus (DWV)). Data from 2010 to the spring of 2011 are analysed in relation to the parameters: genotype, environment, and origin (local vs. non-local) of the colonies in the experiment. The relative importance of different pathogens as indicators of colony death within the experiment is compared. In addition, pathogen occurrence rates across the geographic locations are described.

    View PDFchevron_right
    The genetic origin of honey bee colonies used in the COLOSS Genotype-Environment Interactions Experiment: a comparison of methods
    Nikola Kezić, Fani HATJINA, Maria Bouga, Marina Meixner

    Journal of Apicultural Research, 2014

    The COLOSS GEI (Genotype-Environment Interactions) Experiment was setup to further our understanding of recent honey bee colony losses.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Effects of selection and local adaptation on resilience and economic suitability in Apis mellifera carnica
    Zlatko Puškadija

    Apidologie

    Modern techniques of selective breeding show high potential to improve economically important traits of honey bees. However, breeding may neglect fundamental rules of natural selection. The objective of this study was to analyze the effects of selection and local adaptation on some relevant breeding traits ofApis mellifera carnica. We compared open mated queens from three different origins: local Croatian genotypes that are under controlled selection since five generations (MS), a local genotype that was never under selective breeding (NS) and, finally, a non-local genotype from a long-lasting German breeding program (HS). Generally, colonies with queens from breeding programs had better scores for defensive behavior, calmness, and swarming. In contrast, colonies from the NS group showed higher expression ofVarroa destructorresistance traits. Although the HS group showed the highest score in most of the behavioral traits, the low overwintering index of colonies from this group after...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Apis mellifera adansonii Is the Most Defensive Honeybee in Uganda
    Patrice Kasangaki

    Honeybee defensive behaviour is an important trait for selection of honeybees for breeding programs. We evaluated the variation in honeybee defensive behaviour with environmental factors and hive conditions. Factors such as the difference in the agro-ecological zones, colony strength, mean elevation, type of bee hive used, and the vegetation cover were considered. The number of honeybees attacking the researchers' protective gear within one minute of disturbance was recorded per colony and analyzed. Apis m. adansonii was found to be the most defensive. Variations in the agro-ecological zones, colony strength, and mean elevation were found to significantly influence the defensive behaviour of the honeybees. Honeybee colonies in the Mid North AEZ were the most defensive. The type of bee hive and vegetation cover did not have any influence on the defensive behaviour. From this study, we suggest that selection of honeybees that are less defensive for breeding programs should consider A. m. scutellata and honeybee colonies from West Nile and Southern Highland AEZs at higher elevations.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2026 Academia. All rights reserved