4.7 Article

Bee pathogen transmission dynamics: deposition, persistence and acquisition on flowers

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2019.0603

关键词

Bombus impatiens; Crithidia bombi; pollinator health; disease spread; floral morphology

资金

  1. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [DGE-1650441]
  2. National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [R01GM122062]
  3. Garden Club of America (GCA) Board of Associates Centennial Pollinator Fellowship
  4. Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future Sustainable Biodiversity Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Infectious diseases are a primary driver of bee decline worldwide, but limited understanding of how pathogens are transmitted hampers effective management. Flowers have been implicated as hubs of bee disease transmission, but we know little about how interspecific floral variation affects transmission dynamics. Using bumblebees (Bombus impatiens), a trypanosomatid pathogen (Crithidia bombi) and three plant species varying in floral morphology, we assessed how host infection and plant species affect pathogen deposition on flowers, and plant species and flower parts impact pathogen survival and acquisition at flowers. We found that host infection with Crithidia increased defaecation rates on flowers, and that bees deposited faeces onto bracts of Lobelia siphilitica and Lythrum salicaria more frequently than onto Monarda didyma bracts. Among flower parts, bracts were associated with the lowest pathogen survival but highest resulting infection intensity in bee hosts. Additionally, we found that Crithidia survival across flower parts was reduced with sun exposure. These results suggest that efficiency of pathogen transmission depends on where deposition occurs and the timing and place of acquisition, which varies among plant species and environmental conditions. This information could be used for development of wildflower mixes that maximize forage while minimizing disease spread.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据