Treatment Free doesn't work

[Wilco]

Yes lets get back to that.
General hive ecosytem, beyond pure gentic bee phenotype, is a reall interesting idea. But does bees selecting for low fecundity in mites as a form of reistant behaviour seem like a reach? How can they tell? Are there any other example in nature of annimals practicing husbandry in this way?

It's not that the bees are deliberately selecting for it but would be as a result of 'hygienic' traits- for example if they are more easily able to detect heavily infected cells than less heavily infected cells. This isn't deliberately selecting for lower fecundity but could exert a pressure in that direction.

 

[Wilco]

I've suggested, with the science, that uncapping only high-fecundity mites may be one one of the chief mechanisms located by natural selection.

That's all. I don't have to substantiate it as happening in my own apiraies. I have no evidence. I could look for for re-capped cells, but my policy is not to micro-manage. Its to put them through the mill and take from the best of the survivors.

As far as I can recall I haven't been asked to substantiate it.

I didn't close down those offers: I stated why I though just a queen would be insufficient, and hinted that probably wan't going to give away valuable nucs

You need to try harder not to misrepresent me.

Beyond that I don't know what you want. So I'm going to stop replying, unless you have a specific question.

If I was trying/testing your bees, whilst I'll usually angle for a freebie (freebee?) I would expect to pay regardless of whether it was a queen or a nuc.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Yes lets get back to that.
General hive ecosytem, beyond pure gentic bee phenotype, is a reall interesting idea. But does bees selecting for low fecundity in mites as a form of reistant behaviour seem like a reach? How can they tell? Are there any other example in nature of annimals practicing husbandry in this way?

Good plan although it is probably worth starting a dedicated thread. If you wish proceed on the basis that the stated enquiry can only be satisfied by full scientific understanding then we have lost the original purpose. My belief is that the broad empirical and widespread anecdotal evidence, together with an understanding of the possibilities and likelihoods supplied by natural selection is sufficient to accept the case, especially as those things are pretty widely scientifically supported

However: I believe (selective) uncapping is a heritable trait. The last I saw it wasn't clear what the method/s of detection are. I would have thought that a larger number of infants make make more noise, or smell, or vibration... but that's just my speculation. But any or some of those would offer a simple mechanism: more mites = more detection: and the rest neatly follows.

 

[Beesnaturally]

It's not that the bees are deliberately selecting for it but would be as a result of 'hygienic' traits- for example if they are more easily able to detect heavily infected cells than less heavily infected cells. This isn't deliberately selecting for lower fecundity but could exert a pressure in that direction.

I think in this sort of conversation we have to start from the proposition that bees don't do anything 'deliberately'. Its all mechanical trail and error.

In this case some individuals are coded for this behaviour. Since those colonies better equipped with this facility do better than those poorly equipped, they pass on those genes to the next generation more often, and the genes and the facility (behaviour) they encode become more frequent in the population.

For the mites: having fewer infants is more successful, and so their populations come to exhibit low fecundity.

The co-evolution succeeds in locating bees that manage their mites in a way that prevents mite explosions. We can say, in a cautious, possibly analogical way, that the bees are 'breeding' low fecundity mites.

See also my post immediately above re the mechanism of detection. I'm sure a search would turn up some useful reading on the issue.

 

[Beesnaturally]

If I was trying/testing your bees, whilst I'll usually angle for a freebie (freebee?) I would expect to pay regardless of whether it was a queen or a nuc.

If and when I get to that position I'll try to remember to give you a shout.

 

[BugsInABox]

I don't have to substantiate it as happening in my own apiraies. I have no evidence. I could look for for re-capped cells, but my policy is not to micro-manage. Its to put them through the mill and take from the best of the survivors.

You need to try harder not to misrepresent me.

But you said..

but also my (low fecundity) mite genes

I'm not misrepresenting you, it's there in the quote above, which I rasied, amongst others, at your request.
I accept you cant substantiate it, and probably you just mispoke - but why refuse to talk to me further over that, we all do it. Ho-hum.

 

[BugsInABox]

It's not that the bees are deliberately selecting for it but would be as a result of 'hygienic' traits- for example if they are more easily able to detect heavily infected cells than less heavily infected cells. This isn't deliberately selecting for lower fecundity but could exert a pressure in that direction.

ahh, **sound of penny dropping**

 

[user 20297]

Good plan although it is probably worth starting a dedicated thread. If you wish proceed on the basis that the stated enquiry can only be satisfied by full scientific understanding then we have lost the original purpose. My belief is that the broad empirical and widespread anecdotal evidence, together with an understanding of the possibilities and likelihoods supplied by natural selection is sufficient to accept the case, especially as those things are pretty widely scientifically supported

However: I believe (selective) uncapping is a heritable trait. The last I saw it wasn't clear what the method/s of detection are. I would have thought that a larger number of infants make make more noise, or smell, or vibration... but that's just my speculation. But any or some of those would offer a simple mechanism: more mites = more detection: and the rest neatly follows.

Given that everyone (presumably) already accepts that bees have abilities akin to taste and smell that are beyond comparison with any human senses, in addition to your educated guesses, it seems reasonable to be able to accept, without explanation, that bees will have a good idea what's going on under the covers.

 

[Wilco]

So at this point we have something resembling a workable hypothesis. Next step is testing to see if we can get proof of concept.

 

[BugsInABox]

It's not that the bees are deliberately selecting for it but would be as a result of 'hygienic' traits- for example if they are more easily able to detect heavily infected cells than less heavily infected cells. This isn't deliberately selecting for lower fecundity but could exert a pressure in that direction.

But for natural selection to work wouldnt there need to be some intra-generational advantge to the bees to do this - we cant just talk about lomg term benefits. A bit like nature never invented the wheel - there aren't enough advantagous intermediary steps.

 

[Wilco]

But for natural selection to work wouldnt there need to be some intra-generational advantge to the bees to do this - we cant just talk about lomg term benefits. A bit like nature never invented the wheel - there aren't enough advantagous intermediary steps.

If we presume a variation in fecundity between the mites that is heritable alongside heritable hygienic/uncapping behaviour of the bees, neither of which is a binary choice, then there is a conceivable pathway.

There are a lot of factors which could confound this though.

 

[Beesnaturally]

So at this point we have something resembling a workable hypothesis. Next step is testing to see if we can get proof of concept.

Would you like to make a formal statement of the hypothesis?

 

[Beesnaturally]

But for natural selection to work wouldnt there need to be some intra-generational advantge to the bees to do this - we cant just talk about lomg term benefits. A bit like nature never invented the wheel - there aren't enough advantagous intermediary steps.

The advantage is the mites don't boom: therefore the colony survives to reproduce!

Are you not reading my posts?

 

[Beesnaturally]

This is interesting. I've only scanned the abstract and a bit of the intro, but it seems to me to confound the proposition that low fertility in varroa is a heritable trait.

What that would mean is not that uncapping of high-fecundity mites is of no use; but that the uncapping must be continued at the same level to keep mites from booming.

It undoes the idea of bees 'breeding' mites, reducing it to simply selective culling.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6933163/

 

[BugsInABox]

The advantage is the mites don't boom: therefore the colony survives to reproduce!

Are you not reading my posts?

But why would sparing mites with lower fecundity prevent a boom. Wouldn't removing as many as possible should be at least as effective? Where does the pressure to spare the maladapted mites come from?

 

[BugsInABox]

Are you not reading my posts?

Only the short ones.

 

[Beesnaturally]

But why would sparing mites with lower fecundity prevent a boom. Wouldn't removing as many as possible should be at least as effective? Where does the pressure to spare the maladapted mites come from?

If you had a bunch of people shooting at you, and you had to choose which ones to aim your own gun at, would you, all else being equal, aim at those with six-shooters or the machine gunners?

There are no 'maladapted' mites. I don't even know what you mean by this.

Is that short enough?

 

[Anduril]

Are your bees resistant or tolerant to varroa?

 

[Wilco]

This is interesting. I've only scanned the abstract and a bit of the intro, but it seems to me to confound the proposition that low fertility in varroa is a heritable trait.

What that would mean is not that uncapping of high-fecundity mites is of no use; but that the uncapping must be continued at the same level to keep mites from booming.

It undoes the idea of bees 'breeding' mites, reducing it to simply selective culling.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6933163/

I'll take a look but would be surprised if there isn't a genetic component to fecundity. In most species it's a mix of genes and environment.

 

[Wilco]

But why would sparing mites with lower fecundity prevent a boom. Wouldn't removing as many as possible should be at least as effective? Where does the pressure to spare the maladapted mites come from?

This would be linked to theoretical higher detection rate of cells with more mites in.

It's that the less fecund would be selected for by virtue of not being detected rather than a pressure to select for them. So really, high fecundity would be being selected against.

One flaw with this theory is if multiple low fecundity mites infect a cell and reproduce there could be more mites present than if fewer high fecundity mites were present in a cell. This would defeat the selection.

Which means that the hypothesis may need more work.... Such as for this selection for lower fecundity to occur, other factors would need to be keeping mite populations low enough to stop multiple mites per unsealed cell.