Showing papers on "Varroa sensitive hygiene published in 2019"
TL;DR: This study demonstrates that when A. mellifera colonies are under stress because of Varroa infestation, an increase in the number of resin foragers is recorded, even if a general intensification of the foraging activity is not observed.
Abstract: Social insects have evolved colony behavioral, physiological, and organizational adaptations (social immunity) to reduce the risks of parasitization and/or disease transmission. The collection of resin from various plants and its use in the hive as propolis is a clear example of behavioral defense. For Apis mellifera, an increased propolis content in the hive may correspond to variations in the microbial load of the colony and to a downregulation of an individual bee's immune response. However, many aspects of such antimicrobial mechanism still need to be clarified. Assuming that bacterial and fungal infection mechanisms differ from the action of a parasite, we studied the resin collection dynamics in Varroa destructor-infested honeybee colonies. Comparative experiments involving hives with different mite infestation levels were conducted in order to assess the amount of resin collected and propolis quality within the hive, over a 2-year period (2014 and 2015). Our study demonstrates that when A. mellifera colonies are under stress because of Varroa infestation, an increase in the number of resin foragers is recorded, even if a general intensification of the foraging activity is not observed. A reduction in the total polyphenolic content in propolis produced in infested versus uninfested hives was also noticed. Considering that different propolis types show varying levels of inhibition against a variety of honey bee pathogens in vitro, it would be very important to study the effects against Varroa of two diverse types of propolis: from Varroa-free and from Varroa-infested hives.
17 citations
TL;DR: This work determined the relatedness of 393 pairs of V. destructor foundresses and found no deviation from random coinvasion, but the frequency of cells infested by mites with different genotypes was high, which homogenized the allelic pool of mites within the apiary.
Abstract: The genetic diversity of Varroa destructor (Anderson and Trueman) is limited outside its natural range due to population bottlenecks and its propensity to inbreed. In light of the arms race between V. destructor and its honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) host, any mechanism enhancing population admixture of the mite may be favored. One way that admixture can occur is when two genetically dissimilar mites co-invade a brood cell, with the progeny of the foundresses admixing. We determined the relatedness of 393 pairs of V. destructor foundresses, each pair collected from a single bee brood cell (n = five colonies). We used six microsatellites to identify the genotypes of mites co-invading a cell and calculated the frequency of pairs with different or the same genotypes. We found no deviation from random co-invasion, but the frequency of cells infested by mites with different genotypes was high. This rate of recombination, coupled with a high transmission rate of mites, homogenized the allelic pool of mites within the apiary.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
12 citations
24 Sep 2019
TL;DR: It is argued that parallel evolution in four European populations of honeybees has resulted in a not previously reported behavioural defence mechanism of the bees against the parasitic mite Varroa destructor, i.e. the ability of uncapping/recapping to reduce mite reproductive success.
Abstract: We refute a recent claim that parallel evolution in four European populations of honeybees has resulted in a not previously reported behavioural defence mechanism of the bees against the parasitic mite Varroa destructor, i.e. the ability of uncapping/recapping to reduce mite reproductive success. There are no data to support this claim, while there is a more plausible alternative interpretation of the reduced mite reproduction, i.e. reduction of mites through Varroa Sensitive Hygiene. We provide evidence why the former mechanism cannot explain resistance against Varroa in honeybees and the latter is instrumental in reducing Varroa populations.
4 citations