Academic Journal of Entomology 8 (4): 174-182, 2015
ISSN 1995-8994
© IDOSI Publications, 2015
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.aje.2015.8.4.96198
Origin, Weight at Emergence of Virgin Honey Bee Queens
and its Effect on Acceptance During Introduction
1
S.H.D. Masry, 2T.E. Abd El-Wahab and 3Nadia M. Hassona
Plant Protection and Biomolecular Diagnosis Department, Arid Lands Cultivation Research Institute,
City of Scientific Research and Technological Applications, Borg El-Arab, Alex., Egypt
2
Pests and Plant Protection Department, National Research Centre, Doki, Giza, Egypt
3
Plant Protection Department, Faculty of Agriculture-Saba Basha, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
1
Abstract: The honey bee queen, mother of all individuals in the colony, determines the inherited characteristics
of the colony. Periodic replacement of old queens by young and high quality one is an important management
practice in commercial beekeeping industry. Virgin queens’ introduction is independent of weight at emergence
and genetic relatedness of their receptor worker bees. A total of 243 queens from three genotypes of Apis
mellifera lamarckii, A. m. carnica and A. m. ligustica (81 queens of each genotype) were weighed at emergence
and allocated into three groups as: light (110-130 mg) 45 queens, medium (140-160 mg) 68 queens, heavy
(over 160 mg) 130 queens and introduced into mating nuclei. The weight at emergence was significantly
affecting the introduction success (x2=8.34, P< 0.004). Queens with heavy weight at emergence had the highest
number of introduction successes with 103 queens (79.23%). The medium weight at emergence of virgin queens
has the highest number of failed queens with 26 queens (38.23%). The number of drone laying queens was
approximately the same for all groups. Genotype of introduced queens was highly significantly influenced their
success acceptance (x2=34.36, P< 0.000). Introducing A. m. carnica and A. m. lamarckii to nuclei with workers
from the same genotype had the highest introduction success.
Key words: Genotypes Apis mellifera
At Emergence
Queen Acceptance
INTRODUCTION
Virgin Queen
Weight
a queen represents a serious threat to the survival of the
honey bee colony and beekeepers frequently require new
queens to start new colonies and replace dead or failing
queens.
The introduction of a new queen in honey bee colony
is currently one of the most important beekeeping
practices. Several factors are involved in the failure of
queens' acceptance when introduced to mating or normal
colonies, such as weight at emergence [7, 8], queen
behavior and attractiveness towards the workers,
workers’ behavior, queen and receptor workers age [9-12],
the duration of queenlessness of the receptor colonies [7],
racial origin [13], introduction methods [14], level of
infestation of the Varroa destructor mite [15] and
environments and honey flow conditions [16].
Honey bee (Apis mellifera) colony reveals three
types of individual groups as queen, worker and drone.
The queen bee holds the most important position in a
colony and the performance of a honey bee colony is the
result of its queen’s function as well as of that of the
drones that mated with her [1]. Commercialization of
queen breeding requires the mass production of large
numbers of high quality queens [2]. The queen quality in
turn depends on genetic, environmental factors and good
management [3-5].
Periodical requeening with young queens less than
one year old, results in more honey production than
colonies headed by old queens [6]. Moreover, the loss of
Corresponding Author:
Queen Introduction
Saad Masry, Plant Protection and Biomolecular Diagnosis Department,
Arid Lands Cultivation Research Institute, City of Scientific Research and Technological Applications,
Borg El-Arab, Alex., Egypt. E-mail: [email protected].
174
Acad. J. Entomol., 8 (4): 174-182, 2015
Weight at emergence of virgin queens is regarded as
one of the most important characters associated with
queen quality. Moreover, heavier virgin queens were more
accepted and they started oviposition in 10 days while
lighter ones were less accepted and they started
oviposition in 17 days [17, 8]. Further, queens with high
body weight are better accepted and increased their
introduction success by recipient colonies compared to
those with low body weight [18-20]. Whereas, Mantilla
and Gonçalves [21] found that weight at emergence of
Africanized honey bee virgin queens did not significantly
influence their acceptance.
The acceptance rate of introduced virgin queen
was influenced by their origin [13, 20, 22]. Russian queens
(A. m. silvarum) are not always accepted by other races of
honey bee especially Italian bees (A. m. ligustica) [23].
Furthermore, Zaitoun and Al-Ghzawi [19] stated that the
recipient colonies accepted the Italian virgin queens more
than Syrian virgin queens. This high acceptance rate for
Italian queens could be attributed to the gentile behaviour
of the Italian bees over the Syrian bees. However, queens
odour has a genetic basis as virgin sister queen had
significantly better acceptance compared to non-related
ones [24].
Therefore, the objectives of this work were to
investigate the effect of weight at emergence of honey
bee virgin queens and its genotypes on the acceptance
percentage during introduction into mating nuclei.
queen cages until emergence. The produced virgin
queens were weighed, using an analytical scale, to nearest
0.001 mg within 10-15 minutes of emergence. The queens
were categorized in three groups; light (110-130 mg),
medium (140-160 mg) and heavy (more than 160 mg)
according to weight at the emergence.
Establishment of Mating Nucleus: Twenty seven mating
nuclei were used in this study. All nuclei had 5 frames and
its own feeder in the lid. The nuclei were occupied with
young worker bees by shake bees from combs of brood
nest taken from mother hive. Nuclei were categorized in
three groups; nine nuclei filled with (A. m. carnica) worker
bees (CaB), nine nuclei filled with (A .m. ligustica) worker
bees (LiB) and nine nuclei filled with (A. m. lamarckii)
worker bees (LaB). Each nucleus has sufficient young
worker bees to cover 3-4 combs and fed sugar syrup as
needed during the experimental period. For each new
introduction, nuclei were supplied with young worker
bees and capped brood. New mated queens were removed
from their nuclei 72-96 h before introducing a new virgin
queen. Also, nuclei were inspected to remove egg and
capped brood combs of pervious introduced queens and
replace them with frames from the mother colonies to keep
the genotypes of workers bees at nuclei.
Introduction Procedure: A total of 27 virgin queens were
introduced at every introduction date. All introducing
queens were at the same age i.e. 4 days old. Nine queens
of each race A. m. lamarckii (LaQ), A .m. ligustica (LiQ)
and A. m. carnica (CaQ) were grouped according to their
weight. Virgin queens were introduced in Benton type
mailing cages with escort bees removed. The cage was
held between 2 middle frames of the brood nest with the
screen facing downward. Caged queens were released
after 48 h of introduction. Nuclei were inspected 3 days
after releasing the queens to determine if the new queens
had been accepted by the receptor workers or not. If the
introduced queen was identified, laying eggs and workers
brood capped she considered success queens acceptance
(SQA). If a queen was not found, or was found dead and
there were queen cells and no eggs on the comb, it
considered failure queens (FQ). However, queens
continued alive and laying eggs which capped as drone
brood considered drone laying queens (DLQ).
Introduction procedure was run as mentioned in Table (1).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study was carried out in the apiary yard of the
experimental station of the Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo
University at Giza region, Egypt, from the 14th of March to
the 2nd of August 2013.
Genotype of Honey Bee Colonies and Mating Nuclei:
Three honey bee subspecies; Apis mellifera carnica, A.
m. ligustica were used as local imported races and A. m.
lamarckii categorized as a native race. For each
subspecies of honeybee, a total of nine colonies
(established in 10-framed Langstroth hive) three for each
race were used as mother colonies for queen rearing and
supply the mating nuclei with young workers and capped
brood.
Queen Rearing: Every 15 days one colony of each race
was requeened for rearing 30 sisters virgin queens, which
reared with standard commercial methods [25]. Ten or
eleven days after grafting larvae, the queen cells were
carefully removed from the bars and individually caged in
Data Analysis: The cluster analysis was performed using
the program SAS v.9.1.3 [26] that adopts Euclidian
distance as a measure of dissimilarity and the Ward’s
method as the clustering algorithm [27]. The number of
175
Acad. J. Entomol., 8 (4): 174-182, 2015
Table 1: Genotype of virgin queens, its weights (mg) and genotype of receptor nuclei
Virgin queen types
Nuclei types
Virgin queen weights
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Light (110-130 mg)
Medium (140-160 mg)
Heavy (over 160 mg)
LaQ
LaQ
LaQ
LiQ
LiQ
LiQ
CaQ
CaQ
CaQ
LaB
LiB
CaB
LiB
LaB
CaB
CaB
LaB
LiB
LaQ
LaQ
LaQ
LiQ
LiQ
LiQ
CaQ
CaQ
CaQ
LaQ
LaQ
LaQ
LiQ
LiQ
LiQ
CaQ
CaQ
CaQ
LaQ
LaQ
LaQ
LiQ
LiQ
LiQ
CaQ
CaQ
CaQ
LaQ= Lamarkii Queen, LiQ = Ligustica Queen, CaQ = carnica Queens, B = worker bees
success of queens’ acceptance, failure queens and drone
laying queens were used to construct a distance matrix
using the Euclidian coefficient and used to generate the
dendrogram showing dissimilarity among all the
genotypes. Before computing the distance between races,
data were standardized as recommended by Peters and
Martinelli [28]. Cluster analysis was approved as a
suitable method for data classification and suggested by
Mohammedi and Prasanna [29]. Data of the experiment
were statistically analyzed using the binary logistic
regression according to method described by Draper and
Smith [30].
highest SQA with 53 queens (21.81%) compared to CaQs
and LiQs which had 49 (20.16%) and 45 (18.51%) queens,
respectively.
Genotype of introduced queens was highly
significantly influenced their success acceptance
(x2=34.36, P< 0.000) (Table 2). Introduction of LiQ to LiB
and CaQ to LaB were the most similar races with distance
coefficient of 0.85, whereas, the introduction of LaQ to LiB
and LaQ to CaB were the most dissimilar races with
distance coefficient of 3.71(Table 3). Based on the cluster
analysis in Table 4 and Fig. 1, it can be divided the
obtained results of acceptance of introduced queens into
3 groups based on success of queens’ acceptance, failure
queens and drone laying queens.
Data in Table 4 revealed that the first group was
introduced LaQ to LiB, LiQ to CaB and CaQ to LiB has the
lowest in success with 35 queens. On the other hand, the
second group was introduced LaQ to CaB, LiQ to LaB,
LiQ to LiB and CaQ to LaB has the highest success with
69 queens. However, the third group was introduced CaQ
to CaB and LaQ to LaB has the most successful group
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Genotype of Introduced Virgin Queens: In the 9
experiments, a total of 243 virgin queens were introduced
from which 60.45% (147) queens were success queen’s
acceptance (SQA), 27.16% (66) queens were failure
queens (FQ) and 12.34% (30) queens were drone laying
queens (DLQs) (Table 2). Moreover, the LaQs had the
Fig. 1: Clustering of nine introductions of different honey bee queens and mating nuclei genotypes
176
Acad. J. Entomol., 8 (4): 174-182, 2015
Table 2: Effect of genotype of virgin queens and worker bees on success queens’ acceptance (SQA), drone laying queens (DLQs) and failed queens (FQs)
Virgin queen types
Nuclei types
SQA
DLQs
FQs
LaQ
LaQ
LaQ
Total
LiQ
LiQ
LiQ
Total
CaQ
CaQ
CaQ
LaB
LiB
CaB
20
13
20
53
17
16
12
45
16
10
23
4
5
2
11
2
3
5
10
2
3
4
3
9
5
17
8
8
10
26
9
14
0
49
9
23
LaB
LiB
CaB
LaB
LiB
CaB
Total
(Chi2) x2=34.36 P< 0.000
LaQ = Lamarkii Queen, LiQ = Ligustica Queen, CaQ = carnica Queens, B = worker bees.
Table 3: Distance matrix coefficient of experimental honey bee genotypes
Genotypes
LaB
LiB
CaB
LaB
LiB
CaB
LaB
LiB
CaB
LaQ
LaQ
LaQ
LiQ
LiQ
LiQ
CaQ
CaQ
CaQ
0.000
3.292
0.974
1.330
1.662
2.940
2.015
3.657
1.181
0.000
3.713
2.628
2.545
1.798
3.347
2.922
3.414
0.000
1.172
1.426
2.852
1.330
3.261
2.139
0.000
0.332
1.707
0.974
2.327
2.322
0.000
1.426
0.850
1.995
2.635
0.000
1.935
1.181
3.657
0.000
2.004
3.149
0.000
4.571
0.000
LaQ = Lamarkii Queen,LiQ = Ligustica Queen,CaQ = carnica Queens,B = worker bees.
Table 4: Groups of honey bee genotypes according: success queens’ acceptance (SQA), dronelaying queen (DLQs), failed queens (FQs) and success/failure
ration of introduced virgin queen
Groups
Virgin queen types
nuclei types
SQA
DLQs
FQs
Success/Failure ratio%
Group1
LaQ
LiQ
CaQ
Total
LiB
CaB
LiB
13
12
10
35
5
5
3
13
9
10
14
33
1.06
Group2
LaQ
LiQ
LiQ
CaQ
Total
CaB
LaB
LiB
LaB
20
17
16
16
69
2
2
3
2
9
5
8
8
9
30
2.3
Group3
CaQ
LaQ
Total
CaB
LaB
23
20
43
4
4
8
0
3
3
14.3
LaQ = Lamarkii Queen,LiQ = Ligustica Queen,CaQ = carnica Queens,B = worker bees.
with 69 queens. Also, the success/failure ratio for the
third group was the highest with 14.3% comparing to the
other two groups.
68 virgin queens were from medium weight (140- 160 mg)
and 45 virgin queens were from light weight (110-130 mg).
The weight at emergence of introduced virgin queens was
significantly influenced their success acceptance (x2=8.34,
P< 0.004). Data in Table (5) showed that queens with
heavy weight at emergence had the highest number of
SQA which were 103 queens (79.23%), lowest number of
FQ which were18 queens (13.84%). The medium weight at
emergence of virgin queens has the highest number of FQ
Weight at Emergence of Introduced Virgin Queens:
A total of 243 Carniolan, Italian and Egyptian virgin honey
bee queens from the three different weights at emergence
were introduced into the mating nuclei as following:, 130
virgin queens were from heavy weight (more than 160 mg),
177
Acad. J. Entomol., 8 (4): 174-182, 2015
Table 5: Number of success queens’ acceptance (SQA), drone laying queens (DLQ) and failed queens (FQ) from the three groups of queen weight at emergence
Heavy weight
-------------------------------------SQA
FQ
DLQ
103
18
9
Total
Medium weight
----------------------------------------SQA
FQ
DLQ
130
31
26
11
Total
Light weight
-------------------------------------SQA
FQ
DLQ
Total
68
13
45
22
10
(Chi2) x2=8.34 P< 0.004
Table 6: Interaction between genotype of virgin queens and their weight on number of success queens’ acceptance (SQA), drone laying queens (DLQ) and
failed queens (FQ)
Weights
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Heavy weight
Medium weight
Light weight
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SQA
DLQ
FQ
SQA
DLQ
FQ
SQA
DLQ
FQ
Genotypes
LaQ
LaQ
LaQ
Total
LiQ
LiQ
LiQ
Total
CaQ
CaQ
CaQ
Total
LaB
LiB
CaB
LaB
LiB
CaB
LaB
LiB
CaB
9
11
13
33
8
14
12
34
10
10
16
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
0
4
1
5
2
1
3
6
2
5
0
7
2
4
13
7
2
0
9
4
0
5
1
3
0
4
1
1
2
4
0
1
2
1
1
3
5
2
5
5
12
3
6
0
4
0
3
7
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
6
0
1
2
3
1
0
0
2
4
1
7
4
2
2
8
4
3
0
36
5
7
9
3
9
4
1
7
(Chi2) x2=17.73 P< 0.023
LaQ = Lamarkii Queen,LiQ = Ligustica Queen,CaQ = carnica Queens,B = worker bees.
which was 26 queens (38.23%). However, the number of
DLQ was approximately the same for the three groups of
weight with different rate 9 queens (6.92%), 11 queens
(16.17) and 10 queens (22.22%) for heavy weight, medium
weight and light weight at emergence respectively.
The results obtained in relation to the interaction
between weight at emergence and genotypes of virgin
queens shows significantly differences on their success
acceptance (x2=17.73, P< 0.023). Heavier virgin queens of
Carniolan race (CaQ) had the highest number of SQA with
36 queens (44.44%). However, virgin queens of
Egyptian race (LaQ) with medium and light weight had
highest number of SQA with 13queens (16.04%) and 7
queens (8.64%), respectively. Virgin queens of Italian
race (LIQ) had the highest number of failed introduced
queens for the three groups of queen weight at emergence
(Table 6).
The effect of relatedness appears to influence the
success of queens’ acceptance [13, 20]. The obtained
results indicated that recipient workers accepted related
virgin queens more than unrelated ones. Tarpy and
Fletcher [31] mentioned that after queen emergence,
related queens have an advantage over unrelated queens
during the reduction to monogyny by fighting. Worker
bees behave more aggressively towards introduced
queens of lower relatedness and the half-sisters queen
have an advantage of surviving during their introduction
[32-33]. Moreover, the differences in acceptance rates of
introduced queens into European honey bee and African
honey bee colonies could be because European patriline
workers have higher thresholds for factors associated
with queen acceptance compared with Africans
particularly after the queen begins to lay [16]. Also,
Russian and Italian colonies did equally well, acceptance
cells and virgin queens and they were the same in
continuing to accept those queens through their mating
and establishment a brood nest [34]. However, Schneider
and Degrandi-Hoffman [35] stated that in African and
European hybrid honey bee colonies, the virgin queens
that survived the queen replacement process were those
that emerged sooner, piped more, eliminated a greater
proportion of rivals and were vibrated at high rates
relative to the other queens in their colonies. Additionally,
Abd El-Wahab and Nour [36] observed that Egyptian
honey bee workers can discriminate between related and
unrelated virgin queen produced through the swarming
season in their colony. On the other hand, the unrelated
queen can be successfully accepted by colony if the
young unrelated mated still non-ovipositing queen or the
related virgin queen is present in the colony [37].
178
Acad. J. Entomol., 8 (4): 174-182, 2015
In relation to genotypes of virgin queen, introduction
species often have dramatic effects on the genetic
structure and behaviour of resident populations [38, 39].
The results revealed that worker bees can discriminate
between related and unrelated virgin queens during
introduction. Several studies have shown that the effect
of relatedness appears to influence the outcome of queen
introduction [13, 12, 23]. However, Egyptian honey bee
workers (A. m. lamarckii) manifested more aggressive
behavior towards introduced queens than Carniolan one
and the aggressiveness increased linearly in their F1, F2,
F3 hybrids, respectively [40]. Also, Page and Jr. Erickson
[32] demonstrated the potential of workers to discriminate
among virgin queens of different subfamilies and
preferentially to accept them on the basis of genetic
similarity to themselves. The recognition cues of the
queens appear to be associated with genotype; the
recognition mechanisms could be innate, self-imprinting
or self-learning, or based on learning cues. The total
number of worker bees contacts sister queens was
higher than unrelated queens. These differences were
significant for the virgin queens but not for the mated
ones. Similarly, the total number of aggressive contacts
was higher towards unrelated queens compared to sister
queens and also only significant for the virgin ones.
Queen odor has a genetic basis as virgin sister queens
had significantly better acceptance compared to nonrelated ones [24]. The genetic similarity of queens
determines how similar their recognition characteristics
are; inbred sister queens were accepted in 35% of
exchanges, outbred sister queens in 12% and nonsister
queens in 0% [41]. In contrast, Worker bees do not assist
full-sister queens by preferentially harassing half-sister
queens during queen duels. The lack of nepotism in
worker harassment suggests that nepotism is unlikely to
exist during queen duels and that strong nepotism may be
absent from the queen replacement process in honeybee
societies [42]. Worker bees could not differentiate
between the odors of different virgin queens at all. In
mated queens, however, workers could highly
significantly differentiate between individual queens
independent of the kin relation between learned and
tested queen [43].
The previous results show clearly that introducing
virgin queens can be a suitable method in commercial
beekeeping. The investigations revealed that the
success of virgin queens’ introduction is independent of
weight at emergence and genetic relatedness of virgin
queen and their receptor worker bees. It is accepted that
the quality of honey bee queens is directly linked to the
productivity of the colony. The weight is considered as
one of the quality criteria of honey bee queens [18, 44, 45].
The results of weight at emergence of virgin queen
influenced the success introduction of queens. High
quality queen enables a colony to have large worker
population which will in consequence be highly
productive. Indeed, several studies reported that
colonies headed by young and high quality queens grew
larger than those headed by old and low quality queens
[6, 46, 47]. Honey bee colonies periodic requeening to
replace old queens with young ones. Queen replacement
is costly for beekeeping industry, but also would increase
colony productivity and maintain desirable genetic stocks
in bee colonies [48].
Commercialization of queen breeding requires the
mass production of large number of high quality queens
[2]. Virgin queen with heavy weight at the time of
emergence were more accepted during introduction than
light one [8, 18, 20]. In contrast, the weight of virgin queen
at emergence did not significant influence their
acceptance by the colony receptor workers [49-50].
There are many factors affected the acceptance and
queen introduction success: Queen age and status,
queen behavior, worker behavior and queen pheromone
[21, 51, 52]. Queen pheromone that a presence on their
antennae plays an important role of workers
attractiveness to introducing queens [53, 43] noticed that
kin related recognition cues do not depend on volatile
bouquets but rather on stimuli elicited through nonvolatile compounds of the cuticle of the queen. Worker
bees perceive these compounds in the bioassay by direct
contact and licking of the queen. Introduced queens were
accepted when workers were obtained from a colony other
than the one in which the experimental queens were held.
The total percentage of aggressive workers reached 48%
and could be attributed to odor differences between
introduced queens and receiving workers [54]. Thus the
high quality queens that have heavy weight, high number
of ovarioles and big volume of spermatheca-indeed- has
high quality glands and her abdomen has much larger
surface. Such queens have the maximum chance to be
accepted during introduction because the workers
antennate and lick her head and abdomen to gain the
queen’s pheromone and maintain the colony in social
status [55].
Costs to the beekeeper when requeening increase
substantially when an introduced queen bee fails to be
accepted or was superseded a short time after being
accepted [56]. Indeed established of new colonies or
replacement of old queens depend on the successful
acceptance of queens when the beekeepers periodically
179
Acad. J. Entomol., 8 (4): 174-182, 2015
replace them. For that beekeepersrequire introducing the
highest queen weight to increase the queen introduction
success [20] and cover their costs.
3.
Gilly, D.C., D.R. Tarpy and B.B. Land, 2003. Effect of
queen quality on interactions between workers and
duelling queens in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.)
colonies. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology,
55(2): 190-196.
4. Bie kowska, M., B. Panasiuk, D. Gerula and
P. W grzynowicz, 2009. Weight of honey bee queens
and its effect on the quality of instrumentally
inseminated queens. In Proceedings of41st
International Apicultural Congress, Montpellier,
France, 15-20 September, 2009. pp: 135.
5. Masry, S.H.D., K. Bienefeld, I.M.A. Ebadah,
T.E. Abd-El Wahab, M.E. Nour and M.A. Ewies,
2010. Larval acceptance and queen quality reared in
colonies of different racial origin. Bulletin of The
Entomological Society of Egypt, 87: 145-156.
6. Kostarelou-Damianidou, M., A. Thrasyvoulou,
D. Tselios and K. Bladenopoulos, 1995. Brood and
honey production of honeybee colonies requeened
at various frequencies. Journal of Apicultural
Research, 34: 9-14.
7. Szabo, T.I., 1977. Behavioral studies on queen
introduction in the honeybee. 2. Effect of age and
storage condition of virgin queens on their
attractiveness to workers. Journal of Apicultural
Research, 13(2): 127-135.
8. Taranov, G.F., 1977. Formación de los núcleos a
introducción de Las Reinas En La Estaciones
Grandes. Apiacta, 12(1): 5-10.
9. Szabo, T.I. and G.F. Townsend, 1974. Behavioral
studies on queen introduction in the honeybee. 1.
Effect of age of workers (from a colony with a laying
queen) on their behaviour towards an introduced
virgin queen. Journal of Apicultural Research,
13(1): 19-25.
10. Robinson, G.E., 1984. Worker and queen honey bee
behavior during foreign queen introduction. Ins.
Soc., 31(3): 254-263.
11. Tarpy, D.R., S. Hatch and D.J. C. Fletcher, 2000. The
influence of queen age and quality during queen
replacement in honeybee colonies. Anim. Behav.,
59: 97-101.
12. Masry, S.H.D., M.K. Zakour and K. Bienefeld, 2010.
Behavior of worker bees towards related and nonrelated queens during their introduction into
queenless colonies. Association of Institutes for
Bee Research Report of the 57th Seminar in Bochum
23–25 March2010, Apidologie, 41: 676-694.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, our results suggest certain
recommendations to increase queen introduction success.
When virgin queens are used, the results indicate that the
lighter queens are only slightly less successful
introduction than the heavier ones. Also, introduction of
virgin queens that have high relatedness with receptor
workers are more accepted than unrelated ones. Thus, the
beekeepers must be introduced the high quality queens
that have heavy weight-indeed- has high quality glands
and her abdomen has much larger surface into the same
genetic origin of queenless nuclei. Such queens have the
maximum chance to be accepted during introduction and
high percentage of introduction success to maintain the
colony in social status.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Dr. Omar M. Ibrahim
associate professor Department of Plant Production, Arid
Lands Cultivation Research Institute, City of Scientific
Research and Technological Applications, for his help
and Data analysis.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
Hatjina, F., M. Bie kowska, L. Charistos, R. Chlebo,
C. Costa, M.M. Dra i , J. Filipi, A. Gregorc,
E.N. Ivanova, N. Kezi , J. Kopernicky, P. Kryger,
M. Lodesani, V. Lokar, M. Mladenovic, B. Panasiuk,
P.P. Petrov, S. Raši , M. I. S. Sker, F. Vejsn s and
J. Wilde 2014. A review of methods used in some
European countries for assessing the quality of
honey bee queens through their physical characters
and the performance of their colonies. Journal of
Apicultural Research, 53(3): 337-363.
Büchler, R., S. Andonov, K. Bienefeld, C. Costa,
F. Hatjina, N. Kezic, P. Kryger, M. Spivak, A. Uzunov
and J. Wilde, 2013. Standard methods for rearing and
selection of Apis mellifera queens. In V Dietemann; J
D Ellis; P Neumann (Eds) The COLOSS BEEBOOK,
Volume I: standard methods for Apis mellifera
research. Journal of Apicultural Research, 52(1):
ttp://dx.doi.org/10.3896/IBRA.1.52.1.07
180
Acad. J. Entomol., 8 (4): 174-182, 2015
13. Moretto, G., J.C.V. Guerra, H. Kalvelage and
E. Espinola, 2004. Maternal influence on the
acceptance of virgin queens introduced into
Africanized honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies.
Genetics and Molecular Research, 3(3): 441-445.
14. Pérez-Sato, J.A. and F.L.W. Ratnieks, 2006.
Comparing alternative methods of introducing virgin
queens (Apis mellifera) into mating nucleus hives.
Apidologie, pp: 571-576.
15. Rateb, S.H., M.F. Abdel-Rahman and R.E. Sanad,
2010. The relationship between Varroa destructor
infestation and virgin queen’s acceptance, mating
success and onset of oviposition in honey bee
colonies. Egypt Acad. J. Biolog. Sci., 3(1): 207-212.
16. Degrandi-Hoffman, G., D. Gilly and J. Hooper, 2007.
The influence of season and volatile compound on
the acceptance of introduced European honey bee
(Apis mellifera) queens into European and
Africanized colonies. Apidologie, pp: 230-237.
17. Taranov, G.F., 1974. Condiciones para mejorar la
calidad de las reinas en la granjas apícolas
especializadas. Apiacta, 9: 8-10.
18. Akyol, E., H. Yeninar and O. Kaftanoglu, 2008. Live
Weight of Queen Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.)
Predicts Reproductive Characteristics. Journal of the
Kansas Entomological Society, 81(2): 92-100.
19. Al-Ghzawi, A. and S. Zaitoun, 2008. Origin and
rearing season of honeybee queens affect some of
their physiological and reproductive characteristics.
Entomological Research, 38: 139-148.
20. Hammad, H.M.A., 2012.The effect of genotype on the
introduction behaviour of the honeybee queens.
PhD. Thesis, Fac. Agric., Cairo Univ., pp: 197.
21. Mantilla, C.C. and L.S. Gonçalves, 1987. Variables
which affect the accerptance of A. mellifera queens
by Africanized honeybee workers. In: “Chemistry and
Biology of Social Insect” (Eds, Eder, J. and Rembold,
H.,). Verlag FRG, Munchen, Germany, pp: 676.
22. Ride, G.M., 1977. Requeening honeybee colonies
without dequeening using protected queen cells.
XXVI Int. Beekeep.Cong., Bucharest, pp: 294-252.
23. Conlon, D. And W. Coli, 2005. Testing three methods
of introducing Russian queens into Italian honeybee
packages. Cited inwww.warmcolorsapiary.com
24. Alkattea, R., H. Steidle and P. Rosenkranz, 2007.
Influence of relatedness of a foreign queen on the
acceptance by honey bee workers in a laboratory
bioassay. Association of Institute for Bee research
Report of the 54th Seminar in Veutshochheim 27-29
March 2007. Apidologie, 39: 588-604.
25. Laidlaw, H.H. and R.E.F. Page, 1997. Queen Rearing
and Bee Breeding, Wicwas Press, Cheshire, CT.,
U.S.A., pp: 224.
26. S.A.S., 2003. SAS Institute Inc., SAS® Software
(2002), v.9.1.3 sp4, Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
27. Ward, J. H. Jr., 1963. Hierarchical grouping to
optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc.,
58: 236-244.
28. Peters, J.P. and J.A. Martinelli, 1989. Hierarchical
cluster analysis as a tool to manage variation in
germplasm collections. Theor. Appl. Genet., 78: 42-48.
29. Mohammedi, S.A. and B.M. Prasanna, 2003. Analysis
of genetic diversity in crop plants Salient statistical
tools and considerations. Crop Sci., 43: 1235-1248.
30. Draper, N.R. and H. Smith, 1981. Applied Regression
Analysis, Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York.
31. Tarpy, D.R. and D.J. C. Fletcher, 1998. Effect of
relatedness on queen competition within honey bee
colonies. Anim. Behav., 55: 537-543.
32. Page, R.E. Jr. and E.H. Jr. Erickson, 1986. Kin
recognition of virgin queen acceptance by worker
honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Animal Behaviour,
34: 1061-1069.
33. Breed, M.D. and G.E. Julian, 1992. Do simple rules
apply in honey-bee nestmate discrimination? Nature
Lond., 357: 685-686.
34. Cargel, R.A. and T.E. Rinderer, 2006. Queen cell
acceptance in laying worker colonies of Russian and
Italian honey bees. American Bee Journal, 8: 698-700.
35. Schneider, S. And G. Degrandi-Hoffman, 2003. The
influence of paternity on virgin queen success in
hybrid colonies of European and African honey bees.
Animal Behaviour, 65: 883-892.
36. Abd El-Wahab, T.E. and M.E. Nour, 2014. The role of
the Egyptian honey bee workers in selecting adult
queen kinships and the impact on the colony's
biological activities. Journal of Agriculture
Technology, 10(5): 1249-1259.
37. P idal, A. and J. Svoboda, 2010. queen introduction
into the queenright honey bee colony. Acta
Universitatis
Agriculturae
Et
Silviculturae
Mendelianae Brunensis, 35(5): 307-3011.
38. Holway, D.A., A.V. Suarez and T.J. Case, 1998. Loss
of intraspecific aggression in the success of a
widespread invasive
social
insect. Science,
282: 949-952.
39. Rissler, L.J., A.M. Barber, H.M. Wilbur and
A.M. Baker, 2000. Spatial and behavioral interactions
between a native and introduced salamander species.
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 48: 61-68.
181
Acad. J. Entomol., 8 (4): 174-182, 2015
40. Shawer, M.B., 1981.Factors affecting the behaviour of
honeybee workers towards introduced queens. J.
Agric. Res. Tanta Univ. Egypt, 7(2): 244-254.
41. Breed, M.D., 1981. Individual recognition and
learning of queen odors by worker honeybees. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci., 78(4): 2635-2637.
42. Gilley, D.C., 2003. Absence of nepotism in the
harassment of dulling queen by honeybee workers.
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci., 270: 2045-2049.
43. Alkattea, R., H. Steidle and P. Rosenkranz, 2008.
“Sniffer Bees”: Can honeybees learn the odor of
queens with different kin relation? Association of
Institutes for Bee research Report of the 55th Seminar
in Hohen Neuendorf 11–13March2008, Apidologie,
39: 588-604.
44. Kahya, Y., V.H. Gençer and J. Woyke, 2008.
Weight at emergence of honey bee (Apis mellifera
caucasica) queens and its effect on live weights
at the pre and post mating periods. J. Apic. Res.,
47: 118-125.
45. Masry, S.H.D., I.M.A. Ebadah and T.E. Abd ElWahab, 2013. Impact of honey bee colonies of
different races on rearing Apis mellifera lamarkii
queen larvae. Egyptian Journal of Plant Protection,
8(2): 28-35.
46. Hassona, N.M., 2006. Efficiency of the Italian honey
bee queen Apis mellifera L.(Hymenoptera: Apidae)
and its hybrids under the Egyptian environment.
M.Sc. Thesis, Fac. Agric. Saba Basha, Alexandria
University, pp: 35-63.
47. Rangel, J., J. Keller and D.R. Tarpy, 2013. The effect
of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) queen reproductive
potential on colony growth. Insect. Soc., 60: 65-73.
48. Guzman-Novoa, E., R.E. Jr. Page and D. PrietoMerlos, 1998. Queen introduction, acceptance and
survival in honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae)
colonies of a tropical, Africanized region. Journal of
Economic Entomology, 91(6): 1290-1294.
49. Nelson, D.L. and N.E. Gary, 1983. Honey productivity
of honeybee colonies in relation to body weight,
attractiveness and fecundity of the queen. Journal of
Apicultural Research, 22(4): 209-213.
50. Medina, L.M. and L.S. Gonçalves, 2001. Effect of
weight at emergence of Africanized (Apis mellifera L.)
virgin queens on their acceptance and beginning of
oviposition. Am. Bee J., 141(3): 213-215.
51. Free, J.B. and A.W. Ferguson, 1982. Transfer of
pheromone from immature queen honeybee, A.
mellifera. Physiol. Entomol., 7: 401-406.
52. Apšegaite, V., A. Skirkevicius and D. Tamasauskiene,
2003. Quantitative and qualitative composition of
pheromones of accepted and rejected honey bee
(Apis mellifera L.). Materia y z Naukowej Konferencji
Pszczelarskiej, 40: 3-4.
53. Free, J.B., A.W. Ferguson and J.R. Simpkins, 1992.
The behaviour of queen honeybees and their
attendants. Physiol. Entomol., 17: 43-55.
54. Yadava, R.P.S., 1971. Effect of differences in
behavior, odor and age of queen (A. mellifera L.) on
aggressive behavior of workers. Am. Bee J.,
111(8): 310-311.
55. Masry, S.H.D., 2010. The effect of different genetic
origins of the grafted larvae on the characters and
some behaviours of the reared queens in
honeybee colonies. PhD. Thesis, Fac. Agric., Cairo
Univ., pp: 172.
56. Rhodes, J.W., D.C. Somerville and S. Harden, 2004.
Queen honey bee introduction and early survival –
effects of queen age at introduction. Apidologie,
35: 383-388.
182