Uncertainty in the mating strategy of honeybees causes bias and unreliability in the estimates of genetic parameters.

BACKGROUND: Breeding queens may be mated with drones that are produced by a single drone-producing queen (DPQ), or a group of sister-DPQs, but often only the dam of the DPQ(s) is reported in the pedigree. Furthermore, datasets may include colony phenotypes from DPQs that were open-mated at different locations, and thus to a heterogeneous drone population. METHODS: Simulation was used to investigate the impact of the mating strategy and its modelling on the estimates of genetic parameters and genetic trends when the DPQs are treated in different ways in the statistical evaluation model. We quantified the bias and standard error of the estimates when breeding queens were mated to one DPQ or a group of DPQs, assuming that this information was known or not. We also investigated four alternative strategies to accommodate the phenotypes of open-mated DPQs in the genetic evaluation: excluding their phenotypes, adding a dummy pseudo-sire in the pedigree, or adding a non-genetic (fixed or random) effect to the statistical evaluation model to account for the origin of the mates. RESULTS: The most precise estimates of genetic parameters and genetic trends were obtained when breeding queens were mated with drones of single DPQs that are correctly assigned in the pedigree. However, when they were mated with drones from one or a group of DPQs, and this information was not known, erroneous assumptions led to considerable bias in these estimates. Furthermore, genetic variances were considerably overestimated when phenotypes of colonies from open-mated DPQs were adjusted for their mates by adding a dummy pseudo-sire in the pedigree for each subpopulation of open-mating drones. On the contrary, correcting for the heterogeneous drone population by adding a non-genetic effect in the evaluation model produced unbiased estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Knowing only the dam of the DPQ(s) used in each mating may lead to erroneous assumptions on how DPQs were used and severely bias the estimates of genetic parameters and trends. Thus, we recommend keeping track of DPQs in the pedigree, and not only of the dams of DPQ(s). Records from DPQ colonies with queens open-mated to a heterogeneous drone population can be integrated by adding non-genetic effects to the statistical evaluation model.

A simulation study of a honeybee breeding scheme accounting for polyandry, direct and maternal effects on colony performance.

BACKGROUND: Efficient breeding programs are difficult to implement in honeybees due to their biological specificities (polyandry and haplo-diploidy) and complexity of the traits of interest, with performances being measured at the colony scale and resulting from the joint effects of tens of thousands of workers (called direct effects) and of the queen (called maternal effects). We implemented a Monte Carlo simulation program of a breeding plan designed specifically for Apis mellifera's populations to assess the impact of polyandry versus monoandry on colony performance, inbreeding level and genetic gain depending on the individual selection strategy considered, i.e. complete mass selection or within-family (maternal lines) selection. We simulated several scenarios with different parameter setups by varying initial genetic variances and correlations between direct and maternal effects, the selection strategy and the polyandry level. Selection was performed on colony phenotypes. RESULTS: All scenarios showed strong increases in direct breeding values of queens after 20 years of selection. Monoandry led to significantly higher direct than maternal genetic gains, especially when a negative correlation between direct and maternal effects was simulated. However, the relative increase in these genetic gains depended also on their initial genetic variability and on the selection strategy. When polyandry was simulated, the results were very similar with either 8 or 16 drones mated to each queen. Across scenarios, polyandrous mating resulted in equivalent or higher gains in performance than monoandrous mating, but with considerably lower inbreeding rates. Mass selection conferred a ~ 20% increase in performance compared to within-family selection, but was also accompanied by a strong increase in inbreeding levels (25 to 50% higher). CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to compare the long-term effects of polyandrous versus monoandrous mating in honeybee breeding. The latter is an emergent strategy to improve specific traits, such as resistance to varroa, which can be difficult or expensive to phenotype. However, if used during several generations in a closed population, monoandrous mating increases the inbreeding level of queens much more than polyandrous mating, which is a strong limitation of this strategy.