Pyrodiversity begets plant-pollinator community diversity.

Fire has a major impact on the structure and function of many ecosystems globally. Pyrodiversity, the diversity of fires within a region (where diversity is based on fire characteristics such as extent, severity, and frequency), has been hypothesized to promote biodiversity, but changing climate and land management practices have eroded pyrodiversity. To assess whether changes in pyrodiversity will have impacts on ecological communities, we must first understand the mechanisms that might enable pyrodiversity to sustain biodiversity, and how such changes might interact with other disturbances such as drought. Focusing on plant-pollinator communities in mixed-conifer forest with frequent fire in Yosemite National Park, California, we examine how pyrodiversity, combined with drought intensity, influences those communities. We find that pyrodiversity is positively related to the richness of the pollinators, flowering plants, and plant-pollinator interactions. On average, a 5% increase in pyrodiversity led to the gain of approximately one pollinator and one flowering plant species and nearly two interactions. We also find that a diversity of fire characteristics contributes to the spatial heterogeneity (ß-diversity) of plant and pollinator communities. Lastly, we find evidence that fire diversity buffers pollinator communities against the effects of drought-induced floral resource scarcity. Fire diversity is thus important for the maintenance of flowering plant and pollinator diversity and predicted shifts in fire regimes to include less pyrodiversity compounded with increasing drought occurrence will negatively influence the richness of these communities in this and other forested ecosystems. In addition, lower heterogeneity of fire severity may act to reduce spatial turnover of plant-pollinator communities. The heterogeneity of community composition is a primary determinant of the total species diversity present in a landscape, and thus, lower pyrodiversity may negatively affect the richness of plant-pollinator communities across large spatial scales.

Best Management Practices Increase Profitability of Small-Scale US Beekeeping Operations.

Little is known about the economics of small-scale beekeeping, due in part because many of these beekeepers are motivated by personal enjoyment and not profit. These beekeepers, however, represent more than 90% of US beekeeping population, so economic analysis of this majority group is warranted. Understanding how management practices impact colony profitability in small apiaries can inform beekeeper management decisions. Best management practices (BMPs) can increase colony productivity and survival, but often require additional labor and materials compared to less intensive beekeeping practices. Here, we investigate the impact of BMPs on the profitability of small-scale beekeeping. We found that BMPs required higher costs in labor and materials, but that they also produced higher revenue from honey and nucleus colony production. As a result, after three years, BMP apiaries were 8 times more profitable than less intensively managed apiaries. The increased profitability in BMP apiaries is largely attributed to improved colony health and survival due to more active Varroa management and reduced Varroa and viral loads. These results can inform small scale beekeeper budgeting and management, and also support extension efforts to increase BMP adoption.

Accelerated Varroa destructor population growth in honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies is associated with visitation from non-natal bees.

A leading cause of managed honey bee colony mortality in the US, Varroa destructor populations typically exceed damaging levels in the fall. One explanation for rapid population increases is migration of mite carrying bees between colonies. Here, the degree to which bees from high and low mite donor colonies move between apiaries, and the effect visitation has on Varroa populations was monitored. More bees from low mite colonies (n = 37) were detected in receiver apiaries than bees from high mite colonies (n = 10, p < 0.001). Receiver colony Varroa population growth was associated with visitation by non-natal bees (p = 0.03), but not high mite bees alone (p = 0.19). Finally, colonies lacking robbing screens experienced faster Varroa population growth than screened neighbors (p = 0.01). Results indicate visiting non-natal bees may vector mites to receiver colonies. These results do not support the current two leading theories regarding mite immigration - the "mite bomb" theory (bees from high mite colonies emigrating to collapsing colonies), or the "robbing" theory (natal robbing bees return home with mites from collapsing colonies). Potential host-parasite effects to bee behavior, as well as important management implications both for Varroa treatment regimens and breeding Varroa resistant bees are discussed.

Survey-derived best management practices for backyard beekeepers improve colony health and reduce mortality.

Honey bee colony losses in the US have exceeded acceptable levels for at least a decade, leaving beekeepers in need of management practices to improve colony health and survival. Here, an empirical Best Management Practice (BMP) regimen was tested, comprised of the top four management practices associated with reduced colony mortality in backyard beekeeping operations according to Bee Informed Partnership Loss and Management survey results. Seven study locations were established across the US, and each location consisted of ten colonies treated according to empirical BMPs and ten according to average beekeeping practice. After 3 years, colonies treated according to empirical BMPs experienced reduced Varroa infestation, viral infection, and mortality compared to colonies managed with Average practices. In addition, BMP colonies produced more new colonies via splits. The colonies under Average practices were given chemical Varroa treatments only once per year, and thus spent more months above economic threshold of 3.0 mites/100 bees. Increased time spent above the economic threshold was significantly correlated to both increased viral infection and colony mortality. This study demonstrates the cumulative effects of management and colony health stressors over months and years, especially the dire importance of regular Varroa monitoring and management.

Comparative Efficacy of Common Active Ingredients in Organic Insecticides Against Difficult to Control Insect Pests.

There exists a lack of control efficacy information to enable decision-making about which organic insecticide product works best for a given insect pest. Here, we summarize results of 153 field trials on the control efficacy of common active ingredients in organic insecticides against 12 groups of the most difficult to control insect pests. These trials evaluated primarily the organic products Entrust (spinosad), Azera (pyrethrin and azadirachtin), PyGanic (pyrethrin) and Neemix (azadirachtin), which reduced pest infestations by an overall 73.9%, 61.7%, 48.6% and 46.1% respectively, averaged across all trials. Entrust was the most effective control option for many insect pests, particularly providing >75% control of flea beetles, Colorado potato beetle, cabbageworms and alfalfa weevil, but was relatively ineffective against true bugs and aphids. Azera provided >75% control of green peach aphid, flea beetles, Japanese beetle, Mexican bean beetle, potato leafhopper and cabbageworms. PyGanic was less effective than Entrust and Azera but still provided >75% control of green peach aphid, flea beetles and potato leafhopper. The growth inhibition effects of azadirachtin in Neemix were particularly effective against larvae of Mexican bean beetle and Colorado potato beetle but was generally less effective in trials with insect infestations consisting mainly of adult stages. Those insect pests that were particularly difficult to control included thrips, stinkbugs, cucumber beetles and fruitworms. Several caveats pertaining to the application of the results are discussed.

Drivers of colony losses.

Over the past decade, in some regions of the world, honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies have experienced rates of colony loss that are difficult for beekeepers to sustain. The reasons for losses are complex and interacting, with major drivers including Varroaand related viruses, pesticides, nutrition and beekeeper practices. In these endeavors it has also become apparent that defining a dead colony, and singling out the effects of specific drivers of loss, is not so straightforward. Using the class of neonicotinoid pesticides as an example we explain why quantifying risk factor impact at the colony level is at times elusive and in some cases unpractical. In this review, we discuss the caveats of defining and quantifying dead colonies. We also summarize the current leading drivers of colony losses, their interactions and the most recent research on their effects on colony mortality.