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.

 

[Erichalfbee]

The latter "resistance", is generally simple, this term appears to be used in conjunction with the Hygienic Trait, which can be tested for by the Pin Test,

Does the Pin test measure a colony’s ability to detect a dead pupa? Is that different from detecting a live but parasitised one?

 

[Apiarist]

"...feral colonies aren't being treated, so if they are surviving (and thriving) year on year,.."

"There is more useful information from knowing they are actually thriving year-on year..."
"...get information from householders etc about how long they might have been there..."

I've heard this said before, but the important question is - how does one know how long the bees have been there.
Non-beekeepers (Householders) may not be the best source of info. for example, unless DNA testing is being done on the bees leaving the hive each Summer, how does one know whether they are the same (the same lineage, queen - daughter - granddaughter, etc.) colony year after year.

If the mating success of a Virgin fluctuates from 66% to 33% then the statistical likelihood of a colony left behind after a swarm, surviving year after year, is very low after only a few years!

 

[Apiarist]

Does the Pin test measure a colony’s ability to detect a dead pupa? Is that different from detecting a live but parasitised one?

Studies I've read have found that within the hive the likelihood of a capped brood being opened and emptied increases with multiple factors, the presence of a mite, a reproducing mite especially, the presence of virus', especially lethal ones - this increases with the presence of mites, etc. And of course if the pupa has died (presumably due to a disease, etc.) - the take-away from the numerous research papers, is the quicker AND higher the bees uncap the pricked cells, is a good indicator of their ability to detect the above factors = lowering reproducing mites. BUT this only increases slightly when bees are left alone, therefore it will only reach varroa resistant (no treatment is needed for their death rate to be below 23%) IF beekeepers breed for it.

 

[Beesnaturally]

I've heard this said before, but the important question is - how does one know how long the bees have been there.
Non-beekeepers (Householders) may not be the best source of info. for example, unless DNA testing is being done on the bees leaving the hive each Summer, how does one know whether they are the same (the same lineage, queen - daughter - granddaughter, etc.) colony year after year.

I've already agreed with this - it is hard to know. However you can build a picture. When I was doing cut-outs and swarm collections most came two nearby towns. I've only ever found two marked queens in all my hives. Things like that lead to the suspician, at least, of a resistant local population in those towns. One also recieves testimonies, and does one's best to ascertain the likely facts. If I wanted to start collecting bees with a high likelihood of resistance, I know where I'd advertise. No, this is not hard evidence. But we can often operate on the basis of best carefully estimated chances.

[EDIT] See for example Oxnatbees account here: Wild/Feral Survivor-Thrivers: Naturally Selected Resistant Bees.

If the mating success of a Virgin fluctuates from 66% to 33% then the statistical likelihood of a colony left behind after a swarm, surviving year after year, is very low after only a few years!

Under what conditions does that statistical statement hold, and where does it come from?

I find most of my nucs mate from just one cell or released virgin, if done while plenty of drones are around. Sometimes patience is needed. It doesn't ring true to me.

I would speculate that natural selection would tend to maximise mating success. I've long thought that beekeeper practices would tend to lower successful supercedure rates. That's another good reason to select from year-on-year winning hives - you are selecting for successful supercedure, and if you are like me that's a great and important quality.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Does the Pin test measure a colony’s ability to detect a dead pupa? Is that different from detecting a live but parasitised one?

There is some detail about this here (more than I have pasted):

Natural selection, selective breeding, and the evolution of resistance of honeybees
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7236208/(May 2020)

"Varroa-sensitive hygiene
Evidently, apart from general hygienic behaviour, other traits must be involved in the removal of pupae from Varroa infested cells. The cues bees use to detect and remove frozen or pin-killed pupae are not necessarily the same as those used to detect and remove mite-infested pupae. "

 

[Apiarist]

I've already agreed with this - it is hard to know. However you can build a picture. When I was doing cut-outs and swarm collections most came two nearby towns. I've only ever found two marked queens in all my hives. Things like that lead to the suspician, at least, of a resistant local population in those towns. One also recieves testimonies, and does one's best to ascertain the likely facts. If I wanted to start collecting bees with a high likelihood of resistance, I know where I'd advertise. No, this is not hard evidence. But we can often operate on the basis of best carefully estimated chances.

Bear in mind that if an organic type / treatment free beekeeper manages their hives by killing of 85% of the mites in May of each year, one would expect few deaths from Varroa ... that's what's happening with your observed swarms, it's not that they are varroa resistant it's that they are killing of (leaving behind) 85% of their varroa population.
Also that nice photo that you posted shows comb that is quite light coloured, I would not expect such light colour in the second year, which makes me think that those bees are about one year old,... not long enough for varroa to build up and they would therefore look quite healthy.

Under what conditions does that statistical statement hold, and where does it come from?

I find most of my nucs mate from just one cell or released virgin, if done while plenty of drones are around. Sometimes patience is needed. It doesn't ring true to me.

I would speculate that natural selection would tend to maximise mating success. I've long thought that beekeeper practices would tend to lower successful supercedure rates. That's another good reason to select from year-on-year winning hives - you are selecting for successful supercedure, and if you are like me that's a great and important quality.

Here in Ireland most beeks that I speak to would be happy with about a 50% success mating from their apideas... I've tried over the years numerous combination, including letting the bees swarm and do it themselves... and yes I've also allowed them to supercede, all range between those figures... my conclusion - the more beek controlled, the greater success rate.

 

[Apiarist]

There is some detail about this here (more than I have pasted):

Natural selection, selective breeding, and the evolution of resistance of honeybees
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7236208/(May 2020)

"Varroa-sensitive hygiene
Evidently, apart from general hygienic behaviour, other traits must be involved in the removal of pupae from Varroa infested cells. The cues bees use to detect and remove frozen or pin-killed pupae are not necessarily the same as those used to detect and remove mite-infested pupae. "

Yes, that's why it's so difficult to breed for, because of the different genes involved. For example the A. m. intermissa removes the capping on their brood when they detect a reproducing varroa mite, but Do Not remove the pupa! The mother mite leaves the cell and surprisingly becomes infertile! And the pupa (possibly now diseased) matures!

But this example I've given and the earlier paper you cited, both only apply the A lineage bees, not our European (and A. m. mellifera) bees.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Bear in mind that if an organic type / treatment free beekeeper manages their hives by killing of 85% of the mites in May of each year, one would expect few deaths from Varroa ... that's what's happening with your observed swarms, it's not that they are varroa resistant it's that they are killing of (leaving behind) 85% of their varroa population.

First, that isn't reament-free beekeeping, and it won't help raise resistant bees. It isn't even a halfway house. I realise that isn't yur point, but I think it worth noting.

Second, repeated swarming may be part of the story, but we are way beyond that now. There are known to be all sorts of mechanisms, rasied by natural selection - as the paper I've just posted details. I doubt, in fact, that repeated swarming works well at all in developing resistance, since most swarms die in their first winter. Hardly an evolutionary winner.

Also that nice photo that you posted shows comb that is quite light coloured, I would not expect such light colour in the second year, which makes me think that those bees are about one year old,... not long enough for varroa to build up and they would therefore look quite healthy.

You could be right - I didn't mean it to be an exemplar of anything, and as we've just discussed, even if it was old comb (and it may be deeper in) that wouldn't mean much.

Here in Ireland most beeks that I speak to would be happy with about a 50% success mating from their apideas... I've tried over the years numerous combination, including letting the bees swarm and do it themselves... and yes I've also allowed them to supercede, all range between those figures... my conclusion - the more beek controlled, the greater success rate.

You haven't told us where your figures come from, under what conditions they apply etc. Have you (or they) considered that robbing bees of natural mating would expected to reduce their efficiency at open mating? Perhaps that's what is going wrong.

 

[Apiarist]

https://zoologicalletters.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40851-020-00158-4
This previously cited paper identifies three traits which are closely related or dependant on each other, Hygienic behavior, VSH, Suppressed Reproduction; it also includes Grooming - long discredited and better explained as a reponse to increased mite numbers; which only leaves cell size ... oh gawd lets not start that one again... and then all we have left is virus resistance.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Yes, that's why it's so difficult to breed for, because of the different genes involved. For example the A. m. intermissa removes the capping on their brood when they detect a reproducing varroa mite, but Do Not remove the pupa! The mother mite leaves the cell and surprisingly becomes infertile! And the pupa (possibly now diseased) matures!

But this example I've given and the earlier paper you cited, both only apply the A lineage bees, not our European (and A. m. mellifera) bees.

If you let natural selection do the breeding you don't have to worry about any of that.

That is what this thread is about. The best judge of health-giving mechanisms is natural selection for the fittest strains: how do we arrange for that to happen?

PS this applies to your last post too. please note too my earlier post about the 'arms race' nature of co-evolution. Whatever tools work best, in whatever combination works best, in any particular time/place/race/sub-species/'landrace' ... will be found before long if natural selection is allowed to play out. That is universal among all species and all predator-prey relations.

So what works best will change as those factors change. Of particular interest, the first. The passage of time will see different mechanisms and combinations at the forefront. From what we know, the bees always win in terms of reducing mites to a minor nuisance within a few years. _When_ allowed to do so without being hobbled by you-know-what.

So... what a study at any time/place..... finds may well not hold true, or hold true in all resects, for all time/everywhere etc.

 

[Apiarist]

...There are good number of much more recent studies that evidence thriving wild bees, and I know of no apparent limitations on distance apart in such bees. Lots of mine are 6" apart. It doesn't seem to matter.

https://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/abs/2007/01/m6063/m6063.html
For evidence of resistance by natural selection see: Natural selection, selective breeding, and the evolution of resistance of honeybees (Apis mellifera) against Varroa - Zoological Letters

Table 1 of the paper you have cited makes reference to "spatial distribution of colonies" which obtains this information from Seeleys Arnot Forest Research, and further research which follows up on it.

I have read most of the papers cited in that paper, I wish the authors would have as they make claims opposite to what some of those reference papers are saying...

 

[Beesnaturally]

Table 1 of the paper you have cited makes reference to "spatial distribution of colonies" which obtains this information from Seeleys Arnot Forest Research, and further research which follows up on it.

I have read most of the papers cited in that paper, I wish the authors would have as they make claims opposite to what some of those reference papers are saying...

See the note at the very foot of my last post

 

[Apiarist]

If you let natural selection do the breeding you don't have to worry about any of that.

That is what this thread is about. The best judge of health-giving mechanisms is natural selection for the fittest strains: how do we arrange for that to happen?

PS this applies to your last post too.

If natural selection will do the breeding then we should have seen it in the Primorsky (Russian) bees, and on closer examination these bees are no more tolerant than standard bees after several years of non-treatment; in fact that's what has consistently happened... beekeepers claim their bees are tolerant / resistant but when the bees are moved or exposed to a batch of varroa and obvserved, etc. they show not much more ability to cope - the best I've seen is local bees live about 80 days longer than non-local, it is believed to be as a result of local viral strain resistance. This is why I believe selective breeding is required, although I will concede with you that we can help them to get there - a major part of that will be non-treatment to allow the bees develop tolerance (viral tolerance/resistance), etc.

 

[Apiarist]

You haven't told us where your figures come from, under what conditions they apply etc. Have you (or they) considered that robbing bees of natural mating would expected to reduce their efficiency at open mating? Perhaps that's what is going wrong.

Sorry, didn't make myself clear: The figures are my own and other beekeepers here in Ireland - there are a few exceptions as low as 20% and as high as 90%, but they seem to be one offs.

What results do you get, for introducing a sealed queen cell in a apidea / mating nuc, etc. and then six weeks later do your inspection, without supercedure later that same year? If I introduced 20 Queen Cells I would expect 50% successful mating within six weeks less any supercedure by the end of the season. And before you ask, I've tried different locations, conditions, years, methods, etc.

 

[madasafish]

Sorry, didn't make myself clear: The figures are my own and other beekeepers here in Ireland - there are a few exceptions as low as 20% and as high as 90%, but they seem to be one offs.

What results do you get, for introducing a sealed queen cell in a apidea / mating nuc, etc. and then six weeks later do your inspection, without supercedure later that same year? If I introduced 20 Queen Cells I would expect 50% successful mating within six weeks less any supercedure by the end of the season. And before you ask, I've tried different locations, conditions, years, methods, etc.

Weather dependant totally here.
Ranges between 100% and 25%
And after July 0% due to wasps.

 

[Beesnaturally]

If natural selection will do the breeding then we should have seen it in the Primorsky (Russian) bees, and on closer examination these bees are no more tolerant than standard bees after several years of non-treatment; in fact that's what has consistently happened..

We need for you to substantiate things like this, with links to the study/ies you are relying on. We need to be able to see what is being said.

. beekeepers claim their bees are tolerant / resistant but when the bees are moved or exposed to a batch of varroa and obvserved, etc. they show not much more ability to cope - the best I've seen is local bees live about 80 days longer than non-local, it is believed to be as a result of local viral strain resistance.

I wouldn't bet on my bees surviving long untreated in a normal treated apiary. It's my expectation that coevolution is an important part of the picture. My bees likely wouldn't handle the more fecund mites bred by treating, especially if they badly outnumbered.

This is why I believe selective breeding is required, although I will concede with you that we can help them to get there - a major part of that will be non-treatment to allow the bees develop tolerance (viral tolerance/resistance), etc.

Selective breeding is always required. At some point we'll look at the Red Queen hypothesis: species have to keep breeding just to stay alive.

It's just that nature is the best breeder. Nature doesn't know or care what is wrong or why. She just eliminates the weaker and promotes the stronger. The result is fitness.

This thread is about how we allow that to happen.

 

[Beesnaturally]

Weather dependant totally here.
Ranges between 100% and 25%
And after July 0% due to wasps.

It's quite likely a thriving wild population has located the optimal conditions for reproduction in any particular locality. The colonies will know the times and read the signs, and achieve good rates most years as a result.

Local adaptation is a very important part of the picture in my opinion.

 

[oxnatbees]

(1) Evidence of long term survivors in UK (not just repopulated from local colonies every year):

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.

We are called to properties in swarm season. Property owners tell us "oh they've been in this roof / wallfor years swarm every year." Colonies very rarely swarm in their first year! Some property owners are observant and certain nest was active in eg February - March. Our church warden has watched the church bees survive for 19 continuous years, definitely buzzing through winter. Their swarms thrive with zero help.

There are at least 9 colonies in my village. I monitor them through the year, watching for pollen going in etc (tip: much easier with good camera than binoculars). Got advice from Tom Seeley on how to monitor them. A couple die in harsh years but none have died for 2 years.

(2) Mechanisms

Many. Brood breaks during dearths is a major one I think. Masses of propolis. Probably grooming. No requeening with commercial queens - LOCAL genetics. Minimal human intervention / feeding. I went through the debris of 4 of my colonies, founded by swarms from these wild colonies, recently looking for varroa to photograph. Used to see hundreds when I used Buckfasts 11-12 years ago, so I know what to look for. I finally found some in the 4th pile of debris.

(3) General point

Why cut out a thriving colony? Catch the swarms each year. It's the gift which keeps on giving.

 

[user 20297]

I've just been watching a live webinar talk by Andrew Abrahams. He ilustrated very well the close mutual interests that we've seen here, between the title subject-matter of this blog and the interests of those beekeepers who love the "black" bee. He calmly deals with the conflicts of interest that are at the root of the friction between those who want to preserve our "native" or local bees and those who want to have the freedom to choose their stocks.

One of his simplest and best Powerpoint slides featured a beautiful, long-haired Highland cow next to a massive swathe of Thrift (Armeria maritima). As he pointed out, both of those organisms are highly adapted to the environments in which they can thrive and where others would not. His bees also cope with a marginal habitat where more "exotic" types might fail.

Interestingly though, he did say that many other Scottish islands have had their native bee populations and varroa-free staus affected by beekeepers bringing in non-local bees. This seemed a contradicton as presumably, at least some of those bees thrive?

What he has to accept and which seems to be at the root of the issue that will never be resolved is that his honey yield is smaller and more specific than that of most people in the UK.

If the talk becomes available via the SBKA I highly recommend it for lovers of native and locally-adapted bees.

 

[Beesnaturally]

What he has to accept and which seems to be at the root of the issue that will never be resolved is that his honey yield is smaller and more specific than that of most people in the UK.

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?