Tuesday 7 Feb 2012
   
The struggle to uphold legislation that protects the African honeybee  
   

Problem Statement: Bee keepers in the winter rainfall (western Cape) region of South Africa have colonies of Apis mellifera capensis, the Cape honeybee, whereas beekeepers in the summer rainfall region of the country have colonies of a different subspecies, Apis mellifera scutellata, the African honeybee. When beekeepers moved honeybee colonies from the western Cape into the summer rainfall region, the population of African honeybees was threatened. According to legislation designed to protect pollinators essential for agriculture, any A. m. scutellata colonies that have A. m. capensis laying workers must be killed within 48 hours. Typically, only a very few Cape bee workers invade scutellata colonies. Correctly identifying their presence is therefore of paramount importance to minimizing the number of colonies killed. However, no clear-cut taxonomic method to distinguish between the workers of the two subspecies is available. The protection of African honeybee colonies is also important for biodiversity because the trapping of tens of thousands of wild bee swarms annually by beekeepers is impacting on the pollination of wild flora.

Methods: At present worker bees are dissected, the spermatheca measured, and the number of ovarioles in each ovary counted. These data give a good indication of the subspecies, but obtaining the information results in the destruction of the specimens. An alternative approach involves a visual examination of live workers in queen-less colonies, however this is not as accurate as the dissection method.

Outcomes and impacts: The lack of a robust taxonomic method of distinguishing honeybee subspecies results in ongoing, unnecesary elimination of African bee colonies falsely suspected of containing Cape bees. Despite legislation to protect their populations, the numbers of African honeybee colonies needed for pollination of fruits and vegetables is therefore continuing to decline.

Lessons: Implementation of the legislation to protect the African honeybee requires new, robust and non-destructive taxonomic methods to distinguish the two subspecies if unwanted destruction of bee colonies is to be avoided. Accurate keys or, ideally, molecular analysis of samples taken from specimens may provide the solution. Such methods would be significantly more accurate, rapid, robust and non-destructive than current procedures.


References:

1.Cooke, M.J. 1992. Turnabout is fair play – Cape bee invades African bee territory. American Bee Journal 132: 519 – 521. 2.Hepburn, H.R. & Crewe, R.M. 1991. Portrait of the Cape honeybee, Apis mellifera capensis. Apidologie 22: 567-580. 3.Hepburn, H.R., Radloff, S.E. & Fuchs, S. 1998. Population structure and the interface between Apis mellifera capensis and Apis mellifera scutellata. Apidologie 29: 333-346.

Contributor:

1. Annelize Lubbe, Agricultural Research Council, Plant Protection Research Institute, Private Bag X134, Queenswood, Pretoria, 0121, South Africa. Tel: +27-(0)12-3569862; Fax +27-(0)12-3293278, Email: LubbeA@arc.agric.za Web: www.arc.agric.za 2. G. D. Tribe, Plant Protection Research Institute, Private Bag X 5017 Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa. Email: TribeG@arc.agric.za

Regions:

Africa

Themes:

pollinators

agriculture

 
Case study contributors retain full right to their material. However, by sharing this material through BioNET-INTERNATIONAL, they agree that it many be used freely, but only for non-commercial purposes and not for financial gain. Please acknowledge individual authors and BioNET-INTERNATIONAL.
   
    bionet
    © BioNET-INTERNATIONAL 1999-2011 | email

In this website, the registered trademark BioNET-INTERNATIONAL® has been abbreviated for presentational purposes to bionet* but all references should be taken to refer to the trademark in full.