Apis mellifera capensis : an essay on the subspecific classification of honeybees

Self Cite

-Cape honeybee workers show important pre-adaptations for social parasitism and can cause the dwindling colony syndrome of host colonies. Parasitic workers may drift or actively disperse into host colonies. They may also join absconding swarms, which can merge with host colonies. After transmission, parasitic workers have to establish themselves in the host, which is probably promoted by their spatial distribution, their readiness to gain trophallactic dominance and their ability to survive worker-worker aggression. Established parasitic workers have to evade egg removal by other workers in host colonies. The resulting offspring is preferentially fed, can be expected to be highly virulent and may show different behaviour in the course of infestation. It is unknown why and how the host queen is lost. High numbers of parasitic workers are reared until the host colony dies or absconds. This offspring can infest new host colonies, thereby completing the social parasitic life cycle.Apis mellifera capensis / Apis mellifera scutellata / honeybee / social parasitism / worker reproduction

Section: Resistance and Suscepitibility Of Host Coloniesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioural basis for social parasitism of Cape honeybees (Apis mellifera capensis)

Neumann

Hepburn

2002

Self Cite

“…These Cape workers were able to activate their ovaries and become reproductively active . Unlike other honey bee subspecies, where workers produce males by arrhenotokous parthenogenesis, workers of the Cape honey bee produce female offspring through thelytoky (Onions, 1912(Onions, , 1914Anderson, 1963;Hepburn and Radloff, 2002). As a result, the number of Cape workers in the colonies increase, eventually resulting in the death of the African queen.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting more than a fair share: nutrition of worker larvae related to social parasitism in the Cape honey bee Apis mellifera capensis

Calis

Boot

Allsopp³

et al. 2002

-Besides activation of ovaries and thelytokous reproduction of Cape workers, larval nutrition is an important aspect in parasitism of the African honey bee. When reared by workers of other subspecies, Cape larvae receive more food which is slightly more royal jelly-like. This results in worker-queen intermediates, with reduced pollen combs, enlarged spermathecae and higher numbers of ovarioles. The intermediates weigh more and develop faster than normal workers. The appearance of worker-queen intermediates probably affects parasitism of the African honey bee colonies by Cape workers. Different levels of larval nutrition resulting in less distinct caste differentiation may be important for the reproductive success of Cape workers in their own colonies. Similar processes, albeit less pronounced, may occur in colonies of other subspecies.Apis mellifera capensis / A. m. scutellata / Cape honey bee / African honey bee / parasitism / larval feeding / caste determination

“…Indeed there is a natural hybrid zone between the two subspecies with clear indications of hybridisation (Hepburn and Crewe, 1991 a,b;Crewe et al, 1994;Moritz et al, 1998 (Radloff et al, 2002). Apparently, A. m. capensis sexual reproductives are not produced in the parasitic laying worker strain causing the Capensis calamity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population dynamics of the Cape bee phenomenon: The impact of parasitic laying worker clones in apiaries and natural populations

Moritz

2002

-A population ecological host-parasite model is used to evaluate the potential impact of clonal parasitic laying workers of the Cape honeybee, Apis mellifera capensis on populations of Apis mellifera scutellata host colonies in apiaries and in the wild. The model includes three basic life history parameters: reproductive rate of the host colonies, transmission efficiency of the parasite and the death rate of parasitised colonies. The population dynamics of host and parasites are computed for 100 generations after an initial infestation with parasitic workers. The model reveals that infestations are likely to be fatal for apiary populations irrespective of beekeeping activities compensating for colony losses due to parasitation. Wild A. m. scutellata populations are however less likely to be affected by parasitic laying workers and stable equilibria between host and parasite occur over a wide range of the parameter space. Although it is unlikely that the parasitic clone represents a threat to the conservation of biodiversity, even low frequencies of parasitic A. m. capensis workers in wild honeybee population can cause a permanent threat to beekeeping activities.Cape honeybee / Apis mellifera capensis / parasitic worker / population model / biodiversity / apiculture