ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

In the fight against the Varroa destructor mite, selective breeding of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) populations that are resistant to the parasitic mite stands as a sustainable solution. Selection initiatives indicate that using the suppressed mite reproduction (SMR) trait as a selection criterion is a suitable tool to breed such resistant bee populations. We conducted a large European experiment to evaluate the SMR trait in different populations of honey bees spread over 13 different countries, and representing different honey bee genotypes with their local mite parasites. The first goal was to standardize and validate the SMR evaluation method, and then to compare the SMR trait between the different populations. Simulation results indicate that it is necessary to examine at least 35 single-infested cells to reliably estimate the SMR score of any given colony. Several colonies from our dataset display high SMR scores indicating that this trait is present within the European honey bee populations. The trait is highly variable between colonies and some countries, but no major differences could be identified between countries for a given genotype, or between genotypes in different countries. This study shows the potential to increase selective breeding efforts of V. destructor resistant populations.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Insects 2020, 11, 595; doi:10.3390/insects11090595 www.mdpi.com/journal/insects
Article
Evaluation of Suppressed Mite Reproduction (SMR)
Reveals Potential for Varroa Resistance in European
Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.)
Fanny Mondet 1,2,*, Melanie Parejo 3,4, Marina D. Meixner 5, Cecilia Costa 6, Per Kryger 7,
Sreten Andonov 8,9, Bertrand Servin 10, Benjamin Basso 2,11, Małgorzata Bieńkowska 12,
Gianluigi Bigio 13, Eliza Căuia 14, Valentina Cebotari 15, Bjorn Dahle 16,17, Marica Maja Dražić 18,
Fani Hatjina 19, Marin Kovačić 20, Justinas Kretavicius 21, Ana S. Lima 22,23, Beata Panasiuk 12,
M. Alice Pinto 22, Aleksandar Uzunov 5,24, Jerzy Wilde 25 and Ralph Büchler 5
1 INRAE, UR 406 Abeilles et Environnement, 84914 Avignon, France
2 UMT PrADE, 84914 Avignon, France; benjamin.basso@inrae.fr
3 Agroscope, Swiss Bee Research Center, 3003 Bern, Switzerland; melanie.parejo@ehu.eus
4 Laboratory of Genetics, University of the Basque Country, 48940 Leioa, Spain
5 LLH Bee Institute, 35274 Kirchhain, Germany; marina.meixner@llh.hessen.de (M.D.M.);
uzunov@fznh.ukim.edu.mk (A.U.); ralph.buechler@llh.hessen.de (R.B.)
6 CREA Research Centre for Agriculture and Environment, 40141 Bologna, Italy; cecilia.costa@crea.gov.it
7 Department Agroecology, Aarhus University, 4200 Slagelse, Denmark; per.kryger@agro.au.dk
8 Departement of Animal Biotechnology, FZNH, 1000 Skopje, Macedonia; sreten_andonov@yahoo.com
9 Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, SLU, 99104 Uppsala, Sweden
10 INRAE, GenPhySE, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France; bertrand.servin@inrae.fr
11 ITSAP, 75012 Paris, France
12 Research Institute of Horticulture, 96100 Skierniewice, Poland; malgorzata.bienkowska@inhort.pl (M.B.);
beata.panasiuk@inhort.pl (B.P.)
13 Aspromiele, Regional Association of Honey Producers, 15121 Alessandria, Italy;
gianluigi.bigio@aspromiele.it
14 Institute for Beekeeping Research and Development, 013975 Bucharest, Romania;
eliza.cauia@icdapicultura.ro
15 Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences of Moldova, 2028 Kishinev, Moldova; valentinaceb@yahoo.com
16 Norwegian Beekeepers Association, 2040 Kløfta, Norway; bjorn@norbi.no
17 Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life
Sciences, 1430 Ås, Norway
18 Ministry of Agriculture, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; marica.drazic@mps.hr
19 Department of Apiculture, Institute of Animal ScienceHellenic Agricultural Organization 'DEMETER',
63200 Nea Moudania, Greece; fhatjina@instmelissocomias.gr
20 Faculty of Agrobiotechnical Sciences Osijek, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, 31000 Osijek,
Croatia; komarin@pfos.hr
21 National Bee Breeding Association, Virsuliskiu g 33, 05105 Vilnius, Lithuania; jkretas@gmail.com
22 Centro de Investigação de Montanha, Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Campus de Santa Apolónia, 5300-
253 Bragança, Portugal; aslima@fc.ul.pt (A.S.L.); apinto@ipb.pt (M.A.P.)
23 CESAM-Ciências, Centro de Estudos do Ambiente e do Mar, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de
Lisboa, Campo Grande, 1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal
24 Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Food, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, 1000 Skopje, North
Macedonia
25 Apiculture Division, Faculty of Animal Bioengineering, Warmia and Mazury University in Olsztyn,
Sloneczna 48, 10-957 Olsztyn, Poland; jerzy.wilde@uwm.edu.pl
* Correspondence: fanny.mondet@inrae.fr; Tel.: +33-43272-2699
Received: 10 July 2020; Accepted: 27 August 2020; Published: 3 September 2020
Insects 2020, 11, 595 2 of 17
Simple Summary: The mite Varroa destructor represents a great threat to honey bees and the
beekeeping industry. The opportunity to select and breed honey bees that are naturally able to fight
the mite stands a sustainable solution. This can be achieved by evaluation of the failure of mite
reproduction (SMR, suppressed mite reproduction). We conducted a large European experiment to
assess the SMR trait in different populations of honey bees spread over 13 different countries, and
representing different honey bee populations. The first goal was to standardize and validate the
SMR evaluation method, and then to compare the SMR trait between the different populations. Our
results indicate that it is necessary to examine at least 35 brood cells infested by a single mite to
reliably estimate the SMR score of any given colony. Several colonies from our dataset display high
SMR scores, indicating that this trait is present within the European honey bee populations. No
major differences could be identified between countries for a given population, or between
populations in different countries. This study shows the potential to increase selection efforts to
breed V. destructor honey bee resistant populations.
Abstract: In the fight against the Varroa destructor mite, selective breeding of honey bee (Apis mellifera
L.) populations that are resistant to the parasitic mite stands as a sustainable solution. Selection
initiatives indicate that using the suppressed mite reproduction (SMR) trait as a selection criterion
is a suitable tool to breed such resistant bee populations. We conducted a large European
experiment to evaluate the SMR trait in different populations of honey bees spread over 13 different
countries, and representing different honey bee genotypes with their local mite parasites. The first
goal was to standardize and validate the SMR evaluation method, and then to compare the SMR
trait between the different populations. Simulation results indicate that it is necessary to examine at
least 35 single-infested cells to reliably estimate the SMR score of any given colony. Several colonies
from our dataset display high SMR scores indicating that this trait is present within the European
honey bee populations. The trait is highly variable between colonies and some countries, but no
major differences could be identified between countries for a given genotype, or between genotypes
in different countries. This study shows the potential to increase selective breeding efforts of V.
destructor resistant populations.
Keywords: Varroa; honey bee; SMR (suppressed mite reproduction); breeding; selection; resistance
1. Introduction
The invasive parasitic mite Varroa destructor is one of the main drivers of honey bee (Apis mellifera
L.) colony losses [15]. In Europe, where the mite was first introduced in the 1970s, varroosis is a
major challenge for beekeeping [68]. In many countries, beekeepers frequently employ organic or
synthetic acaricides to avoid losing their colonies. However, resistance to chemical treatments can
evolve, rendering their application useless [912]. In addition, mite treatments with
chemotherapeutics may cause adverse effects on the honey bees [13,14] and can leave residues in hive
products [15,16].
To overcome these issues, a sustainable approach with a long-term perspective needs to be
developed. Selecting and breeding honey bee stock able to counteract the varroa mite would
contribute to such a strategy. Populations of honey bees capable of surviving varroa infestations
without treatment are well-described, and detailed investigations have provided insights regarding
the underlying mechanisms [1721]. Investigations of relevant traits to be utilized for selection
towards increased varroa resistance already started in the 1990s, and since then, several breeding
programs have yielded promising results [2225]. In this paper, we use the term resistance according
to the definition of [26], since the fitness of the mite is compromised.
Among the numerous mechanisms known to limit varroa mite population growth, suppression
of mite reproduction (SMR) seems to play an important role and has been observed in the naturally
resistant populations from Gotland and Avignon [27,28]. This trait first described by [29] refers to
Insects 2020, 11, 595 3 of 17
mites that enter a brood cell to complete their reproductive cycle, but eventually do not produce any
mature and mated female progeny. Suppression of mite reproduction is considered a colony-level
trait and defined by the proportion of worker brood cells containing non-reproducing mother mites.
The trait was found to be heritable [30] and was utilized in U.S. breeding programs since the late
1990s [3133]. Such lines are used by several commercial beekeepers, but no large-scale beekeeping
practices that abstain from regular varroa treatments have been reported so far. In European selection
programs, however, the trait has not yet received much attention, and data about the variability of
mite reproductive success and the distribution of the trait in nonresistant, managed honey bee
populations across Europe are missing. Moreover, when initiating any breeding attempts on the SMR
trait in a given environment, it is important to screen the local population for the presence and
variability of SMR and thus evaluate its potential for selection.
Several different mechanisms may trigger the SMR phenotype and may originate from host
and/or parasite features. SMR can indirectly result from adult bee behaviors such as varroa-sensitive
hygiene (VSH) or recapping behaviors [34,35]. Mechanisms of physiology or behavior of the brood
may also influence the ability of varroa to reproduce [3638], but remain unknown. Parasite features
may also influence varroa reproduction, such as variation in mite genotypes [39,40], or the
physiological status of mites invading cells.
To provide baseline data for regional breeding programs, we initiated a common study to
evaluate the present of SMR in local European honey bee populations according to geographical
locations and genotypes. We developed a common protocol to accurately identify the proportion of
non-normally reproducing mites in a given colony, and to ensure data compatibility among the
participants. We conducted simulations to estimate the accuracy of the SMR estimates and optimize
future research. We also discuss potential mechanisms that may be present in different breeding
stocks, such as behavior of the bees, physiological features of the brood, or parasite features.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Honey Bee Colonies and Sampling Strategy
This study was conducted by 17 laboratories in 13 European countries (Table 1) during the
summer and fall of 2015 and 2016. A total of 414 colonies, distributed in 68 apiaries and managed by
the participating institutes or by partner beekeepers, were evaluated.
The experimental colonies originated from stock maintained at the participating institutes and,
according to the expert opinion of the respective experimenters, belonged to European subspecies,
local hybrids, or local populations of Apis mellifera (A. m. carnica, A. m. caucasica, A. m. cecropia, A. m.
iberiensis, A. m. ligustica, A. m. macedonica, A. m. mellifera, A. m. carpatica, Buckfast, and hybrids of
Carnica, Ligustica, and Mellifera), referred hereafter as “genotypes”. While no genetic screening was
employed to confirm subspecies origin, the populations represent distinct local populations and can
be considered as different genotypes. Sampled colonies were randomly chosen from each local
population. We also included 23 colonies from two populations that were preselected for varroa
resistance: A. m. mellifera hybrids from a French varroa-surviving population [17] and colonies
containing A. m. mellifera hybrid queens artificially inseminated with semen collected from colonies
of a VSH (Varroa sensitive hygiene) breeding program (Danka et al., USDA Baton Rouge, USA) [31].
A summary of participating institutes, laboratories, respective genotypes, and the number of
investigated samples is presented in Table 1.
Insects 2020, 11, 595 4 of 17
Table 1. Sampling strategy throughout Europe and corresponding genotypes.
Country Laboratory Genotypes
Samples (10
SIC)
Samples (35
SIC)
Croatia (Hr)
HPA
carnica
12
7
OS
carnica
16
12
Denmark (Dk)
Dk
Buckfast
6
2
France (Fr)
INRA
Buckfast, mellifera mix, VSH
56
34
ITSAP
Buckfast, caucasica, carnica mix,
ligustica mix
39 33
Germany (De)
LLH Bee
Institute
carnica 105 35
Greece (Gr)
HAO-API
cecropia, macedonica
15
0
Italy (It)
CREA-API
ligustica
12
2
Aspromiele
Buckfast
20
0
Lithuania (Lit)
Vilnius
carnica mix
10
0
R. of Moldova
(Mol)
IZASM carpatica 23 13
Norway (Nor)
NBA
mellifera
10
1
Poland (Pol)
Pulawy
carnica, caucasica, mellifera
17
7
Olsztyn
carnica
29
9
Portugal (Por)
CIMO
iberiensis
7
0
Romania (Rom)
ICDA
carpatica
23
19
Switzerland (Sw)
Liebefeld
carnica mix
14
2
Total
414
176
SIC: single-infested brood cells.
2.2. Evaluation of Mite Non-Reproduction
A reliable assessment of mite offspring stages requires a considerable level of knowledge, skill,
and experience of the evaluator. In particular, female protonymphs and male offspring are difficult
to differentiate [6,41], and their correct identification can be challenging. To improve and promote
the reliability of measurements in the present study, a standardized protocol was developed,
including detailed photographs of the respective developmental stages of bee pupae and mite
offspring, which was shared among all participants of the experiment [42]. In addition, all
participants of the study had the opportunity to gain experience by attending a training workshop
where the scoring method was demonstrated and practiced.
To determine the proportion of mites that had infested brood cells but failed to reproduce, a
frame containing capped, worker brood at late developing stages (pupae with purple eyes and white
body or older, i.e., at least 7 days postcapping) was sampled from each colony and assessed in the
laboratory. Frames were dissected fresh when possible, or after storage (for 16 months) at 20 °C.
On each frame containing combs, brood cells were randomly selected and carefully opened
under a stereo-microscope. If a cell was infested, the developmental stage of the pupa was scored.
Three stages were distinguished, according to morphological characteristics: <7 days postcapping
(pupae with eyes lighter than dark purple), 79 days postcapping (pupae with dark eyes and light
body coloration), and 1012 days postcapping (pupae with dark body coloration). The main criterium
to differentiate between postcapping day 9 and 10 was the presence of grey wing pads at day 10. In
addition, the composition of the mite family was carefully assessed by recording the number of
foundress mites, the stage of the eldest female offspring, and, optionally, the presence and stage of
male offspring. A table describing the normal development of mite offspring with regard to the
development of bee pupae was used to determine whether the foundress mite would have produced
at least one mated daughter by the time the bee emerged from the cell (Figure 1).
Only single-infested brood cells (one foundress mite only) containing pupae older than 7 days
postcapping were scored, as it is impossible to determine the success of mite reproduction in earlier
stages and in case of multiple infestations. A foundress mite was considered reproductive if it was
Insects 2020, 11, 595 5 of 17
accompanied by offspring at least as old as described in the chart (Figure 1). In the 79 days
postcapping stage, normally reproducing mites have at least one deutonymph or adult son and one
deutonymph daughter. In the 1012 days postcapping stage, normally reproducing mites have at
least one adult son and one adult daughter. The foundress was considered non-reproductive if the
offspring was younger (delayed reproduction), if the male was missing (no male), or if no offspring
was present (infertile mite). Further details on the protocol and more illustrations can be found at
www.beebreeding.net.
On each comb, cells were dissected until at least 10, or if possible 35, single-infested cells were
identified. Brood infestation rate was estimated as the number of cells containing mites over the total
number of screened cells, and the SMR score was calculated as the proportion of infested cells
containing non-reproducing mites.
Figure 1. Staging chart used to determine the reproductive success of female varroa mites.
Photographs show the average appearance of the development of mite progeny (first two eggs
upper part) in relation to the bee pupal stage (lower part). For bees, the main characteristics used to
determine each stage are indicated below the photographs. For mites, the normally expected stage of
the eldest female and male offspring are indicated above the photographs. If the eldest progeny was
at a younger stage than the one corresponding to the illustration of a given bee stage, then the
foundress mite was classified as non-reproducing. The solid line placed between day 9 (bees with
colored thorax, and white wing pads) and 10 (bees with grey wing pads) days postcapping separates
the period before and after which we should expect adult female varroa offspring. Source:
Beebreeding.net.
Insects 2020, 11, 595 6 of 17
2.3. Simulation Analyses
Theoretical calculations were performed to determine the influence of the number of infested
cells opened on the precision of SMR estimation. Given a number of single-infested cells (SIC) opened
(i) and the true SMR value (s), the observed number of non-reproducing cells (r) can be considered
as random. To account for the sampling variability in r, the sampling process was averaged over all
possible values of r:
(̃|,)=(̃|,)(|,)
=0
(1)
where (̃|,) follows a beta distribution with parameters (1+r, 1+i-r) and (|,) a binomial
distribution of parameters i and s. Hence, the distribution of SMR estimates (̃) is a mixture of beta
distributions. These distributions were derived for varying values of SIC and SMR.
In a second step, to improve the estimation of SMR, all colonies were modelled jointly to gather
strength across colonies and get more robust estimates of SMR for colonies that have been evaluated
with few SIC. This hierarchical approach assumes that true SMR values of colonies arise from a
common beta-distribution Beta (a, b). In a Bayesian setting, the beta distribution is the prior
distribution on SMR. Because many colonies were evaluated on SMR, the parameters of the prior
distribution can actually be learned from the data using an empirical Bayes strategy: first, raw values
of the SMR estimates are obtained (r/SIC), then, based on the global distributions of these estimates,
prior distribution parameters are estimated via maximum likelihood. Finally, posterior means are
calculated for all colonies and used as robust estimates of SMR.
2.4. Statistical Analyses
All statistical analyses and figures were generated in the R environment (Version 3.3.1). Colonies
were considered as individuals. The relationship between the brood infestation rate and the SMR
score was tested using Pearson correlation tests. Due to the nature of the experimental design and
the data (proportion data), analyses were performed using generalized linear models (GLM—
package lme4), and as a quasi-distribution was fitted, Fisher tests were subsequently used. A
generalized linear mixed-effects model (GLMM) was used in the case of the comparison within the
carnica group. To account for the fact that colonies could belong to the same apiary in this latter case,
the identity of apiaries was included as a random factor, along with treatment effect as a fixed
explanatory variable (genotype, country, or SMR level). Pairwise comparisons of factor levels were
performed using post-hoc tests (fdr or Tukey).
3. Results
3.1. Variability of SMR in Different European Countries
Descriptive analysis based on the complete dataset (≥10 SIC per colony, n = 414 colonies) resulted
in an overall average SMR score of 32.8% ± 16.8 and a median of 31.4%. The SMR score of colonies
that had not been preselected for varroa resistance varied between 0 and 100%. Overall, most colonies
displayed a score between 0 and 50%, with 15.9% of the colonies showing an SMR score equal to or
greater than 50% (Figure 2A).
However, the median and range of SMR scores varied substantially between the different
countries where the study was performed, ranging between 4.0% ± 10.6 (Denmark) and 24.5% ± 16.9
(Italy) (Figure 2B).
Insects 2020, 11, 595 7 of 17
Figure 2. Distribution of the suppression of mite reproduction (SMR) score within Europe. (A)
Histogram of distribution of the total data and (B) SMR scores by country for each of the 13 sampled
countries. Grey histogram bars indicate colonies with a varroa-resistance potential (SMR score 50%).
Boxplot widths are proportional to the sample size which is indicated below each bar or plot. The
dashed line represents the average SMR score among the sampled European countries. ° Indicate data
points distributed outside 1.5 interquartile space.
3.2. Protocol Improvement to Estimate a Reliable SMR Score
Estimation of the true SMR score varies depending on the true SMR score itself and on the
number of cells opened (Figure 3A). The variation is nonsymmetrical for small and large values of
SMR when SIC is small (<10). For instance, a high SMR score (0.7) is more likely under- than
overestimated, while a low SMR score (0.2) is more likely over- than underestimated. Irrespective of
the SMR score there is high variability in its estimate in particular for small SIC. For instance, with 10
SIC and a true SMR value of 0.35, the measured SMR score can be overestimated to be higher than
0.5 with a probability of 24%, and it can even be overestimated to be higher than 0.7 with a probability
of 4%. The variability was further quantified by looking at the cumulative density function of the
SMR estimate (Figure 3B). It is clear that 10 SIC is not sufficient to obtain an SMR score with a
satisfying variability (max. ± 30% of raw variability, Table S1). Thirty-five SIC stands as a minimum
requirement, with more acceptable variability (max. ± 20% of raw variability). This result is confirmed
by the Empirical Bayes distribution, where the distance to the identical distribution is acceptable
when the number of SIC is greater than 30 (Figure 3C). In this shrinkage approach, it appears clearly
that colonies assessed with only a few SIC (<15) have estimated values highly shrunk compared to
their raw value, which highlights once again their low reliability. SMR analyses using 100 SIC would
provide ideal reduced variability (ca. ± 12%), but practical aspects in the field and lab must be
considered to evaluate the feasibility of such a standard.
Insects 2020, 11, 595 8 of 17
Figure 3. SMR estimates reliability. (A) Density of distribution of the SMR estimate, depending on the
SMR value (s = 0.2, 0.35, 0.5 or 0.7) and the number of opened single-infested cells (SIC, no. of SIC =
10, 35, or 100). (B) Precision of the SMR estimate (95% quantiles), depending on the SMR estimate.
Three examples of SIC numbers are represented (10, 35, and 100) to illustrate the fact that using 10
SIC does not give a reliable SMR estimate. (C) “Empirical Bayes” (EB) distribution with the initial
distribution of raw SMR values (top) and comparison to the EB estimates. The distance to the identical
distribution (black line) is acceptable when the number of SIC is greater than 30 (pale brown).
3.3. Variability of SMR in Different Honey Bee Genotypes
Based on the data of colonies with at least 35 SIC, significant differences of SMR were observed
between the different genotypes (Figure 4AGLM: F = 6.758, p < 1.49 × 10−7): A. m. caucasica, A. m.
ligustica, A. m. mellifera, together with Carnica and Ligustica hybrids had higher SMR scores than A.
m. carnica, Buckfast, A. m. carpatica, and Mellifera hybrids.
A. m. carnica genotypes were sampled in three different countries (Germany, Croatia, and
Poland). Colonies from Germany tended to exhibit higher SMR scores than those from Croatia and
Poland, but the differences were not significant (Figure 4B—GLMM: χ2 = 4.85, p = 0.088). It is
important to note that within a given genotype and within a given country, the variability of the SMR
score can be particularly high. For instance, in Germany, A. m. carnica bees displayed SMR scores
between 14.2% and 65.7%.
Colonies from preselected populations with increased varroa resistance displayed a significantly
higher SMR score than unselected ones (Figure 5—GLM: F = 86.32, p = 6.77 × 10−7).
Insects 2020, 11, 595 9 of 17
Figure 4. Variation of the SMR score according to the honey bee genotype. (A) Scores in the nine
different genotypes. (B) Scores in the A. m. carnica genotype, sampled in three different countries. n-
values are indicated below each bar. Different letters indicate significant differences between groups.
Buck, Buckfast; Carn, Carnica; Carp, Carpatica; Cauc, Caucasica; Ligu, Ligustica; Melli, Mellifera; mix,
hybrid; De, Germany; Hr, Croatia; Pol, Poland.
Figure 5. Effect of preselection for varroa resistance on the SMR score. Adjusted mean (± standard
error) SMR scores between an unselected population (Uns, unselected) and two populations selected
using varroa-resistance-related criteria (survival: Surv, VSH: VSH). Sample sizes are indicated below
each bar and different letters indicate significant differences between groups.
3.4. Putative Mechanisms for SMR
Based on the data of colonies with at least 35 SIC (n = 159 colonies, from 10 different countries),
no significant correlation could be identified between the rate of brood infestation and the SMR score
(Figure 6At = 1.48, p = 0.14).
In addition, the reason for classifying an infested brood cell as non-reproductive was
investigated based on the following mite physiological criteria: delayed reproduction, missing male,
or infertile (no offspring). These three criteria were analyzed in six countries (Germany, France,
Poland, Croatia, Moldova, and Romania) where colonies containing at least 10 non-reproducing
mites could be identified (Figure 6B). The proportion of cells being classified as non-reproductive due
to the absence of a male was significantly different between countries (GLM: F = 6.68, p = 3.33 × 10−8).
In comparison to Germany, a higher proportion of cells with no male varroa was identified in France
(Fisher post-hoc: t = 7.38, p = 5.2 × 10−11). Similarly, the proportion of cells being classified as non-
reproductive due to infertility was significantly different (GLM: F = 6.56, p = 2.59 × 105). In
comparison to Germany, Moldova (Fisher post-hoc: t = 3.25, p = 0.0016) and Poland (Fisher post-hoc:
t = 3.98, p = 0.00013) had a lower proportion of infertile varroa infested cells.
The cause for reproduction failure of the foundress varroa females was further investigated on
the same dataset in relation to the degree of SMR of the colony, which was categorized as low (<34%,
less than the average SMR in the study), medium (3549%), or high (>50%, corresponding to
Insects 2020, 11, 595 10 of 17
potentially resistant colonies) (Figure 6C). Similar proportions of non-reproducing cells due to the
absence of a male were detected in all three SMR categories (GLM: F = 1.11, p = 0.33). A similar result
was found for the proportion of infertile cells (GLM: F = 0.75, p = 0.48) and for the proportion of
delayed cells (GLM: F = 2.25, p = 0.11). Overall, no correlation was found between the SMR score and
the proportion of absent males (Pearson: t = 1.52, p = 0.13), infertile foundresses (Pearson: t = 0.62, p =
0.54), or delayed reproduction (Pearson: t = 1.65, p = 0.10).
Figure 6. Putative mechanisms for SMR. (A) Relationship between brood infestation rates and SMR
scores (n = 159). (B) Analyses of causes for non-reproduction (n = 105) according to the country, and
(C) according to the level of the SMR score. N-values are indicated below each bar.
4. Discussion
4.1. SMR Trait in European Colonies
Suppression of mite reproduction (SMR) has been recognized as an important trait for survival
in naturally resistant honey bee populations [24,28] and has been successfully implemented in
breeding programs in the U.S. [22,31,43,44]. In contrast, beyond investigations in naturally resistant
populations [21,27,28], the distribution of the SMR trait in European honey bee populations has not
yet received major scientific attention. Most breeding efforts for varroa resistance in Europe have,
until recently, relied on the introduction of nonlocal resistant stock, however, these attempts have
not been successful [28,45]. A contributing factor to the failure of such attempts could result from
genotype-environment interactions [46] favoring colonies adaptation to the prevailing
environmental conditions [47]. When initiating any breeding attempts on the SMR trait in a given
environment, it is important to screen the local population for the presence and variability of SMR
and thereby evaluate its potential for selection.
In the present study, we screened 414 colonies across the entire European continent to provide
a comprehensive dataset that describes the underlying variation of mite non-reproduction in Europe,
which may serve as baseline data for selection decisions in prospective breeding programs. To obtain
a first general overview on the distribution and variability of SMR in Europe with manageable input
of labor, each participating laboratory investigated its colonies based on at least 10 single-infested
cells. Based on these data, we observed a great variability of SMR across the different honey bee
populations, with a mean proportion of non-reproducing mites reaching an overall score of 32.8%,
and close to 16% of colonies exceeding a score of 50% (from observations based on minimum 10
single-infested cells).
In a next step, the variation of mite reproduction success in different honey bee genotypes was
explored further by examining at least 35 single-infested cells. The results showed that some
genotypes performed significantly better than others with three of them (one each of caucasica,
ligustica, and mellifera origin) exhibiting comparatively high scores. However, the number of
colonies investigated was quite small, and additional experiments are needed to confirm this
observation. Considering that on average between 5% and 20% of mite foundresses remain infertile
in European honey bees [6], and mite reproduction rates ranging from 0.78 to 0.9 have been reported
from mite-susceptible control colonies in previous studies [27,48], the present results indicate that a
Insects 2020, 11, 595 11 of 17
considerable proportion of the honey bee populations in Europe may hold the potential to select for
increased resistance (sensu [26]) to V. destructor. This is also supported by the fact that the SMR scores
of colonies originating from preselected stock were consistently and significantly higher than the
scores of unselected genotypes. The present scores observed in both the French surviving population
(0.47 ± 0.12) and the VSH hybrid genotype (0.57 ± 0.11) were in the range of previous results from the
French population (0.59 ± 0.02) and that reported from the mite-surviving population from Gotland
(0.48 ± 0.02) [27,28].
4.2. Factors Affecting Measurement of SMR
While the present results indicate that honey bee colony resistance to V. destructor in many
European bee populations could indeed be improved by selection for increased SMR, several factors
may present a challenge towards the creation and implementation of such a selection approach.
Obtaining a reliable estimate of the ability of a given colony to suppress mite reproduction is difficult
and labor intensive. In addition, the score can be influenced by a number of different factors, such as
the amount of worker and drone brood available [49] or the mite load of the colonies. The number of
offspring per mite tends to decrease with high infestation levels [50], which may bias observed SMR
scores towards increased values. Despite high infection rates found in some colonies (up to 80% in
the brood), no correlation was observed between mite loads and SMR scores in the present study.
However, such effects are complex and need to be further explored as they can possibly cancel each
other out. For instance, colonies with high SMR expression may regulate the total amount of V.
destructor in the colony, while colonies with low mite infestations may not trigger behaviors resulting
in high SMR values. Further studies are necessary to confirm if SMR can also be influenced by other
environmental factors, similarly to what has been shown for hygienic behavior and food availability,
or virus infections [5153]. In addition, although SMR has been described as a heritable trait [30,54],
heritability estimates are currently unavailable for any population.
The reliability of the SMR score is highly dependent on the number of single-infested cells that
are opened and assessed. While the best estimate for the score of a given colony requires the
assessment of a high number of single-infested brood cells, as close as possible to the total number of
such cells in the colony, this is obviously not a practicable approach. In previous studies, the number
of observations per colony was not exactly specified but typically varied between 10 and 35 [27,49,55].
To evaluate the reliability of scoring we performed simulation analyses based on different numbers
of observations and different levels of SMR. The results showed that estimation of the SMR score
based on small numbers of single-infested cells varied widely, and scoring based on ten observations
may lead to under- or overestimation of the true SMR score in the range of 30%. Even when the
scoring was based on 35 single-infested cells, there remained considerable variation around the true
SMR score.
Repeated measurements as is done for VSH [56] could increase reliability, however, the time
window for SMR scoring is very narrow, which adds another level of complexity to applying this
trait for selection. In most colonies, mite infestation levels in the brood can be very low early in the
season [57], and a level that enables assessment of SMR with manageable input of time and labor is
only possible after the peak of development, in the short period between late summer and early fall.
To complicate matters further, as a high expression of the SMR trait results in a decrease of brood
infestation, in such colonies it may become increasingly difficult to find enough single-infested cells
for a reliable scoring even late in the season. One possible alternative could be to measure SMR in
brood frames that were exposed to high infestation levels by placing them into mite-donor colonies
during the open stage. However, this alternative procedure does not really reflect the natural
situation, and the introduction of mites from a foreign origin may result in a biased score [34].
Together, these challenges may lay behind the reluctance of breeders to integrate and use the SMR
trait in selection programs [58].
Insects 2020, 11, 595 12 of 17
4.3. Triggers for SMR
The development of a simple bioassay to score the SMR potential of a colony is a challenging
task, and the factors responsible for SMR require further investigation. Several different mechanisms
may trigger the SMR phenotype and may originate from host and/or parasite features. Host factors
seem to be central in some populations, as a change of queen can lead to a change in SMR phenotype
[59]: (i) SMR can indirectly result from varroa-sensitive hygiene (VSH) behavior, when adult bees
preferentially target brood infested by reproducing mites [34], but leave brood cells containing non-
reproducing mites untouched. (ii) Female mites escaping from VSH-targeted cells may survive and
enter a new cell for reproduction, but due to their previous aborted reproduction cycle, could face an
increased risk of reproduction failure. This mechanism remains to be confirmed, even if a high
correlation between the level of VSH and SMR was found in some populations [34,60,61]. (iii)
Recapping, which consists of the opening and subsequent recapping of the targeted cells by the bees,
may also influence the reproductive capacity of mites within the targeted brood. In an artificial
uncapping/recapping experiment, it was shown that targeted cells have a lower varroa reproduction
rate [35], and naturally surviving populations displaying increased SMR scores also display high
recapping rates [21,35]. (iv) Physiological or behavioral features of the brood itself may also influence
the ability of varroa to reproduce [3638], even though the exact mechanisms through which the
brood may impair varroa reproduction remain unknown.
Nonetheless, parasite features may also influence varroa reproduction. Recent research has
shown that genetic variation in mites is higher than previously assumed [39,40], and such results may
contribute to an improved understanding of the interactions between the genotypes of host colonies
and their parasites. The physiological status of mites invading cells could also play a significant role.
For instance, there are strong indications that mite reproductive success may be reduced after
prolonged periods on adult bees without access to brood. Otten [62] describes significant seasonal
differences in mite reproductive success, with lowest levels (70%) in late winter and high values (up
to 90%) in July. Recent research also indicates that mite reproduction success decreases after
broodless periods, for instance caused by prolonged caging of the queen or application of trapping
combs as integrated varroa control measures [63], or in the context of swarming [64].
The failure of mites to reproduce, regardless if depending on host and/or parasite mechanisms
or environmental factors, can be characterized by three different features of mite reproduction:
infertility of the mite, i.e., total absence of offspring, absence of the male, which will prevent the
mating of the female offspring, or a delay in egg laying and/or offspring development which will
prevent mites from reaching the adult stage before the developing bee emerges. Each of these features
may potentially be linked more specifically to one or more host/parasite mechanisms regulating
varroa reproduction. In this study, the three possible features were identified in all investigated
populations, with the delay being the most frequent reason for mite reproduction failure. In France,
the proportion of male absence was higher than in all other populations studied, while infertility was
particularly low in Moldova and Poland (Figure 6B). The proportions of the three features that form
SMR do not vary according to the SMR level of the colony, suggesting that all three features may be
important to support SMR. The history of host-parasite interactions may have shaped the different
mechanisms observed in this study. Further studies would be necessary to understand the link
between the mite reproduction features, and the host-parasite mechanism that regulate mite
reproduction.
4.4. Comparing SMR to Other Means of Selection for Varroa Resistance
The considerable amount of work involved in scoring SMR, and as we have shown, a
considerable level of variability in measurement, can question the advantages of this trait compared
to other traits known to be related to resistance. The assays currently available to assess the detection
and uncapping of varroa parasitized brood through VSH behavior equally are time-consuming and
more restrictive than the SMR assay in terms of brood and mite requirements, and also display high
levels of variability in the outcome [56]. The development of a bioassay allowing to study the bees’
behavior without the need to have mites to infest the cells would facilitate the study of both SMR and
Insects 2020, 11, 595 13 of 17
VSH traits. The development of molecular markers are a great hope in this direction, but despite
several recent findings [24] no commercial service is currently available.
The advantage of the SMR phenotype is that it encompasses several possible mechanisms
leading to resistance, such as action from the adult bees through VSH or impairment of varroa
reproduction by the brood. An alternative and even more straightforward method of resistance
evaluation would be to follow the growth of the varroa population in colonies over time. It can be
done with far less work than VSH or SMR scoring, and colonies with a lower growth during the
season are expected to survive better than those with more mites. The value of this approach is
however hampered, since many environmental factors can influence the varroa load in a colony, such
as the influx of mites from neighboring colonies [65], which probably explains the low heritability of
varroa population growth [30,66].
Letting nature do the selection in order to breed from the surviving colonies, sometimes referred
to as the Bond method [18] or Darwinian beekeeping [67], has gained attention and some
attractiveness due to the repeated finding of populations able to survive without treatments
[17,19,68]. As discussed above, however, so far attempts to bring such honey bees bred from “natural
selection” into beekeeping on a wider scale have failed.
5. Conclusions
SMR stands as a complex trait, as it can be triggered by several host and/or parasite mechanisms,
influenced by a wide variety of environmental factors, and remains challenging to phenotype
accurately in the field. In the present study, it was not possible to identify the specific mechanism
underlying the SMR trait, and we found large uncertainty in its estimation when few cells are
investigated. Nevertheless, SMR implies lower mite population growth and, thus, remains a trait of
great importance for the development of selection strategies to improve the ability of honey bee
colonies to fight infestation by one of the most important honey bee enemies, the mite V. destructor.
Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/11/9/595/s1, Table
S1: Simulation results for the precision of the SMR estimates.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization and methodology, F.M., C.C., M.D.M., S.A., A.U., R.B.; experiments
and data acquisition, F.M., C.C., M.P., B.B., M.B., G.B., E.C., V.C., B.D., M.M.D., F.H., M.K., J.K., P.K., A.S.L., B.P.,
M.A.P., J.W., R.B.; data analysis: S.A., F.M., B.S.; writing, F.M., M.D.M., M.P., P.K., R.B. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: we wish to thank all technicians involved for their tedious efforts, our colleagues from the
RNSBB (research network for sustainable bee breeding) for valuable discussions and the COLOSS research
association for providing a networking platform.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Liu, Z.; Chen, C.; Niu, Q.; Qi, W.; Yuan, C.; Su, S.; Liu, S.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Ji, T.; et al. Survey results
of honey bee (Apis mellifera) colony losses in China (2010–2013). J. Apic. Res. 2016, 55, 29–37,
doi:10.1080/00218839.2016.1193375.
2. Maggi, M.; Antúnez, K.; Invernizzi, C.; Aldea, P.; Vargas, M.; Negri, P.; Brasesco, C.; De Jong, D.; Message,
D.; Teixeira, E.W.; et al. Honeybee health in South America. Apidologie 2016, 47, 835–854, doi:10.1007/s13592-
016-0445-7.
3. Morawetz, L.; Köglberger, H.; Griesbacher, A.; Derakhshifar, I.; Crailsheim, K.; Brodschneider, R. Health
status of honey bee colonies (Apis mellifera) and disease-related risk factors for colony losses in Austria.
PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0219293, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0219293.
4. Genersch, E. Honey bee pathology: Current threats to honey bees and beekeeping. Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 2010, 87, 87–97, doi:10.1007/s00253-010-2573-8.
Insects 2020, 11, 595 14 of 17
5. De Graaf, D.; Méroc, E.; Nguyen, B.K.; Roelandt, S.; Roels, S.; Van der Stede, Y.; Tonnersen, T.; Kryger, P.;
Jaarma, K.; Kuus, M.; et al. Risk indicators affecting honeybee colony survival in Europe: One year of
surveillance. Apidologie 2016, 47, 348–378, doi:10.1007/s13592-016-0440-z.
6. Rosenkranz, P.; Aumeier, P.; Ziegelmann, B. Biology and control of Varroa destructor. J. Invertebr. Pathol.
2010, 103, S96S119, doi:10.1016/j.jip.2009.07.016.
7. Le Conte, Y.; Ellis, M.; Ritter, W. Varroa mites and honey bee health: Can Varroa explain part of the colony
losses? Apidologie 2010, 41, 353–363, doi:10.1051/apido/2010017.
8. Jacques, A.; Laurent, M.; Consortium, E.; Ribière-Chabert, M.; Saussac, M.; Bougeard, S.; Budge, G.E.;
Hendrikx, P.; Chauzat, M.-P. A pan-European epidemiological study reveals honey bee colony survival
depends on beekeeper education and disease control. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172591,
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172591.
9. Milani, N. The resistance of Varroa jacobsoni Oud. to acaricides. Apidologie 1999, 30, 229–234,
doi:10.1051/apido:19990211.
10. Milani, N.; Vedova, G.D. Decline in the proportion of mites resistant to fluvalinate in a population of Varroa
destructor not treated with pyrethroids. Apidologie 2002, 33, 417–422, doi:10.1051/apido:2002028.
11. Elzen, P.J.; Westervelt, D. Detection of coumaphos resistance in Varroa destructor in Florida. Am. Bee J. 2002,
142, 291–292.
12. González-Cabrera, J.; Bumann, H.; Rodríguez-Vargas, S.; Kennedy, P.J.; Krieger, K.; Altreuther, G.; Hertel,
A.; Hertlein, G.; Nauen, R.; Williamson, M.S. A single mutation is driving resistance to pyrethroids in
European populations of the parasitic mite, Varroa destructor. J. Pest. Sci. 2018, 91, 1137–1144,
doi:10.1007/s10340-018-0968-y.
13. Locke, B.; Forsgren, E.; Fries, I.; de Miranda, J.R. Acaricide treatment affects viral dynamics in Varroa
destructor-infested honey bee colonies via both host physiology and mite control. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
2012, 78, 227–235, doi:10.1128/AEM.06094-11.
14. De Mattos, I.M.; Soares, A.E.; Tarpy, D.R. Effects of synthetic acaricides on honey bee grooming behavior
against the parasitic Varroa destructor mite. Apidologie 2017, 48, 483–494, doi:10.1007/s13592-017-0491-9.
15. Bajuk, B.P.; Babnik, K.; Snoj, T.; Milčinski, L.; Ocepek, M.P.; Škof, M.; Jenčič, V.; Filazi, A.; Štajnbaher, D.;
Kobal, S. Coumaphos residues in honey, bee brood, and beeswax after Varroa treatment. Apidologie 2017,
48, 588–598, doi:10.1007/s13592-017-0501-y.
16. Reybroeck, W. Residues of antibiotics and chemotherapeutics in honey. J. Apic. Res. 2018, 57, 97112,
doi:10.1080/00218839.2017.1338129.
17. Le Conte, Y.; De Vaublanc, G.; Crauser, D.; Jeanne, F.; Rousselle, J.-C.; Bécard, J.-M. Honey bee colonies
that have survived Varroa destructor. Apidologie 2007, 38, 566–572, doi:10.1051/apido:2007040.
18. Fries, I.; Imdorf, A.; Rosenkranz, P. Survival of mite infested (Varroa destructor) honey bee (Apis mellifera)
colonies in a Nordic climate. Apidologie 2006, 37, 564–570, doi:10.1051/apido:2006031.
19. Seeley, T.D. Honey bees of the Arnot Forest: A population of feral colonies persisting with Varroa destructor
in the northeastern United States. Apidologie 2007, 38, 19–29, doi:10.1051/apido:2006055.
20. Oddie, M.A.; Dahle, B.; Neumann, P. Norwegian honey bees surviving Varroa destructor mite infestations
by means of natural selection. PeerJ 2017, 5, e3956, doi:10.7717/peerj.3956.
21. Martin, S.J.; Hawkins, G.P.; Brettell, L.E.; Reece, N.; Correia-Oliveira, M.E.; Allsopp, M.H. Varroa destructor
reproduction and cell re-capping in mite-resistant Apis mellifera populations. Apidologie 2019, 1–13,
doi:10.1007/s13592-019-00721-9.
22. Rinderer, T.E.; Harris, J.W.; Hunt, G.J.; De Guzman, L.I. Breeding for resistance to Varroa destructor in North
America. Apidologie 2010, 41, 409–424, doi:10.1051/apido/2010015.
23. Büchler, R.; Berg, S.; Le Conte, Y. Breeding for resistance to Varroa destructor in Europe. Apidologie 2010, 41,
393–408, doi:10.1051/apido/2010011.
24. Mondet, F.; Beaurepaire, A.; McAfee, A.; Locke, B.; Alaux, C.; Blanchard, S.; Danka, B.; Le Conte, Y. Honey
bee survival mechanisms against the parasite Varroa destructor: A systematic review of phenotypic and
genomic research efforts. Int. J. Parasitol. 2020, 50, 433–447, doi:10.1016/j.ijpara.2020.03.005.
25. Leclercq, G.; Pannebakker, B.; Gengler, N.; Nguyen, B.K.; Francis, F. Drawbacks and benefits of hygienic
behavior in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.): A review. J. Apic. Res. 2017, 56, 366–375,
doi:10.1080/00218839.2017.1327938.
26. Horns, F.; Hood, M.E. The evolution of disease resistance and tolerance in spatially structured populations.
Ecol. Evol. 2012, 2, 1705–1711, doi:10.1002/ece3.290.
Insects 2020, 11, 595 15 of 17
27. Locke, B.; Conte, Y.L.; Crauser, D.; Fries, I. Host adaptations reduce the reproductive success of Varroa
destructor in two distinct European honey bee populations. Ecol. Evol. 2012, 2, 1144–1150,
doi:10.1002/ece3.248.
28. Locke, B. Inheritance of reduced Varroa mite reproductive success in reciprocal crosses of mite-resistant
and mite-susceptible honey bees (Apis mellifera). Apidologie 2016, 47, 583–588, doi:10.1007/s13592-015-0403-
9.
29. Harbo, J.R.; Harris, J.W. Selecting honey bees for resistance to Varroa jacobsoni. Apidologie 1999, 30, 183–196,
doi:10.1051/apido:19990208.
30. Harbo, J.R.; Harris, J.W. Heritability in Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of Characteristics Associated
with Resistance to Varroa jacobsoni (Mesostigmata: Varroidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 1999, 92, 261–265,
doi:10.1093/jee/92.2.261.
31. Danka, R.G.; Harris, J.W.; Dodds, G.E. Selection of VSH-derived “Pol-line” honey bees and evaluation of
their Varroa-resistance characteristics. Apidologie 2016, 47, 483–490, doi:10.1007/s13592-015-0413-7.
32. Ibrahim, A.; Reuter, G.S.; Spivak, M. Field trial of honey bee colonies bred for mechanisms of resistance
against Varroa destructor. Apidologie 2007, 38, 67–76, doi:10.1051/apido:2006065.
33. Ward, K.; Danka, R.; Ward, R. Comparative performance of two mite-resistant stocks of honey bees
(Hymenoptera: Apidae) in alabama beekeeping operations. J. Econ. Entomol. 2008, 101, 654–659,
doi:10.1093/jee/101.3.654.
34. Harris, J.W.; Danka, R.G.; Villa, J.D. Changes in infestation, cell cap condition, and reproductive status of
Varroa destructor (Mesostigmata: Varroidae) in brood exposed to honey bees with Varroa sensitive hygiene.
Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2012, 105, 512–518, doi:10.1603/AN11188.
35. Oddie, M.; Büchler, R.; Dahle, B.; Kovacic, M.; Le Conte, Y.; Locke, B.; de Miranda, J.R.; Mondet, F.;
Neumann, P. Rapid parallel evolution overcomes global honey bee parasite. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 7704,
doi:10.1038/s41598-018-26001-7.
36. Wagoner, K.M.; Spivak, M.; Rueppell, O. Brood affects hygienic behavior in the honey bee (Hymenoptera:
Apidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 2520–2530, doi:10.1093/jee/toy266.
37. Conlon, B.H.; Frey, E.; Rosenkranz, P.; Locke, B.; Moritz, R.F.A.; Routtu, J. The role of epistatic interactions
underpinning resistance to parasitic Varroa mites in haploid honey bee (Apis mellifera) drones. J. Evol. Biol.
2018, 31, 801–809, doi:10.1111/jeb.13271.
38. Frey, E.; Odemer, R.; Blum, T.; Rosenkranz, P. Activation and interruption of the reproduction of Varroa
destructor is triggered by host signals (Apis mellifera). J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2013, 113, 56–62,
doi:10.1016/j.jip.2013.01.007.
39. Techer, M.A.; Rane, R.V.; Grau, M.L.; Roberts, J.M.; Sullivan, S.T.; Liachko, I.; Childers, A.K.; Evans, J.D.;
Mikheyev, A.S. Divergent evolutionary trajectories following speciation in two ectoparasitic honey bee
mites. Commun. Biol. 2019, 2, 1–16, doi:10.1038/s42003-019-0606-0.
40. Beaurepaire, A.; Sann, C.; Arredondo, D.; Mondet, F.; Le Conte, Y. Behavioral Genetics of the Interactions
between Apis mellifera and Varroa destructor. Insects 2019, 10, 299, doi:10.3390/insects10090299.
41. Dietemann, V.; Nazzi, F.; Martin, S.J.; Anderson, D.L.; Locke, B.; Delaplane, K.S.; Wauquiez, Q.; Tannahill,
C.; Frey, E.; Ziegelmann, B.; et al. Standard methods for Varroa research. J. Apic. Res. 2013, 52, 154,
doi:10.3896/IBRA.1.52.1.09.
42. Büchler, R.; Costa, C.; Mondet, F.; Kezic, N.; Kovacic, M. RNSBB SMR recapping protocol. Available online:
www.beebreeding.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RNSBB_SMR-recapping_protocol_2017_09_11.pdf
(accessed on 01.09.2020).
43. Danka, R.G.; Harris, J.W.; Villa, J.D. Expression of Varroa Sensitive Hygiene (VSH) in commercial VSH
honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2011, 104, 745–749, doi:10.1603/EC10401.
44. Villa, J.D.; Danka, R.G.; Harris, J.W. Simplified methods of evaluating colonies for levels of Varroa Sensitive
Hygiene (VSH). J. Apic. Res. 2009, 48, 162–167, doi:10.3896/IBRA.1.48.3.03.
45. De Vaublanc, G.; Otis, G.W.; Le Conte, Y.; Crauser, D.; Kelly, P. Comparative resistance of Canadian and
French colonies of honey bees (Apis mellifera) to Varroa destructor: Influence of bee strain, mite strain, and
environment. In Proceedings of the Annual North American Apicultural Research Symposium, Niagara
Falls, ON, Canada, 5–6 December 2002.
46. Büchler, R.; Costa, C.; Hatjina, F.; Andonov, S.; Meixner, M.D.; Le Conte, Y.; Uzunov, A.; Berg, S.;
Bienkowska, M.; Bouga, M.; et al. The influence of genetic origin and its interaction with environmental
Insects 2020, 11, 595 16 of 17
effects on the survival of Apis mellifera L. colonies in Europe. J. Apic. Res. 2014, 53, 205–214,
doi:10.3896/IBRA.1.53.2.03.
47. Meixner, M.D.; Kryger, P.; Costa, C. Effects of genotype, environment, and their interactions on honey bee
health in Europe. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2015, 10, 177–184, doi:10.1016/j.cois.2015.05.010.
48. Martin, S.; Holland, K.; Murray, M. Non-reproduction in the honeybee mite Varroa jacobsoni. Exp. Appl.
Acarol. 1997, 21, 539–549, doi:10.1023/A:1018492231639.
49. Locke, B.; Fries, I. Characteristics of honey bee colonies (Apis mellifera) in Sweden surviving Varroa destructor
infestation. Apidologie 2011, 42, 533–542, doi:10.1007/s13592-011-0029-5.
50. Eguaras, M.; Marcangeli, J.; Fernandez, N.A. Influence of ‘parasitic intensity’ on Varroa jacobsoni Oud.
reproduction. J. Apic. Res. 1994, 33, 155–159, doi:10.1080/00218839.1994.11100863.
51. Büchler, R. Varroa Tolerance in honey beesOccurrence, characters and breeding. Bee World 1994, 75, 54
70, doi:10.1080/0005772X.1994.11099201.
52. Schöning, C.; Gisder, S.; Geiselhardt, S.; Kretschmann, I.; Bienefeld, K.; Hilker, M.; Genersch, E. Evidence
for damage-dependent hygienic behaviour towards Varroa destructor-parasitised brood in the western
honey bee, Apis mellifera. J. Exp. Biol. 2012, 215, 264–271, doi:10.1242/jeb.062562.
53. Momot, J.P.; Rothenbuhler, W.C. Behaviour genetics of nest cleaning in honeybees. VI. Interactions of age
and genotype of bees, and nectar flow. J. Apic. Res. 1971, 10, 11–21, doi:10.1080/00218839.1971.11099665.
54. Wielewski, P.; Arnaut de Toledo, A.V.; Martins, E.N.; Costa-Maia, F.M.; Faquinello, P.; Lino-Lourenço,
D.A.; Ruvolo-Takasusuki, M.C.C.; Lopes de Oliveira, C.A.; Sereia, M.J. Relationship between hygienic
behavior and Varroa destructor mites in colonies producing honey or royal jelly. Sociobiology 2012, 59, 251–
274, doi:10.13102/sociobiology.v59i1.
55. Perrin, J.; Boukadiri, A.; Boyard, P.; Soubelet, J.-B.; Mazoit, J.X. Hygienic behavior in honey bees and
prediction of Varroa non-reproduction in single-drone inseminated (SDI) colonies. J. Apic. Res. 2020, 59, 185–
192, doi:10.1080/00218839.2019.1673550.
56. Villa, J.D.; Danka, R.G.; Harris, J.W. Repeatability of measurements of removal of mite-infested brood to
assess Varroa Sensitive Hygiene. J. Apic. Res. 2017, 56, 631–634, doi:10.1080/00218839.2017.1369707.
57. Fries, I.; Camazine, S.; Sneyd, J. Population Dynamics of Varroa jacobsoni: A Model and a Review. Bee World
1994, 75, 5–28, doi:10.1080/0005772X.1994.11099190.
58. Guichard, M.; Neuditschko, M.; Fried, P.; Soland, G.; Dainat, B. A future resistance breeding strategy
against Varroa destructor in a small population of the dark honey bee. J. Apic. Res. 2019, 58, 814–823,
doi:10.1080/00218839.2019.1654966.
59. Harris, J.W.; Harbo, J.R. Changes in reproduction of Varroa destructor after honey bee queens were
exchanged between resistant and susceptible colonies. Apidologie 2000, 31, 689–699,
doi:10.1051/apido:2000153.
60. Harbo, J.R.; Harris, J.W. Responses to Varroa by honey bees with different levels of Varroa Sensitive
Hygiene. J. Apic. Res. 2009, 48, 156–161, doi:10.3896/IBRA.1.48.3.02.
61. Harris, J.W.; Danka, R.G.; Villa, J.D. Honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) with the trait of Varroa Sensitive
Hygiene remove brood with all reproductive stages of Varroa mites (Mesostigmata: Varroidae). Ann.
Entomol. Soc. Am. 2010, 103, 146–152, doi:10.1603/AN09138.
62. Otten, C. Reproduction and population dynamics of Varroa jacobsoni Oud. in colonies of Apis mellifera L. of
different origins. In Proceedings of the International Symposium of the International Federation of
Beekeepers Associations, Gent, Belgium, 57 September 1990.
63. Gregorc, A.; Adamczyk, J.; Kapun, S.; Planinc, I. Integrated Varroa control in honey bee (Apis mellifera
carnica) colonies with or without brood. J. Apic. Res. 2016, 55, 253–258, doi:10.1080/00218839.2016.1222700.
64. Kovačić, M. Influence of Selection on Traits of Honey Bee (Apis mellifera carnica) in Croatia. Ph.D. Thesis,
Faculty of Agrobiotechnical Sciences, University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia, 2018.
65. DeGrandi-Hoffman, G.; Ahumada, F.; Zazueta, V.; Chambers, M.; Hidalgo, G.; deJong, E.W. Population
growth of Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) in honey bee colonies is affected by the number of foragers
with mites. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2016, 69, 21–34, doi:10.1007/s10493-016-0022-9.
66. Büchler, R.; Garrido, C.; Bienefeld, K.; Ehrhardt, K. Selection for Varroa tolerance: Concept and results of a
long-term selection project. Apidologie 2008, 39, 598.
67. Blacquière, T.; Boot, W.; Calis, J.; Moro, A.; Neumann, P.; Panziera, D. Darwinian black box selection for
resistance to settled invasive Varroa destructor parasites in honey bees. Biol. Invasions 2019, 21, 2519–2528,
doi:10.1007/s10530-019-02001-0.
Insects 2020, 11, 595 17 of 17
68. Locke, B. Natural Varroa mite-surviving Apis mellifera honeybee populations. Apidologie 2016, 47, 467–482,
doi:10.1007/s13592-015-0412-8.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
... A common trait used for selection is suppressed mite reproduction (SMR; Büchler et al. 2010, Rinderer et al. 2010, Guichard et al. 2020a. SMR is phenotyped using two methods: the assessment of mite fecundity by counting the number of viable daughters produced (e.g., Martin 1994Martin , 1995Martin , 1997, or of mite infertility, as the lack of mite reproductive success expressed as the percentage of mites producing no viable daughters (Büchler et al. 2020, Eynard et al. 2020, Mondet et al. 2020b. The reduction in mite reproduction by SMR is thought to result from the properties of immature (i.e., brood) or adult hosts (Harbo and Harris 2005, Conlon et al. 2019. ...
... Such limitations deserve attention to streamline and improve selection programmes toward delivering the expected outcome, i.e., resistant honey bee lineages. Protocols currently applied for phenotyping DMR differ in sampling method and size as well as in measurement method (Mondet et al. 2020b). It is not known whether the two measurement methods of DMR are equivalent or one is superior to the other for the identification of colonies able to decrease mite reproduction. ...
... In theory, fertility-based DMR and fecundity-based DMR could provide distinct colony phenotypes, as some colonies could have a higher proportion of infertile mites, whereas others could only show a general reduction in the number of mite offspring. Phenotyping DMR is also a time-consuming task, as it involves the screening of several hundred worker brood cells in an attempt to reach the recommended 35 infested cells required (Büchler et al. 2017, Mondet et al. 2020b). Such infestation rates are only relatively easily attainable at the end of the summer, when mite populations grow sufficiently to generate high infestation levels. ...
Article
Full-text available
The invasive parasitic mite, Varroa destructor (Anderson and Trueman), is the major biotic threat to the survival of European honey bees, Apis mellifera L. To improve colony survival against V. destructor, the selection of resistant lineages against this parasite is considered a sustainable solution. Among selected traits, mite fertility and fecundity, often referred to as suppressed mite reproduction are increasingly used in breeding programmes. However, the current literature leaves some gaps in the assessment of the effectiveness of selecting these traits toward achieving resistance. In the population studied here, we show a low repeatability and re-producibility of mite fertility and fecundity phenotypes, as well as a low correlation of these traits with infestation rates of colonies. Phenotyping reliability could neither be improved by increasing the number of worker brood cells screened, nor by screening drone brood, which is highly attractive for the parasite and available early in the season, theoretically allowing a reduction of generation time and thus an acceleration of genetic progress in selected lineages. Our results provide an evaluation of the potential and limitations of selecting on decreased mite reproduction traits to obtain V. destructor-resistant honeybee colonies. To allow for a more precise implementation of such selection and output reporting, we propose a refined nomenclature by introducing the terms of decreased mite reproduction and reduced mite reproduction, depending on the extent of mite reproduction targeted. We also highlight the importance of ensuring accurate phenotyping ahead of initiating long-lasting selection programmes.
... The combs were selected to have brood in the pupae stage so that to identify the state of varroa mites (live or dead) in different developmental stages in the treated brood. The individuals were identified based on their morphologic characteristics (Mondet et al., 2020;Rosenkranz et. al 2010). ...
... This can be explained by the lack of exoskeleton sclerotization, but also by affecting their feeding which is dependent by the presence of foundress females with normal vitality. Out of the observations done on live varroa mite, including the foundress females, the most parts of these individuals were found in a low vitality state especially in the 30-50% dilutions and in many cases, the most fragile forms (males, protonymphs) were not anymore identified in the cells according with the reproductive pattern (Mondet et al, 2020) or they were found in an advanced degradation status. The low vitality means individuals with a visible lower mobility or being in a morbid status. ...
Article
Full-text available
The paper aims to present some preliminary results regarding the effectiveness of different lower concentration of formic acid formulas, used by brushing procedure, in killing the varroa mites (Varroa destructor) which are found in the reproductive phase in the capped brood. To perform the experiments, honeybee capped brood combs from untreated colonies were collected and treated in two experimental groups with different dilutions (20%, 30%, 40%, 50%) of concentrated formic acid (85%) used in water-based and alcohol-based dilutions. The measurements were focused on the evaluation the varroa mite mortality, as response variable, at 72 hours from the treatment application. Out of the obtained results one could remark that the mortality of mites increased as the concentration of formic acid increased in different formulas. Highly significant differences were established between the two experimental groups as well as between the mortality of different categories of varroa. The results clearly show that the use of formic acid is very effective in varroosis control also when used in lower concentrations (30-40%) by brushing procedure. The results also show that new formulas could be further optimised by setting up a standard protocol to evaluate the critical stages of mites inside brood and their vitality, which are affected following the application of treatments.
... This is certainly a useful and chemical-free method, therefore recommendable, however, success is rather limited, especially when the population level of mites in the hive is already high. There are several promising new directions to develop various biological control methods against Varroa mites, such as breeding for behaviorally resistant honey bee colonies via suppressed mite reproduction (SMR) (Mondet et al., 2020), applying microbial control agents (James, 2009), or predatory mites (Rondeau et al., 2018), or using essential oils (Ramzi et al., 2017), just to name a few. For recent reviews about the scope and limitations of these methods see Reams and Rangel (2022) and Teski et al. (2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
Varroa mite, Varroa destructor is the most important ectoparasite of the honey bee, Apis mellifera worldwide, contributing to colony collapse. The development of alternative non-toxic methods against this pest is needed, as most of the wide-used acaricides in apiculture are banned in the European Union, which increase the risk of developing resistant mite populations against the remaining few products. In order to reveal biological basis of a new, semiochemical-based method, the aim of this study was to search for olfactory stimuli, used by female Varroa mites in orienting to drone brood for egglaying. Volatiles of uncapped drone brood were collected in situ , inside bee-hives, using either charcoal, or HayeSep® Q filters. Collections were analyzed by gas chromatograph linked to an electrotarsogram detector (GC-ETD), using the foreleg of female mite. Results showed that most components were present in collections trapped by any of these filters. However, some components appreared only in charcoal-, while others only in HayeSep® collections, respectively. Out of the large number of components, a few elicited electrophysiological responses. Structure elucidation of these active components are underways. Futher behavioral studies should reveal, which components play role in attraction of Varroa mites.
... The search for resistant honey bees has been ongoing since the 1980s and continues in Europe and throughout the world. Resistance against V. destructor has been reported from different regions and honeybee species (see recent reviews by Locke 2016; Oddie et al. 2017;Guichard et al. 2020;Le Conte et al. 2020;Mondet et al. 2020;Spivak et al. 2021). ...
Article
Full-text available
The beekeeping sector is facing many challenges. One of the greatest is maintaining healthy colonies that produce high-quality products without any residues of veterinary medicines and with low environmental impact. The main enemy is the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor, the most significant honeybee pest and a key factor in high colony losses worldwide. In the previous four decades, three pillars of Varroa control have crystallized to be essential for sustainable management: API technical measures, chemical treatments, and resistant stocks of honey bees. In the long term, the latter is probably the most sustainable as it is a step to self-sustaining populations of feral and managed colonies. We recognize the significance of progress in knowledge of all three pillars to conquer Varroa and of their successful usage in accordance with local and global conditions and capabilities. In this review, we present a possible integration of the components of the three pillars of Varroa control strategies in the light of sustainable beekeeping and provide their linkage to the production of high-quality and safe honeybee products and maintaining healthy colonies.
Article
Full-text available
Today, as never before, the beekeeping community is at a crossroads to define the long-term strategy on how to match the challenges evoked by the tiny enemy called Varroa destructor. From the ocean of options for varroa control, two main ideas clash: the pragmatic therapeutic action, with all the chemical arsenal at its disposal, and the idealistic, but treacherous, approach for sustainable mite control by using biotechnical methods and breeding for resistance. Both strategies aim to keep mite numbers below a critical infestation threshold but are fundamentally different in the mode of action and implications. The former achieves an immediate solution, combatting furiously without considering long term consequences while the latter seeks to walk to the target considering two aspects, sustainability and environmental protection. https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/XUP7T2EI3CKNW9ZK7ZRF/full?target=10.1080/0005772X.2022.2113714
Chapter
This chapter presents the main features of the biology of Apis mellifera , viral diseases, bacterial diseases, parasites of the honey bee, and in particular the mite Varroa destructor , pests and predators of the hives, and finally intoxication of the honey bee colonies. Honey bees are classified in the family Apidae, which includes the orchid bees, bumblebees, and stingless bees. Apis mellifera is a social insect with individual features and a complex social organization. The digestive tract allows breakdown of foods and absorption of nutrients. The nervous system of the honey bee is complex and allows for environmental adaptation. Destruction of infected colonies is a sanitary and reliable method to control American foulbrood. Chronic bee paralysis RNA virus frequently persists as a covert infection in honey bee colonies throughout the year. Acute Bee Paralysis Virus is a single-stranded RNA Discitroviridae virus . Kashmir Bee Virus is a single-stranded RNA Discitroviridae virus .
Article
Background Varroa destructor is a parasite of honeybees. It causes biological damage leading to the colony collapse in the absence of treatment. In recent years, acaricide resistance has emerged in Varroa mites, leading to a decrease in treatment efficacy. We modelled the action of Apivar® (amitraz) treatment, using three input parameters: treatment duration, treatment period, and daily mortality due to the treatment. The output parameters were cumulative mite mortality during treatment, the residual number of Varroa mites, and treatment efficacy, expressed as a percentage. Results The model was validated by monitoring efficacy in the field, in 36 treated hives. According to the model, treatment in the absence of brood is optimal. For a long period without egg laying during the winter, an initial infestation of 100 mites and a start date for treatment of August 7th, a minimal treatment efficacy of 98.8% is required for stabilisation of the mite population for year to year. More effective treatment is associated lower cumulative numbers of dead Varroa mites over the entire treatment period. Thus, the total number of dead mites observed during the monitoring of field efficacy provides information about more than just the initial level of colony infestation. The proportion of resistant mites can be modelized by a decrease of daily mortality rate influencing treatment efficacy. Management of the initial Varroa mite infestation of the colony by the beekeeper can compensate for the decrease in treatment efficacy for resistance thresholds of up to 40% of resistant mites. Conclusion Treatment efficacy depends on several parameters, including initial level of infestation, treatment period and the presence of acaricide resistance. Amitraz resistance may lead to treatment failure, even if the beekeeper is able to keep initial infestation rates low. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Article
Full-text available
Despite numerous interventions, the ectoparasitic mite Varroa (Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman [Mesostigmata: Varroidae]) and the pathogens it vectors remain a primary threat to honey bee (Apis mellifera Linnaeus [Hymenoptera: Apidae]) health. Hygienic behavior, the ability to detect, uncap, and remove unhealthy brood from the colony, has been bred for selectively for over two decades and continues to be a promising avenue for improved Varroa management. Although hygienic behavior is expressed more in Varroa-resistant colonies, hygiene does not always confer resistance to Varroa. Additionally, existing Varroa resistance selection methods trade efficacy for efficiency, because those achieving the highest levels of Varroa resistance can be time-consuming, and thus expensive and impractical for apicultural use. Here, we tested the hypothesis that hygienic response to a mixture of semiochemicals associated with Varroa-infested honey bee brood can serve as an improved tool for predicting colony-level Varroa resistance. In support of our hypothesis, we demonstrated that a mixture of the compounds (Z)-10-tritriacontene, (Z)-8-hentriacontene, (Z)-8-heptadecene, and (Z)-6-pentadecene triggers hygienic behavior in a two-hour assay, and that high-performing colonies (hygienic response to ≥60% of treated cells) have significantly lower Varroa infestations, remove significantly more introduced Varroa, and are significantly more likely to survive the winter compared to low-performing colonies (hygienic response to <60% of treated cells). We discuss the relative efficacy and efficiency of this assay for facilitating apiary management decisions and selection of Varroa-resistant honey bees, as well as the relevance of these findings to honey bee health, pollination services, and social insect communication.
Article
Full-text available
The ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor is the most significant pathological threat to the western honey bee, Apis mellifera, leading to the death of most colonies if left untreated. An alternative approach to chemical treatments is to selectively enhance heritable honey bee traits of resistance or tolerance to the mite through breeding programs, or select for naturally surviving untreated colonies. We conducted a literature review of all studies documenting traits of A. mellifera populations either selectively bred or naturally selected for resistance and tolerance to mite parasitism. This allowed us to conduct an analysis of the diversity, distribution and importance of the traits in different honey bee populations that can survive V. destructor globally. In a second analysis, we investigated the genetic bases of these different phenotypes by comparing ’omics studies (genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics) of A. mellifera resistance and tolerance to the parasite. Altogether, this review provides a detailed overview of the current state of the research projects and breeding efforts against the most devastating parasite of A. mellifera. By highlighting the most promising traits of Varroa-surviving bees and our current knowledge on their genetic bases, this work will help direct future research efforts and selection programs to control this pest. Additionally, by comparing the diverse populations of honey bees that exhibit those traits, this review highlights the consequences of anthropogenic and natural selection in the interactions between hosts and parasites.
Article
Full-text available
Globalization has facilitated the spread of emerging pests such as the Varroa destructor mite, resulting in the near global distribution of the pest. In South African and Brazilian honey bees, mite-resistant colonies appeared within a decade; in Europe, mite-resistant colonies are rare, but several of these exhibited high levels of “re-capping” behavior. We studied re-capping in Varroa-naïve (UK/Australia) and Varroa-resistant (South Africa and Brazil) populations and found very low and very high levels, respectively, with the resistant populations targeting mite-infested cells. Furthermore, 54% of artificially infested A. m. capensis worker cells were removed after 10 days and 83% of the remaining infested cells were re-capped. Such targeted re-capping of drone cells did not occur. We propose that cell opening is a fundamental trait in mite-resistant populations and that re-capping is an accurate proxy for this behavior.
Article
Full-text available
Multispecies host-parasite evolution is common, but how parasites evolve after speciating remains poorly understood. Shared evolutionary history and physiology may propel species along similar evolutionary trajectories whereas pursuing different strategies can reduce competition. We test these scenarios in the economically important association between honey bees and ectoparasitic mites by sequencing the genomes of the sister mite species Varroa destructor and Varroa jacobsoni. These genomes were closely related, with 99.7% sequence identity. Among the 9,628 orthologous genes, 4.8% showed signs of positive selection in at least one species. Divergent selective trajectories were discovered in conserved chemosensory gene families (IGR, SNMP), and Halloween genes (CYP) involved in moulting and reproduction. However, there was little overlap in these gene sets and associated GO terms, indicating different selective regimes operating on each of the parasites. Based on our findings, we suggest that species-specific strategies may be needed to combat evolving parasite communities.
Article
Full-text available
The western honeybee Apis mellifera exhibits a diverse set of adaptations in response to infestations by its most virulent disease-causing agent, the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor. In this study, we investigated the effect of honeybee pupae genotype on the expression of four host and parasite traits that are associated with the reproductive phase of the mite in the brood of its host. We first phenotyped cells containing bee pupae to assess their infestation status, their infestation level, the reproductive status of the mites, and the recapping of cells by adult workers. We then genotyped individual pupae with five microsatellites markers to compare these phenotypes across full sister groups. We found that the four phenotypes varied significantly in time but did not across the subfamilies within the colonies. These findings show that V. destructor mites do not differentially infest or reproduce on some particular honeybee patrilines, and that workers do not target preferentially specific pupae genotypes when performing recapping. These findings bring new insights that can help designing sustainable mite control strategies through breeding and provide new insights into the interactions between A. mellifera and V. destructor.
Article
Full-text available
In scientific literature, host resistance of Apis mellifera against its parasite Varroa destructor is often presented as a potential solution to enable a sustainable relationship between both species and secure pollination and beekeeping services. Surprisingly, there are only few studies investigating the interest of beekeepers for this topic. In this paper, we propose a method to assess the desirability of resistance as part of a breeding goal, with a particular focus on small closed populations. The Swiss population of Apis mellifera mellifera is taken as case study. The general importance of this selection objective as well as the variability of the acceptance of beekeepers are studied. Thereafter, the willingness to pay for resistance is assessed to highlight possible compromises beekeepers could accept between different qualities they expect from their honey bees. Finally, the main characteristics of the breeding program desired by the beekeepers are presented. In our example, beekeepers are generally in favour of resistant honey bees even if differences in the expected breeding goals were identified. The majority is interested in a breeding strategy to select for resistant stock even though honey bees would produce less honey, swarm more often or be less gentle, showing a clear desirability for resistant traits. Furthermore, we noticed that beekeepers prefer locally selected honey bees displaying a broad genetic diversity. The presented method can be easily applied to evaluate the acceptance of new breeding objectives and to assess the potential of future strategies focusing on resistance against V. destructor in breeding programs involving beekeepers and research institutes.
Article
Full-text available
Austrian beekeepers frequently suffered severe colony losses during the last decade similar to trends all over Europe. This first surveillance study aimed to describe the health status of Austrian bee colonies and to analyze the reasons for losses for both the summer and winter season in Austria. In this study 189 apiaries all over Austria were selected using a stratified random sampling approach and inspected three times between July 2015 and spring 2016 by trained bee inspectors. The inspectors made interviews with the beekeepers about their beekeeping practice and the history of the involved colonies. They inspected a total of 1596 colonies for symptoms of nine bee pests and diseases (four of them notifiable diseases) and took bee samples for varroa mite infestation analysis. The most frequently detected diseases were three brood diseases: Varroosis, Chalkbrood and Sacbrood. The notifiable bee pests Aethina tumida and Tropilaelaps spp. were not detected. During the study period 10.8% of the 1596 observed colonies died. Winter proved to be the most critical season, in which 75% of the reported colony losses happened. Risks for suffering summer losses increased significantly, when colonies were weak in July, had queen problems or a high varroa mite infestation level on bees in July. Risks for suffering winter losses increased significantly, when the colonies had a high varroa mite infestation level on bees in September, were weak in September, had a queen older than one year or the beekeeper had few years of beekeeping experience. However, the effect of a high varroa mite infestation level in September had by far the greatest potential to raise the winter losses compared to the other significant factors.
Article
Full-text available
Established invasive species can pose a continuous threat to biodiversity and food security, thereby calling for sustainable mitigation. There is a consensus that the ubiquitous ecto-parasitic mite Varroa destructor, an invasive species from Asia, is the main biological threat to global apiculture with Apis mellifera. V. destructor has almost completely wiped out wild European honey bee (Apis mellifera) populations. The only remedy for apiculture, to date, is frequent control measures against the mite throughout the season, which prevents possible adaptations. While targeted breeding efforts have, so far, not achieved the selection of tolerant or resistant bees, natural selection approaches have succeeded at least seven times. Here, we propose to take advantage of natural selection for honey bee resistance by stopping mite treatment in managed colonies. The main principles are within population mating of the colonies’ own virgin queens and drones and selection based on survival and proliferous development of colonies. Being used for 10 years, it has shown to result in grosso modo ‘normal’ colonies with a high level of resistance to V. destructor. Here, we call for local groups of beekeepers and scientists to join a novel natural selection program that has started so far on three locations. This will eventually lead to several locally adapted V. destructor resistant honey bee populations around the world, and help global apiculture becoming more sustainable.
Article
Full-text available
In eusocial insect colonies nestmates cooperate to combat parasites, a trait called social immunity. However, social immunity failed for Western honey bees (Apis mellifera) when the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor switched hosts from Eastern honey bees (Apis cerana). This mite has since become the most severe threat to A. mellifera world-wide. Despite this, some isolated A. mellifera populations are known to survive infestations by means of natural selection, largely by supressing mite reproduction, but the underlying mechanisms of this are poorly understood. Here, we show that a cost-effective social immunity mechanism has evolved rapidly and independently in four naturally V. destructor-surviving A. mellifera populations. Worker bees of all four 'surviving' populations uncapped/recapped worker brood cells more frequently and targeted mite-infested cells more effectively than workers in local susceptible colonies. Direct experiments confirmed the ability of uncapping/recapping to reduce mite reproductive success without sacrificing nestmates. Our results provide striking evidence that honey bees can overcome exotic parasites with simple qualitative and quantitative adaptive shifts in behaviour. Due to rapid, parallel evolution in four host populations this appears to be a key mechanism explaining survival of mite infested colonies.
Article
The two standardized assays for testing hygienic behavior in Apis mellifera in the field are the freeze-killed brood (FKB) and the pin-killed brood (PKB) assays. Correlation between the two tests is still in debate. It has been argued that the PKB assay was predictive of Varroa nonreproduction. We measured the agreement between the two methods in two apiaries with 36 and 59 colonies, respectively. The agreement between the two assays was very poor with a 95% limit of agreement greater than 100%. These assays and the SMR (Suppression of Mite Reproduction) trait were also measured in 21 single drone inseminated colonies infested with Varroa and with varying SMR efficacy. A PKB assay result of >46% at 24 h predicted an SMR trait >40% with a sensitivity and a specificity of 0.727 and 0.90, respectively, whereas the FKB assay did not exhibit any predictive value. In conclusion, the PKB and FKB assays are not correlated, but the PKB assay predicted SMR with a good accuracy.
Article
Despite receiving much attention, the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor (Anderson and Trueman) and the pathogens it vectors remain critical threats to the health of the honey bee Apis mellifera (Linnaeus) (Hymenoptera: Apidae). One promising intervention approach is the breeding of hygienic honey bees, which have an improved ability to detect and remove unhealthy brood from the colony, and are thus more resistant to Varroa. While much hygienic behavior-related research has focused on enhanced adult honey bee olfaction, less attention has been paid to the olfactory signals that originate inside the brood cell, triggering hygienic removal. Here, we hypothesized that selection for hygienic behavior in honey bees has influenced brood signaling, predicting that: 1) in a common social environment, removal rates differ among brood with different selective breeding histories, and 2) the removal rates of brood positively correlate to the hygiene level of the brood's colony of origin. To test these predictions, we cross-fostered brood subjected to control, wound, or Varroa treatment in unselected (UNS), Minnesota Hygienic (HYG), and Varroa-Sensitive Hygienic (VSH) colonies, and monitored individual brood cells for hygienic removal. Results confirmed both predictions, as brood from hygienic colonies was more likely to be removed than brood from UNS colonies, regardless of where the brood was fostered. These findings suggest that hygiene-related brood signals complement previously identified characteristics of hygienic adults, constituting an important mechanism of social immunity in honey bees. Thus, selective breeding for honey bee hygienic behavior may be improved through the utilization of field assays containing compounds related to larval signaling.