Results of international standardised beekeeper surveys of colony losses for winter 2012-2013 : analysis of winter loss rates and mixed effects modelling of risk factors for winter loss.

This article presents results of an analysis of winter losses of honey bee colonies from 19 mainly European countries, most of which implemented the standardised 2013 COLOSS questionnaire. Generalised linear mixed effects models (GLMMs) were used to investigate the effects of several factors on the risk of colony loss, including different treatments for Varroa destructor, allowing for random effects of beekeeper and region. Both winter and summer treatments were considered, and the most common combinations of treatment and timing were used to define treatment factor levels. Overall and within country colony loss rates are presented. Significant factors in the model were found to be: percentage of young queens in the colonies before winter, extent of queen problems in summer, treatment of the varroa mite, and access by foraging honey bees to oilseed rape and maize. Spatial variation at the beekeeper level is shown across geographical regions using random effects from the fitted models, both before and after allowing for the effect of the significant terms in the model. This spatial variation is considerable

Standard survey methods for estimating colony losses and explanatory risk factors in Apis mellifera

This chapter addresses survey methodology and questionnaire design for the collection of data pertaining to estimation of honey bee colony loss rates and identification of risk factors for colony loss. Sources of error in surveys are described. Advantages and disadvantages of different random and non-random sampling strategies and different modes of data collection are presented to enable the researcher to make an informed choice. We discuss survey and questionnaire methodology in some detail, for the purpose of raising awareness of issues to be considered during the survey design stage in order to minimise error and bias in the results. Aspects of survey design are illustrated using surveys in Scotland. Part of a standardized questionnaire is given as a further example, developed by the COLOSS working group for Monitoring and Diagnosis. Approaches to data analysis are described, focussing on estimation of loss rates. Dutch monitoring data from 2012 were used for an example of a statistical analysis with the public domain R software. We demonstrate the estimation of the overall proportion of losses and corresponding confidence interval using a quasi-binomial model to account for extra-binomial variation. We also illustrate generalized linear model fitting when incorporating a single risk factor, and derivation of relevant confidence intervals

Introducing the INSIGNIA project: environmental monitoring of pesticide use through honey bees

INSIGNIA aims to design and test an innovative, non-invasive, scientifically proven citizen science environmental monitoring protocol for the detection of pesticides by honey bees. It is a 30-month pilot project initiated and financed by the EC (PP-1-1-2018; EC SANTE). The study is being carried out by a consortium of specialists in honey bees, apiculture, statistics, analytics, modelling, extension, social science and citizen science from twelve countries. Honey bee colonies are excellent bio-samplers of biological material such as nectar, pollen and plant pathogens, as well as non-biological material such as pesticides or airborne contamination. Honey bee colonies forage over a circle of 1 km radius, increasing to several km if required, depending on the availability and attractiveness of food. All material collected is accumulated in the hive.The honey bee colony can provide four main matrices for environmental monitoring: bees, honey, pollen and wax. Because of the non-destructive remit of the project, for pesticides, pollen is the focal matrix and used as trapped pollen and beebread in this study. Although beeswax can be used as a passive sampler for pesticides, this matrix is not being used in INSIGNIA because of its polarity dependent absorbance, which limits the required wide range of pesticides to be monitored. Alternatively, two innovative non-biological matrices are being tested: i) the “Beehold tube”, a tube lined with the generic absorbent polyethylene-glycol PEG, through which hive-entering bees are forced to pass, and ii) the “APIStrip” (Absorbing Pesticides In-hive Strips) with a specific pesticide absorbent which is hung between the bee combs.Beebread and pollen collected in pollen traps are being sampled every two weeks to be analysed for pesticide residues and to record foraging conditions. Trapped pollen provides snapshots of the foraging conditions and contaminants on a single day. During the active season, the majority of beebread is consumed within days, so beebread provides recent, random sampling results. The Beehold tube and the APIStrips are present throughout the 2-weeks sampling periods in the beehive, absorbing and accumulating the incoming contaminants. The four matrices i.e. trapped pollen, beebread, Beehold tubes and APIStrips will be analysed for the presence of pesticides. The botanical origin of trapped pollen, beebread and pollen in the Beehold tubes will also be determined with an innovative molecular technique. Data on pollen and pesticide presence will then be combined to obtain information on foraging conditions and pesticide use, together with evaluation of the CORINE database for land use and pesticide legislation to model the exposure risks to honey bees and wild bees. All monitoring steps from sampling through to analysis will be studied and rigorously tested in four countries in Year 1, and the best practices will then be ring-tested in nine countries in Year 2. Information about the course of the project, its results and publications will be available on the INSIGNIA website www.insignia-bee.eu and via social media: on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/insigniabee.eu/); Instagram insignia_bee); and Twitter (insignia_bee). Although the analyses of pesticide residues and pollen identification will not be completed until December 2019, in my talk I will present preliminary results of the Year 1 sampling.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Introducing the INSIGNIA project: Environmental monitoring of pesticides use through honey bees

INSIGNIA aims to design and test an innovative, non-invasive, scientifically proven citizen science environmental monitoring protocol for the detection of pesticides via honey bees. It is a pilot project initiated and financed by the European Commission (PP-1-1-2018; EC SANTE). The study is being carried out by a consortium of specialists in honey bees, apiculture, chemistry, molecular biology, statistics, analytics, modelling, extension, social science and citizen science from twelve countries. Honey bee colonies are excellent bio-samplers of biological material such as nectar, pollen and plant pathogens, as well as non-biological material such as pesticides or airborne contamination. Honey bee colonies forage over a circle of about 1 km radius, increasing to several km if required depending on the availability and attractiveness of food. All material collected is concentrated in the hive, and the honey bee colony can provide four main matrices for environmental monitoring: bees, honey, pollen and wax. For pesticides, pollen and wax are the focal matrices. Pollen collected in pollen traps will be sampled every two weeks to record foraging conditions. During the season, most of pollen is consumed within days, so beebread can provide recent, random sampling results. On the other hand wax acts as a passive sampler, building up an archive of pesticides that have entered the hive. Alternative in-hive passive samplers will be tested to replicate wax as a “pesticide-sponge”. Samples will be analysed for the presence of pesticides and the botanical origin of the pollen using an ITS2 DNA metabarcoding approach. Data on pollen and pesticides will be then be combined to obtain information on foraging conditions and pesticide use, together with evaluation of the CORINE database for land use and pesticide legislation to model the exposure risks to honey bees and wild bees. All monitoring steps from sampling through to analysis will be studied and tested in four countries in year 1, and the best practices will then be ring-tested in nine countries in year 2. Information about the course of the project and its results and publications will be available in the INSIGNIA website www.insignia-bee.eu.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Multi-country loss rates of honey bee colonies during winter 2016/2017 from the COLOSS survey

Publication history: Accepted - 5 March 2018; Published online - 8 May 2018.In this short note we present comparable loss rates of honey bee colonies during winter 2016/2017 from 27 European countries plus Algeria, Israel and Mexico, obtained with the COLOSS questionnaire. The 14,813 beekeepers providing valid loss data collectively wintered 425,762 colonies, and reported 21,887 (5.1%, 95% confidence interval 5.0–5.3%) colonies with unsolvable queen problems and 60,227 (14.1%, 95% CI 13.8–14.4%) dead colonies after winter. Additionally we asked for colonies lost due to natural disaster, which made up another 6,903 colonies (1.6%, 95% CI 1.5–1.7%). This results in an overall loss rate of 20.9% (95% CI 20.6–21.3%) of honey bee colonies during winter 2016/2017, with marked differences among countries. The overall analysis showed that small operations suffered higher losses than larger ones (p < 0.001). Overall migratory beekeeping had no significant effect on the risk of winter loss, though there was an effect in several countries. A table is presented giving detailed results from 30 countries. A map is also included, showing relative risk of colony winter loss at regional level.The authors are also grateful to various national funding sources for their support of some of the monitoring surveys [including, in the Republic of Serbia, MPNTR-RS, through grant number III46002]. The authors acknowledge the financial support by the University of Graz for open access publication

Supplementary information for the article: Brodschneider, R.; Schlagbauer, J.; Arakelyan, I.; Ballis, A.; Brus, J.; Brusbardis, V.; Cadahía, L.; Charrière, J.-D.; Chlebo, R.; Coffey, M. F.; Cornelissen, B.; da Costa, C. A.; Danneels, E.; Danihlík, J.; Dobrescu, C.; Evans, G.; Fedoriak, M.; Forsythe, I.; Gregorc, A.; Johannesen, J.; Kauko, L.; Kristiansen, P.; Martikkala, M.; Martín-Hernández, R.; Mazur, E.; Mutinelli, F.; Patalano, S.; Raudmets, A.; Simon Delso, N.; Stevanovic, J.; Uzunov, A.; Vejsnæs, F.; Williams, A.; Gray, A. Spatial Clusters of Varroa Destructor Control Strategies in Europe. J Pest Sci 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-022-01523-2.

Table S1. Utilized packages of the statistical software R version 4.0.4.Supplementary material for: [https://vet-erinar.vet.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/2469]Related to the published version: [https://vet-erinar.vet.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/2469

Identification of botanical origin of bee-collected mixed pollen samples: a comparison between palynological and DNA metabarcoding methods

International audienc

CHAPTER 9 Production lines

Through proper breeding and care of social bees, beekeepers can contribute to the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Experts always recommend the sustainable One Health approach for apiculture, which results in high-quality bee products and services. These guidelines, produced with the support of Apimondia experts and other international bee experts, define different beekeeping models, types of social bee and their geographical distribution, including Apis mellifera, Africanized bees, Apis cerana, Micrapis, Megapis, stingless bees and the Bombus genus, and good beekeeping practices (GBPs) for each of these types. The guidelines also look at products (honey, pollen, royal jelly, propolis) and services (pollination, environmental monitoring, apitherapy, apitourism, cultural and spiritual services) that social bees provide, and set out GBPs and traceability systems for sustainable management of bees and their products. The full production process is covered, from catching or purchasing bees, to obtaining high-quality bee products and services, with a special focus on smallscale beekeepers. In this way, they aim to guide sustainable implementation of beekeeping in development projects. Topics relevant to the development of the beekeeping sector, such as the role of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and beekeepers’ associations and training in beekeeping, are also discussed in dedicated chapters. Sustainable apiculture requires good knowledge on the proper management of bees to optimize the natural systems and resources beekeepers rely on. Specifically, knowledge of state-of-the-art technologies and innovations can help increase productivity. The last chapter is therefore dedicated to future perspectives and innovations in modern beekeeping such as precision farming, innovative traceability systems, bee data standardization and blockchain technologies