Academic literature on the topic 'Honeybee – Australia'

Agriculture in Australia is highly dependent on insect pollination, in particular from the introduced western honeybee, Apis mellifera. Most agricultural pollination is provided as an unpaid service by feral A. mellifera and native insects. A smaller proportion of agricultural pollination is provided as a paid service by beekeepers. Insect pollination is threatened by misuse of insecticides and the loss of remnant vegetation, but most potently by the likelihood that the honeybee mite, Varroa destructor, will enter the country. Now is the time to prepare for the effect of these changes, and international experience with pollinator decline should serve as a guide. We need to protect and manage our remnant vegetation to protect wild pollinators. Insurance against declining A. mellifera will come through the development of management practices for alternative pollinator species. By developing native insects as pollinators we can avoid the risks associated with the importation of additional introduced species.

A contestation is underway in Australian cities between humans and the European honeybee, which has heightened in recent years as amateur beekeeping has emerged in response to environmental concerns. This paper reports on a brief ethnographic encounter among old and new amateur beekeepers located across Sydney, Australia. Older beekeepers were motivated mainly by a desire for a social hobby, whereas younger apiarists were attracted by the role bees play in addressing environmental concerns, including biodiversity, food self-sufficiency, and greening the city. However, the amateur beekeeper appears to be at risk from a series of conflicts: among themselves (registered and unregistered keepers), and with commercial keepers and suburban residents. These conflicts undermine the novel role that amateur beekeepers, with their distinct methods and perspectives, play in fostering biodiversity, health, and sustainability towards the ecological city.

Bees, with their ability to make sweet tasting honey, have been highly valued across many human cultures spanning thousands of years. In relation to western husbandry techniques, honeybees (Apidae) have been domesticated by humans to produce honey in large quantities for human consumption. The focus of this paper is not on the well-known, widespread honeybee but a close family relative of the Apidae, the smaller, stingless bee (Meliponidae). For Yolngu living on country, in the homeland communities of northeast Arnhem Land, Australia the relationship with these local, endemic bees is quite different from the large-scale beekeeping industry used to pollinate major agricultural crops. A highly anticipated activity is sugarbag season where Yolngu men, women and children undertake excursions into the bush in search of these tiny bees to extract honey. The bee is celebrated through “Sugarbag Dreaming”: in song, dance, painting and ceremony. This paper examines some of the ways that people and bees converge in Arnhem Land. Through the many layers of meaning, the paper aims to demonstrate how Yolngu philosophy recognises bees as being an integral part of an interconnected and complex ecology.

Waxmoths cause significant damage to stored honeycombs of the Western honeybee Apis mellifera in Australia. A field experiment was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a commercial formulation (Certan) of the biological control agent Bacillus thuringiensis in preventing this damage.Treatment applied at the manufacturer's recommended rate of 855 units per cm2 of honeycomb almost completely prevented damage, while untreated combs showed an average of 76% damage. The cost and practicality of applying the formulation of B. thuringiensis are discussed, together with the recommendation that new control methods for waxmoths should be researched.

Abstract. Acacia longifolia, a native legume from Australia, has been introduced in many European countries and elsewhere, thus becoming one of the most important global invasive species. In Europe, its flowering occurs in a period unsuitable for insect activity: nonetheless it is considered entomophilous. Floral traits of this species are puzzling: brightly coloured and scented as liked by insects, but with abundant staminate small-sized flowers and relatively small pollen grains, as it is common in anemophilous species. Invasion processes are especially favoured when reshaping local ecological networks, thus the interest in understanding pollination syndromes associated with invasive plant species that may facilitate invasiveness. Moreover, a striking difference exists between its massive flowering and relatively poor seed set. We introduced a novel approach: first, we consider the possibility that a part of the pollination success is carried on by wind and, second, we weighted the ethological perspective of the main pollinator. During the flowering season of A. longifolia (February–April 2016), we carried on exclusion experiments to detect the relative contribution of insects and wind. While the exclusion experiments corroborated the need for pollen vectors, we actually recorded a low abundance of insects. The honeybee, known pollinator of acacias, was relatively rare and not always productive in terms of successful visits. While wind contributed to seed set, focal observations confirmed that honeybees transfer pollen when visiting both the inflorescences to collect pollen and the extrafloral nectaries to collect nectar. The mixed pollination strategy of A. longifolia may then be the basis of its success in invading Portugal's windy coasts.

When exotic animal species invade new environments they also bring an often unknown microbial diversity, including pathogens. We describe a novel and widely distributed virus in one of the most globally widespread, abundant and damaging invasive ants (Argentine ants, Linepithema humile ). The Linepithema humile virus 1 is a dicistrovirus, a viral family including species known to cause widespread arthropod disease. It was detected in samples from Argentina, Australia and New Zealand. Argentine ants in New Zealand were also infected with a strain of Deformed wing virus common to local hymenopteran species, which is a major pathogen widely associated with honeybee mortality. Evidence for active replication of viral RNA was apparent for both viruses. Our results suggest co-introduction and exchange of pathogens within local hymenopteran communities. These viral species may contribute to the collapse of Argentine ant populations and offer new options for the control of a globally widespread invader.

Stingless bee-collected pollen (bee bread) is a mixture of bee pollen, bee salivary enzymes, and regurgitated honey, fermented by indigenous microbes during storage in the cerumen pot. Current literature data for bee bread is overshadowed by bee pollen, particularly of honeybee Apis. In regions such as South America, Australia, and Southeast Asia, information on stingless bee bee bread is mainly sought to promote the meliponiculture industry for socioeconomic development. This review aims to highlight the physicochemical properties and health benefits of bee bread from the stingless bee. In addition, it describes the current progress on identification of beneficial microbes associated with bee bread and its relation to the bee gut. This review provides the basis for promoting research on stingless bee bee bread, its nutrients, and microbes for application in the food and pharmaceutical industries.

ABSTRACT Twenty-five unique CfoI-generated whole-cell DNA profiles were identified in a study of 30 Paenibacillus alvei isolates cultured from honey and diseased larvae collected from honeybee (Apis mellifera) colonies in geographically diverse areas in Australia. The fingerprint patterns were highly variable and readily discernible from one another, which highlighted the potential of this method for tracing the movement of isolates in epidemiological studies. 16S rRNA gene fragments (length, 1,416 bp) for all 30 isolates were enzymatically amplified by PCR and subjected to restriction analysis with DraI, HinfI,CfoI, AluI, FokI, andRsaI. With each enzyme the restriction profiles of the 16S rRNA genes from all 30 isolates were identical (one restriction fragment length polymorphism [RFLP] was observed in theHinfI profile of the 16S rRNA gene from isolate 17), which confirmed that the isolates belonged to the same species. The restriction profiles generated by using DraI,FokI, and HinfI differentiated P. alvei from the phylogenetically closely related speciesPaenibacillus macerans and Paenibacillus macquariensis. Alveolysin gene fragments (length, 1,555 bp) were enzymatically amplified from some of the P. alvei isolates (19 of 30 isolates), and RFLP were detected by using the enzymesCfoI, Sau3AI, and RsaI. Extrachromosomal DNA ranging in size from 1 to 10 kb was detected in 17 of 30 (57%) P. alvei whole-cell DNA profiles. Extensive biochemical heterogeneity was observed among the 28 P. alvei isolates examined with the API 50CHB system. All of these isolates were catalase, oxidase, and Voges-Proskauer positive and nitrate negative, and all produced acid when glycerol, esculin, and maltose were added. The isolates produced variable results for 16 of the 49 biochemical tests; negative reactions were recorded in the remaining 30 assays. The genetic and biochemical heterogeneity inP. alvei isolates may be a reflection of adaptation to the special habitats in which they originated.

The European honey bee (Apis mellifera) has been present in Australia for approximately 150 years. For the majority of that time it was assumed this species could only be of benefit to Australia‘s natural ecosystems. More recently however, researchers and conservationists have questioned this assumption. Honey bees are an introduced species and may be affecting native fauna and flora. In particular, native bees have been highlighted as an animal that may be experiencing competition from honey bees as they are of similar sizes and both species require nectar and pollen for their progeny. Most research to date has focused on indirect measures of competition between honey bees and native bees (resource overlap, visitation rates and resource harvesting). The first chapter of this thesis reviews previous research explaining that many experiments lack significant replication and indirect measures of competition cannot evaluate the impact of honey bees on native bee fecundity or survival. Chapters two and four present descriptions of nesting biology of the two native bee species studied (Hylaeus alcyoneus and an undescribed Megachile sp.). Data collected focused on native bee fecundity and included nesting season, progeny mass, number of progeny per nest, sex ratio and parasitoids. This information provided a picture of the nesting biology of these two species and assisted in determining the design of an appropriate experiment. Chapters three and five present the results of two experiments investigating the impact of honey bees on these two species of native bees in the Northern Beekeepers Nature Reserve in Western Australia. Both experiments focused on the fecundity of these native bee species in response to honey bees and also had more replication than any other previous experiment in Australia of similar design. The first experiment (Chapter three), over two seasons, investigated the impact of commercial honey bees on Hylaeus alcyoneus, a native solitary bee. The experiment was monitored every 3-4 weeks (measurement interval). However, beekeepers did not agist hives on sites simultaneously so measurement intervals were initially treated separately using ANOVA. Results showed no impact of honey bees at any measurement interval and in some cases, poor power. Data from both seasons was combined in a Wilcoxon‘s sign test and showed that honey bees had a negative impact on the number of nests completed by H. alcyoneus. The second experiment (Chapter 5) investigated the impact of feral honey bees on an undescribed Megachile species. Hive honey bees were used to simulate feral levels of honey bees in a BACI (Before/After, Control/Impact) design experiment. There was no impact detected on any fecundity variables. The sensitivity of the experiment was calculated and in three fecundity variables (male and female progeny mass and the number of progeny per nest) the experiment was sensitive enough to detect 15-30% difference between control and impact sites. The final chapter (Chapter six) makes a number of research and management recommendations in light of the research findings.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Western Sydney, 2008.
A thesis submitted to the University of Western Sydney, College of Health and Science, Centre for Plant and Food Science, in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Includes bibliography.

Cotton is a high-value commercial crop in Australia. Although cotton is largely self-pollinating, previous researchers have reported that honeybees, Apis mellifera, can assist in cross-pollination and contribute to improved yield. Until recently, use of bees in cotton had, however, been greatly limited by excessive use of pesticides to control arthropod pests. With the widespread use of transgenic (Bt) cotton varieties and the associated reduction in pesticide use, I decided to investigate the role and importance of honeybees in Bt cotton, under Australian conditions. I conducted two major field trials at Narrabri, in the centre of one of Australia’s major cotton-growing areas, in the 2005-6 and 2006-7 seasons. In the first trial, I particularly assessed methods of manipulating honeybee colonies by feeding pollen supplements of pollen/soybean patties, and by restricting pollen influx by the fitting of 30% efficient pollen traps. I aimed to test whether either of these strategies increased honeybee flight activity and, thus, increased foraging on cotton flowers. My results showed that although supplementary feeding increased bee flight activity and brood production, it did not increase pollen collection on cotton. Pollen traps initially reduced flight activity. They also reduced the amount of pollen stored in colonies, slowed down brood rearing activity, and honey production. However, they did not contribute to increased pollen collection in cotton. In the second trial, I spent more time investigating honeybee behaviour in cotton as well as assessing the effect of providing flowering cotton plants with access to honeybees for different time periods (e.g. 25 d, 15 d, 0 d). In this year, I used double the hive stocking rate of (16 colonies / ha) than in the previous year, because in 2005-6 I observed few bees in cotton flowers. I also conducted a preliminary investigation to assess whether there was any gene flow over a 16 m distance from Bt cotton to conventional cotton, in the presence of a relatively high honeybee population. Both of my field experiments showed that honeybees significantly increased cotton yield via increased boll set, mean weight of bolls, number of seeds / boll, and weight of lint / boll. It was obvious that cotton flowers, and particularly cotton pollen, were not attractive to honeybees, and this was also reflected in the low proportion (5.3% w/w) of pollen from cotton collected in the pollen traps. However, flower visitation rate was generally above the 0.5% level regarded as optimal for cross-pollination in cotton, and this was reflected in increased yield parameters. I recorded a gene flow of 1.7 % from Bollgard®II cotton to conventional cotton, over a distance of 16 m. This is much higher than had previously been reported for Australia, and may have been a result of high honeybee numbers in the vicinity, associated with my managed hives. In an attempt to attract more honeybees to cotton flowers, I conducted an investigation where I applied synthetic Queen Mandibular Pheromone (QMP) (Fruit Boost®) at two rates, 50 QEQ and 500 QEQ / ha, and for two applications, 2 d apart. Neither rate of QMP increased the level of bee visitation to flowers, either on the day of application or the subsequent day. There was also no increase in boll set or yield in plants treated with QMP. My observations of honeybee behaviour in cotton brought some interesting findings. First, honeybees totally ignored extra floral nectaries. Second, most flower-visiting honeybees collected nectar, but the overwhelming majority of them (84%) collected floral nectar from outside flowers: this meant these bees did not contribute to pollination. Those nectar gatherers which entered flowers did contribute to pollination. However, they were observed to exhibit rejection of cotton pollen by scraping pollen grains from their body and discarding them, prior to returning to their hives. Pollen gatherers collected only small, loose pellets from cotton. SEM studies showed that cotton pollen grains were the largest of all pollen commonly collected by bees in my investigations, and that they also had large spines. It is likely that these characteristics make cotton pollen unattractive to honeybees. Another possible reason for the unattractiveness of cotton flowers was the presence of pollen beetles, Carpophilus aterrimus, in them. I conducted a series of studies to determine the role of pollen beetles in pollination of cotton. I found that they did not contribute to pollination at low levels; at high populations they damaged flowers (with ≥ 10 beetles / flower, no flowers set bolls); and that honeybees, when given the choice, avoid flowers with pollen beetles. Because the insecticide fipronil was commonly used in Australian cotton at flowering time, and because I had some experience of its toxic effects against honeybees in my field investigations, I conducted a series of laboratory and potted plant bioassays, using young worker bees. The studies confirmed its highly toxic nature. I recorded an acute dermal LD50 of 1.9 ng / bee, and an acute oral LC50 of 0.62 ppm. Fipronil’s residual toxicity also remained high for an extended period in both laboratory and potted plant trials. For example, when applied to cotton leaves in weather-exposed potted cotton plants, it took 25 d and 20 d for full and half recommended rates of fipronil, respectively, to become non- toxic to honeybees. I had previously investigated whether a shorter period of exposure of cotton plants to honeybees would contribute adequately to increased yield, and concluded that a 10 d window within a 25 d flowering period would contribute 55% of the increase in total weight of bolls contributable to honeybee pollination, but only 36% of the increase in weight of lint. Given the highly residual activity of fipronil I recorded, the only opportunity for an insecticide-free period during flowering would be at its commencement. I concluded that, while there is evidence that honeybees can contribute to increased cotton yield in Bt cotton in Australia, this is unlikely with the continued use of fipronil at flowering.
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Bibliography: leaves 129-137
viii, 137 leaves, [27] leaves of plates : ill. (some col.) ; 30 cm.
Title page, contents and abstract only. The complete thesis in print form is available from the University Library.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--Dept. of Entomology, Waite research Institute, University of Adelaide, 1986