Direct Economic Impact Assessment of Winter Honeybee Colony Losses in Three European Countries

Honeybees are of great importance because of their role in pollination as well as for hive products. The population of managed colonies fluctuates over time, and recent monitoring reports show different levels of colony losses in many regions and countries. The cause of this kind of loss is a combination of various factors, such as the parasitic mite Varroa destructor, viruses, pesticides, management practices, climate change, and other stress factors. Having in mind that the economic aspect of honeybee colony losses has not been estimated, a pioneer effort was made for developing a methodology that estimates the economic impact of honeybee colony losses. Winter loss data was based on 2993 answers of the COLOSS standard questionnaire survey of honeybee winter colony losses for 2016/2017. In addition, market and financial data were used for each country. In a comparative analysis, an assessment on the economic impact of colony losses in Austria, Czechia, and Macedonia was made. The estimation considered the value of the colonies and the potential production losses of the lost colonies and of surviving but weak colonies. The direct economic impact of winter honeybee colony losses in 2016/2017 in Austria was estimated to be about 32 Mio; in Czechia, 21 Mio; and in Macedonia, 3 Mio. Economic impact reflects the different value levels in the three countries, national colony populations, and the magnitude of colony losses. This study also suggests that economic losses are much higher than the subsidies, which underlines the economic importance of honeybees for the agricultural sector

Spatial clusters of Varroa destructor control strategies in Europe

Publication history: Accepted - 18 May 2022; Published online - 29 June 2022Beekeepers have various options to control the parasitic mite Varroa destructor in honey bee colonies, but no empirical data are available on the methods they apply in practice. We surveyed 28,409 beekeepers maintaining 507,641 colonies in 30 European countries concerning Varroa control methods. The set of 19 diferent Varroa diagnosis and control measures was taken from the annual COLOSS questionnaire on honey bee colony losses. The most frequent activities were monitoring of Varroa infestations, drone brood removal, various oxalic acid applications and formic acid applications. Correspondence analysis and hierarchical clustering on principal components showed that six Varroa control options (not necessarily the most used ones) signifcantly contribute to defning three distinctive clusters of countries in terms of Varroa control in Europe. Cluster I (eight Western European countries) is characterized by use of amitraz strips. Cluster II comprises 15 countries from Scandinavia, the Baltics, and Central-Southern Europe. This cluster is characterized by long-term formic acid treatments. Cluster III is characterized by dominant usage of amitraz fumigation and formed by seven Eastern European countries. The median number of diferent treatments applied per beekeeper was lowest in cluster III. Based on estimation of colony numbers in included countries, we extrapolated the proportions of colonies treated with diferent methods in Europe. This suggests that circa 62% of colonies in Europe are treated with amitraz, followed by oxalic acid for the next largest percentage of colonies. We discuss possible factors determining the choice of Varroa control measures in the diferent clustersOpen access funding provided by University of Graz. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. COLOSS and its supporters had no influence on the study design or the decision to publish

1H NMR Profiling of Honey Bee Bodies Revealed Metabolic Differences between Summer and Winter Bees

In temperate climates, honey bee workers of the species Apis mellifera have different lifespans depending on the seasonal phenotype: summer bees (short lifespan) and winter bees (long lifespan). Many studies have revealed the biochemical parameters involved in the lifespan differentiation of summer and winter bees. However, comprehensive information regarding the metabolic changes occurring in their bodies between the two is limited. This study used proton nuclear magnetic resonance (1H NMR) spectroscopy to analyze the metabolic differences between summer and winter bees of the same age. The multivariate analysis showed that summer and winter bees could be distinguished based on their metabolic profiles. Among the 36 metabolites found, 28 metabolites have displayed significant changes from summer to winter bees. Compared to summer bees, trehalose in winter bees showed 1.9 times higher concentration, and all amino acids except for proline and alanine showed decreased patterns. We have also detected an unknown compound, with a CH3 singlet at 2.83 ppm, which is a potential biomarker that is about 13 times higher in summer bees. Our results show that the metabolites in summer and winter bees have distinctive characteristics; this information could provide new insights and support further studies on honey bee longevity and overwintering