Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1997. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 92-94). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1997. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 92-94). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Michigan State University. Dept. of Zoology, Program in Ecology, Evolutionary Biology, and Behavior, 2008. / Title from PDF t.p. (viewed Aug. 19, 2009). Includes bibliographical references (p. 88-95). Also issued in print.

No description available.

In order to improve the diet of the comunarios of Chulumani, and to expect a better production of honeybee; it has been introduced the Apis mellífica cárnica queen in Apis mellífica scutellata colonies. It was also carried out comparative tests among beehives Langstroth, Schirmer and Dadant. The nucleus “S” was only used as an introduction of queens, and the nucleus “M” and “K” were utilized for the development of the colony (submúltiplos of the beehive Schirmer). The study was carried out totally at random with the experimental design with factorial arrangement, and the meaning of the comparative analysis it was determined by the test of Dunnett. As a result of the substitution of queens more docile colonies were obtained with yields of honey of 22-26 Kg/beehive; being the beehive Schirmer the one that gathered the best size, weight and geometric space similar to which the bees develop in natural form. This way, it has been obtained a technically and economically viable beekeeping with carniolan bees in beehives Schirmer.

The development of three colonies of Bombus fervidus (Fabricius) and two of Bombus pennsylvanicus (Degeer) was studied. Population levels and the production of males and young queens varied among colonies and between years. Mean longevity of worker bees decreased significantly toward the end of the season. Mean size of emerging worker bees increased significantly with time. The decreased survivorship may be related to the seasonal size increase of the workers, which would result in an increased proportion of foragers. Age-specific life tables and survivorship curves were developed for workers within colonies, and for workers in cohorts based on emergence date. An increase in brood developmental times occurred near the end of the colony cycle. In the two B. pennsylvanicus colonies, oviposition of fertilized eggs decreased during the transition period from worker to queen production, and large numbers of male-producing eggs were laid. At the time of queen production a sudden increase in size of emerging females occurred. Neither a gradual nor a sudden change in larva/worker ratio appears sufficient to explain caste determination. Rates of parasitization of bumble bee queens at three sites in Southwestern Virginia were studied. Endoparasites of spring queens included Locustacarus buchneri (Stammer) (Acarina: Podapolipidae), a mite infesting the abdominal air sacs; the nematode Sphaerularia bombi Dufour (Tylenchida: Nematoda), and gregarious braconid larvae, probably Syntretus sp. (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Ectoparasites included hypopi of the mite Kuzinia americana Delfinado and Baker (Acari: Acaridae) and Parasitus spp. mites (Acari: Parasitidae). / M.S.

The small hive beetle (Aethina tumida Murray) is an endemic scavenger in colonies of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) subspecies inhabiting sub-Saharan Africa. The beetle only occasionally damages host colonies in its native range and such damage is usually restricted to weakened/diseased colonies or is associated with after absconding events due to behavioral resistance mechanisms of its host. The beetle has recently been introduced into North America and Australia where populations of managed subspecies of European honey bees have proven highly susceptible to beetle depredation. Beetles are able to reproduce in large numbers in European colonies and their larvae weaken colonies by eating honey, pollen, and bee brood. Further, adult and larval defecation is thought to promote the fermentation of honey and large populations of beetles can cause European colonies to abscond, both resulting in additional colony damage. The economic losses attributed to the beetle since its introduction into the United States have been estimated in millions of US dollars. Although beetles feed on foodstuffs found within colonies, experiments in vitro show that they can also complete entire life cycles on fruit. Regardless, they reproduce best on diets of honey, pollen, and bee brood. After feeding, beetle larvae exit the colony and burrow into the ground where they pupate. Neither soil type nor density affects a beetle’s ability to successfully pupate. Instead, successful pupation appears to be closely tied to soil moisture. African subspecies of honey bees employ a complicated scheme of confinement (aggressive behavior toward and guarding of beetles) to limit beetle reproduction in a colony. Despite being confined away from food, adult beetles are able to solicit food and feed from the mouths of their honey bee guards. Remarkably, beetle-naïve European honey bees also confine beetles and this behavior is quantitatively similar to that in African bees. If confinement efforts fail, beetles access the combs where they feed and reproduce. Two modes of beetle oviposition in sealed bee brood have been identified. In the first mode, beetles bite holes in the cappings of cells and oviposit on the pupa contained within. In the second mode, beetles enter empty cells, bite a hole in the wall of the cell, and oviposit on the brood in the adjacent cell. Despite this, African bees detect and remove all of the infected brood (hygienic behavior). Similarly, European bees can detect and remove brood that has been oviposited on by beetles. Enhancing the removal rate of infected brood in European colonies through selective breeding may achieve genetic control of beetles. Additional avenues of control were tested for efficacy against beetles. Reducing colony entrances slowed beetle ingress but the efficacy of this method probably depends on other factors. Further, the mortality of beetle pupae was higher when contacting species of the fungus Aspergillus than when not, making biological control an option. Regardless, no control tested to date proved efficacious at the level needed by beekeepers so an integrated approach to controlling beetles remains preferred. The amalgamation of the data presented in this dissertation contributed to a discussion on the beetle’s ecological niche, ability to impact honey bee colonies in ways never considered, and the ability to predict the beetle’s spread and impact globally.

Call number: LD2668 .T4 1955 K31 / Master of Science

No description available.

Cotton is a high-value commercial crop in Australia. Although cotton is largely self-pollinating, previous researchers have reported that honeybees, Apis mellifera, can assist in cross-pollination and contribute to improved yield. Until recently, use of bees in cotton had, however, been greatly limited by excessive use of pesticides to control arthropod pests. With the widespread use of transgenic (Bt) cotton varieties and the associated reduction in pesticide use, I decided to investigate the role and importance of honeybees in Bt cotton, under Australian conditions. I conducted two major field trials at Narrabri, in the centre of one of Australia’s major cotton-growing areas, in the 2005-6 and 2006-7 seasons. In the first trial, I particularly assessed methods of manipulating honeybee colonies by feeding pollen supplements of pollen/soybean patties, and by restricting pollen influx by the fitting of 30% efficient pollen traps. I aimed to test whether either of these strategies increased honeybee flight activity and, thus, increased foraging on cotton flowers. My results showed that although supplementary feeding increased bee flight activity and brood production, it did not increase pollen collection on cotton. Pollen traps initially reduced flight activity. They also reduced the amount of pollen stored in colonies, slowed down brood rearing activity, and honey production. However, they did not contribute to increased pollen collection in cotton. In the second trial, I spent more time investigating honeybee behaviour in cotton as well as assessing the effect of providing flowering cotton plants with access to honeybees for different time periods (e.g. 25 d, 15 d, 0 d). In this year, I used double the hive stocking rate of (16 colonies / ha) than in the previous year, because in 2005-6 I observed few bees in cotton flowers. I also conducted a preliminary investigation to assess whether there was any gene flow over a 16 m distance from Bt cotton to conventional cotton, in the presence of a relatively high honeybee population. Both of my field experiments showed that honeybees significantly increased cotton yield via increased boll set, mean weight of bolls, number of seeds / boll, and weight of lint / boll. It was obvious that cotton flowers, and particularly cotton pollen, were not attractive to honeybees, and this was also reflected in the low proportion (5.3% w/w) of pollen from cotton collected in the pollen traps. However, flower visitation rate was generally above the 0.5% level regarded as optimal for cross-pollination in cotton, and this was reflected in increased yield parameters. I recorded a gene flow of 1.7 % from Bollgard®II cotton to conventional cotton, over a distance of 16 m. This is much higher than had previously been reported for Australia, and may have been a result of high honeybee numbers in the vicinity, associated with my managed hives. In an attempt to attract more honeybees to cotton flowers, I conducted an investigation where I applied synthetic Queen Mandibular Pheromone (QMP) (Fruit Boost®) at two rates, 50 QEQ and 500 QEQ / ha, and for two applications, 2 d apart. Neither rate of QMP increased the level of bee visitation to flowers, either on the day of application or the subsequent day. There was also no increase in boll set or yield in plants treated with QMP. My observations of honeybee behaviour in cotton brought some interesting findings. First, honeybees totally ignored extra floral nectaries. Second, most flower-visiting honeybees collected nectar, but the overwhelming majority of them (84%) collected floral nectar from outside flowers: this meant these bees did not contribute to pollination. Those nectar gatherers which entered flowers did contribute to pollination. However, they were observed to exhibit rejection of cotton pollen by scraping pollen grains from their body and discarding them, prior to returning to their hives. Pollen gatherers collected only small, loose pellets from cotton. SEM studies showed that cotton pollen grains were the largest of all pollen commonly collected by bees in my investigations, and that they also had large spines. It is likely that these characteristics make cotton pollen unattractive to honeybees. Another possible reason for the unattractiveness of cotton flowers was the presence of pollen beetles, Carpophilus aterrimus, in them. I conducted a series of studies to determine the role of pollen beetles in pollination of cotton. I found that they did not contribute to pollination at low levels; at high populations they damaged flowers (with ≥ 10 beetles / flower, no flowers set bolls); and that honeybees, when given the choice, avoid flowers with pollen beetles. Because the insecticide fipronil was commonly used in Australian cotton at flowering time, and because I had some experience of its toxic effects against honeybees in my field investigations, I conducted a series of laboratory and potted plant bioassays, using young worker bees. The studies confirmed its highly toxic nature. I recorded an acute dermal LD50 of 1.9 ng / bee, and an acute oral LC50 of 0.62 ppm. Fipronil’s residual toxicity also remained high for an extended period in both laboratory and potted plant trials. For example, when applied to cotton leaves in weather-exposed potted cotton plants, it took 25 d and 20 d for full and half recommended rates of fipronil, respectively, to become non- toxic to honeybees. I had previously investigated whether a shorter period of exposure of cotton plants to honeybees would contribute adequately to increased yield, and concluded that a 10 d window within a 25 d flowering period would contribute 55% of the increase in total weight of bolls contributable to honeybee pollination, but only 36% of the increase in weight of lint. Given the highly residual activity of fipronil I recorded, the only opportunity for an insecticide-free period during flowering would be at its commencement. I concluded that, while there is evidence that honeybees can contribute to increased cotton yield in Bt cotton in Australia, this is unlikely with the continued use of fipronil at flowering. / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)