EVALUATION OF ETHOLOGICAL AND PRODUCTION TRAITS IN VARIOUS GENOTYPES OF MACEDONIAN HONEY BEE SUBSPECIES

The honey bee colonony is a complex society which has a wide range of behaviors. The mostimportant are swarming, colony defense and hygienic behavior. These ethological traits have animpact on the honey yields and are of significant interests of the honey bee breeders. Therefore theethological characteristics are recognized in selection and breeding programs. According to thebreeding programs selection is directed to reduction of swarming and colony defense behavior andincreased expression of hygienic behavior. The aim of this research was to evaluate thesecharacteristics in 100 honey bee colonies from four genotypes (A, B, C and D) of the autochthonoushoney bee population (Apis mellifera macedonica) in one of the registered honey bee queenbreeding stations, located in Ohrid region, during 2016.The research included: scoring of thedefensive and the swarming behavior of honey bee colonies according to four point system, testinghygienic behavior using Pin-test method and scoring according five point system as well asdetermining honey yield by weighing of extracted honey in kg per honey bee colony and scoring thehoney yield according to the four point system. The results did not show statistically significantdifferences concerning swarming behavior and honey yield between colonies from the fourgenotypes. The results have shown statistical significant differences in the average cleaning success(hygienic behavior) after 24 hours, between A and B (p=0.0096) genotypes, and in the defensivebehavior, between A and D (p=0.0166) and between C and D (p=0.0333) genotypes

Population-genetical characteristics of the bee population of Vojvodina

In 1893. Jovan Zivanovic notes that based on the color of the abdomen of bees, two varieties of bees are present in Vojvodina, one dark and the other with two yellow rings on abdomen. Up to the present time there are mixed opinions about the presence of one or more populations of bees in Vojvodina, especially about the presence of the yellow variety in Banat. The aim of this paper is to establish the existence of one or more populations of bees, using genetic analysis of bees. Evaluation of genetic connections, diversity within the population and structure of the bee population in Vojvodina, were calculated on the basis of allele variation of 25 microsatellite loci. A genetic typification of the following microsatellites was performed: A8, A14, A24, A29, A43, A79, A88, A113, Ac11, Ac88, Ac139, Ac306, Ap15, Ap68, Ap85, Ap90, Ap223, Ap224, Ap226, Ap249, Ap273, Ap274, Ap288, At168, At188. 92% or 23 loci proved to be polymorphic in samples of bees from Srem and Backa, and 88% or 22 loci proved to be polymorphic in samples of bees from Banat. Heterozygosity calculated for the whole population is not significantly different from the expected heterozygosity. It was found that the obtained genetic differences between bees of Srem and Backa, and Banat region are not sufficient for these two populations to be considered separate

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

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

201

Population dynamics of European honey bee genotypes under different environmental conditions

201

Cloud computing based bushfire prediction for cyber-physical emergency applications

Here, scientists from 19 European countries, most of them collaborating in Working Group 4: “Diversity and Vitality” of COST Action FA 0803 “Prevention of honey bee COlony LOSSes” (COLOSS), review the methodology applied in each country for discriminating between honey bee populations. Morphometric analyses (classical and geometric) and different molecular markers have been applied. Even if the approach has been similar, however, different methodologies regarding measurements, landmarks or molecular markers may have been used, as well as different statistical procedures. There is therefore the necessity to establish common methods in all countries in order to have results that can be directly compared. This is one of the goals of WG4 of the COLOSS project