AbstractIn the "contributory" citizen science project INSIGNIA, beekeepers carried out non-invasive sampling of their own honey bee colonies for an environmental investigation of pesticide residues and pollen plant origin. We surveyed several traits and attitudes of 69 of the volunteering beekeepers from ten countries. We found that their motivation was similar to that found in previous studies of environmental volunteer motivation, with helping the environment and contributing to scientific knowledge being strong motivators. Our results suggest that receiving laboratory analysis results of the samples from their colonies is the most meaningful way of appreciation for beekeepers, but is not their primary reason for participation. A citizen scientist beekeeper in this study spent on average 10.4 working hours on the project during a sampling season. Our study indicates that most of our volunteers would participate in similar future investigations, or would recommend participation to other beekeepers, underlining the potential of beekeepers as citizen scientists in honey bee research.
AbstractHoney bees are social insects that show division of labor and sexual dimorphism. Female honey bees differentiate in two different castes, queens or worker bees, while males are called drones. Worker bees have different tasks in the hive including collection of food, its processing, caring for brood, protecting the hive, or producing wax. The drones' only role is to mate with a virgin queen. Many studies have dealt with differences in physiology, behavior, and morphology of workers and drones. This is the first study that demonstrates differences in element accumulation and composition between workers and drones honey bees. Using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, we found that worker honey bees have higher concentrations of most elements analyzed. Drones had higher concentrations of elements essential to bees, Na, P, S, Zn, Cu, and especially Se (2.2 × higher), which is known to be important for sperm quality and fertility in many animals. Until now higher Se content was not observed in male insects. These differences can be attributed to different environmental exposure, reproductive role of drones, but mostly to the food workers and drones consume. Worker bees feed on bee bread, which is rich in minerals. Drones are fed food pre-processed by worker bees.
The socio-economic impacts of COVID-19 on society have yet to be truly revealed; there is no doubt that the pandemic has severely affected the daily lives of most of humanity. It is to be expected that the research activities of scientists could be impacted to varying degrees, but no data exist on how COVID-19 has affected research specifically. Here, we show that the still ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has already diversely and negatively affected bee research at a global level. An online survey disseminated through the global COLOSS honey bee research association showed that every participant (n = 230 from 56 countries) reported an impact on one or more of their activities. Activities that require travelling or the physical presence of people (meetings and conferences, teaching and extension) were affected the most, but also laboratory and field activities, daily operations, supervision and other activities were affected to varying degrees. Since the basic activities are very similar for many research fields, it appears as if our findings for bee research can be extrapolated to other fields. In the light of our data, we recommend that stakeholders such as governments and funding bodies who support research should facilitate the wide implementation of web-based information technology required for efficient online communication for research and education, as well as adequately loosened restriction measures with respect to field and laboratory work. Finally, increased flexibility in administration and extension of research grants and fellowships seem to be needed. It is apparent that adequate responses by all stakeholders are required to limit the impact of COVID-19 and future pandemics on bee science and other research fields.
The socio-economic impacts of COVID-19 on society have yet to be truly revealed; there is no doubt that the pandemic has severely affected the daily lives of most of humanity. It is to be expected that the research activities of scientists could be impacted to varying degrees, but no data exist on how COVID-19 has affected research specifically. Here, we show that the still ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has already diversely and negatively affected bee research at a global level. An online survey disseminated through the global COLOSS honey bee research association showed that every participant (n¼230 from 56 countries) reported an impact on one or more of their activities. Activities that require travelling or the physical presence of people (meetings and conferences, teaching and extension) were affected the most, but also laboratory and field activities, daily operations, supervision and other activities were affected to varying degrees. Since the basic activities are very similar for many research fields, it appears as if our findings for bee research can be extrapolated to other fields. In the light of our data, we recommend that stakeholders such as governments and funding bodies who support research should facilitate the wide implementation of web-based information technology required for efficient online communication for research and education, as well as adequately loosened restriction measures with respect to field and laboratory work. Finally, increased flexibility in administration and extension of research grants and fellowships seem to be needed. It is apparent that adequate responses by all stakeholders are required to limit the impact of COVID-19 and future pandemics on bee science and other research fields. ; The Ricola Foundation Nature and Culture and Vetopharma. ; http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjar20 ; am2020 ; Zoology and Entomology
INSIGNIA aims to design and test an innovative, non-invasive, scientifically proven citizen science environmental monitoring protocol for the detection of pesticides by honey bees. It is a 30-month pilot project initiated and financed by the EC (PP-1-1-2018; EC SANTE). The study is being carried out by a consortium of specialists in honey bees, apiculture, statistics, analytics, modelling, extension, social science and citizen science from twelve countries. Honey bee colonies are excellent bio-samplers of biological material such as nectar, pollen and plant pathogens, as well as non-biological material such as pesticides or airborne contamination. Honey bee colonies forage over a circle of 1 km radius, increasing to several km if required, depending on the availability and attractiveness of food. All material collected is accumulated in the hive. ; The honey bee colony can provide four main matrices for environmental monitoring: bees, honey, pollen and wax. Because of the non-destructive remit of the project, for pesticides, pollen is the focal matrix and used as trapped pollen and beebread in this study. Although beeswax can be used as a passive sampler for pesticides, this matrix is not being used in INSIGNIA because of its polarity dependent absorbance, which limits the required wide range of pesticides to be monitored. Alternatively, two innovative non-biological matrices are being tested: i) the "Beehold tube", a tube lined with the generic absorbent polyethylene-glycol PEG, through which hive-entering bees are forced to pass, and ii) the "APIStrip" (Absorbing Pesticides In-hive Strips) with a specific pesticide absorbent which is hung between the bee combs. ; Beebread and pollen collected in pollen traps are being sampled every two weeks to be analysed for pesticide residues and to record foraging conditions. Trapped pollen provides snapshots of the foraging conditions and contaminants on a single day. During the active season, the majority of beebread is consumed within days, so beebread provides recent, random sampling results. The Beehold tube and the APIStrips are present throughout the 2-weeks sampling periods in the beehive, absorbing and accumulating the incoming contaminants. The four matrices i.e. trapped pollen, beebread, Beehold tubes and APIStrips will be analysed for the presence of pesticides. The botanical origin of trapped pollen, beebread and pollen in the Beehold tubes will also be determined with an innovative molecular technique. Data on pollen and pesticide presence will then be combined to obtain information on foraging conditions and pesticide use, together with evaluation of the CORINE database for land use and pesticide legislation to model the exposure risks to honey bees and wild bees. All monitoring steps from sampling through to analysis will be studied and rigorously tested in four countries in Year 1, and the best practices will then be ring-tested in nine countries in Year 2. Information about the course of the project, its results and publications will be available on the INSIGNIA website www.insignia-bee.eu and via social media: on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/insigniabee.eu/); Instagram insignia_bee); and Twitter (insignia_bee). Although the analyses of pesticide residues and pollen identification will not be completed until December 2019, in my talk I will present preliminary results of the Year 1 sampling. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
INSIGNIA aims to design and test an innovative, non-invasive, scientifically proven citizen science environmental monitoring protocol for the detection of pesticides via honey bees. It is a pilot project initiated and financed by the European Commission (PP-1-1-2018; EC SANTE). The study is being carried out by a consortium of specialists in honey bees, apiculture, chemistry, molecular biology, statistics, analytics, modelling, extension, social science and citizen science from twelve countries. Honey bee colonies are excellent bio-samplers of biological material such as nectar, pollen and plant pathogens, as well as non-biological material such as pesticides or airborne contamination. Honey bee colonies forage over a circle of about 1 km radius, increasing to several km if required depending on the availability and attractiveness of food. All material collected is concentrated in the hive, and the honey bee colony can provide four main matrices for environmental monitoring: bees, honey, pollen and wax. For pesticides, pollen and wax are the focal matrices. Pollen collected in pollen traps will be sampled every two weeks to record foraging conditions. During the season, most of pollen is consumed within days, so beebread can provide recent, random sampling results. On the other hand wax acts as a passive sampler, building up an archive of pesticides that have entered the hive. Alternative in-hive passive samplers will be tested to replicate wax as a "pesticide-sponge". Samples will be analysed for the presence of pesticides and the botanical origin of the pollen using an ITS2 DNA metabarcoding approach. Data on pollen and pesticides will be then be combined to obtain information on foraging conditions and pesticide use, together with evaluation of the CORINE database for land use and pesticide legislation to model the exposure risks to honey bees and wild bees. All monitoring steps from sampling through to analysis will be studied and tested in four countries in year 1, and the best practices will then be ring-tested in nine countries in year 2. Information about the course of the project and its results and publications will be available in the INSIGNIA website www.insignia-bee.eu. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
In 2008 the COLOSS network was formed by honey bee experts from Europe and the USA. The primary objectives set by this scientific network were to explain and to prevent large scale losses of honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. In June 2008 COLOSS obtained four years support from the European Union from COST and was designated as COST Action FA0803 - COLOSS (Prevention of honey bee COlony LOSSes). To enable the comparison of loss data between participating countries, a standardized COLOSS questionnaire was developed. Using this questionnaire information on honey bee losses has been collected over two years. Survey data presented in this study were gathered in 2009 from 12 countries and in 2010 from 24 countries. Mean honey bee losses in Europe varied widely, between 7-22% over the 2008-9 winter and between 7-30% over the 2009-10 winter. An important finding is that for all countries which participated in 2008-9, winter losses in 2009-10 were found to be substantially higher. In 2009-10, winter losses in South East Europe were at such a low level that the factors causing the losses in other parts of Europe were absent, or at a level which did not affect colony survival. The five provinces of China, which were included in 2009-10, showed very low mean (4%) A. mellifera winter losses. In six Canadian provinces, mean winter losses in 2010 varied between 16-25%, losses in Nova Scotia (40%) being exceptionally high. In most countries and in both monitoring years, hobbyist beekeepers (1-50 colonies) experienced higher losses than practitioners with intermediate beekeeping operations (51-500 colonies). This relationship between scale of beekeeping and extent of losses effect was also observed in 2009-10, but was less pronounced. In Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland, 2008-9 mean winter losses for beekeepers who reported 'disappeared' colonies were significantly higher compared to mean winter losses of beekeepers who did not report 'disappeared' colonies. Mean 2008-9 winter losses for those beekeepers in the Netherlands who reported symptoms similar to "Colony Collapse Disorder" (CCD), namely: 1. no dead bees in or surrounding the hive while; 2. capped brood was present, were significantly higher than mean winter losses for those beekeepers who reported 'disappeared' colonies without the presence of capped brood in the empty hives. In the winter of 2009-10 in the majority of participating countries, beekeepers who reported 'disappeared' colonies experienced higher winter losses compared with beekeepers, who experienced winter losses but did not report 'disappeared' colonies.
In 2008 the COLOSS network was formed by honey bee experts from Europe and the USA. The primary objectives set by this scientific network were to explain and to prevent large scale losses of honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. In June 2008 COLOSS obtained four years support from the European Union from COST and was designated as COST Action FA0803 - COLOSS (Prevention of honey bee COlony LOSSes). To enable the comparison of loss data between participating countries, a standardized COLOSS questionnaire was developed. Using this questionnaire information on honey bee losses has been collected over two years. Survey data presented in this study were gathered in 2009 from 12 countries and in 2010 from 24 countries. Mean honey bee losses in Europe varied widely, between 7-22% over the 2008-9 winter and between 7-30% over the 2009-10 winter. An important finding is that for all countries which participated in 2008-9, winter losses in 2009-10 were found to be substantially higher. In 2009-10, winter losses in South East Europe were at such a low level that the factors causing the losses in other parts of Europe were absent, or at a level which did not affect colony survival. The five provinces of China, which were included in 2009-10, showed very low mean (4%) A. mellifera winter losses. In six Canadian provinces, mean winter losses in 2010 varied between 16-25%, losses in Nova Scotia (40%) being exceptionally high. In most countries and in both monitoring years, hobbyist beekeepers (1-50 colonies) experienced higher losses than practitioners with intermediate beekeeping operations (51-500 colonies). This relationship between scale of beekeeping and extent of losses effect was also observed in 2009-10, but was less pronounced. In Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland, 2008-9 mean winter losses for beekeepers who reported 'disappeared' colonies were significantly higher compared to mean winter losses of beekeepers who did not report 'disappeared' colonies. Mean 2008-9 winter losses for those beekeepers in the Netherlands who reported symptoms similar to "Colony Collapse Disorder" (CCD), namely: 1. no dead bees in or surrounding the hive while; 2. capped brood was present, were significantly higher than mean winter losses for those beekeepers who reported 'disappeared' colonies without the presence of capped brood in the empty hives. In the winter of 2009-10 in the majority of participating countries, beekeepers who reported 'disappeared' colonies experienced higher winter losses compared with beekeepers, who experienced winter losses but did not report 'disappeared' colonies.
