Small-cell comb foundation does not impede Varroa mite population growth in honey bee colonies


Jennifer A. Berry, William B. Owens, Keith S. Delaplane

  Abstract - In three independently replicated field studies, we compared biometrics of Varroa mite and honey bee populations in bee colonies housed on one of two brood cell types: small-cell (4.9 ± 0.08 mm cell width, walls inclusive) or conventional-cell (5.3 ± 0.04). In one of the studies, ending colony bee population was significantly higher in small-cell colonies (14994 ± 2494 bees) than conventional-cell (5653 ± 1082). However, small-cell colonies were significantly higher for mite population in brood (359.7 ± 87.4 vs. 134.5 ± 38.7), percentage of mite population in brood (49.4 ± 7.1 vs. 26.8 ± 6.7), and mites per 100 adult bees (5.1 ± 0.9 vs. 3.3 ± 0.5). With the three remaining ending Varroa population metrics, mean trends for small-cell were unfavorable. We conclude that small-cell comb technology does not impede Varroa population growth.

1. INTRODUCTION
The mite Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman is a natural ectoparasite of the eastern honey bee Apis cerana F, but now parasitizes the western honey bee Apis mellifera L. throughout much of its modern range.Mite reproduction is limited to the brood cells of its host bee, and it is clear in free-choice studies that Varroa preferentially enter comparatively large brood cells. When Message and Gonçalves (1995) compared brood reared in small worker cells produced by Africanized bees with brood reared in large cells produced by European bees, they found a 2-fold increase in mite infestation rates in the larger cells. When Piccirillo and De Jong (2003) compared Varroa infestation rates in three types of brood comb with different cell sizes (inner width), 4.84 mm, 5.16 mm, or 5.27 mm, they found"

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
In three independent experimental replicates, we compared biometrics of Varroa mite and honey bee populations in bee colonies housed on one of two brood cell types: small-cell or conventionalcell. In spring 2006, foundation of both types was drawn during natural nectar flows prior to set up of the experiment. Small-cell foundation was drawn out by colonies containing honey bees which had themselves been reared in small-cell combs. Conventional foundation was similarly drawn out by colonies whose bees were derived from conventional combs. Once combs were drawn we determined realized cell width (walls inclusive) by counting the number of cells in 10 cm linear (n = 60 samples each cell type). Cell width from small-cell combs was 4.9 ± 0.08 mm and from conventional- 5.3 ± 0.04 mm. In August 2006, bees were collected from a variety of existing colonies (irrespective of rearing history) and combined in large cages to achieve a homogeneous mixture of bees and Varroa mites. Twenty screened packages were made up, each containing ca. 2.0 kg (15966) bees. Packages were transported to a test apiary in Oconee County, Georgia, USA (33?50N, 83?26W) where each was used to stock one of 20 single-story deep Langstroth hives. Ten of the hives each contained ten frames of drawn small-cell comb, and the other ten contained drawn conventional-cell comb. One alcohol sample of ca. 300 bees was collected from each package to derive starting mite: adult bee ratios and, by extrapolation, beginning mite populations (colonies were broodless so all mites were phoretic on adults). Queens from a single commercial source were introduced into colonies. All colonies received sugar syrup and pollen patties as needed. Colonies were removed from the experiment if they died or their queens failed. In March 2007 a second experiment of twenty colonies was established in the same manner as before with the following differences: each package contained ca. 1.45 kg (11612) bees, and colonies were established on foundation instead of drawn comb. A third experiment was set up in April 2008, each colony with 1.36 kg (10886) bees and started on drawn comb of the appropriate experimental type stored from the previous year; honey was removed from combs to remove variation in beginning food stores. In June 2007 (for colonies started in August 2006 and March 2007) and in August 2008 (for colonies started in April 2008) we collected the following ending parameters: daily mite count on bottom board sticky sheet (72-h exposure), average mites per adult bee recovered from alcohol samples (ca. 100–300 bees), mites per 100 cells of capped brood, and brood area (cm2). A measure of ending bee population was made by summing the proportions of whole deep frames covered by bees (after Skinner et al., 2001) then converting frames of adult bees to bee populations with the regression model of Burgett and Burikam (1985). Brood area (cm2) was converted to cells of brood after determining average cell density as 3.93 per cm2 for conventional-cells and 4.63 for small-cell. From cells of brood we calculated the number of cells sealed by applying the multiplier of 0.53 derived by Delaplane (1999). From mites on adult bees and mites in brood we could derive ending mite populations and percentage of mite population in brood – a positive indicator of the fecundity of a mite population (Harbo and Harris, 1999). Finally, for the August 2006 colonies we sampled adult bees in October 2006 for average body weight. The duration of time between experiment start date and collection of ending Varroa population metrics was ca. 40 weeks for August 2006 colonies, 12 weeks for March 2007 colonies, and 16 weeks for April 2008 colonies. A field test of no more than 9–10 weeks is adequate to accurately appraise Varroa population change (Harbo, 1996). An initial analysis was run as a randomized block analysis of variance recognizing the three experiment start dates as blocks and using the interaction of treatment and block as test term (Proc GLM, SAS 2002–2003). There was an interaction between treatment and block for ending colony bee population, so for this variable the analysis was performed separately for each start date and residual error used as test term. Differences were accepted at the a = 0.05 level and where necessary means separated by Tukey’s test.

3. RESULTS
Significant effects of cell size were detected for ending mites in brood (F = 38.3; df = 1,2; P = 0.0252), percentage of mite population in brood cells (F = 57.4; df = 1,2; P = 0.0170) and ending mites per 100 adult bees (F = 23.8; df = 1,2; P = 0.0396). The ending number of mites in brood, percentage of mite population in brood, and mites per 100 adult bees were significantly higher in small-cell colonies (Tab. I). There was a significant interaction between start date and treatment for ending colony bee population (F = 5.14; df = 2,33; P = 0.0114)which is explained by the fact that populations tended to be higher in small-cell colonies except for the April 2008 start date. The advantage for small-cell colonies was significant for the August 2006 start date (F = 11.8; df = 1,4; P = 0.0264) (Tab. II). We failed to detect significant effects of cell size on cm2 brood, cells of brood, mites per 24 h sticky sheet, mites per 100 brood cells, and colony mite populations.
More details are here:


"The efficacy of small cell foundation as a varroa mite (Varroa destructor) control."
Ellis AM, Hayes GW, Ellis JD.
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Bureau of Plant and Apiary Inspection, Apiary Inspection Section, 1911 SW 34th St., Gainesville, FL, 32614-7100, USA. ellisa@doacs.state.fl.us
Abstract
"Due to a continuing shift toward reducing/minimizing the use of chemicals in honey bee colonies, we explored the possibility of using small cell foundation as a varroa control. Based on the number of anecdotal reports supporting small cell as an efficacious varroa control tool, we hypothesized that bee colonies housed on combs constructed on small cell foundation would have lower varroa populations and higher adult bee populations and more cm(2) brood.
To summarize our results, we found that the use of small cell foundation did not significantly affect cm(2) total brood, total mites per colony, mites per brood cell, or mites per adult bee, but did affect adult bee population for two sampling months. Varroa levels were similar in all colonies throughout the study. We found no evidence that small cell foundation was beneficial with regard to varroa control under the tested conditions in Florida."
From: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19067184

"Brood-cell size has no influence on the population dynamics of Varroa destructor mites in the native western honey bee, Apis mellifera mellifera"
Mary F. Coffey, John Breen (Department of Life Sciences, University of Limerick, Ireland ), Mark J.F. Brown (School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, TW20 0EX, UK) and John B. McMullan (Department of Zoology, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland)
Abstract
"The varroa mite (Varroa destructor) is an ectoparasite of the western honeybee Apis mellifera that reproduces in the brood cells. The mite will generally kill colonies unless treatment is given, and this almost universally involves the use of chemicals. This study was undertaken to examine the effect of small cell size on the reproductive success of the mite, as a method of non-chemical control in the Northern European honeybee Apis mellifera mellifera. Test colonies with alternating small and standard cell size brood combs were sampled over a three-month period and the population biology of the mites evaluated. To ensure high varroa infestation levels, all colonies were infested with mites from a host colony prior to commencement. A total of 2229 sealed cells were opened and the varroa mite families recorded. While small-sized cells were more likely to be infested than the standard cells, mite intensity and abundance were similar in both cell sizes.
Consequently, there is no evidence that small-cell foundation would help to contain the growth of the mite population in honeybee colonies and hence its use as a control method would not be proposed."
From: http://www.apidologie.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/apido/abs/2010/05/m09095/m09095.html




 

Back to main Page