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.

 

[Beesnaturally]

It's funny but scientists and some members forget the basics.
1. Varroa has selected bee populations for 40 years, wild and from apiaries.

I think it would be more accurate to say varroa has selected beekeeper actions in apiaries.

I find it strange to say 'varroa has selected bee populations', but I suppose it works. I think its clearer to say bee populations have adapted under pressure from varroa; but we can go further and say that (in the wild) both have experienced adaptation in co-evolution - the famous 'arms race'.

2. It is curious but all the surviving wild colonies do it under two parameters. (Natural comb and small size breed).

The first yes (and that's one reason I use only starter strip in brood nests); the second is not (scientifically) factual.

3. It has been shown that both the bee and its varroa parasite are guided mainly by smell...

Is that so? I'm not saying it isn't, but can you supply references?

...which means that each and every one of the chemical substances present in the hive can turn the wheel of natural selection in any direction....

Does it? All the floral oils are chemicals; but afaik bees can happily adapt in a full (or narrow) range of forage opportunities.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if some herbs were helpful, but I don't know of any literature that suggest it. Do you?

I think you are fishing for a way out of the hard fact: bees that die don't reproduce: those that thrive reproduce most.

That's the simple be-all and end of it. The gene-sets that work best get passed on most; the sets that don't are pushed out.

The ones that work are 'naturally selected'; and pass their qualities on to their children

While there may be further factors, none take anything from that fact. No further explanation, the now extensive scientific evidence shows, is required.

 

[Beesnaturally]

as I said - pure unadulterated zealotry

I know. I'm also zealous about having brakes in my car, knowing that 2+2=4; and that black is black and white is white.

I'm a real unadulterated zealot when it comes to realities.

 

[Beesnaturally]

but he has yet to prove that his purported 'survivir' colonies are that - not just another feral colony formed from a swarm from a managed hice the previous year

Oh give it a rest. You don't have to take my word for it, but for heavens sake read some of the literature. Perhaps all the scientists and all the people claiming to keep untreated bees are all in some grand conspiracy.

 

[Wilco]

I think that @Beesnaturally has pointed out many times that organisms survive or die because of the interplay between environmental factors and their genetics; that's probably why he gets so frustrated at the regular demands from people that the claims he makes for his bees count for nothing if they are unable to repeat that performance within other environments or to breed their characteristics into other populations.
Clearly, if bees survive in an environment it follows that their genes are suited to it; that still applies when the environment has been improved by human assistance. If the environment changes and the bees don't survive, their genes are not suited to it; that still applies if the bees are in a situation where the beekeeper could have chosen to help them.

If bees have a high mite count but this then reduces significantly within a short space of time and the only thing that has changed is the husbandry, environment is the factor which made the difference, not genetics. This is exactly the situation I mentioned which @pargyle had a few months ago.

Likewise if the environment changes and the bees don't survive, it's not necessarily that it's because their genes aren't suited. The population of Pompei didn't die because they were unlucky in the genetic lottery.

 

[user 20297]

If bees have a high mite count but this then reduces significantly within a short space of time and the only thing that has changed is the husbandry, environment is the factor which made the difference, not genetics. This is exactly the situation I mentioned which @pargyle had a few months ago.

Likewise if the environment changes and the bees don't survive, it's not necessarily that it's because their genes aren't suited. The population of Pompei didn't die because they were unlucky in the genetic lottery.

......but that diesn't apply as the circumstances discussed here are those in which treatment is absent and yet the bees still survive/thrive,
Accidental death from natural disaster is a bit of a wild card to introduce, but as it is the survivors who matter in the genetics "game", colonies of bees that have chosen more secure locations in which to nest will be the ones that survive. Despite their survival possibly being down to good fortune rather than genetics, those "lucky" genetics will be passed on.

 

[pargyle]

If bees have a high mite count but this then reduces significantly within a short space of time and the only thing that has changed is the husbandry, environment is the factor which made the difference, not genetics. This is exactly the situation I mentioned which @pargyle had a few months ago.

Likewise if the environment changes and the bees don't survive, it's not necessarily that it's because their genes aren't suited. The population of Pompei didn't die because they were unlucky in the genetic lottery.

That's not strictly true in my case, the two colonies I took on from another member (who lives about 15 miles away) had high varroa loads in the previous season. Thousands of mite drops .. they had been very thoroughly treated with a variety of methods prior to winter but, as I understand it, were very prone to mite infestation. They were local bees from swarms collected in the area where they came from. I treated them when they arrived in my apiary with a Vape ...two actually .. and there was no significant mite drop from the treatments. They had been kept previously in timber hives and when I transferred them to my poly boxes they were just about out of stores and were given fondant. One colony was larger than the other.

I fully expected them to become varroa factories and was testing regularly. They have not been treated since, have never shown any significant mite load and have developed into a couple of nice colonies that gave a crop. Not as much as some of my other colonies but comparable with my local average. They were plugged into my beekeeping and looked after in exactly the same way as my other colonies.

It rather points to environment, location and husbandry ... rather than rapid evolution. It's either that or you subscribe to the theory of mite evolution.

 

[Beesnaturally]

If bees have a high mite count but this then reduces significantly within a short space of time and the only thing that has changed is the husbandry

Pardon me: if the mite count reduces rapidly? On what timescale? What bees - are you speaking of a population that may be adapting? Hives that may be amongst a thriving local population? Has the beekeeper treated them? You have to make clear and unambiguous statements, propose clear conditions, or questions like these are unanswerable.

Where bees a) have genes conferring resistance, and b) are not subject to high-fecundity mite invasions they will thrive.

Where neither of those things apply they won't. Those are the rules. There are no others. Inability to control mites results in decay and death. The ability is conferred by possession of appropriate genes. Period.

Of course, they may be in something of a transitory stage, in-between; some resistance but not enough to hold their own when stressed (I mean cold/damp/being robbed, not being frowned at by beekeepers). On the whole if you have bees that thrive year on year they have a good measure of resistance and protection from beekeepers mites. They will go on thriving for as long those conditions remain (subject to protection/evasion of other perils - old/polluted comb/failure to supercede, miscalculation/bad luck with the weather and the like).

You can't have golden retrievers unless you keep the alsatians out

If you keep the alsatians (and other non-golden retrievers) out you _will_ have golden retrievers. Thems the rules.

 

[Beesnaturally]

It rather points to environment, location and husbandry ... rather than rapid evolution. It's either that or you subscribe to the theory of mite evolution.

It points to me of adapted local bees suffering under the input of high-fecundity mites from nearby hive, being relieved of that circumstance, and perhaps being sided by the input of less voracious mites.

Yes, that's a change of environment, but to account for things in that way is misleading.

It's like taking a henpecked bird out of the pen and putting it with some pullets where it thrives. There is no opportunity for adaptation, and no need.

I don't suppose many colonies from large intensively run apiaries would thrive simply placed among untreated thriving hives. And that is the broad experience and wisdom: it doesn't matter where you put bought bee, if you don't treat them they usually die.

Yours, Pargyle, were not bought bees, they were captured in an environment that clearly supports a local free-living population, and were probably adapted stock.

 

[fian]

1. And those that have not adapted have died, which implies that in some way (whether as a parasite or as a vector of diseases) the role of varroa as selector is a fact.
2. Why is the apis cerana smaller than the mellifera if they have a common ancestor? Natural selection has shown that this only occurs with isolated populations free of biological enemies. But not only the original adapted, but the AM capensis, the primorsky, the Africanized all of them are smaller. It's more in my apiary I have small bees that I brought from a nearby area of another beekeeper according to the "descendants of local bees before varroa". The size of these is still smaller (5 years later) and I use the same wax base for all the 5.4 cell size.
3. You have it in the genetic markers linked to smell many more than other senses.
Certainly the second is more a postulate than a fact, but it follows from the previous confirmation on smell.
4. Finally, for some reason, the small size is a character that is transmitted in wild populations.
Finally, your theory forgets an inexorable fact that is the swarm, since it is very possible that a colony of wild bees swarms at least every year, so the genetics are altered and that means that between one year and the next with Independence from external agents has already produced an internal change that does not have to imply further adaptation

 

[fian]

Once again we forget that varroas cannot reproduce in unfavorable conditions such as high temperatures (greater than 34) or humidity outside the range (50%-70%). Could it be that bees in poly can better control these parameters by reducing the ability of varroa to reproduce?

 

[madasafish]

Maybe our purpose on the planet is to mess it up and become extinct. Part of the cycle of planetary renewal?

Once again we forget that varroas cannot reproduce in unfavorable conditions such as high temperatures (greater than 34) or humidity outside the range (50%-70%). Could it be that bees in poly can better control these parameters by reducing the ability of varroa to reproduce?

Proven by D M Mitchell. Not a debate. fact

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

You don't have to take my word for it

I wouldn't - even if you told me it gets dark at night

 

[Beesnaturally]

Proven by D M Mitchell. Not a debate. fact

I'm not sure what you consider proven, but we can be sure that if polyhives aid colonies significantly, then they will a priori be detrimental to the nearby free living population.

 

[fian]

I'm not sure what you consider proven, but we can be sure that if polyhives aid colonies significantly, then they will a priori be detrimental to the nearby free living population.

Beautiful dialectical filigree to conclude that only what you do or promote is valid. Under these arguments, beekeeping would cease to be a commercial activity to be a spiritual activity.

 

[Beesnaturally]

1. And those that have not adapted have died, which implies that in some way (whether as a parasite or as a vector of diseases) the role of varroa as selector is a fact.

I agree; but its still an unusual way to put things. It may be a useful way to put thing however.

Lets remind ourselves: this only occurs in free-living populations. Treated bees are denied the select

2. Why is the apis cerana smaller than the mellifera if they have a common ancestor? Natural selection has shown that this only occurs with isolated populations free of biological enemies. But not only the original adapted, but the AM capensis, the primorsky, the Africanized all of them are smaller. It's more in my apiary I have small bees that I brought from a nearby area of another beekeeper according to the "descendants of local bees before varroa". The size of these is still smaller (5 years later) and I use the same wax base for all the 5.4 cell size.

Interesting

3. You have it in the genetic markers linked to smell many more than other senses.
Certainly the second is more a postulate than a fact, but it follows from the previous confirmation on smell.

I'd like to see some citations

4. Finally, for some reason, the small size is a character that is transmitted in wild populations.

I tend, from personal experience, to agree, and as I say I'm interested in seeing some science on this.

Finally, your theory forgets an inexorable fact that is the swarm, since it is very possible that a colony of wild bees swarms at least every year, so the genetics are altered and that means that between one year and the next with Independence from external agents has already produced an internal change that does not have to imply further adaptation

I'm not sure which theory you are referring to (or whether I regard it as a theory.)
If the population in which this is occurring is subjected to adaptive pressure from varroa then it follows as a matter of basic scientific understanding that a genetic shift toward resistance will be occurring in all but rare 'bottleneck' populations. Theory and evidence are in, and the agreement is perfect.

This is because in any population there will be variability in the ability of individuals to combat varroa. Those individuals with low ability will reproduce at lower rates than those with it. Thus each new generation gains a greater proportion of those with the higher ability.

It is important to note, first: this is a _process_ not an event. The pressure must remain in order for the resistance to remain;

Secondly the bees are equally exerting pressure on the mites, who will be reconfiguring to evade the bees' defensive measures in each generation too.

This is co-evolution, the 'arms race'.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/the-arms-race/

 

[Beesnaturally]

"Beesnaturally said:
I'm not sure what you consider proven, but we can be sure that if polyhives aid colonies significantly, then they will a priori be detrimental to the nearby free living population."
Beautiful dialectical filigree to conclude that only what you do or promote is valid. Under these arguments, beekeeping would cease to be a commercial activity to be a spiritual activity.

Look at what I've just written about _pressure_; its presence and its removal. Don't think about commerce or spiritual activity until you are clear on the mechanisms. Otherwise you are letting the tail wag the dog, looking for what you want to find.

Objectivity is the name of the game in matters scientific.

Steps:
1) If pressure to possess resistant genes is lifted, bees don't gain resistance.

NOW...

2) If such non-resistant bees mate with resistant (free-living) bees THEY LOWER THAT POPULATION'S RESISTANCE.

Can you see the steps now? If not, spend some time here...
https://www.neok12.com/Natural-Sele... the process,be eliminated from the ecosystem
... and study and think about what is going on until you grasp it.

 

[fian]

1. The bees in apiaries that receive treatment (like mine) are not denied any selection, let's say that the factors change and the selection will move in another coordinate. That this management does not like it does not mean that it is not legitimate.
2. You've gone from writing my comment off as pseudoscience to interesting.
3. Search the internet for articles on the bee genome.
4. He still does not understand that the swarm causes a rupture in the system, and unless he is on a biological island, the actions of other beekeepers have an impact on his.

 

[Beesnaturally]

1. The bees in apiaries that receive treatment (like mine) are not denied any selection, let's say that the factors change and the selection will move in another coordinate. That this management does not like it does not mean that it is not legitimate.
2. You've gone from writing my comment off as pseudoscience to interesting.
3. Search the internet for articles on the bee genome.
4. He still does not understand that the swarm causes a rupture in the system, and unless he is on a biological island, the actions of other beekeepers have an impact on his.

you need to get that into clearer English. There is too much ambiguity of meaning to allow a response.

 

[fian]

you need to get that into clearer English. There is too much ambiguity of meaning to allow a response.

Natural selection is not a unidirectional path, and the fact that the parameters under which resistance to varroa develops in wild and managed hives are different does not mean that an equilibrium point cannot be reached in both cases.

 

[user 20297]

I'm not sure what you consider proven, but we can be sure that if polyhives aid colonies significantly, then they will a priori be detrimental to the nearby free living population.

If that's true and if it matters to you, should you be keeping bees at all? And if you do keep bees, shouldn't you purposely house them in very poor accommodation or give them nothing at all?