Decline Of Bee Colonies Research Articles

The Road to Pollinator Health

Agricultural production is a balancing act. On one side is sustainable production of food and biobased products for a growing population. On the other is protecting our natural resources and the environment. The global decline of the honey bee, a major domestic pollinator of many crops, exemplifies how complex the factors are that contribute to maintaining this balance. Overall bee colony decline, including loss from colony collapse disorder (CCD), poses a serious challenge to agricultural research worldwide. The causes are still not definitive, but stress from pesticides may be a factor. This spring, the European Commission temporarily restricted the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides for specific applications (pending more research). Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) formed a bee health task force to take an even broader look at the pollinator crisis, with a plan to collect interagency input and develop a federal Pollinator Roadmap before the end of 2013.

The Science, Law and Policy of Neonicotinoids and Bees: A New Test Case for the Precautionary Principle

Once more, while facing an analogous risk phenomenon affecting their predominantly homogeneous societal and economic interests, the US and EU authorities seem to adopt diverging stances. Amid the publication of several new studies and a set of EFSA scientific opinions linking the use of the world’s most widely used pesticides to bee decline, the European Union is poised to adopt a temporary ban on their use. While the Commission does not expressly rely on it, its restrictive decision is clearly based on the controversial precautionary principle. Yet, as it is discussed in this article, the conformity of this decision with the requirements that determine the legal invocation of this principle remains doubtful. This article proceeds as follow. Part II first introduces the reader to the main features and usages of these controversial insecticides, called neonicotinoids. It then discusses how concerns have arisen around their use and analyses the available science exploring their impact on the sudden decline of bee colonies. Part III identifies and comments the restrictive actions currently undertaken across the European Union both at the national and EU level. Part IV in turn provides an overview of the scientific and regulatory approaches adopted by US authorities vis-a-vis neonicotinoids. By building upon the previous two sections, Part V contrasts the EU scientific and regulatory approach towards the use of these pesticides with that adopted by the US authorities. It then attempts at illustrating the factors explaining the current regulatory divergence across the Atlantic upon the issue of neonicotinoids. In order to provide a legal analysis of the EU restrictive stance over these pesticides, Part VI measures how the EU controversial restrictive measures score under both EU and WTO law. Lastly, some final conclusions provide some recommendations on how to render less controversial the invocation of the precautionary principle in the EU and beyond.

Iridovirus and Microsporidian Linked to Honey Bee Colony Decline

BackgroundIn 2010 Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), again devastated honey bee colonies in the USA, indicating that the problem is neither diminishing nor has it been resolved. Many CCD investigations, using sensitive genome-based methods, have found small RNA bee viruses and the microsporidia, Nosema apis and N. ceranae in healthy and collapsing colonies alike with no single pathogen firmly linked to honey bee losses.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe used Mass spectrometry-based proteomics (MSP) to identify and quantify thousands of proteins from healthy and collapsing bee colonies. MSP revealed two unreported RNA viruses in North American honey bees, Varroa destructor-1 virus and Kakugo virus, and identified an invertebrate iridescent virus (IIV) (Iridoviridae) associated with CCD colonies. Prevalence of IIV significantly discriminated among strong, failing, and collapsed colonies. In addition, bees in failing colonies contained not only IIV, but also Nosema. Co-occurrence of these microbes consistently marked CCD in (1) bees from commercial apiaries sampled across the U.S. in 2006–2007, (2) bees sequentially sampled as the disorder progressed in an observation hive colony in 2008, and (3) bees from a recurrence of CCD in Florida in 2009. The pathogen pairing was not observed in samples from colonies with no history of CCD, namely bees from Australia and a large, non-migratory beekeeping business in Montana. Laboratory cage trials with a strain of IIV type 6 and Nosema ceranae confirmed that co-infection with these two pathogens was more lethal to bees than either pathogen alone.Conclusions/SignificanceThese findings implicate co-infection by IIV and Nosema with honey bee colony decline, giving credence to older research pointing to IIV, interacting with Nosema and mites, as probable cause of bee losses in the USA, Europe, and Asia. We next need to characterize the IIV and Nosema that we detected and develop management practices to reduce honey bee losses.