| Literature DB >> 28622341 |
Beatrice T Nganso1,2, Ayuka T Fombong1, Abdullahi A Yusuf2, Christian W W Pirk2, Charles Stuhl3, Baldwyn Torto1,2.
Abstract
Varroa destructor is an ectoparasitic pest of honeybees, and a threat to the survival of the apiculture industry. Several studies have shown that unlike European honeybees, African honeybee populations appear to be minimally affected when attacked by this mite. However, little is known about the underlying drivers contributing to survival of African honeybee populations against the mite. We hypothesized that resistant behavioral defenses are responsible for the survival of African honeybees against the ectoparasite. We tested this hypothesis by comparing grooming and hygienic behaviors in the African savannah honeybee Apis mellifera scutellata in Kenya and A. mellifera hybrids of European origin in Florida, USA against the mite. Grooming behavior was assessed by determining adult mite infestation levels, daily mite fall per colony and percentage mite damage (as an indicator of adult grooming rate), while hygienic behavior was assessed by determining the brood removal rate after freeze killing a section of the brood. Our results identified two additional undescribed damaged mite categories along with the six previously known damage categories associated with the grooming behavior of both honeybee subspecies. Adult mite infestation level was approximately three-fold higher in A. mellifera hybrids of European origin than in A. m. scutellata, however, brood removal rate, adult grooming rate and daily natural mite fall were similar in both honeybee subspecies. Unlike A. mellifera hybrids of European origin, adult grooming rate and brood removal rate did not correlate with mite infestation levels on adult worker honeybee of A. m. scutellata though they were more aggressive towards the mites than their European counterparts. Our results provide valuable insights into the tolerance mechanisms that contribute to the survival of A. m. scutellata against the mite.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28622341 PMCID: PMC5473549 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179329
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Mean ± standard error of mite infestation rates, daily mite fall and percentage of damaged mites on adult honeybee workers in colonies of A. m. scutellata and A. mellifera hybrids of European origin.
| Mean ± SE | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sites | Honeybee species | Number of colonies | Mite infestation rate/100 adult worker bees (3 replicates/colony) | Daily mite fall/colony | % damaged mites |
| Kenya | 14 | 5.0 ± 1.4 | 18 .1 ± 2.8 | 21.3 ± 1.7 | |
| USA | 20 | 14 ± 2.3 | 15.8 ± 3.9 | 21.3 ± 2.4 | |
| 0.001 | 0.60 | 0.84 | |||
a p values were calculated using the generalized linear model (GLM) with log or logit links
Fig 1Correlation between daily natural mite fall, total natural mite fall, percentage damaged mites, different categories of damage to the mites and Varroa-mite infestation level per colony in honeybees of African and European origin in Kenya and USA respectively.
Fig 2Photographs showing the different damage patterns in mature female Varroa destructor mite (×40 Magnification).
(A and D) Damaged categories from literature [36–38]. (B and C) Additional damage categories reported in this study. (E-J) Previously known classification of damage to the mites reported by Corrêa-Marques et al., [17].
Percentages (mean ± SE) for the different categories of damages to Varroa destructor recorded in the colony debris of A. m. scutellata and A. mellifera hybrids of European origin in Kenya and USA respectively.
| Category of damage | Kenya (%) | USA (%) | P- Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damaged legs (DL) = total or partial loss of one or more legs | 5.7 ± 0.6 | 10 ± 1.4 | 0.003 |
| Hollow in the dorsal shield (HDS) = Depression in the dorsal shield | 0.5 ± 0.2 | 2.3 ± 0.7 | 0.01 |
| Empty dorsal shield (EDS)-carcass = mites that lacked all legs and all or almost all of the ventral shields, generally only the dorsal shield remained | 0.6 ± 0.2 | 0.1 ± 0.7 | 0.01 |
| Damaged shields (DS) = loss of dorsal shields, fissures in and loss pieces of the dorsal shield | 0.6 ± 0.2 | 0.3 ± 0.2 | 0.001 |
| Damaged shield + damaged legs (DS + DL) | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.2 | 0.46 |
| Hollow in the dorsal shield + damaged legs (HDS + DL) | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.2 | 0.08 |
| Damaged gnathosoma (DG) = loss of chelicerae and/or pedipalps | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.001 |
| Damaged empty dorsal shield (DEDS) | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.01 ± 0.01 | 0.44 |
| Damaged legs + damaged gnathosoma (DL + DG) | 9.5 ± 0.7 | 6.1 ± 1.2 | 0.02 |
| Damaged legs + damaged gnathosoma + damaged shield (DL + DG + DS) | 3.7 ± 0.4 | 1.6 ± 0.7 | 1.9e-10 |
#New damage categories observed in this study
a p values were calculated using the generalized linear model (GLM) with logit links