Current honey bee stressor investigations and mitigation methods in the United States and Canada.

Honey bees are the most important managed insect pollinators in the US and Canadian crop systems. However, the annual mortality of colonies in the past 15 years has been consistently higher than historical records. Because they are eusocial generalist pollinators and amenable to management, honey bees provide a unique opportunity to investigate a wide range of questions at molecular, organismal, and ecological scales. Here, the American Association of Professional Apiculturists (AAPA) and the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists (CAPA) created 2 collections of articles featuring investigations on micro and macro aspects of honey bee health, sociobiology, and management showcasing new applied research from diverse groups studying honey bees (Apis mellifera) in the United States and Canada. Research presented in this special issue includes examinations of abiotic and biotic stressors of honey bees, and evaluations and introductions of various stress mitigation measures that may be valuable to both scientists and the beekeeping community. These investigations from throughout the United States and Canada showcase the wide breadth of current work done and point out areas that need further research.

Thinking inside the box: Restoring the propolis envelope facilitates honey bee social immunity.

When wild honey bee colonies (Apis mellifera) nest in hollow tree cavities, they coat the rough cavity walls with a continuous layer of propolis, a substance comprised primarily of plant resins. Studies have shown that the resulting "propolis envelope" leads to both individual- and colony-level health benefits. Unfortunately, the smooth wooden boxes most commonly used in beekeeping do little to stimulate propolis collection. As a result, most managed bees live in hives that are propolis-poor. In this study, we assessed different surface texture treatments (rough wood boxes, boxes outfitted with propolis traps, and standard, smooth wood boxes) in terms of their ability to stimulate propolis collection, and we examined the effect of propolis on colony health, pathogen loads, immune gene expression, bacterial gene expression, survivorship, and honey production in both stationary and migratory beekeeping contexts. We found that rough wood boxes are the most effective box type for stimulating propolis deposition. Although the use of rough wood boxes did not improve colony survivorship overall, Melissococcus plutonius detections via gene expression were significantly lower in rough wood boxes, and viral loads for multiple viruses tended to decrease as propolis deposition increased. By the end of year one, honey bee populations in migratory rough box colonies were also significantly larger than those in migratory control colonies. The use of rough wood boxes did correspond with decreased honey production in year one migratory colonies but had no effect during year two. Finally, in both stationary and migratory operations, propolis deposition was correlated with a seasonal decrease and/or stabilization in the expression of multiple immune and bacterial genes, suggesting that propolis-rich environments contribute to hive homeostasis. These findings provide support for the practical implementation of rough box hives as a means to enhance propolis collection and colony health in multiple beekeeping contexts.

Colony-Level Viral Load Influences Collective Foraging in Honey Bees.

Nutrition is an important component of social insect colony health especially in the face of stressors such as parasitism and viral infections. Honey bees are known to preferentially select nectar and pollen based on macronutrient and phytochemical contents and in response to pathogen loads. However, given that honey bees live in colonies, collective foraging decisions may be impacted directly by forager infection status but also by colony health. This field experiment was conducted to determine if honey bee viral infections are correlated with pollen and nectar foraging and if these associations are impacted more by colony or forager infection. By comparing regressions with and without forager and colony variables and through structural equation models, we were able to determine the relative contributions of colony and forager virus loads on forager decisions. We found that foragers had higher numbers and levels of BQCV and CBPV but lower levels of DWV viruses than their respective colonies. Overall, individuals appeared to forage based a combination of their own and colony health but with greater weight given to colony metrics. Colony parasitism by Varroa mites, positively correlated with both forager and colony DWV-B levels, was negatively associated with nectar weight. Further, colony DWV-B levels were negatively associated with individually foraged pollen protein: lipid ratios but positively correlated with nectar weight and sugar content. This study shows that both colony and forager health can simultaneously mediate individual foraging decisions and that the importance of viral infections and parasite levels varies with foraging metrics. Overall, this work highlights the continued need to explore the interactions of disease, nutrition, and genetics in social interactions and structures.

Host Genotype and Tissue Type Determine DWV Infection Intensity.

Varroa mite-vectored viruses such as Deformed wing virus (DWV) are of great concern for honey bee health as they can cause disease in individuals and increase colony mortality. Two genotypes of DWV (A and B) are prevalent in the United States and may have differential virulence and pathogenicity. Honey bee genetic stocks bred to resist Varroa mites also exhibit differential infection responses to the Varroa mite-vectored viruses. The goal of this project was to determine if interactions between host genotype could influence the overall infection levels and dissemination of DWV within honey bees. To do this, we injected DWV isolated from symptomatic adult bees into mite-free, newly emerged adult bees from five genetic stocks with varying levels of resistance to Varroa mites. We measured DWV-A and DWV-B dissemination among tissues chosen based on relevance to general health outcomes for 10 days. Injury from sham injections did not increase DWV-A levels but did increase DWV-B infections. DWV injection increased both DWV-A and DWV-B levels over time with significant host stock interactions. While we did not observe any differences in viral dissemination among host stocks, we found differences in virus genotype dissemination to different body parts. DWV-A exhibited the highest initial levels in heads and legs while the highest initial levels of DWV-B were found in heads and abdomens. These interactions underscore the need to evaluate viral genotype and tissue specificity in conjunction with host genotype, particularly when the host has been selected for traits relative to virus-vector and virus resistance.