Wild/Feral Survivor-Thrivers: Naturally Selected Resistant Bees.

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
.
.
This is for discussion of bees that have acquired the ability to cope with varroa without any help. The core assumption is that in the UK and Ireland this has occurred through natural selection for the fittest strain, and any subsequent selection has built on that. The idea is to learn from each-other, what works, and why, in the realm of no-treatment beekeeping. Testimonies, questions, explanations and links to relevant scientific studies are all welcome.

I'd like the thread to be a place where the mechanisms that wild populations employ to locate and maintain resistance can be explored, in the belief that that topic holds the key to understanding why no-treatment beekeeping works in some circumstances and not in others.

photo3.jpg
 
Last edited:
Our group of natural beeks has been collecting swarms from survivor colonies in the area for a decade. Only about 5%, if that ever have varroa problems.
That's what I would expect, with or without 'tolerance genetics' etc.
Swarms have very few varroa, they've left them behind!
Hives which have swarmed have a prolonged brood break inhibiting the reproduction of varroa.
There is Survivorship Bias here (Google it); you could take ten hives, half die, but they all have exactly the same genetics, the half that survived were just lucky... unless one can pinpoint something(s) that enabled them to survive, and yet the survivors are given such names as survivor stock when being lucky is equally a valid explanation.

Anything that inhibits the reproduction of varroa will increase tolerance (lengthen the lifespan of the hive/colony), to date this is;
1. Swarming (just explained),
2. prolonged brood breaks (winter), I think less insulated hives may work here but ... can anyone say isolation starvation (in our wide hives)?
3. Hygienic Behavior or VSH, (this also increases non-fertility of varroa BUT 'small cellers' argue that small cells will do the same, we could argue this one til the cows come home)
4. distance between hives - to prevent high infested hives infesting low infested/zero hives = slowing down the varroa growth rate
5. high propolis hives as a result of high propolis gathering bees (and the type of hive, ie: rough walls, etc.)
6. and resistance to local virus strains of DWV (this one is theoretical and prolongs the colonies lifespan).

Anyone else think of other factors backed up by science? I have mentioned small cells, that could require a Thread of it's own!
And before anyone says, what about the bees in the roof which have been there for ten+ years; if they arrived with few varroa and had a prolonged brood break causing the varroa to die off, then all they really need to survive ten years is not to become reinfested... there is good evidence that propolis may help this, and non-manmade hives will often have lots of propolis around the entrance.

NB: None of the above has really anything to do with so called local adaption, except virus resistance (which to date is theoretical).
 
Swarms have very few varroa, they've left them behind!

Is this actually true? Varroa prefer to parasitise young bees once out of the cell (specifically nurse bees, I believe) and large numbers of young bees leave in a swarm. Surely those that are already carrying a mite will take them along? Yes, there is a brood break, but I believe mites can and do live sufficiently long to survive such a break. And in a prime swarm is the brood break actually that long anyhow? A large swarm could have built a fair amount of comb and have space for a mated queen to start laying within, say, a week of leaving the original colony.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't know either way.

James
 
What do you mean by more specific Beebe?

Does he go crop-chasing like those who are focused on maximising yield?

Does he renew queens every couple of years?

Are there any proper studies of yield between races and breeds on a like for like basis?
By "specific", I mean that he seems not to have a crop that he dare take from the bees other than the heather. There are some excellent seasonal flowers...the sea-pink as previously mentioned, for example, but the Colonsay "June gap" is a potential chasm and he can't take the risk of removing an early crop.

He's got about seventy hives and they're spread over (I think) six or seven apiaries on that tiny island. He doesn't think his bees travel far, maybe a mile.

He definitely like to give his queens a long life and accepts a lower output from them as they age. Like you, he really favours and selects for supercedure and thinks that is an innate feature of A. mellifera mellifera.

What I liked about him overall was that whilst you can tell that he has that normal? (amongst beekeepers) obsessive passion for the kind of bee he likes and also hinted at having a sort of despair at the reality of a world of bees where we all have the right to do our own thing, he seems to capitalise on the sustainability and existing adaptive features of the black bee. Like you, he isn't just promoting them per se, as I previously thought, but rather, he is illustrating that in marginal locations, of which Scotland has many, it's better to work with a bee that is already well suited to our conditions than to constantly "fight" Nature with a less eligible bee.

On the subject of comparing honey yields of different types of bee, Andrew Abrahams is obviously not going to be considering that. But I defy anyone to improve on his yield in the same circumstances using anything other than a bee that has it's own, built-in, furry fleece.
 
Last edited:
That's what I would expect, with or without 'tolerance genetics' etc.
Swarms have very few varroa, they've left them behind!
Hives which have swarmed have a prolonged brood break inhibiting the reproduction of varroa.
There is Survivorship Bias here (Google it); you could take ten hives, half die, but they all have exactly the same genetics, the half that survived were just lucky... unless one can pinpoint something(s) that enabled them to survive, and yet the survivors are given such names as survivor stock when being lucky is equally a valid explanation.

Anything that inhibits the reproduction of varroa will increase tolerance (lengthen the lifespan of the hive/colony), to date this is;
1. Swarming (just explained),
2. prolonged brood breaks (winter), I think less insulated hives may work here but ... can anyone say isolation starvation (in our wide hives)?
3. Hygienic Behavior or VSH, (this also increases non-fertility of varroa BUT 'small cellers' argue that small cells will do the same, we could argue this one til the cows come home)
4. distance between hives - to prevent high infested hives infesting low infested/zero hives = slowing down the varroa growth rate
5. high propolis hives as a result of high propolis gathering bees (and the type of hive, ie: rough walls, etc.)
6. and resistance to local virus strains of DWV (this one is theoretical and prolongs the colonies lifespan).

Anyone else think of other factors backed up by science? I have mentioned small cells, that could require a Thread of it's own!
And before anyone says, what about the bees in the roof which have been there for ten+ years; if they arrived with few varroa and had a prolonged brood break causing the varroa to die off, then all they really need to survive ten years is not to become reinfested... there is good evidence that propolis may help this, and non-manmade hives will often have lots of propolis around the entrance.

NB: None of the above has really anything to do with so called local adaption, except virus resistance (which to date is theoretical).
Like you I am dubious of small cell size. Natural comb though does have many weird features notably more drones. Jury still out. Coincidentally, I planned to photo some natural comb later today with rulers to scale for someone researching this. A big problem in that field is lack of hard data.

Regarding survivorship bias, and the 20-30 other biases I am aware of (there are some great ones aren't there?) our group surveys about 100 colonies every springto compare our winter deadout rates with the BBKA's. They're pretty much the same, except we don't use miticides....

Survivorship bias is linked to natural selection. Wild colonies which have survived a year or two all seem to be free of foulbrood, nosema etc, or they'd be dead. So they have useful traits.

Other factors which impact varroa, since you're asking, are (7) taking honey and (8) feeding non honey/pollen. This weakens colonies and makes them more susceptible to infections.

The downside of wild bees is, they have not been selected for honey production, but I get plenty for myself & gifts, I'm not interested in selling it.

Oh and an upside is temper. Because you're not bringing a foreign race into the area, no grumpy F2's. As said previously, there are loads of wild bees around if you look, so you should use those (like BIBBA promotes) rather than import Buckfasts, Carniolans, Italians etc - making every colony in the area grumpy once your drones get out.
 
I have posted this to other threads but I think it is quite relevant to this discussion. It is a talk by Professor Grace McCormack of NUI Galway on an ongoing study of wild living bees in Ireland. This study includes sampling and genetic testing on a yearly basis of identified wild living colonies.This year they came and took samples from a roof space near where I live that has been inhabited for over 25 years. How often the colony might have died out and become recolonised we don’t know but there has never not been bees there come Spring

 
50/50
I reliably get two swarms a year in one of my bait hives. Both primes usually. Half of them have low counts half not so low

I guess we can infer that phoretic mites do travel with swarms in numbers large enough to count fairly safely from that, but I guess in terms of the actual numbers it might just reflect the state of the colonies from which they originated rather than anything specific about how swarming and mite presence are related.

James
 
I guess we can infer that phoretic mites do travel with swarms in numbers large enough to count fairly safely from that, but I guess in terms of the actual numbers it might just reflect the state of the colonies from which they originated rather than anything specific about how swarming and mite presence are related.

James
Yes. I don’t pay it much attention. All swarms get treated in similar fashion. It’s just something I’ve noticed.
 
I guess we can infer that phoretic mites do travel with swarms in numbers large enough to count fairly safely from that, but I guess in terms of the actual numbers it might just reflect the state of the colonies from which they originated rather than anything specific about how swarming and mite presence are related.

James
Hi James I think the subject was discussed in those US videos posted in the Spring. If you take the surviving colony after a Prime swarm leaves it can be a month as a ball park before even a limited amount of brood is available for a mite. In this time there’s a considerable natural drop of mites. Some will die or be groomed off some may be lost in the field. There is also a prime fertility window I believe. This frequent swarming in natural small nest cavities does reduce varroa to manageable levels. Am happy to be proved wrong but am sure Selsey speculates on this himself in regard to the Arnot bees.
 
That's what I would expect, with or without 'tolerance genetics' etc.
Swarms have very few varroa, they've left them behind!
Hives which have swarmed have a prolonged brood break inhibiting the reproduction of varroa.

However you look at this, if both swarms and mother colony survive and thrive multiyear from then on there is clearly no varroa problem. If both swarm every year there is a swarminess problem. I don't see swarminess, but I run unlimited broodnests. Possibly the practice of queen cell removal and restricted brood nests is making it harder for some bees (those more highly reliant on swarming) to manage their mites.

There is Survivorship Bias here (Google it); you could take ten hives, half die, but they all have exactly the same genetics,
No two colonies have exactly the same genetics. Like people, each queen is an INDIVIDUAL with a unique gene set. So you need to rethink all that runs on top of this incorrect assumption.
the half that survived were just lucky... unless one can pinpoint something(s) that enabled them to survive, and yet the survivors are given such names as survivor stock when being lucky is equally a valid explanation.
(Forgetting for a moment what I just said):

"You can't be sure that the strongest will always win, but that's the way to bet"

This comes from the context of evolution, natural selection and breeding. We don't arrive at having a million species, a thousand breeds of dogs, all domestic animals and fruit and veg by luck. We get them because nature/ the breeder favours the strong, the fit.

Nature's method is to over-produce (offspring that are INDIVIDUALS), then ruthlessly select the best (on a rough and ready, average, all else being equal) basis: AND MAKE EACH NEW GENERATION FROM THOSE.

You won't get a grip on the mechanisms that give rise to health in populations, on the predator-prey relationship, until you can see the way the machine works.
Anything that inhibits the reproduction of varroa will increase tolerance (lengthen the lifespan of the hive/colony), to date this is;
1. [... ] 6
What you are missing is the difference that exists within those mechanisms, the nuances; plus unknown mechanisms, plus IMPORTANTLY the fact that they don't manifest one to the exclusion of all others. They manifest IN COMBINATIONS.

An analogy: Your are looking at the notes of a scale, and saying: 'this one doesn't make make music, this on edoesn't make music, none of them make music' The mistake of course is that more than one at a time is needed. And that there are lots of different tunes.

This makes for a much more complex picture. It is, furthermore, one that is continually changing, as the predator-prey arms race endlessly unfolds.

You seem to be determined to deny the possibility of something that is both clear in the literature and the personal experience of thousands of beeks, by claiming the science is inadequate to an explanation. It isn't. The science of the mechanisms is not complete, and probably never will be - the material is too complex due to those nuances and combinations I've just spoken of.

But the match of evolutionary theory to evidence is perfect and complete.

Evolutionary theory explains how populations react to pressures in their environments, how health is recovered and maintained, why evolutionary reaction _must_ occur continuously in order for health to be maintained.

In short, you can't see the wood for the trees, any you aren't even cognizant of the fact that the trees grow, change, are born, live and die.
Anyone else think of other factors backed up by science? I have mentioned small cells, that could require a Thread of it's own!
Yep. All the above. Forget all you know about the trees (mechanisms) and go and learn about the nature of the woods.

If for no other reason that that is the topic of this thread, and you are persistent dragging it off elsewhere. If you are that interested in mechanisms, perhaps starting a mechanisms thread would be a good idea. This paper would provide you with a good start:

Honey bee survival mechanisms against the parasite Varroa destructor: a systematic review of phenotypic and genomic research efforts.​


From the abstract:
"An alternative approach to chemical treatments is to selectively enhance heritable honey bee traits of resistance or tolerance to the mite through breeding programs, or select for naturally surviving untreated colonies. "

And further down:

"....natural selection has yielded honey bee populations in Europe, North America, South America and Africa that survive varroa without parasite management (Locke, 2016; Fig. 1A). The underlying mechanisms are not all well understood, and seem to vary between different naturally selected populations despite experiencing similar selection pressures "

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002075192030093X
This thread please note is about natural selection and the honeybee, and the perfect match between evidence and evolutionary theory found there.
None of the above has really anything to do with so called local adaption, except virus resistance (which to date is theoretical).
It's not theoretical. It's evidence-based, science-based and the lived reality of tens of thousands of beekeepers. And you are in denial about that, for some reason or another.

Suggestion: look up the Red Queen Hypothesis and come back and give us an account of it. That will show us how much you can, and are willing to, engage with the material, with the topic of the thread.
 
Last edited:
Is this actually true? Varroa prefer to parasitise young bees once out of the cell (specifically nurse bees, I believe) and large numbers of young bees leave in a swarm.
The vast majority of varroa are actually IN the cells, so yes, the colony leaves most of them behind.
When a new varroa leaves it's cell mum goes of to reproduce (I think she can do this a few times) while the kids need to feed off a bee for a couple of days, it's likely these mites that will travel with the swarm, but their numbers are still significantly less that the overall population of mites.
 
Like you, he really favours and selects for supercedure and thinks that is an innate feature of A. mellifera mellifera.
I've heard this said before about the Amm, until I see research to back the claim up, I'm more inclined to use Occam's razor (the simpler explanation is preferred) to explain supercedure - in that, IF seen in ANY other bee it is simply said that there is something wrong with the queen, ie: low sperm count, etc.
... it's better to work with a bee that is already well suited to our conditions than to constantly "fight" Nature with a less eligible bee.

...using anything other than a bee that has it's own, built-in, furry fleece.
I would definitely like to see a like for like comparison study on that! . . . they do exist, just not for the wild highlands!
 
...A big problem in that field is lack of hard data.

Regarding survivorship bias, ...our group surveys about 100 colonies every spring to compare our winter deadout rates with the BBKA's. They're pretty much the same, except we don't use miticides....

Survivorship bias is linked to natural selection. Wild colonies which have survived a year or two all seem to be free of foulbrood, nosema etc, or they'd be dead. So they have useful traits.
Unless you can explain the reason for the survival, we can only say they are lucky!

Of course the survivors have low disease, etc. otherwise they'd be dead! The west coast of Ireland has less DWV in their bees than the rest, they appear to have less varroa, their longer overwintering period would be a good explanation, it's nothing to do with useful traits.

Bottom line: IF they have "useful traits" as you claim, simply clear them of varroa (with a treatment) do a shook swarm and then add 200 varroa mites into them when cells are ready to be capped and do the same for a random selected hive elsewhere: IF your survivor bees DO have "useful traits" then they will consistently survive longer... and longer, this is what they did in Hawaii, I recently listened to a beek talking about Varroa on the island - 'it's not a big deal now, our bees are pretty much resistant to them!'
Other factors which impact varroa, since you're asking, are (7) taking honey and (8) feeding non honey/pollen. This weakens colonies and makes them more susceptible to infections.
Good point! Yes, I've seen studies supporting this, helps the bee live longer and fight of infection. etc.
Oh and an upside is temper. Because you're not bringing a foreign race into the area, no grumpy F2's. As said previously, there are loads of wild bees around if you look, so you should use those (like BIBBA promotes) rather than import Buckfasts, Carniolans, Italians etc - making every colony in the area grumpy once your drones get out.
We're getting off topic, but I have met people that have made this claim, the last person that told me this (like the previous person) had less than 10% of the hives non-Ammm DNA attributable to the Buckfast bee! I've also seen aggression measured in breeding projects which shows that this is not the case. I've also communicated with beeks that have kept carnica's etc. and the docileness lasts for a couple of generations, until it reverts to the average of what the bees are in the area. But we're now off topic. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
I've heard this said before about the Amm, until I see research to back the claim up, I'm more inclined to use Occam's razor (the simpler explanation is preferred) to explain supercedure - in that, IF seen in ANY other bee it is simply said that there is something wrong with the queen, ie: low sperm count, etc.

I would definitely like to see a like for like comparison study on that! . . . they do exist, just not for the wild highlands!

I agree, all of these things are the views and experinces of someone who has self-limted, both in the choice of bee and in choosing a demanding location. It could be argued that they don't have sufficiently wide experience to make valid comparisons.

I suppose there would be no point in doing an experiment to see which bee fares best, because with the skilled care of a beekeeper any kind of bee might be successful to a similar degree.....it's not as though the target is particularly high in such remote and harsh locations.

If a beekeeper is keen to allow their queens to live a full life then it's highly likely that they will see a lot of supersedure.
 
The vast majority of varroa are actually IN the cells, so yes, the colony leaves most of them behind.
When a new varroa leaves it's cell mum goes of to reproduce (I think she can do this a few times) while the kids need to feed off a bee for a couple of days, it's likely these mites that will travel with the swarm, but their numbers are still significantly less that the overall population of mites.

Ok, I see. I'd not personally read that as consistent with "Swarms have very few varroa", but as we all read meaning differently your clarification is helpful. Thank you.

James
 
NB: None of the above has really anything to do with so called local adaption, except virus resistance (which to date is theoretical).

It's not theoretical. It's evidence-based, science-based and the lived reality of tens of thousands of beekeepers. And you are in denial about that, for some reason or another.

Ok, so there is a lot to unpack there, but as I think emotion may be affecting this discussion somewhat lets focus on one statement at a time.

You have stated -while referring to my above statement- of "virus resistance ... is theoretical" (amongst honey bees, within a local context)
"is not theoretical. It's evidence based, science-backed..."
please provide me the link to the science (paper?) that you are referring to, that shows that local adaption to local strains of DWV is now backed by scientific evidence - because to the best of my knowledge this was only theorized since a paper in 2017?
 

I've read this paper (and the papers it cites) and had missed the section about the Arnot forest bees and the Japanese haplotype.

"A pairwise comparison of colonies established by Arnot Forest queens from the bait hives and colonies of unrelated mite-susceptible bees did not reveal differences in mite infestation growth (Seeley 2007). It was therefore suggested that the Arnot Forest honeybees are not better at limiting the mite population growth and perhaps have no adapted mechanisms to do so (Seeley 2007). The survival of the population was rather suggested to be due to avirulent mites either by the presence of the less virulent Japanese mite haplotype, reported sporadically through North America (de Guzman et al. 1999). or by adaptations of the mite (Seeley 2007)."

This is somewhat disappointing, as I had hoped that an average annual 23% death rate was our goal in a wild (sustainable) population but it now seems that the bees do not exhibit any adapted tolerance to the mite, re-enforcing my view that other non bee factors could be the key to lower death rates?
 
The vast majority of varroa are actually IN the cells,

Ok, I see. I'd not personally read that as consistent with "Swarms have very few varroa", but as we all read meaning differently your clarification is helpful. Thank you.

James
80% is my ball park figure if I do an accelerated drop
 
I've read this paper (and the papers it cites) and had missed the section about the Arnot forest bees and the Japanese haplotype.

"A pairwise comparison of colonies established by Arnot Forest queens from the bait hives and colonies of unrelated mite-susceptible bees did not reveal differences in mite infestation growth (Seeley 2007). It was therefore suggested that the Arnot Forest honeybees are not better at limiting the mite population growth and perhaps have no adapted mechanisms to do so (Seeley 2007). The survival of the population was rather suggested to be due to avirulent mites either by the presence of the less virulent Japanese mite haplotype, reported sporadically through North America (de Guzman et al. 1999). or by adaptations of the mite (Seeley 2007)."

This is somewhat disappointing, as I had hoped that an average annual 23% death rate was our goal in a wild (sustainable) population but it now seems that the bees do not exhibit any adapted tolerance to the mite, re-enforcing my view that other non bee factors could be the key to lower death rates?
Please see my earlier responses, particularly #50 JUST NINE POST ABOVE ON THE SAME PAGE. The Arnot forest study was conducted early in the US experience with mites, when resistance was only just starting to emerge. The EVIDENCE now is that, through a variety of mechanisms, co-evolution has raised honeybee defences in wild self-selecting popultations to the point where (To REPEAT):

"....natural selection has yielded honey bee populations in Europe, North America, South America and Africa that survive varroa without parasite management (Locke, 2016; Fig. 1A). The underlying mechanisms are not all well understood, and seem to vary between different naturally selected populations despite experiencing similar selection pressures "

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002075192030093X

Unless you can explain the reason for the survival, we can only say they are lucky!

The REASON is that NATURAL SELECTION HAS RAISED DEFENCES.

IF your survivor bees DO have "useful traits" then they will consistently survive longer... and longer, this is what they did in Hawaii, I recently listened to a beek talking about Varroa on the island - 'it's not a big deal now, our bees are pretty much resistant to them!'
Exactly. And they do, and are. That's what I'm reporting in my own operation, and what others are reporting, and it IS ENTIRELY EXPECTED in the context of scientific understanding of natural selection.

Your own acceptence of naturally selected resistant bees in Hawaii is utterly at odds with your assertion that bees here have to be 'lucky' in order to survive multiyear.
-------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top