4.6 Article

Evaluation of Cage Designs and Feeding Regimes for Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Laboratory Experiments

Journal

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY
Volume 107, Issue 1, Pages 54-62

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1603/EC13213

Keywords

Apis mellifera; cage; laboratory testing; COLOSS; honey bee

Categories

Funding

  1. Teachers' Development Scholarship
  2. Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, PR China
  3. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Cooperative Agricultural Project (USDA-CAP) grant [2009-85118-05718]
  4. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology)
  5. Ricola Foundation-Nature and Culture
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences
  7. Division Of Environmental Biology [1415604] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to improve cage systems for maintaining adult honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) workers under in vitro laboratory conditions. To achieve this goal, we experimentally evaluated the impact of different cages, developed by scientists of the international research network COLOSS (Prevention of honey bee COlony LOSSes), on the physiology and survival of honey bees. We identified three cages that promoted good survival of honey bees. The bees from cages that exhibited greater survival had relatively lower titers of deformed wing virus, suggesting that deformed wing virus is a significant marker reflecting stress level and health status of the host. We also determined that a leak- and drip-proof feeder was an integral part of a cage system and a feeder modified from a 20-ml plastic syringe displayed the best result in providing steady food supply to bees. Finally, we also demonstrated that the addition of protein to the bees' diet could significantly increase the level of vitellogenin gene expression and improve bees' survival. This international collaborative study represents a critical step toward improvement of cage designs and feeding regimes for honey bee laboratory experiments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available