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

.
.
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.

 

[Wilco]

I do understand that I'm not really allowed to say this thing, so I'm going to say it just once then retreat.

Once a disease (or parasite) is established, any vaccination within an open population will, like mite treatments:

* Become permanantly addictive

* Undermine the wild population that our ecologies depend upon to make seed.

Vaccination is appropriate in closed (breeding) populations, like mammalian livestock _only_

The veterinary approach to open breeding animals sharing genes across a wild population is simply slaughter.

If you want to take me up on this please do so on my blog.

Smallpox

Rinderpest

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Polio, TB, Typhoid, cholera

 

[Beesnaturally]

Polio, TB, Typhoid, cholera

The reply, the defence will take over this thread. So take free (seeming) potshots here like this, or come and be challenged, as invited

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

stand by for more deluded bullshine with little foundation of proof or corroboration folks

 

[Erichalfbee]

HPV

 

[Erichalfbee]

The reply, the defence will take over this thread. So take free (seeming) potshots here like this, or come and be challenged, as invited

I’ve moved your post so that it can indeed be challenged here

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

he needs to make his mind up, has he retracted his previous 'uninvite'? if so, is it unconditional or will I get uninvited again when he finds he has no valid defence?

 

[Wilco]

I'd love to know how eradicating rinderpest, a significant disease formerly present in multiple wildlife species as well as domestic cattle, through vaccination, fits with the wild claim that the veterinary approach is 'simply slaughter'.

Likewise, smallpox was present in humans, an open breeding 'wild' population, also eradicated through vaccination.

Has either left us addicted to vaccinating against them? No.

 

[Beesnaturally]

I do think its interesting hence my questions.

Is there any evidence with regards to natural selection and the time scales for said genetic advantages to kick in. Does the fact that wild colonies in the UK must breed with captive bred drones mean that any changes are reduced, reversed or enhanced?

Tons of evidence, and most of your questions are answere here: Wild/Feral Survivor-Thrivers: Naturally Selected Resistant Bees.

As far as captive drones are concerned: they are a drag and the more are in range the harder it is to develp resistance, to the point where it is impossible to make progress. But once a wild population takes hold, given sufficient nesting and forage habitat, they can fight back. There was talk some time ago about the evoltution of parallel mating arrangements that enable wild locally adapted strains to mate only with their own kind - but I'm not sure what has happened to that.

The USA has seen (or believed by some to be) genetic modifications in Crotalus Atrox - Western diamond rattle snakes, where some are now born without a rattle. Some say they are more successful because they don't give their location away to humans ergo they survive whilst their cousins with rattles are located and killed, others say its a coincidence.

Genetic changes or advantages have to start somewhere, but 20 / 30 years could be a little quick, certainly without ruling out other external influences like the location / habitat, naturally occurring chemicals and even the amount and type of forage to support strong colonies.

It can happen _really_ fast. Its been seen in recent years in butterflies and frogs - novel or unexposed viruses virtually wiping out populations, which recover within just a few years. In most parts of Africa there are no long-tusk bulls - the desireable tusks being responsible for taking out that feature, there was only short tusk bulls left to mate. Voila.

Nature's trick is wild over-production followed by ruthless winnowing. PMost populations can recover fast once the problem is in hand. And in wild populations the process is continuous.

What would be a genetic advantage for a bee vs a varroa mite? A thicker exoskeleton thus preventing the mite being able to puncture it? Or more towards (if it is now a thing) morphic resonance influencing bee behaviour? Do some bees pick the mites off each other?

There is lots known: you'll have to look at the literature.

How does frequent swarming help? If the bees swarm with mites on them the original colony will still have mites and so will the new one or is it solely the frequent brood break where the advantage comes from?

I think they unload most adult mites, but I'm not up on the details.

Does the short life span of insects cut down the time frame needed for genetic modifications? I believe fruit flies are used in labs for that very reason.

Absolutely

Does human interference change the timescales? Varroa wouldn't have been here in the UK at all (yet at least) if it were not for humans.

And it wouldn't be a problem with beekeepers preventing natural selection for the fittests strains.

Are these studies peer reviewed? If so what did the reviews find?

In the first place, pre-publication, that the studies pass muster in the scientific sense, and of a quality the journal will accept. But post-publication review is continuous. The expression as I've used it refers to the first part: a trustworthy study.

 

[Beesnaturally]

he needs to make his mind up, has he retracted his previous 'uninvite'? if so, is it unconditional or will I get uninvited again when he finds he has no valid defence?

You will be uninvited again just as soon as you fail to remember your manners.
I'll address your points in the morning.

 

[Robinredcar]

I

Forgive me for asking silly questions.

If the study suggests that isolated "wild" bees have an ability to rapidly adapt to counter the threat of varroa due to being "wild and isolated" how did they come into contact with varroa? The only way I can see it happening is by being in contact with other bees directly or indirectly through visiting flowers etc where "other" bees have been.

If they are in contact "direct or indirect" with other bees then surely they are (1) not isolated (2) likely to be breeding with drones from multiple neighbouring colonies and therefore spreading / sharing genetics across the area? In such a scenario, why is it only the wild bees that gain the adaptation advantage?

I said it was a silly question.

Very valid I'd guess the bees do mix with kept bees but possible that varroa migrate on other species to extend their area.
I think when there's no human intervention ie varroa treatments the honey bees are stressed to a point when the genetic allieums are forced to come out. I think there's a good video about it on YouTube, John Chamberland at the natinoal honey show maby I forget exactly but shouldn't be hard ro find if your interested.

 

[user 20297]

I do think its interesting hence my questions.

Is there any evidence with regards to natural selection and the time scales for said genetic advantages to kick in. Does the fact that wild colonies in the UK must breed with captive bred drones mean that any changes are reduced, reversed or enhanced?

The USA has seen (or believed by some to be) genetic modifications in Crotalus Atrox - Western diamond rattle snakes, where some are now born without a rattle. Some say they are more successful because they don't give their location away to humans ergo they survive whilst their cousins with rattles are located and killed, others say its a coincidence.

Genetic changes or advantages have to start somewhere, but 20 / 30 years could be a little quick, certainly without ruling out other external influences like the location / habitat, naturally occurring chemicals and even the amount and type of forage to support strong colonies.

What would be a genetic advantage for a bee vs a varroa mite? A thicker exoskeleton thus preventing the mite being able to puncture it? Or more towards (if it is now a thing) morphic resonance influencing bee behaviour? Do some bees pick the mites off each other?

How does frequent swarming help? If the bees swarm with mites on them the original colony will still have mites and so will the new one or is it solely the frequent brood break where the advantage comes from?

Does the short life span of insects cut down the time frame needed for genetic modifications? I believe fruit flies are used in labs for that very reason. Does human interference change the timescales? Varroa wouldn't have been here in the UK at all (yet at least) if it were not for humans.

Are these studies peer reviewed? If so what did the reviews find?

You have loads of excellent questions there; it seems too many at once to have been thoroughly answered. I think that small colonies and frequent swarming, both of which obviously work against everything that regular beekeepers seek, is a very significant mechanism in wild/feral/escapee bees. It is also a notable feature that goes with the box size and techniques involved in keeping Apis cerana. As we know, that species of bee has other mechanisms that help it deal with Varroa, but small colonies and swarming are two "techniques" that all bees are quite likely to "use" in "the wild" without any need for adaptation.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

You will be uninvited again just as soon as you fail to remember your manners.
I'll address your points in the morning.

pompous and deluded - nothing changes with this serial troll
Think I'll just leave him and his two fanboys to it

 

[bingevader]

Oh come on people. Let's not get lost in semantics. 'Vaccine' is a general term for the introduction of some live or dead or modified disease in to a host to boost the immune system.
In all the cases you have posted this has lead to immunisation.
This is not the case for Varroa and as has been pointed out, vaccination in this case is leading to immunity in the mite not the bee.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Forgive me for asking silly questions.

If the study suggests that isolated "wild" bees have an ability to rapidly adapt to counter the threat of varroa due to being "wild and isolated" how did they come into contact with varroa? The only way I can see it happening is by being in contact with other bees directly or indirectly through visiting flowers etc where "other" bees have been.

If they are in contact "direct or indirect" with other bees then surely they are (1) not isolated (2) likely to be breeding with drones from multiple neighbouring colonies and therefore spreading / sharing genetics across the area? In such a scenario, why is it only the wild bees that gain the adaptation advantage?

I said it was a silly question.

The first part is easy: varroa is endemic, and even the most resistant have them. They just have them under control. (Some people distingish that as 'tolerant', but to me its all a matter of degree of control)

The second is also easy, and again is about control: wild colonies vary in their distance from kept hives, and in the number of kept hives nearby, and in the number of wild resistant colonies nearby.... The more genetic input there is from kept bees (and the less resistance those bees have) the more those bees nearest will be influenced.

This is, clearly, a horribly complex arrangement.

To your last question: yess; the kept bees will, if open mated, and if importation of queens is minimised, come to benefit from the fit genes of a nearby wild population. At which point continuing systematic treatments will arrest progress, whereas co-operation with the efforts of the wild bees in the neighbourhood will bring all bees into happy, resistant alignment.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Forgive me for asking silly questions.

fill your boots - you're bound to get a silly answer anyway

 

[Wilco]

Oh come on people. Let's not get lost in semantics. 'Vaccine' is a general term for the introduction of some live or dead or modified disease in to a host to boost the immune system.
In all the cases you have posted this has lead to immunisation.
This is not the case for Varroa and as has been pointed out, vaccination in this case is leading to immunity in the mite not the bee.

The one that dwells under bridges made an incorrect statement on vaccines and vets as part of attempting to promote their own view. It is right to challenge that.

 

[bingevader]

I've no axe to grid here, but if you are going to pile in an attack, then do it for the right reason.
There's no disputing the underlying principle of Natural Selection.
And where there is the isolation and enough beekeepers are on board, it is happening.
Speak to the Mid and North Wales associations that have been treatment free for some time now.

 

[Blunt Spike]

I wonder if the answer is along the lines of how they're tackling malaria... some how make either m or f mite sterile.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Smallpox

Rinderpest

The criticism of my post (now # here: Wild/Feral Survivor-Thrivers: Naturally Selected Resistant Bees.) amounts to a number of diseases named which are presumably intended to be counter-examples. Added to the above were Polio, TB, Typhoid, cholera.

The main observation to make here is that all but one are human diseases (though typhoid affects cattle too, and there may be other similar cross-species examples here), and... humans are not natural.

While quibbles can be raised about that, in this context, by definition, 'natural' means what goes on when humans are not interfering with things.

Remote uninhabited island: 'natural'

Inhabited, farmed and hunted island, not natural.

Now: 2 points to add: first: humans do their very best, and are very good at, evading the cruelty of natural selection. We've made a fine art of allowing the weak to reproduce, and coping with the consequences. We've taken out the large predators that would winnow us, and discovered, and held in folklore and science, massive amounts of wisdom about how to defeat diseases.

We have been so successful at this that, secondly, we have taken over the planet, and spread our germs around like there's no tomorrow.

Which, if you happened to be say a Native in the Americas in the 16th and 17th centuries, had the very natural effect of eliminating the weakest 70 or 80% of the human population.

My point is: we are a special case, and examples of diseases that we perpetuate by avoiding natural selection should be used as examples of what happens in the natural world.

Now: in the cases of rinderpest and cattle typhoid, we are, again, the agents; first of the spread of these diseases from their original locations, second to their perpetuation in our husbandry of domestic stock. As well as unhealthy farming practices by virtue of sheer geographic range we pick up and spread new variations of micro-organism.

So, again, we are not looking at what happens in wild populations.

In wild populations what happens is that an evolutionary process reduces what is at first a devastating new energy-predator to a minor irritant, and often eliminates it altogether. The process is ugly, and to a farming mind, wasteful. But it gets the job done.

And... to bring this back to my point, anything we do that interferes with that process, undercuts it. Vaccines just like varroa treatments do this.