POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

Recommendations

Info

THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION at the expense of colony and equipment losses (Wilkins et al., 2007; Forsgren, 2010; Genersch, 2010). Eradication is mandatory in some countries and localities for AFB infestation, and often recommended in colonies or apiaries with high infestation levels for EFB (Wilkins et al., 2007; Forsgren, 2010; Genersch, 2010). other species that typically infect Megachile (Vandenberg and Steven,1982; Bissett, 1988); and A. torchioi and other species that typically infect Osmia lignaria (Torchio, 1992; Sedivy and Dorn, 2013). Stonebrood is caused by several Aspergillus species that infect honey bees (Foley et al., 2014) as well as other bee species (Goerzen, 1991). 400 6. RESPONSES TO RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES ASSOCIATED WITH POLLINATORS AND POLLINATION The shook swarm method allows for maintaining adult bees from a colony while destroying infected brood and comb. The remaining components of hive body equipment are often sterilized with bleach or localized flame application (or ethylene gas, Robinson et al., 1972). The shook swarm method is often recommended for colonies infected with EFB (or in some cases AFB) but not yet clinically diseased (Genersch, 2010). A similar method, where brood are removed but adult bees maintained, is employed and reported to be effective in controlling foulbrood in China (Duan, 1992; Du et al., 2007). Antibiotic administration is used by beekeepers for prevention and treatment of both EFB and AFB. Antibiotics reduce the reproduction of foulbrood bacteria but do not completely “cure” a colony of infection (Forsgren, 2010; Genersch, 2010). In particular, antibiotics do not operate on AFB spores (Genersch, 2010), leaving infested colonies open to subsequent re-infection from spores. Antibiotic treatment of honey bees for foulbrood is illegal in many European countries (Generesch, 2010) and EU food regulations prohibit any detectable levels of antibiotics in commercial honey (EEC Regulation 2377/90, 26 June 1990). Still, regulations vary among countries and for example antibiotic use is permitted in the UK for EFB only (not AFB) under some conditions, depending on the level of infection and the size of the colony (Wilkins et al., 2007). Antibiotic treatment remains legal in several other countries including the USA (e.g., under several NADA—New Animal Drug Application—and ANADA—Abbreviated New Animal Drug Application—numbers under the US Food and Drug Administration: NADA 008-622, NADA 008-804, NADA 095- 143, NADA 138-938, ANADA 200-026, ANADA 200-247). In addition to incomplete infection clearance, an additional issue with antibiotic use is resistance. Tetracycline-resistant AFB was first reported in the US 15 years ago (Miyagi et al., 2000), and a subsequent intensive survey has since found widespread antibiotic resistance in the gut microbiota of honey bees, including at least 10 different resistance genes (Tian et al., 2012). 6.4.4.1.1.2.3.3 Fungi The primary fungal pathogens of managed bees are Nosema, chalkbrood, and stonebrood. Nosema includes N. apis and N. ceranae, which typically infect bees in the genus Apis (e.g., Fries, 2010), as well as N. bombi, which infects a wide range of bumble bee species (Tay et al., 2005). Chalkbrood includes: Ascosphaera apis, which typically infects Apis (Aronstein and Murray, 2010); A. aggregata and The primary treatment for Nosema in honey bees in many countries, including Canada and the USA, is the antifungal treatment agent fumagillin dicyclohexylammonium (“fumagillin”; Williams et al., 2008; Fries, 2010), though its use is illegal in the EU (Fries, 2010; Botías et al., 2013) given its toxicity to mammals including humans (Huang et al., 2013). While fumagillin can reduce Nosema levels in honey bee colonies in some circumstances (Webster, 1994; Williams et al., 2008), it appears to have some direct toxicity to honey bees, and low levels of fumagillin may also enhance, rather than reduce, N. ceranae reproduction in honey bees (Huang et al., 2013). Fumagillin was not shown to be effective in controlling N. bombi in bumble bees at either the recommended fumagillin dose for honey bees (26 mg/L in sugar syrup) or double that concentration (52 mg/L; Whittingdon and Winston, 2003). A single study has also shown that RNAi, using gene transcripts for an ATP/ADP transporter specific to N. ceranae, when fed to worker bees, reduced infection levels and parasite reproduction within adult honey bee hosts (Paldi et al., 2010). We are unaware of field implementation of RNAi therapy targeted to Nosema. There has been no assessment of the risks of RNAi technology or the costs of this technology relative to its benefits. The lack of proven options other than fumagillin for Nosema treatment (Fries, 2010) represents an important knowledge gap. Chalkbrood and stonebrood, irrespective of host bees that are infected, also have few direct treatment options (Bosch and Kemp, 2001; Aronstein and Murray, 2010; Sedivy and Dorn, 2013). As Hornitsky (2001) noted, “A wide range of chemicals has been tested for the control of chalkbrood. However, none has proved efficacious to the point where it has been universally accepted. A chemical which is effective against chalkbrood, does not produce residues in bee products and is not harmful to bees is yet to be found.” Still, there have been some promising developments including the use of formic acid and oxalic acid (also used in the treatment of Varroa mites), which reduced growth of Ascosphaera apis chalkbrood in vitro, but was not tested in live bees (Yoder et al., 2014). Similarly, a range of essential oils showed promise in reducing stonebrood growth in in vitro assays, but showed challenges in translating that antifungal activity to pollinator management situations (Calderone et al., 1994). A cultural practice for chalkbrood management in alfalfa leafcutting bees, Megachile rotundata, is that populations are often managed as loose cells (rather than entire natal nests) to prevent emerging
THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION adults from being dusted during emergence with chalkbrood spores from infested larval cadavers (Richards, 1984). in beeswax for long periods, which exacerbates all three of the drawbacks to their use (Rosenkranz et al., 2010). 6.4.4.1.1.2.3.4 Protozoa The primary protozoan parasite of managed bees is Crithidia bombi, which infects bumble bees (Shykoff and Schmid- Hempel, 1991). There is no known treatment for Crithidia (Schweitzer et al., 2012). At least two lines of promising evidence point toward treatment options in the future. First, gelsamine, a nectar alkaloid, has been found to reduce Crithidia levels in bumble bees (Manson et al., 2009), and second, horizontally-transmitted gut microbiota also have been shown to protect against Crithidia (Koch and Schmid- Hempel, 2011). 6.4.4.1.1.2.3.5 Parasitic mites Mites are among the most destructive parasites of managed bees. The primary parasitic mites of managed honey bees are in the genera Varroa, Tropilaelaps, and Acarapis (reviewed in Sammataro et al., 2000; Rosenkranz et al., 2010), while Locustacarus impacts bumble bees (e.g. Shykoff and Schmid-Hempel; 1991; Otterstatter and Whidden, 2004). The negative health impacts of mites are exacerbated by a range of viruses that mites vector (Sammataro et al., 2000; Rosenkranz et al., 2010). Treatment of mites is challenging because bees and mites are both arthropods, and thus compounds that are toxic to mites are likely also to be harmful to bees. A range of different mite treatment and control methods have been developed for honey bees (but not for other managed pollinators), likely due to the substantial parasite pressure that mites exert on honey bees and their economic importance. Because of the particular importance of Varroa, the bulk of treatment methods focus on it. Tropilaelaps mites have a very similar natural history and thus many of the treatments used in Varroa have potential for use in Tropilaelaps (Sammataro et al., 2000). Existing treatment classes include: 1) acaricides / miticides; 2) RNAi; 3) organic acid vapors; 4) aromatic and essential oils; 5) biological / cultural controls. The primary groups of acaricides / miticides are the organophosphate coumaphos, two pyrethroids (taufluvalinate and fluvalin), and amitraz, a formamidine (Sammataro et al., 2000; Rosenkranz et al., 2010). Amitraz is illegal in the US (Sammataro et al., 2000) and many other countries. While these compounds can greatly reduce mite populations, they have several drawbacks. First, they can harm bees because these compounds have insecticidal, not just acaricidal, impacts. Second, there is the potential for these products to contaminate hive products including honey. Third, and perhaps most important, Varroa resistance to all of these compounds is well documented in a very widespread geographic area (reviewed in Sammataro et al., 2000; Rosenkranz et al., 2010). These compounds are lipophilic and thus can become integrated and accumulate Interference RNA (RNAi) has been targeted against Varroa, and injection or soaking of double-stranded RNA directly into Varroa strongly and specifically reduced the transcription target in a laboratory context (Campbell et al., 2010). In addition, double-stranded RNA fed to bees was found to be passed intact to Varroa, and then back to developing bee brood (Garbian et al., 2012). This RNAi method also reduced Varroa counts in laboratory colonies (Garbian et al., 2012). As with other RNAi methods utilized in the treatment of managed bee parasites and pathogens (with the exception of Hunter et al., 2010, working on Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus), RNAi for Varroa control has not been tested in field beekeeping scenarios and there has been no assessment of the risks or the costs of this technology relative to its benefits. The main organic acid vapors used to control Varroa and Acarapis are formic, oxalic, and lactic acids. Multiple studies have evaluated the efficacy of these acids as well as different methods for administering them, and they are effective in reducing Varroa and Acarapis populations, though they do not necessarily provide complete clearance of mites from colonies (reviewed in Sammataro et al., 2000; Rosenkranz et al., 2010). Formic acid is the only known method of Varroa control that kills both adult phoretic mites and developing mites within sealed honey bee brood cells. Additional advantages of organic acids are that they are hydrophilic and do not accumulate in beeswax, and that to date there is no evidence of mite resistance to them (Rosenkranz et al., 2010). Disadvantages of organic acid use include contamination of hive products, and the suggestion (for oxalic and lactic acids) of use in honey bee colonies during broodless periods, which is not possible in all geographic areas and limits use to particular times of year. In addition, results are dependent on vapour pressure and other within-hive conditions, meaning that the effects of treatment are more variable than with some other control measures (Rosenkranz et al., 2010). There is some evidence of harm to bees from use of organic acids, and they can be hazardous to human applicators if not handled properly (Sammataro et al., 2000). The primary essential oil used in control of Varroa is thymol, which can reduce mite populations by up to 90% (Rosenkranz et al., 2010). Other essential oils have been tested against Varroa but none with the consistent success of thymol, though more research is needed (Rosenkranz et al., 2010). For Acarapis tracheal mites, menthol has been shown to be an effective control measure, and the only other effective treatment besides formic acid (Sammataro, 2000). As with organic acids, treatment effects are variable and vapour pressure within colonies is an important consideration. Essential oils are lipophilic and can 401 6. RESPONSES TO RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES ASSOCIATED WITH POLLINATORS AND POLLINATION
Page 1 and 2:
The assessment report on POLLINATOR
Page 3:
The assessment report on POLLINATOR
Page 6 and 7:
FOREWORD The objective of the Inter
Page 8 and 9:
THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATOR
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
L THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINAT
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
150 THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLIN
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
THE METHODOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SC
Page 396 and 397:
THE METHODOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SC
Page 398 and 399:
Page 400 and 401:
Page 402 and 403: THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATOR
Page 412 and 413: 360 THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLIN
Page 502 and 503:
Page 504 and 505:
Page 506 and 507:
Page 508 and 509:
Page 510 and 511:
Page 512 and 513:
Page 514 and 515:
Page 516 and 517:
Page 518 and 519:
Page 520 and 521:
Page 522 and 523:
Page 524 and 525:
Page 526 and 527:
Page 528 and 529:
Page 530 and 531:
478 ANNEXES
Page 532 and 533:
Page 534 and 535:
Page 536 and 537:
Page 538 and 539:
Page 540 and 541:
Page 542 and 543:
Page 544 and 545:
Page 546 and 547:
Page 548 and 549:
Page 550 and 551:
Page 552 and 553:
Page 554:
show all

POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?