| Awareness of the decline of honey bees and other pollinators took a
dramatic upturn after two recent events: the October 2006 release of the
National Research Council report “Status of Pollinators in North America”
(NRC 2007) followed by conspicuously high death rates of colonies of honey
bees, Apis mellifera, in the winters of 2006-2007 and 2007-2008
(vanEngelsdorp et al. 2008), an event now known as Colony Collapse Disorder
(CCD). All at once, managed pollinators were popularly recognized for what
they always were: essential members of American agro-ecosystems.
Although the number of managed bee hives in the U.S. has been declining
since the 1940s, the trend was exacerbated in the 1980s by the arrival
of two exotic parasitic mites, Acarapis woodi and Varroa destructor
(Webster and Delaplane 2001). But it is plain that more factors are implicated
in bee decline than parasitic mites. A metagenomic analysis of bees from
the 2006-2007 CCD event showed that virtually all bees from CCD-positive
colonies had four pathogens: two viruses and two species of microsporidia,
Nosema
spp. (Cox-Foster et al. 2007). Risks from pesticides, both in-hive and
out-, are also suspected; surveys at Penn State have found an average of
six different pesticide residues in over 700 pollen samples analyzed from
beekeepers across the country; pesticide frequency and levels are even
higher in beeswax combs (Frazier et al. 2008).
Non-Apis bees, including all native bees and a few imports, are
also in decline. Most non-Apis bees exist as non-managed wild populations;
they represent a significant fraction of nature’s “free” background pollination
(Delaplane and Mayer 2000). But there is disturbing evidence of regional
extinctions. At least five species of North American bumble bees, Bombus
spp., have disappeared from much of their native range since the late 1990s
(Winter et al. 2006). Circumstantial evidence implicates spill-over infections
of Nosema spp. and other pathogens from commercially-produced Bombus
(Thorp
and Shepherd 2005, Winter et al. 2006).
The problems with managed pollinators cannot be relegated to one or
few causative agents. In the case of honey bees, it is likely that CCD
is a product of negatively interacting factors in pathology, immunology,
nutrition, toxicology, genetics, ecosystems management, and bee husbandry
(CCD Steering Committee, 2007). In the case of non-Apis bees the
list is the same – with the added disadvantage that the theory and practice
of managing these bees are more poorly worked out.
A problem of this complexity and importance is best addressed by a nationally-coordinated
team of experts with proven capacity in extension, genomics, pathology,
toxicology, management, pollination, and behavior with Apis and
non-Apis. The present CAP team originated from a rapid-response
committee, NC508, Sustainable Solutions to Problems Affecting Honey Bee
Health. Our group includes long-standing players in bee extension and research,
Apis
and non-Apis, including individuals involved in recent studies on
CCD. Among the 21 collaborators, 18 have research appointments and 13 have
extension appointments. Three have joined our team since the original proposal.
Included here are the extension apiculturists of eleven states and the
non-Apis extension specialists of two. The Integrated feature of
this Coordinated Agricultural Project is inherent to the team.
We are reapplying for the Managed Pollinator CAP fund to continue work
sponsored by NRI in 2008-2009. Our objectives and methods are largely unchanged
from the imperatives that emerged after the 2008 reverse-site visit. This
document is a synthesis of our original proposal, revisions following the
reverse-site visit, and changes to our plans occurring over the last 12
months; much of it will look unchanged to the review committee. Therefore,
the review team may appreciate knowing the most important changes:
The addition of Jamie Ellis (University of Florida) as a cooperator
in the sentinel apiary project (Objective 1.3)
The addition of Maryann Frazier (Penn State) as a new researcher on
sublethal effects of pesticides on Apis nurse bees and immatures
(new Objective 1.8)
The change of the Varroa IPM economics appraisal from a field
demonstration to an off-season survey (Objective 1.9)
The expansion of Objective 2.2 by Nick Calderone to include an appraisal
of a university-based multi-trait selection program
The addition of John Skinner (University of Tennessee) as a cooperator
in the queen breeding extension effort (Objective 4.2)
Alterations to the pre- and post-project survey of beekeeper sustainable
practices (Objective 4.4) to remove bias probability
Sections entitled Progress in 2008-2009 give a report of activity
and accomplishments for the 2008-2009 calendar year.
Our long-term goal remains to restore large and diverse populations
of managed bee pollinators across the United States to sustain natural
and agricultural plant communities.
The supporting goals of this proposal are to:
1. Determine and mitigate causes of CCD: study the interactive
effects of disease agents (pathogens, parasites) and environmental factors
(pesticides, nutrition) on honey bee health
2. Incorporate traits that help honey bees resist pathogens and parasitic
mites and increase genetic diversity of commercially available stocks
3. Improve conservation and management of non-Apis pollinators
by identifying new or emerging pathogens and parasites, abiotic stresses,
habitat degradation, and practices that optimize their pollinating efficacy
4. Deliver research knowledge to client groups by developing a technology
transfer program for queen breeders and a literature on Best Management
and Conservation Practices for managed pollinators as an eXtension Community
of Practice.
Photo by Zachary Huang,
Michigan State University |
|