Comparative prevalence of Nosema ceranae infection between wild and managed honey bee(Apis mellifera) colonies in South Texas

IF 2.4 3区 农林科学 Q1 ENTOMOLOGY
Myra Dickey, Mckaela Whilden, Jordan Twombly Ellis, Juliana Rangel
{"title":"Comparative prevalence of Nosema ceranae infection between wild and managed honey bee(Apis mellifera) colonies in South Texas","authors":"Myra Dickey,&nbsp;Mckaela Whilden,&nbsp;Jordan Twombly Ellis,&nbsp;Juliana Rangel","doi":"10.1007/s13592-024-01107-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Over the last few decades, honey bee (<i>Apis mellifera</i>) populations have been challenged by multiple factors including pathogens and parasites, which often act concurrently to cause severe health problems. One honey bee pathogen linked to colony losses worldwide is the microsporidian <i>Nosema</i> spp<i>.</i>, which affects adult bees. Workers infected with <i>Nosema</i> often exhibit shorter lifespans, forage prematurely, and are susceptible to other pathogens. Our main goals were to quantify the levels of <i>Nosema</i> spp<i>.</i> infection in a wild honey bee population at the Welder Wildlife Refuge (WWR) in south Texas, and to compare them to infection levels in colonies from a nearby managed apiary. We hypothesized that wild colonies would have lower infection levels than managed colonies due to their unique life history traits, including lower colony density per unit area, which decreases the likelihood of cross-colony disease transmission. We collected foragers from the entrance of 18 wild colonies at the WWR and 19 managed colonies at the nearby apiary. We then performed individual <i>Nosema</i> spp<i>.</i> spore counts on ten workers per colony to calculate an average spore count per bee. On average, wild colonies had 25,556 spores/bee, while managed colonies had 130,526 spores/bee, both considered to be low. There were no differences in infection levels between colony types. All samples tested positive for <i>N. ceranae</i>; no <i>N. apis</i> was detected. Our results suggest that wild colonies at the WWR have historically been infected with <i>Nosema</i> spp. at low levels and can thrive in the absence of human intervention.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8078,"journal":{"name":"Apidologie","volume":"55 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Apidologie","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13592-024-01107-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENTOMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over the last few decades, honey bee (Apis mellifera) populations have been challenged by multiple factors including pathogens and parasites, which often act concurrently to cause severe health problems. One honey bee pathogen linked to colony losses worldwide is the microsporidian Nosema spp., which affects adult bees. Workers infected with Nosema often exhibit shorter lifespans, forage prematurely, and are susceptible to other pathogens. Our main goals were to quantify the levels of Nosema spp. infection in a wild honey bee population at the Welder Wildlife Refuge (WWR) in south Texas, and to compare them to infection levels in colonies from a nearby managed apiary. We hypothesized that wild colonies would have lower infection levels than managed colonies due to their unique life history traits, including lower colony density per unit area, which decreases the likelihood of cross-colony disease transmission. We collected foragers from the entrance of 18 wild colonies at the WWR and 19 managed colonies at the nearby apiary. We then performed individual Nosema spp. spore counts on ten workers per colony to calculate an average spore count per bee. On average, wild colonies had 25,556 spores/bee, while managed colonies had 130,526 spores/bee, both considered to be low. There were no differences in infection levels between colony types. All samples tested positive for N. ceranae; no N. apis was detected. Our results suggest that wild colonies at the WWR have historically been infected with Nosema spp. at low levels and can thrive in the absence of human intervention.

Abstract Image

德克萨斯州南部野生和人工饲养蜜蜂(Apis mellifera)蜂群中神经野病毒(Nosema ceranae)感染率的比较
在过去几十年中,蜜蜂(Apis mellifera)种群一直受到病原体和寄生虫等多种因素的挑战,这些病原体和寄生虫往往同时作用,造成严重的健康问题。与全球蜂群损失有关的一种蜜蜂病原体是影响成年蜜蜂的微孢子虫诺塞玛属。感染了诺斯玛病的工蜂通常寿命较短,觅食过早,并且容易感染其他病原体。我们的主要目标是量化得克萨斯州南部韦尔德野生动物保护区(WWR)中野生蜜蜂种群的诺斯玛属感染水平,并将其与附近管理养蜂场蜂群的感染水平进行比较。我们假设野生蜂群的感染水平会低于人工饲养的蜂群,这是因为野生蜂群具有独特的生活史特征,包括单位面积内蜂群密度较低,从而降低了疾病跨蜂群传播的可能性。我们从 WWR 的 18 个野生蜂群和附近养蜂场的 19 个管理蜂群的入口处收集了觅食者。然后,我们对每个蜂群的十只工蜂进行了诺斯玛属孢子计数,计算出每只蜜蜂的平均孢子数。野生蜂群平均每只蜜蜂有 25,556 个孢子,而人工饲养的蜂群平均每只蜜蜂有 130,526 个孢子,两者的感染率都很低。不同类型蜂群的感染水平没有差异。所有样本的蜂毒检测结果均呈阳性,未检测到蜂毒。我们的研究结果表明,世界野生动物保护区的野生蜂群受诺瑟玛属(Nosema spp.)感染的程度一直很低,在没有人为干预的情况下也能茁壮成长。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Apidologie
Apidologie 生物-昆虫学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
64
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Apidologie is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to the biology of insects belonging to the superfamily Apoidea. Its range of coverage includes behavior, ecology, pollination, genetics, physiology, systematics, toxicology and pathology. Also accepted are papers on the rearing, exploitation and practical use of Apoidea and their products, as far as they make a clear contribution to the understanding of bee biology. Apidologie is an official publication of the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) and Deutscher Imkerbund E.V. (D.I.B.)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信