Comparative Morphological Analysis of Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.) from the Western and Central Black Sea Region, with Emphasis on Natural Diversity

Öz

Due to migratory beekeeping and nationwide sales of queens and colonies, genetic mixes are a major concern. Nonetheless, providing beekeepers with quality breeding material will boost production. Two hundred colonies were chosen from the Western and Central Black Sea Region, specifically from Düzce, Kastamonu, Sinop, and Ordu. These colonies were selected from locations where migratory beekeeping is not practiced, and the beekeeping firms involved have abstained from using commercial queen bees for three generations, between 2014 and 2022. Each sample has 10 worker bees with 41 morphometric measures. The local bee genotype was compared to Caucasian, Anatolian, and Yığılca genotypes, whose comprehensive morphological traits were known. Four local bee genotypes differed significantly (P<0.05) in 39 morphological features. These four bee genotypes clustered into three function value groups. With 98.9% accuracy, the 271 worker bee samples from the four genotypes were categorized in respective fields. Anticipated were strong morphological similarities between worker bee samples from the nearby regions of Yığılca and WCBS. The Caucasian bee subspecies, along with the other three genotypes, had a significant level of morphological likeness and overlap. Selection may affect qualitative characters (color, etc.) like quantitative characters across generations. Protect, generate, and provide breeding material with better productivity, wintering capacity, and morphology.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Subspecies
• Genotype
• Morphology

Kaynakça

1. Adam, B. (1983). In search of the best strains of honeybee. Northern Bee Books, West Yorkshire, UK.
2. Akyol, E. (1998). Kafkas ve Muğla arılarının saf ve karşılıklı melezlerinin morfolojik, fizyolojik ve davranışsal özelliklerinin belirlenmesi. Ç.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Zootekni Ana Bilim Dalı, Doktora Tezi, Adana.
3. Alpatov, W. W. (1929). Morphometric al studies on variation and the races of the honeybee Apis mellifera L. Quat.Rev. Biol. 4, 1–58.
4. Bienefeld, K., Ehrhardta, K., & Reinhardt, F. (2007). Genetic evaluation in the honey bee considering queen and worker effects A BLUP Animal Model approach. Apidologie, 38, 77–85. Bilash G. D., Makarov II, & Sedikh A.V. (1976). Zonal distribution of bee races in USSR. Genetics, Selection and Reproduction of the Honeybee Symposium on Bee Biology, Moscow,134–142.
5. Bodenheimer F. S. (1942). Studies on the honeybee and beekeeping in Turkey. Merkez Zirai Mucadele Enstitusu Ankara, Istanbul, Turkey.
6. Bodur, C., Kence, M., & Kence A. (2007). Genetic structure of honeybee, Apis mellifera L., (Hymenoptera: Apidae) populations of Turkey inferred from microsatellite analysis. Journal of Apicultural Research, 46, 50–56.
7. Coley , W. W., & Lohnes R. R. (1971). Multivariate Data Analysis. John Wiley and Sons. Inc., New York, USA, pp. 244–257.
8. Collins, A. M. (1986). Quantitative Genetics. In T. E. Rinderer (Eds.) Bee Genetics and Breeding (p-p 283-304). Academic Pres, Inc. London,

9. Dupraw, E. J. (1965). The recognition and handling of honeybee specimens in non-linear taxonomy. Journal of Apicultural Research, 4, 72–84.
10. Gencer, H. V., & Fıratli, C. (1999). Morphological characteristics of the Central Anatolian (A. m. anatoliaca) and Caucasian (A. m. caucasica) honeybees. Tr. J. Vet. Anim. Sci., 23, 107–113.
11. Güler, A. (2001). Morphological characteristics of the honeybee (Apis mellifera L) of the Artvin Borcka Camili region. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Science, 25, 473–481.
12. Güler, A., & Kaftanoglu, O. (1999a). Morphological characters of some important races and ecotypes of Turkish honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) I. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Science, 23, 565–571.
13. Güler, A., & Kaftanoglu, O. (1999b). Morphological characters of some important races and ecotypes of Turkish honeybees (Apis mellifera.) II. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Science, 23, 571–575.
14. Güler, A., & Bek, Y. (2002). Forewingangles of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) samples from different regions of Turkey. Journal of Apicultural Research, 40, 43-49.
15. Güler, A., & Toy, H. (2008). Sinop İli Türkeli yöresi balarıları (Apis mellifera)’nın morfolojik özellikleri. O.M.Ü. Ziraat Fakültesi. Dergisi, 23(3), 190–197.
16. Güler, A. (2010). A morphometrics model for determining the effect of commercial queen bee usage on the native honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) population in Turkish province. Apidologie, 41, 622-635.
17. Güler, A., Yüksel, B., & Güven, H. (2010). The importance of morphometrics geometry on discrimination of Carniolan (A. m. carnica) and Caucasian (A. m. caucasica) honey bee subspecies and in determining their relationship to Thrace Region bee genotype. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 83(2), 154-162.
18. Güler, A., Bıyık, S., & Güler., M. (2012). Batı Karadeniz Bölgesi Balarılarının (Apismellifera L.) Morfolojik Karakterizasyonu. Anadolu Tarım Bilim. Dergisi, 28(1), 39-46.
19. Güler, A. (2017). Bal arısı (Apis mellifera L.) yetiştiriciliği hastalıkları ve ürünleri. Azim Matbaacılık, Ankara.
20. Güler, A., Önder, H., Kavak, G., Toktay, G., Uğurlutepe, E., Biyik, S. & Aydin, A. (2022). The effects of instrumental insemination on selected and un selected breeding characteristics in honeybee (Apismellifera L.). Apidologie, 53, 35, doi.org/10.1007/s13592-022-009470.
21. Güven, H. (2003). Kuzeydoğu Anadolu ve Karadeniz Bölgesi’ndeki bazı arı (Apis mellifera L.) genotiplerinin morfolojik özellikleri ve performanslarının belirlenmesi. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
22. Kandemir, I., Kence, M., & Kence, A. (2000). Genetic and morphometric variation in honeybee (Apis mellifera) populations of Turkey. Apidologie, 31, 343–356.
23. Kauhausen-Keller, D., Ruttner, F., & Keller, R. (1997). Morphometric studies on the microtaxonomy of the species Apis mellifera L. Apidologie, 28, 295–307.
24. Le, C. T. (2001). A Problem-Based Introduction to Biostatistics. A John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Publication, Toronto, Canada.
25. Moritz, R. F. A. (1991). The limitations of morphometric control on pure race breeding in Apis mellifera. Journal of Apicultural Research, 30, 54–59.
26. Öztürk, A. İ. (1990). Morphometric analysis of some Turkish honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). Master of Philosophy. University of Wales College of Cardiff, U.K. Palmer,
27. M. R., Smith, D. R., & Kaftanoglu, O. (2000). Turkish honeybees: genetic variation and evidence for a fourth lineage of Apis mellifera mtDNA. Heredity, 91, 42–46.
28. Rinderer, E. T. (1986). Bee Genetics and Breeding. Academic Press, Inc. Ltd.
29. Rinderer, T. E., Buco, S. M., Rubink, W. L., Daly, H. V., Stelzer, J. A., Riggio, R. M., & Baptista, F. C. (1993). Morphometric identification of Africanised and European honeybees using large reference populations. Apidologie, 24, 569585.
30. Rinderer, E. T., Harris, J. W., Hunt, G. J., & De Guzman, L. I. (2010). Breeding for resistance to Varroa destructor in North America. Apidologie, 41, 409-424.
31. Ruttner, F., Tassencourt., L., & Louveaux, J. (1978). Morphometric al statistical analysis of the geographic variability of Apis mellifera L. Apidologie, 9(4), 363-381.
32. Ruttner, F. (1988). Biogeography and Taxonomy of Honey Bees. Springer, Verlag, Berlin.
33. Ruttner, F., Elmi, M. P., & Fuchs, S. (2000). Ecolines in the Near East along 36 N latitude in Apis mellifera L. Apidologie, 31, 157–165.
34. SAS Institute, (1988). SPSSx user’s guide, McGraw-Hill, 2nd ed., New York, USA.
35. Settar, A. (1983). Ege Bölgesi Arı Tipleri ve Gezginci Arıcılık Üzerinde Araştırmalar. Doktora Tezi, Ege Bölgesi Zirai Araştırma Enstitüsü, Menemen, İzmir.
36. Smith, D. R., (1991). Mitochondrial DNA and honeybee biogeography. In: Smith, D.R. (Ed.), Diversity in the genus Apis. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 131–176.
37. Smith, D. R., Slaymaker, A., Palmer, M., & Kaftanoglu, O. (1997). Turkish honeybees belong to the east Mediterranean mitochondrial lineage. Apidologie, 28, 269–274.