Effects of Captan on Apis mellifera Brood Development Under Field Conditions in California Almond Orchards

2009 ◽  
Vol 102 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Everich ◽  
C. Schiller ◽  
J. Whitehead ◽  
M. Beavers ◽  
K. Barrett
Insects ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 664
Author(s):  
Richard Odemer ◽  
Abdulrahim T. Alkassab ◽  
Gabriela Bischoff ◽  
Malte Frommberger ◽  
Anna Wernecke ◽  
...  

The ongoing debate about glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) and their implications for beneficial arthropods gives rise to controversy. This research was carried out to cover possible sublethal GBH effects on the brood and colony development, adult survival, and overwintering success of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) under field conditions. Residues in bee relevant matrices, such as nectar, pollen, and plants, were additionally measured. To address these questions, we adopted four independent study approaches. For brood effects and survival, we orally exposed mini-hives housed in the “Kieler mating-nuc” system to sublethal concentrations of 4.8 mg glyphosate/kg (T1, low) and 137.6 mg glyphosate/kg (T2, high) over a period of one brood cycle (21 days). Brood development and colony conditions were assessed after a modified OECD method (No. 75). For adult survival, we weighed and labeled freshly emerged workers from control and exposed colonies and introduced them into non-contaminated mini-hives to monitor their life span for 25 consecutive days. The results from these experiments showed a trivial effect of GBH on colony conditions and the survival of individual workers, even though the hatching weight was reduced in T2. The brood termination rate (BTR) in the T2 treatment, however, was more than doubled (49.84%) when compared to the control (22.11%) or T1 (20.69%). This was surprising as T2 colonies gained similar weight and similar numbers of bees per colony compared to the control, indicating an equal performance. Obviously, the brood development in T2 was not “terminated” as expected by the OECD method terminology, but rather “slowed down” for an unknown period of time. In light of these findings, we suggest that chronic high GBH exposure is capable of significantly delaying worker brood development, while no further detrimental effects seem to appear at the colony level. Against this background, we discuss additional results and possible consequences of GBH for honey bee health.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Odemer ◽  
Abdulrahim T. Alkassab ◽  
Gabriela Bischoff ◽  
Malte Frommberger ◽  
Anna Wernecke ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTThe ongoing debate about glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) and their implications for beneficial arthropods give rise to controversy. This research was carried out to cover possible sublethal GBH effects on brood and colony development, adult survival, and overwintering success of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) under field conditions. Residues in bee relevant matrices such as nectar, pollen and plants were measured in addition. To address these questions, we adopted four independent study approaches. For brood effects and survival, we orally exposed mini-hives housed in the “Kieler mating-nuc” system to sublethal concentrations of 4.8 mg glyphosate/kg (T1, low) and 137.6 mg glyphosate/kg (T2, high) over the period of one brood cycle (21 days). Brood development and colony conditions were assessed after a modified OECD method (No. 75). For adult survival, we weighed and labeled freshly emerged workers from exposed colonies and introduced them into non-contaminated mini-hives to monitor life span for 25 consecutive days. Results from these experiments showed a trivial effect of GBH on colony conditions and survival of individual workers, even though hatching weight was reduced in T2. The brood termination rate (BTR) in the T2 treatment, however, was more than doubled (49.84%) when compared to the control (22.11%) or T1 (20.69%). This was surprising as T2 colonies gained similar weight and similar numbers of bees per colony compared to the control, indicating equal performance. Obviously, the brood development in T2 was not “terminated” as expected by the OECD method terminology but rather “slowed down” for an unknown period of time. In light of these findings, we suggest that chronic high GBH exposure is capable of delaying worker brood development to a significant extent while no further detrimental effects seem to appear at the colony level. Against this background, we discuss additional results and possible consequences of GBH for honey bee health.


2014 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beata Panasiuk ◽  
Małgorzata Bieńkowska ◽  
Dariusz Gerula ◽  
Paweł Węgrzynowicz

Abstract The susceptibility of bee larvae to Ascosphaera apis infestation and the hygienic behaviour of worker bees in relation to A. apis infected and freeze-killed brood were evaluated in three races of bees: Apis mellifera carnica, Apis mellifera caucasica, and Apis mellifera mellifera. Experimental bee colonies were evaluated in field conditions during the three beekeeping seasons. The lowest percentage of infected larvae was observed in car GR1 and mel A colonies (8.5% and 15%, respectively) and the highest in car Mr and cau P colonies (21% and 24.3%, respectively). Bees in the car GR1 and mel A colonies removed mummified brood in a shorter period of time (6.5 and 7.1 days on average, respectively) than car Mr and cau P colonies (above 8 days). Bees in the mel A and car GR1 colonies cleaned significantly more cells with freeze-killed brood within 24 and 48 hours (above 70% and 80% on average, respectively) than car Mr and cau P colonies (on average 10 - 20% lower cleaning rate). A low correlation coefficient was found for the susceptibility of larvae to A. apis infection and hygienic behaviour.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. e903
Author(s):  
Patricia Daniela da Silva Pires ◽  
Josué Sant'Ana ◽  
Ricardo Bisotto-de-Oliveira

Repellent volatiles to insects might be an important tool for management of bees in areas which the presence of these organisms is not required. This study aimed to evaluate the electroantennal and behavioral responses of Africanized honeybees (workers), Apis mellifera (Lepeletier) (Hymenoptera Apidae), at different ages, to benzaldehyde (BA) and methyl anthranilate (MA) and to evaluate the potential repellency of these compounds under field conditions. Laboratory tests were conducted to study electroantennographic responses (mV) and chemotactic behavior of worker bees aged 1-5 (young) and 20-30 (old) days in four choice olfactometer. Electrophysiological responses to each compound did not differ between young and old workers. Bees antennae (young) triggered significantly greater responses to BA, in the older ones, a higher response was observed to MA, both compared to control (ethanol). The threshold response to BA and MA was achieved at 10 µg/µL, both compounds repelled bees at the same dose in olfactometer. Treatments with BA and MA, in field conditions, were less visited by scouter honey bees than those without these compounds (control).


2013 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Dussaubat ◽  
Alban Maisonnasse ◽  
Didier Crauser ◽  
Dominique Beslay ◽  
Guy Costagliola ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vimla Goswami ◽  
Poonam Srivastava ◽  
M. S. Khan

Varroa destructor is a dangerous pest directly for beekeeping and indirectly for crops that require insect pollination. The present investigation has been carried out to study the efficacy and persistence of some essential oils and formic acid against Varroa mite in colonies of Apis mellifera Linn. at Pantnagar, Uttarakhand. The results revealed that highest mite mortality (77.54 %) with highest brood development (21.74 % increase) recorded in garlic oil followed by turmeric oil (75.84 %) with 15.39 per cent increases in brood development. The hives treated withT1(tulsi oil), T3 (turmeric oil), T4 (ajwin oil), T5 (cinnamon oil), T5 (clove oil) and T7 (formic acid) also showed good persistence with mite mortality ranging from 66.54 to 77.54 % and brood development -3.12 to 21.74 per cent increase after 3 weeks exposure of the treatments.


Ecotoxicology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 530-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathrin Milchreit ◽  
Haike Ruhnke ◽  
Jakob Wegener ◽  
Kaspar Bienefeld

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document