4.6 Article

Parasites and RNA viruses in wild and laboratory reared bumble bees Bombus pauloensis (Hymenoptera: Apidae) from Uruguay

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249842

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agencia Nacional de Investigacion e Innovacion (ANII) [POSNAC_2014_1_102699]
  2. Comision Academica de Posgrado (CAP) of the Universidad de la Republica (Udelar)
  3. Comision Sectorial de investigacion Cientifica (CSIC, Udelar)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bumble bees are important pollinators, with the widely distributed Bombus pauloensis in South America recently being managed and commercialized. However, this movement may facilitate the spread of parasites and pathogens, posing risks to their populations.
Bumble bees (Bombus spp.) are important pollinators insects involved in the maintenance of natural ecosystems and food production. Bombus pauloensis is a widely distributed species in South America, that recently began to be managed and commercialized in this region. The movement of colonies within or between countries may favor the dissemination of parasites and pathogens, putting into risk while populations of B. pauloensis and other native species. In this study, wild B. pauloensis queens and workers, and laboratory reared workers were screened for the presence of phoretic mites, internal parasites (microsporidia, protists, nematodes and parasitoids) and RNA viruses (Black queen cell virus (BQCV), Deformed wing virus (DWV), Acute paralysis virus (ABCV) and Sacbrood virus (SBV)). Bumble bee queens showed the highest number of mite species, and it was the only group where Conopidae and S. bombi were detected. In the case of microsporidia, a higher prevalence of N. ceranae was detected in field workers. Finally, the bumble bees presented the four RNA viruses studied for A. mellifera, in proportions similar to those previously reported in this species. Those results highlight the risks of spillover among the different species of pollinators.

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

4.6
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