What Thomas Seeley is up to

[Dallasbeek]

I copied this from Dr. Thomas Seeley's page on Cornell's website.  Dr. Seeley, as has been pointed out on other strings, is the researcher/writer of a couple of great bee books, the latest of which is Honey Bee Democracy.

Contemplating the results of his research will give us something to look forward to on these long, cold nights.


"At present, my main research interest is in the area of conservation biology:  determining how honey bee colonies living in the wild are able to survive without being treated with pesticides for controlling a deadly ectoparasitic mite, Varroa destructor.   Understanding how feral honey bee accomplish this will help beekeepers develop sustainable, pesticide-free approaches to beekeeping.  Preliminary work has shown that there remains a feral population of European honey bees living in the Arnot Forest, Cornell University's 4200-acre research forest located 15 miles from Ithaca, NY.  My work has also revealed that these bees have survived infestations of Varroa mites since at least 2002, that the mite populations in these colonies do not surge to high levels, and that this population of bees is not maintained by immigration of bees from managed (pesticide-treated) colonies living outside the forest.  I am currently investigating three possible mechanisms that can explain how the honey bees of the Arnot Forest are able to survive on their own:  1) these bees have evolved means of resistance to the mites, 2) the mites on these bees have evolved low intrinsic rate of reproduction (avirulence), and 3) these bees possess colony-level traits (such as small colony size and frequent swarming) that reduce mite populations."

[Jow4040]

Sounds like it could produce some interesting work.

For those that haven't seen his work on honeybee democracy its well worth a read and or watch on youtube.

Interesting stuff.

Joe.

[hjon71]

I thoroughly enjoyed Honeybee Democracy.
And I think he is right on all 3 suppositions concerning Varroa; There could be others.

[rdy-b]

the fact of the matter is that in most places feral bees have been displaced by  swarms of bees head by commercial queen breeders
so the BIG question --why has it taken so long to to ask this question---truth be-told it has been ask before--
s0 was the study PER VERVIEWD or is it a opinoin laid on the coat tails of  those before him ???

[buzzbee]

Randyb,
I think your spellchecker must be wreaking havoc on your post! I think you intended to type peer reviewed in that last post?
While I think it may be a good study, 4200 acres may not encompass enough area of isolation to rule out outside influence.

[Michael Bush]

>"At present, my main research interest is in the area of conservation biology:  determining how honey bee colonies living in the wild are able to survive without being treated with pesticides for controlling a deadly ectoparasitic mite, Varroa destructor..."

Yet the "experts" keep telling me this is impossible...

[Richard M]

>"At present, my main research interest is in the area of conservation biology:  determining how honey bee colonies living in the wild are able to survive without being treated with pesticides for controlling a deadly ectoparasitic mite, Varroa destructor..."

Yet the "experts" keep telling me this is impossible...

Hosts find ways to live with parasites, it's called evolution.

In some ways it makes sense that our management could be opening them up to these vulnerabilities.

After all, name two things intrinsic to survival of bees.

• Swarming
• Aggression, nasty stinging attitude.

And what's the first thing do we do? Breed out those tendencies.

Seeing evolution in action is quite amazing.

Tasmanian Devils were very common here when I first moved to Tasmania in 1989; dead livestock, roadkill wallabies, possums etc would disappear overnight and camping out in the bush the annoying little sh-ts of things would keep you awake all night yowling and squabbling. But now, you hardly see or hear them locally as they've been wiped out to the tune of 70-80% by a nasty new disease called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_diseaseDevil Facial Tumour Disease.

It's a horrible thing and is unusual in that it's a cancer spread directly from one animal to the other when they fight (all the time), basically when it gets into a population, they're all dead by the age of 18-24 months, which is a bit awkward as the females don't normally breed until they reach two years old. It's thought that devils have very low genetic diversity, possibly because only a small seeding population made it over from the Australian mainland (where they're now extinct) before Bass Strait flooded at the end of the last ice age. Because they are so similar genetically, it is believed that one devil's immune system can't readily identify foreign cancer cells from another devil, so the cancer can spread directly, rather than being caused by a virus, such as herpes viruses, Hepatitis B etc.

Since the DFTD happened, many female devils now breed at the age of 12 months, which has never been seen previously. Jury is out on whether it's an evolutionary change in that breeding at 2 years would normally have better reproductive outcome/survival rate than breeding at 1 or if it's because the presence of older females inhibits either behaviourally or perhaps hormonally, the onset of breeding in the younger devils.

Either way, it's interesting and I guess unexpected.

[Michael Bush]

>Hosts find ways to live with parasites, it's called evolution.
>In some ways it makes sense that our management could be opening them up to these vulnerabilities.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfoursimplesteps.htm#notreatmentupside

[Richard M]

>Hosts find ways to live with parasites, it's called evolution.
>In some ways it makes sense that our management could be opening them up to these vulnerabilities.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfoursimplesteps.htm#notreatmentupside

Interesting article Michael.

I've noticed that wild bees are smaller than hive bees and was a bit curious about why; I assumed that it was old comb that had held many generations of brood getting progressively smaller - I had no idea that the cells in foundation we use were artificially enlarged. I've seen some bees (through work, not beekeeping) that were so small that if they hadn't been in a swarm, I'd have taken them for native bees.

We are very fortunate here in that we don't have Varroa (it's not yet in Australia) nor do we have SHB, or AFAIK, CCD. One of the last bastions - who knows how successful our quarantine will be at keeping us clean.

[rdy-b]

Randyb,
I think your spellchecker must be wreaking havoc on your post! I think you intended to type peer reviewed in that last post?
While I think it may be a good study, 4200 acres may not encompass enough area of isolation to rule out outside influence.

yes indeed sir-but when varoa came on the seen there was a big defesation of local (feral colonies) or where they just bees
that have localized from local colonies(and not feral at all)--how did wild bees become wild??? remember they are non native--so
when we talk about bees in the wild--the study speaks of bee populations that are not influenced  by managed colonies-but how could this bee--already knowing that bees as we know are non native-how was there ever bees placed -or bees with in fly zone over
the time span of the study--are they placed or are they feral--if feral -then how did they become feral--if placed how many rounds
of brood intill they become feral-for a  true depiction of events --I have taken note that this is about studies within the arnot forest
I will spend some time and look at arnot forest-must not overlook the obvious*-and its my eyes that are going and going fast(not my spell checker)-i will try to get proper glases to read by and not from the dollar store--RDY-B

[derekm]

Randyb,
I think your spellchecker must be wreaking havoc on your post! I think you intended to type peer reviewed in that last post?
While I think it may be a good study, 4200 acres may not encompass enough area of isolation to rule out outside influence.

yes indeed sir-but when varoa came on the seen there was a big defesation of local (feral colonies) or where they just bees
that have localized from local colonies(and not feral at all)--how did wild bees become wild??? remember they are non native--so
when we talk about bees in the wild--the study speaks of bee populations that are not influenced  by managed colonies-but how could this bee--already knowing that bees as we know are non native-how was there ever bees placed -or bees with in fly zone over
the time span of the study--are they placed or are they feral--if feral -then how did they become feral--if placed how many rounds
of brood intill they become feral-for a  true depiction of events --I have taken note that this is about studies within the arnot forest
I will spend some time and look at arnot forest-must not overlook the obvious*-and its my eyes that are going and going fast(not my spell checker)-i will try to get proper glases to read by and not from the dollar store--RDY-B

honeybees have probably been in those woods for more than 300 years. They are recorded to have feral populations in Ohio in 1704

[Richard M]

honeybees have probably been in those woods for more than 300 years. They are recorded to have feral populations in Ohio in 1704

Makes you wonder at what point an animal stops being feral and is considered to be naturalised/native?

[buzzbee]

DerekM,
From where is your reference to honeybees in Ohio in 1704? I did't think there was even much fur trading there before the mid 1700's.    American settlements didn't start moving that far west until after the Revolution.

[buzzbee]

honeybees have probably been in those woods for more than 300 years. They are recorded to have feral populations in Ohio in 1704

Makes you wonder at what point an animal stops being feral and is considered to be naturalised/native?

It is a valid point of when they become naturalized/native. Perhaps when the DNA makeup starts to change? Or some other mutation due to local influence?  I have seen many explanations,all with points to ponder.

[Sweet!]

honeybees have probably been in those woods for more than 300 years. They are recorded to have feral populations in Ohio in 1704

Makes you wonder at what point an animal stops being feral and is considered to be naturalised/native?

It is a valid point of when they become naturalized/native. Perhaps when the DNA makeup starts to change? Or some other mutation due to local influence?  I have seen many explanations,all with points to ponder.

I imagine it's when they gain a native predator.  ;)

[Michael Bush]

The French were trading fur in Ohio in the early 1700s.
It was part of the Northwest Territory of the US from 1787 until it became a state on March 1, 1803.  By then it was heavily settled.  There were almost always bees in residence when settlers arrived.  You can speculate on why (everyone else did).  Jefferson's theory (often repeated) was that they spread ahead of the settlers as settlers moved west. (the oft repeated but never sourced by Jefferson "white man's flies" quote from Jefferson)  I would guess there were plenty of bees there in 1704 from whatever source...

[BlueBee]

Cadillac founded Fort Detroit in 1701.

[derekm]

honeybees have probably been in those woods for more than 300 years. They are recorded to have feral populations in Ohio in 1704

Makes you wonder at what point an animal stops being feral and is considered to be naturalised/native?

It is a valid point of when they become naturalized/native. Perhaps when the DNA makeup starts to change? Or some other mutation due to local influence?  I have seen many explanations,all with points to ponder.

in the  UK its taken as being present by 6000BC  when the land bridge to the continent was inundated. Thus Apis mellifera mellifera is considered native, although it didn't recolonise until the deciduous trees reappeared after the last glaciation, this was before the inundation.