Pathogens as Predictors of Honey Bee Colony Strength in England and Wales

Budge, Giles E.; Pietravalle, Stéphane; Brown, Mike; Laurenson, Lynn; Jones, Ben; Tomkies, Victoria; Delaplane, Keith S.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133228

Cited by 45 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However adult‐bee infection prevalence is far lower than seen in our SI model (S.I. Figure )—this is in agreement with observations of lower prevalence of paralysis viruses (Budge et al, ). Notably, the endemic equilibrium prevalence increases only by small magnitudes as movement between colonies or apiary sizes are drastically increased (S.I.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Nosema was the only pathogen for which there are direct empirical studies characterizing its transmissibility, however, other honeybee pathogens such as deformed wing virus are also well studied. While estimating an R 0 for DWV is difficult due to active management by beekeepers, maximum reported prevalences that may be indicative of its true “unmanaged” R 0 are high, for example 73% in Natsopoulou et al (), 80% in Budge et al () and 100% in Stamets et al (). These high prevalences are consistent with high R 0 values (Figures c and a, and S.I.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Honeybee health and the apicultural industry are under threat from a variety of pressures (Ghazoul, ; vanEngelsdorp & Meixner, ), including parasites and pathogens (Budge et al, ; De la Rúa, Jaffé, Dall’Olio, Muñoz, & Serrano, ; Potts et al, ). There is a growing body of literature documenting the damage that emerging or re‐emerging diseases (Wilfert et al, ) are causing in apiculture (Jacques et al, ; Kielmanowicz et al, ) and native pollinators (Cohen, Quistberg, Philpott, & DeGrandi‐Hoffman, ; Fürst, McMahon, Osborne, Paxton, & Brown, ; Graystock, Blane, McFrederick, Goulson, & Hughes, ; Manley, Boots, & Wilfert, ; McMahon et al, ; McMahon, Wilfert, Paxton, & Brown, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Industrial bees: The impact of apicultural intensification on local disease prevalence

Bartlett

Rozins

Brosi

et al. 2019

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is generally thought that the intensification of farming will result in higher disease prevalences, although there is little specific modelling testing this idea. Focussing on honeybees, we build multi‐colony models to inform how “apicultural intensification” is predicted to impact honeybee pathogen epidemiology at the apiary scale.We used both agent‐based and analytical models to show that three linked aspects of apicultural intensification (increased population sizes, changes in population network structure and increased between‐colony transmission) are unlikely to greatly increase disease prevalence in apiaries. Principally this is because even low‐intensity apiculture exhibits high disease prevalence.The greatest impacts of apicultural intensification are found for diseases with relatively low R0 (basic reproduction number), however, such diseases cause little overall disease prevalence and, therefore, the impacts of intensification are minor. Furthermore, the smallest impacts of intensification are for diseases with high R0 values, which we argue are typical of important honeybee diseases. Policy Implications: Our findings contradict the idea that apicultural intensification by crowding honeybee colonies in large, dense apiaries leads to notably higher disease prevalences for established honeybee pathogens. More broadly, our work demonstrates the need for informative models of all agricultural systems and management practices in order to understand the implications of management changes on diseases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Industrial bees: The impact of apicultural intensification on local disease prevalence

Bartlett

Rozins

Brosi

et al. 2019

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Future work should investigate (1) whether group density affects other parameters of immunity in eusocial insects, such as the PO system, AMP's, and potential trade-offs with body mass and between social and individual immune responses and (2) the effects of group density on immunocompetence under controlled dietary regimes. Our study provides evidence for the multifaceted costs associated with small colony size for honeybees (Budge et al, 2015), at both the individual and colony level.…”

Section: Con Clus Ionsmentioning

confidence: 68%

Social immunity in honeybees—Density dependence, diet, and body mass trade‐offs

Jones

Shipley

Arnold

2018

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group living is favorable to pathogen spread due to the increased risk of disease transmission among individuals. Similar to individual immune defenses, social immunity, that is antiparasite defenses mounted for the benefit of individuals other than the actor, is predicted to be altered in social groups. The eusocial honey bee (Apis mellifera) secretes glucose oxidase (GOX), an antiseptic enzyme, throughout its colony, thereby providing immune protection to other individuals in the hive. We conducted a laboratory experiment to investigate the effects of group density on social immunity, specifically GOX activity, body mass and feeding behavior in caged honey bees. Individual honeybees caged in a low group density displayed increased GOX activity relative to those kept at a high group density. In addition, we provided evidence for a trade‐off between GOX activity and body mass: Individuals caged in the low group density had a lower body mass, despite consuming more food overall. Our results provide the first experimental evidence that group density affects a social immune response in a eusocial insect. Moreover, we showed that the previously reported trade‐off between immunity and body mass extends to social immunity. GOX production appears to be costly for individuals, and potentially the colony, given that low body mass is correlated with small foraging ranges in bees. At high group densities, individuals can invest less in social immunity than at low densities, while presumably gaining shared protection from infection. Thus, there is evidence that trade‐offs at the individual level (GOX vs. body mass) can affect colony‐level fitness.

show abstract

“…The 5′-terminal reporter dye for each TaqMan probe was 6-carboxyfluorescin (FAM) and the 3′ quencher was tetra-methylcarboxyrhodamine (TAMRA) or Minor groove binding (MGB) as indicated.1-[49].2-[1].3-[48].4-[50].5-[51].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parasite Pressures on Feral Honey Bees (Apis mellifera sp.)

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feral honey bee populations have been reported to be in decline due to the spread of Varroa destructor, an ectoparasitic mite that when left uncontrolled leads to virus build-up and colony death. While pests and diseases are known causes of large-scale managed honey bee colony losses, no studies to date have considered the wider pathogen burden in feral colonies, primarily due to the difficulty in locating and sampling colonies, which often nest in inaccessible locations such as church spires and tree tops. In addition, little is known about the provenance of feral colonies and whether they represent a reservoir of Varroa tolerant material that could be used in apiculture. Samples of forager bees were collected from paired feral and managed honey bee colonies and screened for the presence of ten honey bee pathogens and pests using qPCR. Prevalence and quantity was similar between the two groups for the majority of pathogens, however feral honey bees contained a significantly higher level of deformed wing virus than managed honey bee colonies. An assessment of the honey bee race was completed for each colony using three measures of wing venation. There were no apparent differences in wing morphometry between feral and managed colonies, suggesting feral colonies could simply be escapees from the managed population. Interestingly, managed honey bee colonies not treated for Varroa showed similar, potentially lethal levels of deformed wing virus to that of feral colonies. The potential for such findings to explain the large fall in the feral population and the wider context of the importance of feral colonies as potential pathogen reservoirs is discussed.

show abstract

Pathogens as Predictors of Honey Bee Colony Strength in England and Wales

Cited by 45 publications

References 30 publications

Industrial bees: The impact of apicultural intensification on local disease prevalence

Industrial bees: The impact of apicultural intensification on local disease prevalence

Social immunity in honeybees—Density dependence, diet, and body mass trade‐offs

Parasite Pressures on Feral Honey Bees (Apis mellifera sp.)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About