Türkiye Bal Arıları Genetik Farklarının Koloni Dayanıklılığına (Vitality) Etkileri

TÜBİTAK KBAG Proje01.11.201

Phylogeography and population genetics of honey bees (Apis mellifera) from Turkey based on COI-COII sequence data

A study that involved DNA sequencing of COI-COII intergenic region of the mitochondrial DNA genome of Apis mellifera honey bees from Turkey was conducted to determine the population genetics and phylogeographic structure of this species from seven distinct areas of Turkey. From the 132 honey bees subjected to DNA sequencing, a total of 12 mitotypes of A. mellifera "C" lineage were observed, of which only one mitotype, C 13, had been reported previously. The most common mitotype, C12, accounted for 47% of the Apis mellifera "C" lineage samples and was found in 13 of the 22 sampled locations. This mitotype was also the basal ancestral mitotype based on TCS spanning tree analysis. The greatest amount of genetic diversity was observed in Bursa, where 4 mitotypes of the A. mellifera "C" lineage were unique to this location. Wright's F-statistics revealed that Artvin and Bursa were the most genetically distinct locations relative to the other sampled locations. Applying a molecular clock, Turkish A. mellifera "C" lineage mitotypes have been diverging for approximately 10,000 to 16,500 yr. based on phylogenetic analysis. In addition, two A. m. syriaca samples were observed from Hatay, Turkey. Phylogenetic analysis which included other A. mellifera subspecies confirms the subspecies relationships of A. mellifera "C" lineage, and A. m. syriaca. this study corroborates other studies that show Turkey to be a reservoir of genetically distinct populations of A. mellifera "C" lineage, which can be useful for developing genetic conservation strategies for A. mellifera

Managed honey bee colony losses in Canada, China, Europe, Israel and Turkey, for the winters of 2008-9 and 1009-10

In 2008 the COLOSS network was formed by honey bee experts from Europe and the USA. The primary objectives set by this scientific network were to explain and to prevent large scale losses of honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. In June 2008 COLOSS obtained four years support from the European Union from COST and was designated as COST Action FA0803 – COLOSS (Prevention of honey bee COlony LOSSes). To enable the comparison of loss data between participating countries, a standardized COLOSS questionnaire was developed. Using this questionnaire information on honey bee losses has been collected over two years. Survey data presented in this study were gathered in 2009 from 12 countries and in 2010 from 24 countries. Mean honey bee losses in Europe varied widely, between 7-22% over the 2008-9 winter and between 7-30% over the 2009-10 winter. An important finding is that for all countries which participated in 2008-9, winter losses in 2009-10 were found to be substantially higher. In 2009-10, winter losses in South East Europe were at such a low level that the factors causing the losses in other parts of Europe were absent, or at a level which did not affect colony survival. The five provinces of China, which were included in 2009-10, showed very low mean (4%) A. mellifera winter losses. In six Canadian provinces, mean winter losses in 2010 varied between 16-25%, losses in Nova Scotia (40%) being exceptionally high. In most countries and in both monitoring years, hobbyist beekeepers (1-50 colonies) experienced higher losses than practitioners with intermediate beekeeping operations (51-500 colonies). This relationship between scale of beekeeping and extent of losses effect was also observed in 2009-10, but was less pronounced. In Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland, 2008-9 mean winter losses for beekeepers who reported ‘disappeared’ colonies were significantly higher compared to mean winter losses of beekeepers who did not report ‘disappeared’ colonies. Mean 2008-9 winter losses for those beekeepers in the Netherlands who reported symptoms similar to “Colony Collapse Disorder” (CCD), namely: 1. no dead bees in or surrounding the hive while; 2. capped brood was present, were significantly higher than mean winter losses for those beekeepers who reported ‘disappeared’ colonies without the presence of capped brood in the empty hives. In the winter of 2009-10 in the majority of participating countries, beekeepers who reported ‘disappeared’ colonies experienced higher winter losses compared with beekeepers, who experienced winter losses but did not report ‘disappeared’ colonies

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

Proboscis conditioning experiments with honeybees, Apis mellifera caucasica, with butyric acid and DEET mixture as conditioned and unconditioned stimuli

Three experiments are described investigating whether olfactory repellents DEET and butyric acid can support the classical conditioning of proboscis extension in the honeybee, Apis mellifera caucasica (Hymenoptera: Apidae). In the first experiment DEET and butyric acid readily led to standard acquisition and extinction effects, which are comparable to the use of cinnamon as a conditioned stimulus. These results demonstrate that the odor of DEET or butyric acid is not intrinsically repellent to honey bees. In a second experiment, with DEET and butyric acid mixed with sucrose as an unconditioned stimulus, proboscis conditioning was not established. After several trials, few animals responded to the unconditioned stimulus. These results demonstrate that these chemicals are gustatory repellents when in direct contact. In the last experiment a conditioned suppression paradigm was used. Exposing animals to butyric acid or DEET when the proboscis was extended by direct sucrose stimulation or by learning revealed that retraction of the proboscis was similar to another novel odor, lavender, and in all cases greatest when the animal was not permitted to feed. These results again demonstrate that DEET or butyric acid are not olfactory repellents, and in addition, conditioned suppression is influenced by feeding state of the bee.Peer reviewedPsychologyZoolog

Genetic diversity of honey bees in Turkey and the ımportance of its conservation

Anadolu çok çeşitli iklim koşullarına sahip olması, bölgeden bölgeye büyük farklılıklar gösteren jeolojik yapısı ve Afrika, Avrupa ve Asya arasında doğal bir köprü oluşturması nedeni ile bir çok canlı türünün evriminde önemli bir rol oynamıştır. Bal arıları geçirdikleri evrim sırasında Anadolu’nun yerel iklim koşullarına ve florasına uyum sağlayarak çeşitli ırk ve ekotipleri oluşturmuşlardır. Bu ırk ve ekotiplerin morfometrik ve genetik farkları incelendiğinde, balarılarının gerek morfometrik özelliklerinde, gerekse alozim, mitokondri DNA’sı ve mikrosatelitler açısından büyük bir çeşitlilik gözlenmiştir. Alozimlerde ve mikrosatelitlerde gözlenen alttürlere özgü çok sayıda nadir alel Anadolu’da bal arılarının uzun bir süredir evrimleşmekte olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu büyük çeşitlilik bal arılarının ileride meydana gelebilecek çevre değişimlerine uyum sağlayabilmeleri ve Dünyada ve Türkiye’de bal arıları ile yapılacak genetik ıslah çalışmaları için gereklidir ve korunmalıdır. Türkiye’de bulunan yerel balarısı ırkların yabancı ırklarla değiştirilmesi uygulamasının önüne geçilmelidir. Balarısı alttürlerinin ve ekotiplerinin bulundukları bölgelerde ıslah edilerek arıcıların hizmetine sunulması, ülkemizdeki balarısı genetik çeşitliliğinin günümüzde ve gelecekte yararlanılmak üzere korunması için en uygun çözüm gibi görünmektedir.Anatolia has played an important role in the evolution of many animal and plant species, because of the climatic conditions and topographical formations varying from region to region, and because of its situation between Asia, Africa and Europe as a natural bridge. Honey bees formed a variety of races and ecotypes in adapting to the local flora and climates in Anatolia during their evolution. When the morphometrical and genetical differences between these races and ecotypes were studied, a great diversity in both morphometrical, and genetical traits such as allozymes, mtDNA, and microsatellites. Race and ecotype specific numerious rare and diagnostic alleles in allozymes and microsatellites indicate that honey bees have been evolving in Anatolia for a long period. This great diversity is needed and must be protected in order to enable honey bees to adapt to possible environmental changes in the future and to improve honey bees genetically through breeding programs in the world as well as in Turkey. The practice of replacing of honey bees native to Turkey by races from abroad should be prevented. The most appropriate solution for the current and future utilization of the genetic diversity of honey bees in Turkey seems to be breeding and improving native honey bee races and ecotypes localy and offering such breeds to the service of beekeepers

GENETIC CONSEQUENCES OF LINKAGE BETWEEN MALATHION RESISTANCE AND AN AUTOSOMAL MALE-DETERMINING FACTOR IN HOUSE-FLY (DIPTERA, MUSCIDAE)

The pattern of inheritance of genes conferring resistance to malathion and genetic consequences of linkage between an autosomal male-determining factor and resistance genes on the second chromosome were investigated in a strain of house fly, Musca domestica L., selected for malathion resistance. The second and fifth chromosomes contribute significantly to malathion resistance. The presence of a male-determining factor linked with the resistance genes on the second chromosome resulted in a strong sexual dimorphism in malathion resistance. We also observed that the male-determining factor changed its linkage relationship from the third linkage group to the second linkage group during the selection experiments

CONTROL OF INSECTICIDE RESISTANCE IN LABORATORY POPULATIONS OF HOUSE-FLY (DIPTERA, MUSCIDAE) BY INTRODUCTION OF SUSCEPTIBILITY GENES

We investigated the effects of immigration of individuals carrying susceptibility alleles on the level of resistance in populations of the house fly, Musca domestica L., selected for malathion resistance. Two types of males, WHO/IN males (homozygous for susceptibility genes) and A14-WHO males (heterozygous for the second chromosome) were released into the resistant populations in 1:9, 1:1, and 9:1 ratios of immigrant/resident males. In both experiments, we observed that increasing the ratio of immigrant to resident males from 1:9 to 9:1 caused an associated increase in mortality caused by malathion applications. Release of A14-WHO males was more effective in stopping the evolution of resistance in resistant populations than was release of WHO/IN males. Fitness parameters of resistant and susceptible strains were also compared. The WHO/IN strain had low viability and fecundity. R and A14-WHO males were longer-lived compared with WHO/IN males, although they did not differ in mating success