Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 16 Jan 2016 07:13:54 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
A lot of intriguing comments and observations, but a great synthesis
still seems elusive. There seem to be too many variables for a clear
picture. A high rate of mite growth in individual colonies is still
necessary to propel the problem. Theoretically (yes, theoretically)
the problem would not exist if the majority of colonies kept mite
numbers low or decreased them through active resistance mechanisms
that can take care of invasions as they happen.
Randy, I do not know of anyone measuring drift between colonies when
evaluating for mite growth in standardized tests. The specific test
that I alluded to with queens from "survivor" colonies was actually
the first use of an apiary inside a more or less abandoned forestry
experimental plot with mid-sized pecan trees with brush and
undergrowth. Lanes were mowed along rows of trees and staggered and
irregular inlets were cut into the brush from those lanes. Colonies
were placed singly inside those bays to "minimize drift".
Emphasizing prior anecdotal observations that suggest that the effects
of drift are small compared to growth of mite populations within
colonies: colonies with highly resistant queens can keep mite levels
low or undetectable while in yards with large highly susceptible
colonies in the mix. Concurrent with these observations are
quantifications that show that the first remove high proportions of
infested brood, while the latter barely touch infested cells.
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
|
|