Reducing the risk of honey bee colony loss through beekeeping management practices

As primary pollinators in agricultural settings, managed honey bee colonies (Apis mellifera L.) are a highly value commodity for which demand is only growing. With high levels of colony loss experienced in the USA and around the world, there is demand for a better understanding of the drivers of colony mortality and identification of suites of management practices which are optimal for colony survivorship. This dissertation responds to these demands by summarizing the state of knowledge on the causes of colony loss (Chapter 1); describing the epidemiological tools used to investigate honey bee colony health (Chapter 2); describing the variability of colony loss across stakeholder typology, regions, seasons and years (Chapters 3 and 4); and investigating the association between management practices and colony mortality (Chapter 5). Honey bee health, and ultimately, colony loss, is affected by multiple stressors acting concomitantly and sometimes interacting. Those stressors include pests and diseases, forage availability and pesticide exposure. Management practices have the potential, when used judiciously, to alleviate some of those stressors. Investigations of sets of management practices have been frustrated by the lack of methodology to handle large complex and incomplete datasets that are typical in observational studies. Using long term observational data obtained from the Bee Informed Partnership monitoring of honey bee colony losses and management practices in the US, we were able to describe the variation in colony loss across years, seasons, States and stakeholder’s types. In parallel, we summarized management information into a quality index, based on experts’ opinion, and confirmed the association between management practices quality and overwintering colony loss. Further, we ranked individual practices based on their associated potential reduction in colony mortality. Because our method accounts for the pre-existing prevalence of practices, we propose that those sets of practices should be prioritized as recommendations, rather than those identified by experts, to derive the highest reduction in risk of colony mortality. The methodology we developed could benefit other Ag or epidemiological systems interested in the summarization of a great number of practices and their prioritization based on highest potential to reduce risk

Prioritizing changes in management practices associated with reduced winter honey bee colony losses for US beekeepers.

peer reviewedBeekeepers attempt to manage their honey bee colonies in ways that optimize colony health. Disentangling the impact of management from other variables affecting colony health is complicated by the diversity of practices used and difficulties handling typically complex and incomplete observational datasets. We propose a method to 1) compress multi-factored management data into a single index, to holistically investigate the real world impact of management on colony mortality, and 2) simplify said index to identify the core practices for which a change in behavior is associated with the greatest improvement in survivorship. Experts scored the practices of US beekeepers (n = 18,971) documented using four years of retrospective surveys (2012-2015). Management Index scores significantly correlated with loss rates, with beekeepers most in line with recommendations suffering lower losses. The highest ranked practices varied by operation type, as recommendations accounted for the current prevalence of practices. These results validate experts' opinion using empirical data, and can help prioritize extension messages. Improving management will not prevent all losses; however, we show that few behavioral changes (in particular related to comb management, sources of new colonies and Varroa management) can lead to a non-negligible reduction in risk

Standard methods for pollination research with Apis mellifera 2.0

In this chapter we present a synthesis of recommendations for conducting field experiments with honey bees in the context of agricultural pollination. We begin with an overview of methods for determining the mating system requirements of plants and the efficacy of specific pollinators. We describe methods for evaluating the pollen-vectoring capacity of bees at the level of individuals or colonies and follow with methods for determining optimum colony field stocking densities. We include sections for determining post-harvest effects of pollination, the effects of colony management (including glasshouse enclosure) on bee pollination performance, and a brief section on considerations about pesticides and their impact on pollinator performance. A final section gives guidance on determining the economic valuation of honey bee colony inputs at the scale of the farm or region.Fil: Sagili, Ramesh Reddy. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Chakrabarti, Priyadarshini. Mississippi State University.; Estados UnidosFil: Melathopoulos, Andony. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Delaplane, Keith S.. University of Georgia; Estados UnidosFil: Dag, Arnon. Ministry Of Agriculture; IsraelFil: Danka, Robert G.. Horticultural Research Laboratory ; United States Department Of Agriculture;Fil: Freitas, Breno M.. Universidade Federal Do Ceara; BrasilFil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Centro Cientifico Tecnologico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones En Recursos Naturales, Agroecologia y Desarrollo Rural. - Universidad Nacional de Rio Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones En Recursos Naturales, Agroecologia y Desarrollo Rural.; ArgentinaFil: Hormaza, Jose I.. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas; EspañaFil: Steinhauer, Nathalie. State University of Oregon; Estados Unido

Risk and protective indicators of beekeeping management practices

Explaining the reasons for the high honey bee (Apis mellifera) colony loss rate in recent years has become a top global research priority in apicultural and agricultural sciences. Although there are indications of the role played by beekeeping management practices on honey bee health, very little information is currently available. Our study aimed to characterize the beekeeping management practices carried out in Belgium, and to determine the relationship between beekeeping management practices and colony losses. Variables obtained from face-to-face questioning of a representative randomized and stratified sample of Belgian beekeepers (n = 186) were integrated into a logistic regression model (univariate and multivariate) and correlated to the declared colony loss rates to identify risk and protective indicators. We used a classification tree analysis to validate the results. We present evidence of a relationship between poor beekeeping management practices and colony losses. The main factors protecting honey bee colonies are the aptitude of the beekeeper to change his management practices, the hive type, the equipment origin and hygiene, wintering in proper conditions (the use of divider boards, i.e. board blocks or space fillers off part of the hive body), the colony strength estimation before wintering, winter monitoring, and last but not least, appropriate integrated pest management. Proper estimation of the Varroa infestation level should be performed prior to treatment. The consequences of poor beekeeping practices on honey bee health can be addressed by proper training of beekeepers. An online tool was developed and published for beekeepers allowing them to evaluate the effect of their management practices on colony health. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

A national survey of managed honey bee 2012-2013 annual colony losses in the USA : results from the Bee Informed Partnership

For the past six years in which overwintering mortality of honey bee colonies has been surveyed in the USA, estimates of colony loss have fluctuated around one-third of the national population. Here we report on the losses for the 2012-2013 seasons. We collected data from 6,482 US beekeepers (6,114 backyard, 233 sideline, and 135 commercial beekeepers) to document overwintering mortality rates of honey bee colonies for the USA. Responding beekeepers reported a total 30.6% (95% CI: 30.16-31.13%) loss of US colonies over the winter, with each beekeeper losing on average 44.8% (95% CI: 43.88-45.66%) of their colonies. Total winter losses varied across states (range: 11.0% to 54.7%). The self-reported level of acceptable winter loss was 14.6%, and 73.2% of the respondents had mortality rates greater than this level. The leading self-identified causes of overwintering mortality were different according to the operation type; backyard beekeepers generally self-identified “manageable” factors (e.g., starvation, weak colony in the fall), while commercial beekeepers generally identified non-manageable factors (e.g., queen failure, pesticides) as the main cause of losses. For the first time in this series of surveys, we estimated mortality during the summer (total loss = 25.3% (95% CI: 24.80-25.74%), average loss = 12.5% (95% CI: 11.92-13.06%)). The entire 12-months period between April 2012 and April 2013 yielded a total loss of 45.2% (95% CI: 44.58-45.75%), and an average loss of 49.4% (95% CI: 48.46-50.43%). While we found that commercial beekeepers lost fewer colonies than backyard beekeepers in the winter (30.2% (95% CI: 26.54-33.93% vs 45.4% (44.46-46.32%) respectively), the situation was reversed in the summer where commercial beekeepers reported higher average losses than backyard beekeepers (21.6% (95% CI: 18.4-24.79%) vs 12.1% (11.46-12.65%)). These findings demonstrate the ongoing difficulties of US beekeepers in maintaining overall colony heath and survival.Keywords: Colony losses, Overwinter, USA, 2012-13, Honey bee, Mortalit

A national survey of managed honey bee 2013-2014 annual colony losses in the USA

Honey bee colony losses are a major concern in the USA and across the globe. Long-term data on losses are critical for putting yearly losses in context. US colony loss surveys have been conducted yearly since the winter of 2006–2007. Here, we report the results from the eighth annual survey on winter losses and the second annual survey of summer and annual losses. There were 7425 valid respondents (7123 backyard, 190 sideline, and 112 commercial beekeepers) managing 497,855 colonies, 19 % of the total US colonies. Total losses reported were 19.8% [95% CI 19.3–20.3 %] over the summer, 23.7 % [95% CI 23.3–24.1 %] over the winter, and 34.1 % [95 % CI 33.6–34.6 %] for the whole year. Average losses were 15.1 % [95 % CI 14.5–15.7 %] over the summer, 44.8 % [95 % CI 43.9–45.7 %] over the winter, and 51.1 % [95 % CI 50.2–51.6 %] for the whole year. While total winter loss was one of the lowest reported in 8 years, 66%of all beekeepers had higher losses than they deemed acceptable.Keywords: survey, honey bee, mortality, USA, colony lossesKeywords: survey, honey bee, mortality, USA, colony losse

Quick Order Fairness

Leader-based protocols for consensus, i.e., atomic broadcast, allow some processes to unilaterally affect the final order of transactions. This has become a problem for blockchain networks and decentralized finance because it facilitates front-running and other attacks. To address this, order fairness for payload messages has been introduced recently as a new safety property for atomic broadcast complementing traditional agreement and liveness. We relate order fairness to the standard validity notions for consensus protocols and highlight some limitations with the existing formalization. Based on this, we introduce a new differential order-fairness property that fixes these issues. We also present the quick order-fair atomic broadcast protocol that guarantees payload message delivery in a differentially fair order and is much more efficient than existing order-fair consensus protocols. It works for asynchronous and for eventually synchronous networks with optimal resilience, tolerating corruptions of up to one third of the processes. Previous solutions required there to be less than one fourth of faults. Furthermore, our protocol incurs only quadratic cost, in terms of amortized message complexity per delivered payload

Quick Order Fairness

Leader-based protocols for consensus, i.e., atomic broadcast, allow some processes to unilaterally affect the final order of transactions. This has become a problem for blockchain networks and decentralized finance because it facilitates front-running and other attacks. To address this, order fairness for payload messages has been introduced recently as a new safety property for atomic broadcast complementing traditional agreement and liveness. We relate order fairness to the standard validity notions for consensus protocols and highlight some limitations with the existing formalization. Based on this, we introduce a new differential order fairness property that fixes these issues. We also present the quick order-fair atomic broadcast protocol that guarantees payload message delivery in a differentially fair order and is much more efficient than existing order-fair consensus protocols. It works for asynchronous and for eventually synchronous networks with optimal resilience, tolerating corruptions of up to one third of the processes. Previous solutions required there to be less than one fourth of faults. Furthermore, our protocol incurs only quadratic cost, in terms of amortized message complexity per delivered payload

CaronDeweyHortNationalSurveyManaged.pdf

Honey bee colony losses are a major concern in the USA and across the globe. Long-term data on losses are critical for putting yearly losses in context. US colony loss surveys have been conducted yearly since the winter of 2006–2007. Here, we report the results from the eighth annual survey on winter losses and the second annual survey of summer and annual losses. There were 7425 valid respondents (7123 backyard, 190 sideline, and 112 commercial beekeepers) managing 497,855 colonies, 19 % of the total US colonies. Total losses reported were 19.8% [95% CI 19.3–20.3 %] over the summer, 23.7 % [95% CI 23.3–24.1 %] over the winter, and 34.1 % [95 % CI 33.6–34.6 %] for the whole year. Average losses were 15.1 % [95 % CI 14.5–15.7 %] over the summer, 44.8 % [95 % CI 43.9–45.7 %] over the winter, and 51.1 % [95 % CI 50.2–51.6 %] for the whole year. While total winter loss was one of the lowest reported in 8 years, 66%of all beekeepers had higher losses than they deemed acceptable.Keywords: mortality, honey bee, survey, USA, colony losse