Bee Lice Research Articles

Diagnostic study on major honeybee disease, pests and predators in North Western Ethiopia.

The study was conducted in Pawe district from Benishangul-Gumuz and Jawi and Fagita Lekoma districts from the Amhara region to investigate major honeybee pests, predators and diseases. Using a purposive sampling technique, 183 households were interviewed, and 240 samples were collected for laboratory analysis of bee disease; data were analysed using descriptive statistics. The share of hive types owned by sampled respondents was 88.6%; overall, 1.1% and 10.3% were traditional, transitional and modern beehives, respectively. About 92% of the sample respondents acquired their base colonies by catching swarm bees on the apex of trees. The majority of beekeepers executed external inspections of their colony, whereas only 50% carried out internal inspections. Based on the responses of beekeepers, around 48.9%, 56.3% and 23.1% of colonies absconded every year from Pawe, Jawi and Fagita Lekoma districts, respectively. Ants, wax moths, bee lice, beetles, spiders, birds, monkeys and honey badgers were the major honeybee pests and predators discovered in study areas in decreasing order. Concerning the incidence of Varroa mites, Nosema apis and amoeba disease, 27.5%, 60% and 71.6% of samples showed positive results in study locations, respectively. From this result, we observed that ants, wax moths, bee lice, beetles, spiders, birds, monkeys and honey badgers were the major honeybee pests and predators. The prevalence of amoeba disease was comparatively higher in highland areas and in the summer season. This finding suggests the need for the alertness of beekeepers in controlling bee disease and pests and strengthening bee colonies through seasonal colony management. There should be a strict quarantine, and check-up undertaken when a new colony is purchased from one region to another is essential.

Diagnostic Survey of Honeybee Diseases, Pests and Predators in Selected Districts of West Hararghe Zone of Oromia, Ethiopia

The study was conducted in Darolabu, Ciro and Gemechis Districts of West Hararghe Zone with the objective of determining the occurrence and prevalence of honeybee diseases, pests and predators and their effects on honeybee colonies and bee products in selected districts of West Hararghe Zone. Three districts were purposefully selected based on their relative beekeeping potentials in highland, midland and lowland agro–ecologies. Three Kebeles from each district and ten beekeepers from each Kebeles were selected for the interview. For major honey bee diseases and pest examination, a total of 68 suspected bee colonies were sampled. Out of the total respondents, 58% and 77.4% of beekeepers replied that honeybee colonies and honey yield, respectively, were decreasing from time to time. The respondents listed a lack of bee forages, disease, pest and predators as the major constraints of beekeeping in the study area in their decreasing orders. Wax moth, honey badger and hive beetles were more commonly occurring pests and predators, while nosema and amoeba were among the important diseases. The prevalence all bee diseases and pests including nosema, amoeba, varroa mite, bee lice, wax moth, and small hive beetle, was not associated with either agro-ecology or hive type. The factors contributing for their prevalence across all agro-ecologies and hive types need further study.

Insect genomics: A lousy fly

The bee louse (Braula coeca) is a honeybee inquiline and a long-standing taxonomic mystery. A new study unravels their genomic architecture and shows that these enigmatic flies have evolved from scale insect-exploiting drosophilid ancestors and share genetic similarities with their honeybee hosts.

A Hitchhiker’s Ride: The Honey Bee Louse Braula Coeca (Diptera: Braulidae) Selects its Host by Eavesdropping

The bee louse Braula spp. had until recently a distribution coincident with its host the honey bee. The adult fly usually attaches to a worker honey bee and steals food from its mouth. However, not all worker bees carry Braula spp. and the mechanism used by Braula spp. to select hosts is not well understood. Using choice remounting bioassays and chemical analyses, we determined host selection and the cues used by B. coeca, a species associated with the African honey bee Apis mellifera scutellata. Braula coeca successfully remounted bees from which they were initially removed and preferred their mandibular gland pheromones (MDG) over those of bees not carrying them. The bee lice did not show any preference for the cuticular hydrocarbons of both types of workers. Chemical analyses of the MDG extracts, revealed quantitative differences between the two categories of workers, with workers carrying B. coeca having more of the queen substance (9-oxo-2(E)-decenoic acid) and worker substance (10-hydroxy-2(E)-decenoic). Braula coeca showed a dose response to the queen substance, indicating its ability to use host derived kairomones as cues that allowed it to benefit from trophallactic dominance by individuals that have a higher probability of being fed by other workers.

The genome of the blind bee louse fly reveals deep convergences with its social host and illuminates Drosophila origins

Social insects' nests harbor intruders known as inquilines,1 which are usually related to their hosts.2,3 However, distant non-social inquilines may also show convergences with their hosts,4,5 although the underlying genomic changes remain unclear. We analyzed the genome of the wingless and blind bee louse fly Braula coeca, an inquiline kleptoparasite of the western honey bee, Apis mellifera.6,7 Using large phylogenomic data, we confirmed recent accounts that the bee louse fly is a drosophilid8,9 and showed that it had likely evolved from a sap-breeder ancestor associated with honeydew and scale insects' wax. Unlike many parasites, the bee louse fly genome did not show significant erosion or strict reliance on an endosymbiont, likely due to a relatively recent age of inquilinism. However, we observed a horizontal transfer of a transposon and a striking parallel evolution in a set of gene families between the honey bee and the bee louse fly. Convergences included genes potentially involved in metabolism and immunity and the loss of nearly all bitter-tasting gustatory receptors, in agreement with life in a protective nest and a diet of honey, pollen, and beeswax. Vision and odorant receptor genes also exhibited rapid losses. Only genes whose orthologs in the closely related Drosophila melanogaster respond to honey bee pheromone components or floral aroma were retained, whereas the losses included orthologous receptors responsive to the anti-ovarian honey bee queen pheromones. Hence, deep genomic convergences can underlie major phenotypic transitions during the evolution of inquilinism between non-social parasites and their social hosts.

Prevalence of Varroa mites (Varroa destructor Anderson & Trueman) and bee lice (Bruala coeca Nitzsch) in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies in Libya.

Primary key pest affecting the apiculture business in many areas of the globe is the ecto parasite Varroa mite (Varroa destructor), recently, bee lice have become a considerable bee pest. In this study, the ecto parasites that infest honey bees, were investigated during the spring of 2013. A total of 66 apiaries were investigated from different geographical regions in Libya: 34 apiaries from the southern region, 21 apiaries from the north-eastern region, and 11 apiaries from the north-western region. Three bee colonies were randomly chosen from each apiary (316 colonies). From each colony, 300 worker bees were taken as samples, put in container filled with 100 ml of alcohol, and transported to the Honey bee Laboratory-Plant Protection Department at the University of Tripoli's. The parasites were separated from the bees and identified, and the infestation rates were calculated. The study of the parasite distribution clearly showed that Varroa mites were present in all regions. However, the degree of mite density varies not only between apiaries but also between colonies in the same apiary, while the bee louse, Barulla coeca, was detected in 23.1% and 5.8% of apiaries in the western region and southern region of Libya, respectively. On the other hand, all the inspected apiaries in the northern region were not infested. Lack of knowledge about honey bee parasites, poor management practices, and the lack of proper distance between hives of migrated apiaries have been attributed as the possible reason for the spread of these two parasites, especially the Varroa mites in the country.

The exceptional attachment ability of the ectoparasitic bee louse Braula coeca (Diptera, Braulidae) on the honeybee

AbstractBee lice (Braulidae) are small parasitic flies, which are adapted to live on their bee host. As such, the wingless Braula coeca is a parasite of the common honey bee Apis mellifera and it is well adapted to attach to its hairy surface. The attachment system of B. coeca provides a secure grip on the fine setae of the bee. This is crucial for the parasite survival, as detachment from the host is fatal for the bee louse. The feet morphology of B. coeca is well adapted to the challenging bee surface, notably by strongly broadened claws, which are split into a high number of comb‐like teeth, perfectly matching the diameter of the bee hairs. Based on microscopy observations, both the morphology and material composition of the tarsi of B. coeca are characterized in detail. Using high‐speed video analysis, we combine the morphology data on the attachment system with a behavioural context. Furthermore, we directly measured the attachment forces generated by the bee lice in contact with the host. In particular, the claws are involved in attachment to the host, as the interstices between the teeth‐like spines allow for the collection of several hairs and generate strong friction, when the hairs slip to the narrow gap between the spines. The overall morphology of the tarsus produces strong attachment, with average safety factors (force per body weight) around 1130, and stabilizes the tarsal chain with lateral stoppers against overflexion, but also allows for the fast detachment by the tarsal chain torsion.

Honey bee louse (Braula schmitzi) as a honey bee virus vector?

Beekeeping is considered an integral part of agriculture, either as a main or complementary activity. However, the increase in the number of managed honey bee colonies does not meet the steadily increasing need for managed pollinators in agriculture. Colony losses can be caused by honey bee viruses, which can spread between colonies and apiaries, using several alternatives such as honey bees, Varroa mites, as well as flowers, a fact that turns this kind of infection difficult to control. In this unpredictable scenario, the goal of the present study was to detect the presence of honey bee virus in bee louse (Braula schmitzi) in order to start considering bee louse as a honey bee virus vector. To our knowledge, this is the first report on the molecular detection of the bee virus (Acute bee paralysis virus, ABPV) in B. schmitzi worldwide. Although these findings are of great importance, further studies are needed to determine whether ABPV can replicate inside Braula individuals, increasing their viral load, or just transfer viral particles between bees. In addition, as the same as other bee parasites, the presence of the bee louse must be controlled to minimize the spread of bee pathogens, as ABPV.

First detailed report of infestation of African honey bees (Apis mellifera scutellata) in Angola by the bee lice Braula coeca (Diptera: Braulidae)

African apiculture presents challenges since beekeeping in many countries is still based on traditional practices rather than commercially managed plans (Dietemann, Pirk, & Crewe, 2009; Johannsmeie...

Spread and strain determination of Varroa destructor following its introduction to Mauritius and interactions with the bee louse Braula pretoriensis in honey bee colonies

Honey bees are facing many serious threats, and Varroa destructor is of major worldwide concern. V. destructor was first observed in 2010 in the south–west Inidan Ocean island of Madagascar. Varroa spp. was first suspected in Mauritius in late July 2014. Two surveys were conducted in September and November 2014 in Mauritius and Rodrigues. The aims of these surveys were to confirm the presence of Varroa on Mauritius, determine the species and strain and to study its spread and interactions with the bee louse Braula pretoriensis. Honey bees were sampled from different sites. V. destructor and the bee louse Braula pretoriensis infestation rates were measured for each colony and apiary. V. destructor presence was confirmed and observed in the Central and Northern part of Mauritius, but was not detected in Rodrigues. B. pretoriensis was observed on both islands. V. destructor partial mitochondrial region of the CO1 showed that the Mauritius K strain found was different from the one from Madagascar. In Mauritius, B. pretoriensis numbers were significantly higher in colonies infested by V. destructor; however, bee louse infestation rates were similar in both islands in sites without the varroa mite. Although bee louse population regulation by honey bees is unknown, individual and social behaviors regulating V. destructor populations within colonies are not sufficient to maintain low levels of both B. pretoriensis and V. destructor. Sanitary measures were proposed, some of which are currently being applied to limit the spread of V. destructor across the island.

Catalogue of the Egyptian Ephydroidea (Diptera: Schizophora: Acalyptratae).

We present a catalogue of all known taxa of the superfamily Ephydroidea in Egypt. Old World synonymies, type localities, type depositories, world distributions by biogeographic realm(s) and country, Egyptian localities and dates of collection are provided. A total number of 117 species belonging to 45 genera, 18 tribes, 7 subfamilies, and representing 3 families has been catalogued. The treated families are: Ephydridae (shore flies orbrine flies), Drosophilidae (vinegar flies or fruit flies) and Braulidae (bee lice). One shore fly species, Psilopa clara (Wollaston, 1858), is recorded for the first time from Egypt. Two new synonyms of shore flies are proposed, namely: Philotelma ulianai Raffone, 2011 = Ephydra (Ephydra) macellaria Egger, 1862 and Notiphila rufitarsis Macquart, 1851 = Allotrichoma biroi Cresson, 1929. Lectotypes are designated for three shore fly species, namely: Psilopa pectinata Hendel, 1931; Rhynchopsilopa nitidissima Hendel, 1931 and Notiphila rufitarsis Macquart, 1851.

Assessment of beekeeping production system and constraints in Sude Woreda, Arsi Zone Oromia Ethiopia

The study was conducted in Arsi Zone Sude Woreda, Oromia region, Ethiopia aims to assess beekeeping production systems and constraints. Totally, 90 households were selected for the study. Semi structured questionnaire was prepared to collect primary data. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the results were organized by tables and graphs. Based on the survey result, about 97% of the respondents indicated there are different forage types of honey bees’ floras like shrubs, bushes, cultivated crops herbs, weeds and some woody plants like Wanza, Koshem, Sesbania, Acacia and Tree Lucerne. The majority (72%) of the respondents obtained beekeeping by catching swarms. Honey was harvested twice a year from May to June and September to November. The survey result also indicated that beekeeping has a huge number of constraints that hinder honey bee production and profitability. The major constraints are shortage of bee forage, pests and predators, death of colony, swarming; bad weather and marketing. Lack of bee forage associate with deforestation is the main problem, and it ranks first from all the constraints. The major pests and predators are ants, rats, beetles wax moth, bee lice, spiders, birds, lizards, snakes, etc. The respondents indicated that, they have interest to improve beekeeping practices in the area. So the government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) should support by training them on how to manage honey bee flora, and providing modern honey bee equipment to enhance the honey productivity is also very important to enhance the products of beekeeping in the study area. Key words: Beekeeping practice, Ethiopia.

English

Among all constraints of beekeeping, natural bee enemies are known to cause great damage to the life and product of honeybees by causing disappearance and migration. A study was conducted in Bale from July, 2010 to June, 2012 in six districts with the objective of assessing the effect of natural bee enemies on the life of honeybees and their products. From each districts, 3 rural kebeles (RKs) and 10 beekeepers from each RKs were purposively selected and a total of 180 beekeeper participated. The selected beekeepers were interviewed using pre-tested structured questioners and single-visit-multiple formal survey method to collect the data. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 software and descriptive analysis method. Majority (96.86%) of the respondents in the study area followed traditional production system but only few beekeepers started transitional (0.88) and modern (2.26) beekeeping production system. In the study area, honeybees’ enemies, agro-chemicals, lack of knowledge to manage bees and bee products, lack of bee colonies and bees poisoning from plants were identified as major beekeeping constraints. Respondents were asked to identify major honeybee pests and predators. Based on the result of this study, the existence of pests and predators were a major challenge to the honeybees and beekeepers in the study area. In all surveyed areas, the beekeepers reported the presence of Honey badger, spider, bee-eating birds, bee lice, beetles, wasps, Death Head hawks moth Mice and lizards in order of their decreasing importance. Traditionally, the beekeepers used their own control mechanisms of protecting these pests and predators like application of ash under the stand of the hive, hanging hives by rope on long trees, cleaning around the apiary site, using dog for large predators like honey badger, fencing their apiary site and mechanical like killing of the predators and pests, etc. About 72.6% of the respondents reported that honey production trend in the area decreased and 25.1 and 2.2% reported increasing and unchanged trend of production system, respectively. Despite the challenges of beekeeping, it is realized that there is potential of beekeeping in Bale, though the production system is traditional and there is an opportunity of improving the situation since there is plenty of beekeeping resources. Key words: Enemies, honeybee, pests and predators, Bale zone.

Assessment of honeybee enemies (pests and predators) in Bale zone, Southeastern Ethiopia

Among all constraints of beekeeping, natural bee enemies are known to cause great damage on the life and the product of honeybees through causing absconding and migration. A study was conducted in Bale from July, 2010- June, 2012 in six districts with the objective of assessing the effect of natural bee enemies on the life of honeybees and their products. From each district 3 Rural Kebeles (RK’s) and 10 beekeepers from each RK’s were purposively selected and a total of 180 beekeepers were participated. The selected beekeepers were interviewed using pre-tested structured questionnaires and single-visit-multiple formal survey method to collect the data. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 software and descriptive analysis method. The majority (96.86%) of the respondents in the study area were followed traditional production system, but only few beekeepers were started transitional (0.88) and modern (2.26) beekeeping production system. In the study area honeybees’ enemies, agro-chemicals, lack of knowledge to manage bees and bee products, lack of bee colonies and bees poisoning from plants identified as major beekeeping constraints. Respondents were asked to identify major honeybee pests and predators. Based on the result of this study, the existence of pests and predators were a major challenge to the honeybees and beekeepers in the study area. In all surveyed area the beekeepers were reported that the presence of Honey badger, spider, bee-eating birds, bee lice, Beetles, wasps, Death Head hawks moth Mice and lizards in order of their decreasing importance. Traditionally, the beekeepers were used their own control mechanisms of protecting these pests and predators like application of ash under the stand of the hive, hanging hives by rope on long trees, cleaning around the apiary site, using dog for large predators like honey badger, fencing their apiary site and mechanical like killing of the predators and pests etc. About 72.6% of the respondents reported that honey production trend in the area were decreasing and 25.1% and 2.2 was said increasing and unchanged trend of production system respectively. Despite the challenges of beekeeping, it is realized that there is potential of beekeeping in Bale, though the production system is traditional and there is an opportunity of improving the situation since there are plenty of beekeeping resources.

First report of the bee louse Braula schmitzi (Diptera: Braulidae) in apiaries of the “Los Chillos” Valley, Province of Pichincha, Ecuador

Braula spp. (Diptera: Braulidae) or bee lice, are pests widely distributed in the world, comprising five species. The present study reports for the first time the presence of Braula schmitzi in hives (n = 166) of bees (Apis sp.) in Ecuador. The findings were conducted within an epidemiological study on Varroa sp. between February and April 2015. Adult lice were separated from bees according to a protocol well established for Varroa sp., from samples obtained from bee hives (n = 25) located in Los Chillos Valley province of Pichincha. The hives were located between 2486 and 3279 m above the sea level. The specimens were identified as B. schmitzi on the basis of the morphological characteristics using scanning electron microscope. Description of males and females in ventral and dorsal view, structure of comb and comparisons with Braula coeca were included in the study. Although the potential as vector of viruses and other diseases has not been evaluated, this first report of B. schmitzi, in Los Chillos Valley, puts on alert the situation of beekeeping in Ecuador. This study would complement the missing information on the presence of this pest throughout South America.

Scanning electron microscopic study of antennal of the female Bee louse fly Braula coeca Nitzsch (Diptera: Braulidae)

The antenna of the female bee louse Braula coeca consists of a scape, a pedicel and a Funicle (enlarged basal flagella subsegment). The scape is not visible and does not carry any type of sensilla. The pedicel is approximately triangular in cross section and it carries a group of long grooved articulated bristles. The Funicle is cover with microtrichia; it contains three types of sensilla: long sharp-tipped sensilla, basiconica sensilla and ribbed peg sensilla. There is only one olfactory pit on the basal side of the Funicle and it contains 3 – 4 ribbed peg sensilla. The arista long, cylindrical, fringed and on the first quarter of the basal part, there are very small six cone-shaped sensilla on the dorsal surface. The suggested function of each sensilla was based on comparison with results of other investigation on similar sensilla.

Checklist of the braulidae, camillidae, diastatidae and drosophilidae of Finland (Diptera, ephydroidea).

A checklist of the Braulidae (1 species), Camillidae (3 spp.), Diastatidae (10 spp.) and Drosophilidae (67 spp.) of Finland is presented. Campichoetinae is included as a subfamily of Diastatidae.

Is the bee louse Braula coeca (Diptera) using chemical camouflage to survive within honeybee colonies?

The bee louse Braula coeca is a highly specialised flattened, wingless fly that spends its entire adult life on adult honeybees. It feeds by stealing food directly from bees during social feeding (trophallaxis). The Braula fly has a preference to infest the honeybee queen. The queen is the most attended individual in the colony but despite this the adult flies remain undetected by the workers. This is due to Braula possessing a cuticular hydrocarbon profile that mirrors that of their host honeybee colony, despite Diptera and Hymenoptera orders having separated over 290 million years ago. This chemical camouflage is most likely through odour acquisition from the honeybee host since even small colony-specific differences in the alkene isomer patterns present in the honeybees were also detected in the Braula’s profile. This finding further supports the idea that the honeybee recognition cues are contained within the alkene part of their hydrocarbon profile and Braula exploit this to remain undetected within an otherwise hostile colony.

Seasonal prevalence of pathogens and parasites in the savannah honeybee (Apis mellifera scutellata)

The loss of Apis mellifera L. colonies in recent years has, in many regions of the world, been alarmingly high. No single cause has been identified for these losses, but the interactions between several factors (mostly pathogens and parasites) have been held responsible. Work in the Americas on honeybees originating mainly from South Africa indicates that Africanised honeybees are less affected by the interplay of pathogens and parasites. However, little is known about the health status of South African honeybees (A. m. scutellata and A. m. capensis) in relation to pathogens and parasites. We therefore compared the seasonal prevalence of honeybee pathogens (viruses, bacteria, fungi) and parasites (mites, bee lice, wax moth, small hive beetles, A. m. capensis social parasites) between sedentary and migratory A. m. scutellata apiaries situated in the Gauteng region of South Africa. No significant differences were found in the prevalence of pathogens and parasites between sedentary and migratory apiaries. Three (Black queen cell virus, Varroa destructor virus 1 and Israeli acute paralysis virus) of the eight viruses screened were detected, a remarkable difference compared to European honeybees. Even though no bacterial pathogens were detected, Nosema apis and Chalkbrood were confirmed. All of the honeybee parasites were found in the majority of the apiaries with the most common parasite being the Varroa mite. In spite of hosting few pathogens, yet most parasites, A. m. scutellata colonies appeared to be healthy.

Bee louse, bee fly, braulid, Braula coeca Nitzsch (Insecta: Diptera: Braulidae)

EENY472, a 3-page illustrated fact sheet by James D. Ellis and C.M. Zettel Nalen, is part of the Featured Creatures collection. It describes this wingless fly that lives as a commensalist in western honeybee colonies — distribution, description, life cycle and behavior and management. Includes references. Published by the UF Department of Entomology and Nematology, April 2010. EENY472/IN845: Bee Louse, Bee Fly, Braulid, Braula coeca Nitzsch (Insecta: Diptera: Braulidae) (ufl.edu)