Muğla Bal Arısında (Apis mellifera anatoliaca) Amerikan Yavru Çürüklüğü Hastalığına Karşı Direnç Geliştirilmesi

Year 2019, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 8 - 20, 01.06.2019

Devrim Oskay , Mert Kükrer , Aykut Kence

Abstract

Bal
arıları, yabani ve kültüre alınmış bitkilerin tozlaşması için önemlidir. Bal
arısı hastalıkları ve zararlıları yaygın kullanılan kimyasallara karşı dirençli
hale gelmiştir. Kovandaki hastalıklara karşı sürekli güvenle antibiyotik
kullanımı akılcı metot değildir. Farklı çalışmalar, bal arılarının hijyenik
davranış gibi genetik olarak belirlenmiş hastalık direnç karakterlerinin
olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu çalışmadaki amacımız Muğla bal arısı (Apis mellifera
anatoliaca) için Amerikan Yavru Çürüklüğü hastalığına genetik olarak direnç
geliştirilmesiydi.

Çalışmada,
Muğla ilinden 200 Muğla arısı (A. m. anatoliaca) kolonisi toplanmıştır.
Koloniler genetik metotlar kullanılarak tanımlanmıştır. 30 mikrosatelit
belirteç kullanılarak yürütülen genetik tanımlama çalışmalarında Türkiye
çapında 18 ilden 250 örnek içinde çalışmada yer alan Muğla arılarının konumu
belirlenmiştir. Koloniler standart Langstroth kovanlarda tutulmuşlardır. Deney
kolonileri standart arıcılık pratik teknikleri kullanılarak yönetilmiştir.
Koloniler her yıl Nisan ayında hijyenik davranış için 2 defa
değerlendirilmişlerdir. Hijyenik davranışı ölçmek için kuluçkayı iğne ile
öldürme tekniği kullanılmıştır. 100 adet kapalı kuluçka gözleri sayılmış (a) bu
gözlerdeki arılar iğne kullanılarak öldürülmüştür. Uygulamanın yapıldığı petek
koloniye verilmiş ve 24 saat sonra temizlenmeden kalan göz sayısı(b) kayıt
edilmiştir. Hijyenik Davranış (HD) balarıları tarafından temizlenmiş ölü
kuluçka sayısının öldürülen kuluçka sayısına bölünmesiyle hesaplanmıştır. HB=
a-b/a x 100

En
az iki ölçümde %95’in üzerinde hijyenik davranış gösteren koloniler damızlık
olarak seçilerek ana arı üretiminde kullanılmıştır. Kız kardeş ana arılar,
kolonilerden şansa bağlı olarak toplanmış erkeklerden 10 µl semen ile yapay
tohumlanmışlardır. Kapatılmış toplum ıslah programı kullanılmıştır.

Çiftleşmedeki
kontrol (yapay tohumlama) ile 3 yıl sonra hijyenik davranış artışı 2012 yılında
%43’e, 2013 yılında %63’e ve 2014 yılında %91.7’e yükselmiştir. Hijyenik
davranış oranı 2012, 2013 ve 2014 arasında önemli derecede farklı çıkmıştır
(P≤0.001). Sürüde hijyenik davranış karakterinin kalıtım derecesi 1. ve 2.
yıllar arasında 0.32, 2.ve 3. yıllar arasında ise 0.77 bulunmuştur.

Keywords

Bal Arısı, Islah, Hijyenik Davranış, Genetik Tanımlama, Muğla Arısı, Apis mellifera anatoliaca

Development of Resistance to American Fool Brood Diseases on Muğla Honey Bee (Apis mellifera anatoliaca)

Abstract

Honeybees are important for pollinating wild and
cultured plants. Honeybee diseases and pests have become resistant to the
commonly used and previously effective treatment chemicals. Antibiotic
treatment of diseases in beehives means that sustained reliance on chemical
control measures is not a reasonable method. Different studies have shown that
honeybees have genetically determined mechanisms for disease resistance such as
hygienic behavior. In this study, we aim for genetic improvement in Muğla
Honeybee (Apis mellifera anatoliaca) resistance to American foulbrood diseases.

In our study 200 Mugla bee (A. m. anatoliaca) colonies
collected from Mugla province. Colonies were identified with genetic methods.
The position of Muğla bees of the study among 250 honeybee colonies from 18
provinces of Turkey was determined by making use of 30 microsatellite markers.
The colonies were kept in standard Langstroth hives. The experimental colonies
were managed using standard beekeeping practices. Colonies evaluated 2 times
for hygienic behavior in April each year.

To measure hygienic behavior a pin-killed brood assay
was used, where all the 100 capped brood cells were counted (a) and cells were
punctured using a pin to kill the brood. The treated comb was placed back into
the colony and after 24 hours the number of cells that remained capped (b) were
recorded. Hygienic behavior (HB) was the number of cells of dead brood that
were removed by the honeybees divided by the total number of cells of brood
killed. HB= a-b/a x 100.

The colonies showing hygienic behavior over %95 in at
least two measurements were selected and used as breeder colonies for queen
production. Daughter queens were instrumentally inseminated with 10 µl of semen
from randomly collected drones from the whole population. All inseminated
queens were marked and introduced 3 Langstroth frames nuc boxes with pushing
cages. We used the “Closed Population” breeding program.

Hygienic behavior increased in the population after 3
years of selection on queens with mating control (instrumental insemination)
from 43% in 2012 to 63% in 2013 and further to %91.7 in 2014. Hygienic behavior
ratio was significantly different among 2012, 2013 and 2014 (P ≤0.001).
Heritability was 0.35 between the 1st and the 2nd years and 0.77 between the
2nd and the 3rd years.

Keywords

Honey bee, Breeding, Hygienic behavior, Genetic İdentification, Mugla bees, Apis mellifera anatoliaca

References

• Adam, B., (1987). Beekeeping at Buckfast Abbey. Northern Bee Books, Hebden Bridge.
• Arathi H.S., Burns I, Spivak M. (2000). Ethology of Hygienic Behavior in The Honey Bee Apis Mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae): Behavioral Repertoire of Hygienic Bees. Ethology 106:365–379.
• Boecking O, Drescher W., (1992). The Removal Response of Apis Mellifera L. Colonies to Brood in Wax and Plastic Cells After Artificial And Natural Infestation with Varroa Jacobsoni Oud. And to Freeze-Killed Brood. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 16, 321–329.
• Broodsgaard C.J. Ritter W., Hansen H., (1998). Response of In Vitro Reared Honey Bee Larvae to Various Doses of Paenibacillus Larvae Spores, Apidologie 29, 569–578. Colter D., (2000). An Update on Resistant American Foulbrood disease in Alberta, Alberta Bee News, Sept.2–4.
• Crailsheim, K. and Riessberger-Gallé U., (2001). Honey Bee Age-Dependent Resistance Against American Foulbrood, Apidologie 32, 91–103.
• Cobey, S. W., (2007). Comparison Studies of Instrumentally Inseminated and Naturally Mated Honey Bee Queens and Factors Affecting Their Performance. Apidologie 38 P:390-410.
• Cobey, S. W., (2016). An Introduction to Instrumental Insemination of Honey Bee Queens. Bee World, 93(2), 33-36.
• Çınar, U., (2000). Muğla Yöresi Bal Arısı (Apis Mellifera L.) Populasyonlarında Morfometrik Varyasyonun Belirlenmesi. Ege Üniv. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi . Delaney, D. A., Meixner, M. D., Schiff, N. M., & Sheppard, W. S. (2009). Genetic characterization of commercial honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) populations in the United States by using mitochondrial and microsatellite markers. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 102(4), 666-673.
• Doğaroğlu, M. (2008) Modern Arıcılık Teknikleri P:1-287 Anadolu Ofset San.Ve Ltd.Şti. Bağcılar–İstanbul,Türkiye.
• Doolittle G.M. (1889) Scientific Queen-Rearing as Practically Applied: Being a Method by which The Best of Queen-Bees are Reared in Perfect Accord with Nature's Ways: For the Amateur and Veteran in Bee-Keeping. Chicago: T. G. Newman.
• Falconer D.S. (1996) Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 4th Edition, Benjamin Cummings.
• Giray, T., Kence, M., Oskay, D., Doke, M.A., Kence, A., (2010). Sci- entific note: Colony Losses Survey in Turkey and Causes of Bee Deaths. Apidologie, 41: 451-453.
• Güler, A., & Toy, H. (2013). Relationship between dead pupa removal and season and productivity of honey bee (Apis mellifera, Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 37(4), 462-467.
• Hansen, H. and Broodsgaard, C.J., (1999). American foulbrood: A review of Its Biology, Diagnosis and Control. Bee World, Vol. 80, 5-23.
• Harbo, J.R. and Harris, J.W., (1999). Selecting honey bees for resistance to Varroa jacobsoni. Apidologie, 30, 183-196.
• Invernizzi, C., (2001). Resistencia a la enfermedad de cría yesificada por colonias de Apis mellifera con eficiente comportamiento higiénico (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Iheringia Ser Zool 91: 109-114.
• Kandemir, İ., Kence, M., Kence, A., (2000) Genetic and Morphometric Variation in Honeybee (Apis Mellifera) Populations of Turkey, Apidologie 31: 343-356. Kence, A., (1987) Türkiye'nin Biyolojik Zenginlikleri, 316p, 1987. Epft Publications, Ankara.
• Kence, A. (2006) Türkiye Bal arılarında Genetik Çeşitlilik ve Korunmasının Önemi. Uludağ Arıcılık Dergisi, 6(1): 25-32.
• Kence, M., Farhoud, H. J., & Tunca, R. I., (2009). Morphometric and genetic variability of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) populations from northern Iran. Journal of apicultural research, 48(4), 247-255.
• Kükrer, M., Kence, M., Kence, A. (2017). Genetic Evidences for The Impact of Anthropogenic Factors on Honey Bee Diversity. Biorxiv Doi: 10.1101/154195.
• Laidlaw H.H. & Page, E.R., (1997). Queen Rearing and Bee Breeding. Wicwas Press. Cheshire, Connecticticut, Usa.1-224.
• Lapidge K.L., Oldroyd B.P., Spivak M. (2002). Seven Suggestive Quantitative Trait Loci Influence Hygienic Behavior of Honeybees. Naturwissenschaften 89, 565–568.
• Miyagi T., Peng C.Y.S., Chuang R.Y., Mussen E.C.,Spivak M.S., Doi R.H. (2000) Verification of Oxytetracycline-Resistant American Foulbrood Pathogen Paenibacillus Larvae in The United States, J. Invertebr. Pathol. 75: 95–96.28.
• Mondet, F., Alaux, C., Severac, D., Rohmer, M., Mercer, A. R., & Le Conte, Y. (2015). Antennae hold a key to Varroa-sensitive hygiene behaviour in honey bees. Scientific reports, 5, 10454.
• Moritz, R. F.A, Miranda J. D., Fries, I., Conte, Y. L., Neumann, P., Paxton, R. J. (2010) Research Strategies to Improve Honeybee Health in Europe. Apidologie. Doi: 10.105/Apido/2010010.
• Oskay, D. (2008). Protecting Diversity of Native Honey Bee Subspecies, Developing A Model on Colony Management and Breeding. Uludag Bee Journal 8(2): 63-72.
• Palacio, M. A., Rodriguez, E., Goncalves, L., Bedascarrasbure, E., & Spivak, M. (2010). Hygienic behaviors of honey bees in response to brood experimentally pin-killed or infected with Ascosphaera apis. Apidologie, 41(6), 602-612.
• Rothenbuhler W.C., (1964a). Behavior Genetics of Nest Cleaning in Honey Bees. I. Responses of Four Inbred Lines to Disease-Killed Brood, Anim. Behav. 12, 578–583.
• Rothenbuhler W.C., (1964b). Behavior Genetics of Nest Cleaning in Honey Bees. Iv. Responses of F1 and Backcross Generations to Disease-Killed Brood, Am. Zool. 4, 111–123.
• Ruttner, F., (1976). Influence of Body Fluid from Pin-Killed Honey Bee Pupae on Hygienic Behavior. Instrumental Insemination of The Queen Bee. 2nd. International Beekeeping Technology and Economy Institute of Apimondia, Bucharest Romania.
• Ruttner, F., (1988). Biogeography and Taxonomy of Honeybees. Springer, Berlin.
• Schöning, C., Gisder, S., Geiselhardt, S., Kretschmann, I., Bienefeld, K., Hilker, M., & Genersch, E. (2012). Evidence for damage-dependent hygienic behaviour towards Varroa destructor-parasitised brood in the western honey bee, Apis mellifera. Journal of Experimental Biology, 215(2), 264-271.
• Spivak, M., Reuter, S. (2001a). Resistance to American Foulbrood Disease by Honey Bee Colonies Apis Mellifera Bred for Hygienic Behavior. Apidologie 32: 555-565.
• Spivak, M., & Reuter, G. S. (2001b). Varroa destructor infestation in untreated honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies selected for hygienic behavior. Journal of Economic Entomology, 94(2), 326-331.
• Spivak, M., & Gilliam, M. (1998a). Hygienic behaviour of honey bees and its application for control of brood diseases and Varroa: Part I. Hygienic behaviour and resistance to American foulbrood. Bee world, 79(3), 124-134.
• Spivak, M., & Gilliam, M. (1998b). Hygienic behaviour of honey bees and its application for control of brood diseases and Varroa: Part II. Studies on hygienic behaviour since the Rothenbuhler era. Bee world, 79(4), 169-186.
• Toufailia, H. M. A., Amiri, E., Scandian, L., Kryger, P., & Ratnieks, F. L. (2014). Towards integrated control of varroa: effect of variation in hygienic behaviour among honey bee colonies on mite population increase and deformed wing virus incidence. Journal of Apicultural Research, 53(5), 555-562.
• Traynor, K. (2008). Bee breeding around the world. American bee journal.
• Tunca, R. İ., Yiğiter, S., Kence, M., Giray, T., Kence, A. (2009). Morphometric Discrimination of Honey Bee Races and Ecotypes in Turkey. Apimondia. Montpelier.
• Vanengelsdorp D., Hayes J. Jr., Underwood R.M., Pettis J. (2008). A survey of honey bee colony losses in the U.S. Fall 2007 to Spring 2008, PLoS ONE 3(12):e4071, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004071.
• Winston, L.M. (1987). The Biology of The Honey Bee. Harvard University Press P: 1-281.
• Woodrow, A.W., (1942). Susceptibility of honeybee larvae to individual inoculations with spores of Bacillus larvae. Journal of Economic Entomology, 35(6), 892-895.