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

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

Evaluation of Suppressed Mite Reproduction (SMR) Reveals Potential for Varroa Resistance in European Honey Bees (Apis melliferaL.)

Simple Summary The miteVarroa destructorrepresents a great threat to honey bees and the beekeeping industry. The opportunity to select and breed honey bees that are naturally able to fight the mite stands a sustainable solution. This can be achieved by evaluation of the failure of mite reproduction (SMR, suppressed mite reproduction). We conducted a large European experiment to assess the SMR trait in different populations of honey bees spread over 13 different countries, and representing different honey bee populations. The first goal was to standardize and validate the SMR evaluation method, and then to compare the SMR trait between the different populations. Our results indicate that it is necessary to examine at least 35 brood cells infested by a single mite to reliably estimate the SMR score of any given colony. Several colonies from our dataset display high SMR scores, indicating that this trait is present within the European honey bee populations. No major differences could be identified between countries for a given population, or between populations in different countries. This study shows the potential to increase selection efforts to breedV. destructorhoney bee resistant populations. In the fight against theVarroa destructormite, selective breeding of honey bee (Apis melliferaL.) populations that are resistant to the parasitic mite stands as a sustainable solution. Selection initiatives indicate that using the suppressed mite reproduction (SMR) trait as a selection criterion is a suitable tool to breed such resistant bee populations. We conducted a large European experiment to evaluate the SMR trait in different populations of honey bees spread over 13 different countries, and representing different honey bee genotypes with their local mite parasites. The first goal was to standardize and validate the SMR evaluation method, and then to compare the SMR trait between the different populations. Simulation results indicate that it is necessary to examine at least 35 single-infested cells to reliably estimate the SMR score of any given colony. Several colonies from our dataset display high SMR scores indicating that this trait is present within the European honey bee populations. The trait is highly variable between colonies and some countries, but no major differences could be identified between countries for a given genotype, or between genotypes in different countries. This study shows the potential to increase selective breeding efforts ofV. destructorresistant populations

Outcome of the workshop

On 4th and 5th of February 2014, 18 researchers from 13 countries attended the workshop in Graz, Austria. The workshop was supported by COLOSS, University of Graz, the Dean of the Faculty of Science and the Austrian Research Association. An authorized questionnaire that was drafted before the workshop was finalised during the workshop after necessary extended discussion. The questionnaire will be published on the COLOSS website to make it available to all interested countries. Deadlines and important dates for the 2014 monitoring and submission of data were established. The use of additional databases (meteorological and land use) which could be relevant for better understanding of the past and future loss data collected using the COLOSS questionnaire was explored, with input from specialists from other fields. So far only winter losses have been considered, however in southern countries summer losses appear to be more important. This issue was discussed and a decision was taken to further explore summer losses in specific southern areas ideally using a randomized approach. The general feeling was that the monitoring group currently acts as an European entity which attracts other countries, but which may require to develop a stronger European profile. For COLOSS, it would be a good initiative for similar entities to be developed independently in other continents by honey bee researchers based in those continents. Further exploration of specific requirements and conditions is needed. The issue of compliance with the EU regulations on data protection was discussed for future implementation. A jointly authored publication on winter 2012-2013 colony losses which is in press and soon to appear in the Journal of Apicultural Research was welcomed by the participants of the workshop and would be accompanied by an IBRA press release to publicise this article