SCG > Sustainable Agriculture & Forestry Programs > Integrated Pest Management Program > Funding > 2001-2002 Final Reports > Hood

CUIPM Home
About CUIPM
What's New!
What Is IPM?
Managing Pests
IPM & Schools
Funding Opportunities
Other IPM Resources

2001 - 2002 CUIPM Grants -
Final Reports

A Modified Constructed Honey Bee Hive with an Upper Entrance for the Control of
Small Hive Beetles, Aethina tumida, Murray

Project Leader:
Mike Hood
Professor, Apiculture
Department of Entomology
Clemson University

Project Associate:
Gilbert Miller
County Agricultural Extension Agent
Clemson University Cooperative Extension Service

Executive Summary: An exotic beehive pest, the small hive beetle (SHB), Aethina tumida,Murray, has been confirmed in 25 US states since its first identification in May 1998. At present, the SHB infests honey bee colonies in 36 SC counties and undetected incipient infestations likely occur in other counties. Most damage from this pest has occurred in coastal SC where the beetle has been active for a few years prior to formal identification (Hood, 1999). This pest has become a major problem in some SC beekeeping operations, resulting in complete hive destruction in many cases. Only two products are available to treat for this pest, Check Mite +® which is an inside-hive treatment and Gard Star® which is a ground treatment product for SHB pupae. Check Mite +® (AI. 10% Coumaphos) is an organophosphate which is currently registered under a section 18 label in South Carolina and many other states for small hive beetle and varroa mite control. This product is subject to renewal annually. For small hive beetle control, Check Mite + is the primary control product because the pesticide kills beetles inside the hive to reduce colony damage. However, repeated use of this product will likely lead to SHBs showing pesticide resistance in a few years, making the product ineffective. Gard Star® is a pyrethroid pesticide used as a ground treatment to disrupt the life cycle of the SHB as it enters the soil to pupate. This product is used to break the life cycle of the pest and prevent further damage and spread. Unfortunately, this product may kill bees, if it is not properly applied by the beekeeper. Both products have to be handled carefully by the beekeepers to prevent personal contamination.

Effective, safe alternative control measures are needed to reduce the effects of this hive pest. Investigations into a modified-constructed bee hive, with an upper entrance instead of the conventional bottom entrance, may lead to the discovery of an inhibition of the small hive beetle to complete its life cycle and could reduce the beekeepers reliance on pesticides. An effective, non-pesticide alternative will reduce the number of pesticide applications needed to control this pest which should lengthen the useful life of the presently used pesticides.

Background and Justification: Previous research, "Search for Hygienic Honey Bees that Remove Small Hive Beetle Larvae," in 1999-2000 (Taber and Hood 2000), identified a possible method of SHB control without the use of pesticides. In this previous study, a possible reason for failure of SHB buildup in nucs (a nuc is a small honey bee colony of five frames rather than the normal ten frame hive) may have been influenced by the test nuc hive entrance location, causing a disruption in the SHB life cycle. SHB exit honey bee colonies to pupate in the soil. We observed during the previous noted research project that the modified colony entrance location of five inches above hive floor may have impeded the larval migration to the soil below the nuc. In other words, the mature SHB larvae may have been unable to exit the nuc in order to complete its life cycle. This may have resulted in the SHB larvae being unable to locate the upper entrance or being unable to crawl vertically to the upper entrance to exit the nuc to pupate in the soil.

Year 1 (2001) of this IPM project tested a simple (.75 inch diameter) auger hole upper entrance as reported in the above research versus a regular lower hive entrance. No significant difference in overall beetle counts was recorded during the year. Apparently, the simple auger hole did not disrupt the life cycle of the SHB.

Year 2 Objective: The objective of the second year of this project was to investigate further modifications of the beehive entrance in an effort to disrupt the life cycle of the SHB.

Approach and Procedures: Twenty 2 lb. honey bee packages were purchased from Wilbanks Apiaries, Claxton, Georgia on 28 March 2002. The bee packages were transported to 3 apiaries and installed in nuc beehives on 28-29 March 2002 (8 colonies at Bee City, Colleton County, 8 colonies in Denmark, Bamberg County, and 4 colonies at the Edisto Research Station, Barnwell County.) At each apiary, half the colonies were randomly placed that had an (1.25 inch diameter by 3 inch long PVC pipe) upper entrance located just above and right of the handle hold. The other colonies at each apiary had conventional bottom entrances.

The colonies were fed sugar water heavily for the first month upon establishment. The bee colonies were inspected for SHB activity on 10-11 April 2002. Sampling for SHB was conducted at 3-4 weeks intervals through 22 November 2002. Colony honey bee brood (capped brood- pupae) levels were measured at eight week intervals during the test period to monitor any affects on colony strength.

Results: Eleven SHB sampling counts were conducted during the test period. The Edisto REC apiary which had four test colonies did not have a buildup of SHB sufficient to include in the analysis. All SHB count comparisons came from the apiaries in Bamberg and Colleton Counties which contained the remaining 16 test colonies. Overall, there was no significant difference in SHB adult counts recorded in the upper versus lower entrance colonies during the eight months test period. A significant difference (P<.01) in SHB counts was recorded on one sampling date only. On 18 September, there was significantly more SHB counted in the colonies having a conventional bottom entrance.

There was significantly less (P<.05) brood production recorded in the test colonies having an upper entrance during the test period which included six sampling dates for brood measurements.

Other notes:
  1. On 20 May 2002, the first SHB larvae were reported in these investigations when 57 SHB larvae were counted on the bottom board of colony #11 which had an upper entrance and was located in the Denmark apiary.
  2. On 11 June, over 100 SHB larvae were counted on the bottom board of colony #4 which had an upper entrance and was located in the Colleton County apiary.
  3. On 2 July, over 3,000 SHB larvae were counted on the bottom board of colony #12 which had an upper entrance and was located in the Denmark apiary.
  4. On 26 July, SHB larvae were present in colonies #9(lower entrance), #11(upper entrance), #12(upper entrance), #13(upper entrance), and #14(lower entrance).
  5. On 26 July, colonies #11 and #13 were dead.
  6. On 20 August, colonies #8, #9, and #12 were dead.
  7. On 18 September colonies #1, #2, #10, #14, #15 and #16 were dead.
  8. On 2 October, colony #4 died.
  9. On 22 November colony #3 died. Only 3 colonies survived until the end of tests in apiaries located in Bamberg and Colleton Counties. All colonies located at the Edisto REC in Barnwell County survived and were in excellent - good condition at test termination.
Conclusions: From the results of these investigations, an upper hive entrance may reduce slightly the buildup of small hive beetles in honey bee colonies. An obvious numerical increase in small hive beetle adults occurred in honey bee colonies having a conventional bottom entrance, although the difference was not significant. Numerical difference of less SHB found in upper hive entrance colonies was recorded on 10 of the 11 sampling dates. The two test apiary locations (Bamberg and Colleton Counties) were heavily infested with SHB which likely played a major role in the beetle buildup rate. The colonies appeared to be under severe stress from beetle activity by the 2 July 02 sampling date. Both apiaries were located in the vicinity (within 1 mile) of other managed SHB-infested honey bee colonies.

The upper hive entrance had a negative affect on honey bee brood production in these investigations and therefore would be expected to affect honey production and number of foraging bees available for pollination.

Summary: Two years of field tests were conducted to investigate the effect of an upper hive entrance on small hive beetle populations. From these tests, it appears the upper hive entrance does not provide adequate small hive beetle control, especially in heavier beetle infested locations. In newly established SHB infested locations where few beetles are present, the upper colony entrance may delay the increase in the beetle population when compared to the conventional hive entrance and therefore delay the necessity of pesticide intervention. However, this theory needs further testing in other locations which show low to moderate SHB infestation levels. The results of our investigations indicate clearly that the upper hive entrance causes a decrease in colony brood production which offsets any gain in slower SHB buildup, especially in coastal South Carolina. If a beekeeper is willing to accept less productive colonies in order to achieve a slower SHB buildup, the upper hive entrance is a good option.

The upper hive entrance concept does not show great promise in controlling this sometimes serious hive pest, especially in highly infested SHB areas. Alternative SHB control measures are greatly needed given the primary inside hive control measure is the use of coumaphos which is registered on a section 18 label in South Carolina. This label is temporary and is subject to being removed from the market. Also, SHB resistance to this product is eminent due to the short life cycle of the pest and the beekeepers repeated use of the chemical since 1998 for SHB and varroa mite control in South Carolina.

Outreach Plan: Results of this research will be shared with beekeepers at local, state, regional and national meetings in 2003.

References:
Hood, W. M. 1999. Small Hive Beetle. Clemson University Entomology Department Insect Information Series: IIS-2. p. 4.

Hood, W.M. 2000. Overview of the Small Hive Beetle, Aethina tumida Murray, in North America. Bee World 81(3): 129-137.

Taber, S. & W.M. Hood. 2000. Report on the South Carolina Hive Beetle Experiment. American Bee Journal. Vol. 140: 548-549.

Questions or comments:
Amy Nichols
Associate Coordinator
IPM and
Sustainable Agriculture
Programs
Contact

Dr. Geoffrey Zehnder
Professor of Entomology, Soils & Plant Sciences
IPM and
Sustainable Agriculture
Programs
114 Long Hall, Box 340315
Clemson, SC 29634-0315
864 - 656 - 6644
Contact

Last revised:
8/4/2006
Clemson University Cooperative Extension Service offers its programs to people of all ages, regardless of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital or family status and is an equal opportunity employer.