Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (3) (remove)
Language
- English (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3)
Keywords
- Apis mellifera (2)
- colony decline (2)
- feedbacks (2)
- multiple stressors (2)
- predictive systems ecology (2)
- Varroa destructor (1)
- cross-level interactions (1)
- foraging (1)
- integrated model (1)
- modelling (1)
Institute
- Institut für Biochemie und Biologie (3) (remove)
The causes underlying the increased mortality of honeybee Apis mellifera colonies observed over the past decade remain unclear. Since so far the evidence for monocausal explanations is equivocal, involvement of multiple stressors is generally assumed. We here focus on various aspects of forage availability, which have received less attention than other stressors because it is virtually impossible to explore them empirically. We applied the colony model BEEHAVE, which links within-hive dynamics and foraging, to stylized landscape settings to explore how foraging distance, forage supply, and “forage gaps”, i.e. periods in which honeybees cannot find any nectar and pollen, affect colony resilience and the mechanisms behind. We found that colony extinction was mainly driven by foraging distance, but the timing of forage gaps had strongest effects on time to extinction. Sensitivity to forage gaps of 15 days was highest in June or July even if otherwise forage availability was sufficient to survive. Forage availability affected colonies via cascading effects on queen's egg-laying rate, reduction of new-emerging brood stages developing into adult workers, pollen debt, lack of workforce for nursing, and reduced foraging activity. Forage gaps in July led to reduction in egg-laying and increased mortality of brood stages at a time when the queen's seasonal egg-laying rate is at its maximum, leading to colony failure over time. Our results demonstrate that badly timed forage gaps interacting with poor overall forage supply reduce honeybee colony resilience. Existing regulation mechanisms which in principle enable colonies to cope with varying forage supply in a given landscape and year, such as a reduction in egg-laying, have only a certain capacity. Our results are hypothetical, as they are obtained from simplified landscape settings, but they are consistent with existing empirical knowledge. They offer ample opportunities for testing the predicted effects of forage stress in controlled experiments.
BEEHAVE offers a valuable tool for researchers to design and focus field experiments, for regulators to explore the relative importance of stressors to devise management and policy advice and for beekeepers to understand and predict varroa dynamics and effects of management interventions. We expect that scientists and stakeholders will find a variety of applications for BEEHAVE, stimulating further model development and the possible inclusion of other stressors of potential importance to honeybee colony dynamics.
1. The health of managed and wild honeybee colonies appears to have declined substantially in Europe and the United States over the last decade. Sustainability of honeybee colonies is important not only for honey production, but also for pollination of crops and wild plants alongside other insect pollinators. A combination of causal factors, including parasites, pathogens, land use changes and pesticide usage, are cited as responsible for the increased colony mortality. 2. However, despite detailed knowledge of the behaviour of honeybees and their colonies, there are no suitable tools to explore the resilience mechanisms of this complex system under stress. Empirically testing all combinations of stressors in a systematic fashion is not feasible. We therefore suggest a cross-level systems approach, based on mechanistic modelling, to investigate the impacts of (and interactions between) colony and land management. 3. We review existing honeybee models that are relevant to examining the effects of different stressors on colony growth and survival. Most of these models describe honeybee colony dynamics, foraging behaviour or honeybee - varroa mite - virus interactions. 4. We found that many, but not all, processes within honeybee colonies, epidemiology and foraging are well understood and described in the models, but there is no model that couples in-hive dynamics and pathology with foraging dynamics in realistic landscapes. 5. Synthesis and applications. We describe how a new integrated model could be built to simulate multifactorial impacts on the honeybee colony system, using building blocks from the reviewed models. The development of such a tool would not only highlight empirical research priorities but also provide an important forecasting tool for policy makers and beekeepers, and we list examples of relevant applications to bee disease and landscape management decisions.