| For 2020 and newer grants, please go to https://grants.ipmcenters.org/ |
|---|
|
|
| Home Current RFAs PD User Guide Projects Login |
|
Funded Project |
|
Funding Program:
Regional IPM Grants (S-RIPM) |
|
Project Title:
Developing an IPM program to control small hive beetles in bee hives |
Project Directors (PDs):
|
|
Lead State: GA Lead Organization: University of Georgia |
| Research Funding: $162,138 |
|
Start Date: May-01-2007 End Date: Apr-30-2009 |
|
Pests Involved: small hive beetles |
|
Site/Commodity: bees |
|
Summary:
This is a Research project with the goal of completing the second of a 3-phase project initiated by the PDs (KSD, WMH, and JDE) to develop a comprehensive IPM program against small hive beetles (SHB), a new pest of honey bees. Phase 1 the theoretic base of an economic threshold was completed with 2004 Southern Region IPM funding IPM economic threshold for a two-pest complex in honey bees and showed that 300 beetles per hive constitutes a tolerable beetle level beyond which the beekeeper can expect measurable harm. The goal of Phase 2 is to test the efficacy of three candidate IPM components representing genetic host resistance, cultural control and biological control at keeping SHB levels below the economic threshold.
The two objectives of the present proposal are (1) to develop a reliable and user-friendly estimator of the SHB economic threshold and (2) to determine the efficacy of hygienic queens, adult beetle traps, and predatory soil nematodes, either singly or in interaction, at maintaining colony SHB populations below the economic threshold. The PDs bring a rich and published track record of expertise to this proposal, being themselves key developers of the IPM components under test. Objective 1 will be met by regressing a relative SHB measure developed by WMH with an absolute measure derived from destructive sampling and direct counts. Objective 2 will be met by replicating all combinations of the three candidate components in bee hives across three states and two years and measuring the response variables (1) time (weeks) to onset of economic threshold, (2) colony bee populations, and (3) cm2 sealed bee brood.
Owing to the pervasive benefit of honey bee pollination, this proposal represents an investment in a sustainable agro-ecology that transcends particular commodity interests. It is squarely consistent with the National Research Councils October 2006 call to conserve our nations pollinators. It supports a regional sub-industry particularly hard-hit by SHBs (queen bee producers), a sub-industry whose product underpins the national industry. It enjoys demonstrated support by stakeholder groups as documented by the PDs in two independent industry surveys described herein. It stands to reduce illegal applications of the pesticide fipronil by an estimated 209 kg regionally and 2,000 kg nationally. And finally, it stands to save the beekeeping industry an estimated $2,139,314 regionally and $20,613,182 nationally in costs associated with SHB.
Objectives: Objective 1: Develop a reliable and user-friendly estimator of the SHB economic threshold of 300 beetles per hive. Anticipated impact A reliable and user-friendly estimator of the economic threshold is one of two bottlenecks to adoption of our IPM package (the other being a demonstration of economic viability phase 3). A successful estimator will liberate beekeepers to widely adopt our IPM package, with the ensuing benefits described below. Objective 2: Determine the efficacy of hygienic queens, adult beetle traps, and predatory soil nematodes, either singly or in interaction, at maintaining colony SHB populations below the economic threshold of 300. Anticipated impacts If any or all of these IPM components are shown to maintain SHBs below damaging levels, either singly or in interaction, we anticipate the following beneficial impacts: -- A reduction in off-label applications of fipronil equal to 209 kg in FL, GA, and SC and 2,000 kg nationally (extrapolated from 2003 NASS national colony counts). -- A corresponding improvement in hive product purity and reduced sub-lethal fipronil toxicity toward honey bee foragers and pollinators. -- Sustainable control of SHB, especially critical for the Southeastern queen production belt which provides queen bees worldwide. -- Savings per annum accruing from improved SHB management equal to $2,139,314 in FL, GA, and SC and $20,613,182 nationally (extrapolated from 2003 NASS national colony counts). -- A robust and sustainable population of honey bees to facilitate crop pollination and agro-ecosystem stability. |
|
Final Report: |
|
Results From report submitted by the PI to USDA CRIS report system PROGRESS: 2007/06 TO 2010/03 OUTPUTS: The project was complicated by high bee mortality in our Florida yard one year and South Carolina yard another. In Georgia the project was complicated by unexpected low level of pestiferous small hive beetles - the target of the study. In spite of these difficulties, the project was useful for supporting the growing evidential database for soil nematodes as effective controls for small hive beetles. Of the three IPM components tested in the project - hygienic-selected bees, adult beetle traps, and soil nematodes - only nematodes gave indication of beetle control. Independent work by team PIs has substantiated the use of in-hive adult traps. The PIs represent a major fraction of the Southeast (FL, GA, and SC); therefore our mutual recommendations form the basis of IPM control for SHBs in the region - in-hive adult traps and predatory nematodes. All of our extension meetings and recommendations for SHB hang on these two components. The numbers of extension meetings delivering these recommendations since 2007 are estimated at: 8 in GA, 8 in SC, and 25 in FL. The numbers of workshops delivering these recommendations are estimated at 2 in GA, 4 in SC, and 6 in FL. The numbers of individual recommendations (emails, phone calls) are estimated at 125 in GA, 100 in SC, and 200 in FL. One of us (KSD) presented these results in Great Britain as part of that industry's efforts to preemptively control this invasive pest. PARTICIPANTS: PI Keith Delaplane provided experiment design and project-wide oversight. Jennifer Berry managed the GA component of the study PI Jamie Ellis oversaw the FL component of the study. PI W. Michael Hood oversaw the SC component of the study. TARGET AUDIENCES: Target audiences reached: state beekeeper associations of FL, GA, and SC no fewer than 50 local beekeeping associations in FL, GA, and SC no fewer than 5 state beekeeping associations outside our three states beekeepers of Great Britain beekeepers of Mexico Efforts: bee association meetings beekeeping workshops classroom education visiting scholars PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project. IMPACT: 2007/06 TO 2010/03 The PIs are aware of growing consumer interest in controlling SHBs with soil nematodes. The number of annual inquiries (emails, phone calls) about procuring nematodes is estimated at 25 for GA, 15 for SC, and 75 in FL. Word of this use has spread to Mexico where SHBs are recently introduced. This was the basis for a 2-week study visit by Silvia Reyes Cuayahuitl from the National Autonomous University of Mexico in 2008; Ms. Cuayahuitl developed the official Mexican recommendations for controlling SHBs which will have collateral benefit in the US by limiting spread of these beekeeping pests. PUBLICATIONS (not previously reported): 2007/06 TO 2010/03 1. Delaplane, K.S. 2010. Small hive beetles, University of Georgia on-line bulletin http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/disorders/small-hive-beetle.html 2. Ellis, J.D. and A. Ellis. 2010. Small hive beetle, University of Florida EENY-474, http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/misc/bees/small hive beetle.htm |
|
Outcomes N/A |
|
Impacts From report submitted by the PI to USDA CRIS report system The PIs are aware of growing consumer interest in controlling SHBs with soil nematodes. The number of annual inquiries (emails, phone calls) about procuring nematodes is estimated at 25 for GA, 15 for SC, and 75 in FL. Word of this use has spread to Mexico where SHBs are recently introduced. This was the basis for a 2-week study visit by Silvia Reyes Cuayahuitl from the National Autonomous University of Mexico in 2008; Ms. Cuayahuitl developed the official Mexican recommendations for controlling SHBs which will have collateral benefit in the US by limiting spread of these beekeeping pests. |
| Close Window |
|
Southern IPM Center North Carolina State University 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 110 Raleigh, NC 27606 p. 919.513.1432 f. 919.513.1114 |
 |
Developed by the Center for IPM © Copyright CIPM 2004-2025 |
|