|
CHAPTER THREE - INTERHIVE
VARIABILITY
Since the 1960's, resistance of insects to a number of insecticides
has been documented. Resistance of houseflies to DDT was the
first in a long and continuing series of pest species which have
become resistant to chemical controls. Only recently has this
phenomenon been exploited to select for pesticide resistant beneficial
insects and mites. It might be expected that honey bees could
also be selected for resistance to pesticides. This study concentrated
on examining various populations of honey bees for resistance
to synthetic pyrethroid insecticides in all three races of bees
commonly sold in North America.
Background and Objectives
The development of resistance in insect populations is influenced
by a number of factors. These include the generation time of
the species, the amount of insecticide pressure on the population,
the mobility of the species, the amount of outbreeding with populations
not resistant and whether or not the females mate with more than
one male (Georghiou 1980). In a population of leafminers in a
greenhouse environment for example, it can be seen how each of
these factors favors the development of resistance. A population
of honey bees presents a very different picture, however.
Genetic changes in honey bees colonies only occur when the queen
is replaced (Collins 1980). This may happen under several conditions,
but, it most commonly occurs when the colony swarms or when the
old queen is superseded. In managed colonies, the intercession
of the beekeeper in replacing the queen must also be considered.
The most frequently this might be expected to occur would be
once every year or two. This is a very long time considering
the development of insecticide resistance.
It is possible that colonies
exposed to pesticides will be more likely to supersede their
queen. This does provide the opportunity for the selection of
a larva that is surviving at a time when the colony is challenged
by an insecticide. Neither swarming or beekeeper replacement
of queens is likely to provide any selection for insecticide
resistance. Only strong colonies are likely to swarm and it may
be assumed that colonies exposed to substantial levels of insecticide
would not be strong enough to swarm. Beekeepers do not have a
commercial source of pesticide resistant queens available. Queens
are not likely to come from colonies which have been selected
for any trait other than honey production. Beekeepers raising
their own queens may be able to do some indirect selection for
pesticide resistance by choosing colonies that perform well in
areas of pesticide use.
The mating behavior of queen honey bees is also not well suited
for the development of insecticide resistance. The virgin queen
leaves the hive at a few days of age and mates with 5 to 10 drones.
From this mating she will store all the sperm necessary for egg
laying for her entire life. The drones she mates with are likely
to be from colonies other than her own, and may come from colonies
several miles away. Because drone bees do not contribute to the
welfare of a colony, weaker colonies are likely to produce fewer
drones than strong colonies. Therefore colonies challenged by
insecticides are not likely to produce as many drones as other
colonies.
The development of resistance
by selection also requires the assumption that some level of
natural resistance exists in the population (Graves 1965). In
honey bees a number of traits have been selected for at one time
or another (Rothenbuhler 1980). Some of these programs have been
quite successful, such as breeding for increased pollen collection
(Boelter 1984). Other honey bee queen breeders claim to have
strains selected for resistance to various honey bee diseases,
honey producing ability, overwintering ability, a preferred color
or resistance to some pesticides (Tucker 1980). Most of these
traits have been selected for from within one race; others from
the offspring of selected crosses. Differential resistance to
carbaryl was shown between lines of Apis mellifera ligustica
Spin, and A. m. scutellata Lepeltier by Danka (1986).
The relative impact of race and previous selection pressure on
the two lines was not addressed by Danka.
In the United States, the honey
bee genetic pool has been closed since 1912 when Congress closed
the United States to the importation of live bees. This was done
to prevent the introduction of a mite pest which was having devastating
effects on the honey bee population of England at the time (Phillips
1925, Rennie 1921). The border was not closed to Canada. Canada
had adopted similar laws, but had excluded New Zealand as well
as the U.S. and therefore genetic material could come to the
U.S. from New Zealand via Canada. Since 1912, there have been
some very limited importations under permit from the USDA as
well.
At the time the border was
closed in 1912, there were four races of bees known to be present
in the United States (Culliney 1983, Severson 1985). These were
Apis mellifera ligustica Spin or the Italian, by far the
most popular and common; A. m. mellifera L. or the German
or Black bee, the first race imported by settlers but an aggressive
and unpopular race; A. m. caucasica Gorb. or the Caucasian,
a gentle grey bee noted for its ability to overwinter well but
not popular for other reasons; and A. m. carnica Pollmann
or the Carniolan, also a gentle grey bee but noted for its tendency
to swarm. None of these races were genetically pure, with the
possible exception of the Italian. The lack of artificial insemination
at the time and the sheer number of italian bees, made keeping
pure lines of the other races nearly impossible.
Over time A. m. mellifera
became nearly impossible to find in a distinguishable form,
although its influence on some strains is still detectable. Renewed
interest in the grey races (A. m. carnica and A. m.
causica) resulted in some breeders selecting strains that
showed morphological and behavioral characteristics very close
to those of these races as seen in their native areas (Carlisle
1955). Instrumental insemination greatly aided this work because
it allowed the use of single drone controlled matings. Today
relative pure lines of A. m. ligustica, A. m. laucasica and
A. m. carnica are available in the U.S.
A long term selection program for honey bee lines was started
in England in 1912 when the native strains were decimated by
the Isle of Wright Disease, now believed to be a combination
of infection with Nosema apis Zander and infestation with
Acarapis woodii Renie (Bullamore 1922). This program was
carried out by Brother Adam at Buckfast Abbey. Brother Adam has
traveled the world looking for different genetic lines of bees
that might contribute to his breeding program and he has imported
a number of these races and strains to Buckfast Abbey. His intensive
selection and crossing have resulted in a world famous line of
bees now known as Buckfast. This line was imported under permit
into the United States as eggs which were reared into virgin
queens and inseminated with semen also imported under special
permit from the USDA. The Buckfast bee is now sold by a single
licensed breeder in the U.S. (Sugden 1983). These queens are
mated naturally to wild drones, however, so that their progeny
are only 50% Buckfast genotype.
| The objectives
of this study were: |
| 1) |
To look for resistance
to one or more synthetic pyrethroid insecticides in genetic lines
of bees representing all three common races found in North America
and a line representing a long term selection program from England. |
| 2) |
To determine if
any resistance found was related to race of the colony, possible
previous selection pressure or simply individual variation between
colonies. |
|
Materials and Methods
In the summer of the year previous to the study, colonies of
bees were established in a common site near West Lafayette. This
was accomplished by removing frames of brood from established
colonies and introducing marked queens representing the different
lines selected for the study. All of these colonies were established
in new hives so that previous pesticide exposure would not be
a factor. The old frames removed from other colonies and used
to establish the new hives were replaced with new frames as soon
as possible.
The queens selected were as
follows: two caucasian lines, one each from two breeders; two
carniolian lines, one each from two breeders; two buckfast queens
from the sole breeder in the U.S.; two Italians from one breeder
and two Italians from hives in a high pesticide use area of southern
Indiana which had not been requeened for at least seven years.
These ten lines allowed comparisons between races, between queens
from the same breeder, and between bees which could be reasonably
assumed to have been under selection pressure and those not under
such pressure within the same race or from other races.
The seven treatments consisted
of a control of 50% sucrose and carbaryl as Sevin 50W, permethrin
as Ambush 2EC and fluvalinate as Spur 2.4 EC in 50% sucrose at
1 and 10 PPM each. The bees were handled and mortality measured
as previously described. All bees were held in the dark in a
single environmental chamber at 25 degrees C. The study was conducted
as a randomized complete block design and replicated four times.
Each treatment was applied to a single test unit (cup of 25 bees)
except for one fourth of the treatments which were duplicated
to provide an estimate of between cup variance. The duplicated
treatments comprised a fifth complete set of insecticide-bee
source combinations which were randomly assigned to a replication.
Results and Discussion
Significant differences were found between the different sources
of bees examined. These differences were related to the race
of the colony. There was surprising little variation between
the different sources of the same race. No significant differences
in susceptability were found in the hives which were assumed
to have been exposed to insecticides and those which were assumed
to not have been exposed.
Data Handling.
The data were analyzed using
the ANOVA, GLM and MEANS procedures of SAS. Mortality is presented
as the mean percent of bees dead at each of six observations
made over five days. Means were tested for significant differences
using Duncan's Multiple Range test with the error rate set at
5%. Two data points of the 350 combinations of 10 hives and 7
treatments for five replications were missing due to the loss
of one or more observations used to calculate the mean percentage
of bees dead per observation. The significance of differences
did not change if the fifth replication was dropped.
Hive to Hive Variation.
There was considerable variation
between the hives as to their susceptibility to the products
tested (Figure 14). Differences in overall mortality as measured
by the mean percentage of bees dead per observation (Table 4)
were found to be significant at the 5% level. The ANOVA indicated
that variance between duplicate cups within a hive/treatment/replication
combination was not a significant component of the total variance
(<1%). Analysis by treatment showed that differences between
hives were significant for only two treatments, carbaryl and
permethrin at 10 PPM (Table 5).
Analysis of Racial Differences.
The influence of race on the
hive differences was assessed by grouping the hives into Italian,
Caucasian, Carniolan and Buckfast. While this latter group is
not a true race, it does represent a different genetic lineage
than the other hives and does not fit well into any of the other
races, although each of these races was used at some point in
the development of the Buckfast bee.
Figure 15 shows the mean percent
mortality by race. Each race is represented by two hives except
Italian which was represented by four hives. The Italian and
Caucasian races were significantly different from the Carniolan
and Buckfast races. Further analysis of the four hives grouped
as Italian was conducted by splitting the group into Indiana
and California strains. Since the Indiana strain was assumed
to have been exposed to the materials in question, while the
California strain was selected from breeding stock in Canada
in an area of no pesticide use, differences representing selection
pressure should have been evident between these two groups. The
means and standard deviations of the Indiana and California strains
were 13.4%(6.1) and 15.9%(7.4), respectively. The difference
was not significant the 5% level.
The racial differences were
also examined by treatment. Figure 16 shows the mean percent
mortality by treatment. The treatments were: Trt. 1 - carbaryl
1PPM, Trt. 2 - carbaryl 10PPM, Trt. 3 - permethrin, Trt. 4 -
permethrin 10PPM, Trt. 5 - fluvalinate 1PPM, Trt. 6 - fluvalinate
10PPM, and Trt. 7 - the control of 50% sucrose only. The Italian
race was significantly more sensitive to carbaryl than any other
race. The Caucasian race was significantly more sensitive to
permethrin than the other races and while not significant, showed
an interesting sensitivity to fluvalinate at 10 PPM.
Discussion.
Racial differences in susceptibility
to the treatments examined were noted. It was especially interesting
to note that the Italian race, the most popular in the United
States, was the most susceptible to carbaryl and more susceptible
to permethrin than the Carniolan and Buckfast races. The similarity
between the Buckfast race and the Carniolan is not surprising
since the Carniolan was a major line used by Brother Adam in
developing the Buckfast bee. It was also very interesting to
note the small amount of variation between the different sources
of a race compared to racial differences.
Since the so-named Indiana and California strains of the Italian
race were not positively known to have represented lines selected
under insecticide pressure and a lack of such pressure respectively,
the lack of significance of the difference should not be taken
to suggest that selection for increased tolerance to carbaryl
or the synthetic pyrethroid insecticides would not be effective.
The racial differences would suggest that racial hybrids should
be considered in any breeding program whose aim was increased
resistance to insecticides.
|