Monitoring Aethina tumida (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) With Baited Bottom Board Traps: Occurrence and Seasonal Abundance in Honey Bee Colonies in Kenya

Abstract

The population dynamics of the honey bee pest Aethina tumida Murray (small hive beetle) have been studied in the United States with flight and Langstroth hive bottom board traps baited with pollen dough inoculated with a yeast Kodamaea ohmeri associated with the beetle. However, little is known about the population dynamics of the beetle in its native host range. Similarly baited Langstroth hive bottom board traps were used to monitor the occurrence and seasonal abundance of the beetle in honey bee colonies at two beekeeping locations in Kenya. Trap captures indicated that the beetle was present in honey bee colonies in low numbers all year round, but it was most abundant during the rainy season, with over 80% trapped during this period. The survival of larvae was tested in field releases under dry and wet soil conditions, and predators of larvae were identified. The actvity and survival of the beetle were strongly influenced by a combination of abiotic and biotic factors. Larval survival was higher during wet (28%) than dry (1.1%) conditions, with pupation occurring mostly at 0-15 cm and 11-20 cm, respectively, beneath the surface soil during these periods. The ant Pheidole megacephala was identified as a key predator of larvae at this site, and more active during the dry than wet seasons. These observations imply that intensive trapping during the rainy season could reduce the population of beetles infesting hives in subsequent seasons especially in places where the beetle is a serious pest.

Present and future perspectives of using biological control agents against pests of honey bees

“…Entomopathogenic fungi (Muerrle et al 2006) and entomopathogenic nematodes (Ellis et al 2010) are major biological control agents found attacking the SHB (Cuthbertson et al 2012). Besides, there are some minor agents including Aspergillus niger and A. flavus (Richards et al 2005), the storage mite Caloglyphus hughesi (Strauss et al 2010), the ant Pheidole megacephala, as a predator of larvae (Torto et al 2010), and a protozoan pathogen (Wright and Steinkraus 2013) have been reported. Mortality of SHB increased when B. bassiana and M. anisopliae variety anisopliae were used, using spore suspension bioassays.…”

Keeping a low profile: small hive beetle reproduction in African honeybee colonies

“…Interestingly, the numbers of SHB larvae in colonies were significantly larger than the numbers of adults. Therefore, losses as a result of the hosts (Neumann & Härtel, ), natural enemies (Torto et al ., ) or unfavourable conditions for pupation (Neumann et al ., ) could possibly be compensated for. In conclusion, it appears as if the observed low‐level reproduction can be sufficient to explain local infestation levels of African honeybee colonies with adult SHBs irrespective of any other reproductive options (Neumann et al ., ).…”

Differences in absconding between African and European honeybee subspecies facilitate invasion success of small hive beetles

“…Even though ants can drive an entire honeybee colony out of their hive (Fell 1997) and P. megacephala is known to be a predator of SHB larvae (Torto et al 2010), there were no significant effect of ant presences on either SHB or GWM reproduction. Since SHB larvae are often covered with a slimy coating derived from fermenting honey (Neumann and Härtel 2004), this coating may protect them against ant predation as long as some honey is left behind in the nests.…”