Higher prevalence of sacbrood virus in Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies after pollinating highbush blueberries.

Highbush blueberry pollination depends on managed honey bees (Apis mellifera) L. for adequate fruit sets; however, beekeepers have raised concerns about the poor health of colonies after pollinating this crop. Postulated causes include agrochemical exposure, nutritional deficits, and interactions with parasites and pathogens, particularly Melisococcus plutonius [(ex. White) Bailey and Collins, Lactobacillales: Enterococcaceae], the causal agent of European foulbrood disease, but other pathogens could be involved. To broadly investigate common honey bee pathogens in relation to blueberry pollination, we sampled adult honey bees from colonies at time points corresponding to before (t1), during (t2), at the end (t3), and after (t4) highbush blueberry pollination in British Columbia, Canada, across 2 years (2020 and 2021). Nine viruses, as well as M. plutonius, Vairimorpha ceranae, and V. apis [Tokarev et al., Microsporidia: Nosematidae; formerly Nosema ceranae (Fries et al.) and N. apis (Zander)], were detected by PCR and compared among colonies located near and far from blueberry fields. We found a significant interactive effect of time and blueberry proximity on the multivariate pathogen community, mainly due to differences at t4 (corresponding to ~6 wk after the beginning of the pollination period). Post hoc comparisons of pathogens in near and far groups at t4 showed that detections of sacbrood virus (SBV), which was significantly higher in the near group, not M. plutonius, was the primary driver. Further research is needed to determine if the association of SBV with highbush blueberry pollination is contributing to the health decline that beekeepers observe after pollinating this crop.

Honey bee stressor networks are complex and dependent on crop and region.

Honey bees play a major role in crop pollination but have experienced declining health throughout most of the globe. Despite decades of research on key honey bee stressors (e.g., parasitic Varroa destructor mites and viruses), researchers cannot fully explain or predict colony mortality, potentially because it is caused by exposure to multiple interacting stressors in the field. Understanding which honey bee stressors co-occur and have the potential to interact is therefore of profound importance. Here, we used the emerging field of systems theory to characterize the stressor networks found in honey bee colonies after they were placed in fields containing economically valuable crops across Canada. Honey bee stressor networks were often highly complex, with hundreds of potential interactions between stressors. Their placement in crops for the pollination season generally exposed colonies to more complex stressor networks, with an average of 23 stressors and 307 interactions. We discovered that the most influential stressors in a network-those that substantively impacted network architecture-are not currently addressed by beekeepers. Finally, the stressor networks showed substantial divergence among crop systems from different regions, which is consistent with the knowledge that some crops (e.g., highbush blueberry) are traditionally riskier to honey bees than others. Our approach sheds light on the stressor networks that honey bees encounter in the field and underscores the importance of considering interactions among stressors. Clearly, addressing and managing these issues will require solutions that are tailored to specific crops and regions and their associated stressor networks.

Plant virus diversity in bee and pollen samples from apple (Malus domestica) and sweet cherry (Prunus avium) agroecosystems.

Introduction: Honey bee (Apis mellifera) pollination is widely used in tree fruit production systems to improve fruit set and yield. Many plant viruses can be associated with pollen or transmitted through pollination, and can be detected through bee pollination activities. Honey bees visit multiple plants and flowers in one foraging trip, essentially sampling small amounts of pollen from a wide area. Here we report metagenomics-based area-wide monitoring of plant viruses in cherry (Prunus avium) and apple (Malus domestica) orchards in Creston Valley, British Columbia, Canada, through bee-mediated pollen sampling. Methods: Plant viruses were identified in total RNA extracted from bee and pollen samples, and compared with profiles from double stranded RNA extracted from leaf and flower tissues. CVA, PDV, PNRSV, and PVF coat protein nucleotide sequences were aligned and compared for phylogenetic analysis. Results: A wide array of plant viruses were identified in both systems, with cherry virus A (CVA), prune dwarf virus (PDV), prunus necrotic ringspot virus (PNRSV), and prunus virus F (PVF) most commonly detected. Citrus concave gum associated virus and apple stem grooving virus were only identified in samples collected during apple bloom, demonstrating changing viral profiles from the same site over time. Different profiles of viruses were identified in bee and pollen samples compared to leaf and flower samples reflective of pollen transmission affinity of individual viruses. Phylogenetic and pairwise analysis of the coat protein regions of the four most commonly detected viruses showed unique patterns of nucleotide sequence diversity, which could have implications in their evolution and management approaches. Coat protein sequences of CVA and PVF were broadly diverse with multiple distinct phylogroups identified, while PNRSV and PDV were more conserved. Conclusion: The pollen virome in fruit production systems is incredibly diverse, with CVA, PDV, PNRSV, and PVF widely prevalent in this region. Bee-mediated monitoring in agricultural systems is a powerful approach to study viral diversity and can be used to guide more targeted management approaches.

The effects of protein supplementation, fumagillin treatment, and colony management on the productivity and long-term survival of honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies.

In this study, we intensively measured the longitudinal productivity and survival of 362 commercially managed honey bee colonies in Canada, over a two-year period. A full factorial experimental design was used, whereby two treatments were repeated across apiaries situated in three distinct geographic regions: Northern Alberta, Southern Alberta and Prince Edward Island, each having unique bee management strategies. In the protein supplemented treatment, colonies were continuously provided a commercial protein supplement containing 25% w/w pollen, in addition to any feed normally provided by beekeepers in that region. In the fumagillin treatment, colonies were treated with the label dose of Fumagilin-B® each year during the fall. Neither treatment provided consistent benefits across all sites and dates. Fumagillin was associated with a large increase in honey production only at the Northern Alberta site, while protein supplementation produced an early season increase in brood production only at the Southern Alberta site. The protein supplement provided no long-lasting benefit at any site and was also associated with an increased risk of death and decreased colony size later in the study. Differences in colony survival and productivity among regions, and among colonies within beekeeping operations, were far larger than the effects of either treatment, suggesting that returns from extra feed supplements and fumagillin were highly contextually dependent. We conclude that use of fumagillin is safe and sometimes beneficial, but that beekeepers should only consider excess protein supplementation when natural forage is limiting.